It depends where you're at. It's a state thing, 7 states in the Union don't have open container laws. I personally disagree with open container laws but I can see the logic in trying to prevent public intoxication, it hardly makes one less free to have to drink in the bar, now if one were not allowed to drink at all; such as Iran, then you might have a point.Ok, maybe not the best example... but then again, not even being able to walk down the street with a beer in hand is pretty rediculous of a restriction if you think about it... now, while driving is a different issue, but then you become a public risk.
False, it could not be any crime it had to be specifically conspiring in acts of terrorism, aiding terrorists, or funding terrorists, and that provision of the Patriot Act was overturned by the SCOTUS in the Padilla case, and then under the Military Commissions Act only ALIEN unlawful combatants could be held without Habeas Corpus not U.S. citizens, and in fact that has since been overturned by the SCOTUS in the Boumediene case, and even when ALIEN unlawful combatants were stripped of Habeas Corpus they still had the right to a hearing by military tribunal to determine if their was actually cause to hold them and if there was they were then entitled to a trial by military commission.Ya, this is true... but we have a 'patriot act' now where you can be deemed a 'domestic terrorist' for violating any 'federal or state law' and then stripped of your constitutional rights.
Well first of all you are wrong about your assertions regarding the Patriot Act and stripping U.S. citizens of their Habeas Corpus rights.No, but I've learned enough history to see what goes on in a police state, that's I said, we're not in one... but rather a few steps away. Then again, when the time comes it'll be like that quote in 'star wars' : "And so the republic ends not with a wimper, but with thunderous applause."
But since you're so smug on the subject, how about you list the differences between the CURRENT reality of north american life, and a police state. This way I can at least see if your idea of a police state is nothing short of open martial law with troops on the streets.
Free speech zones are only used when public office holders; such as the POTUS, who are in danger of assassination are present, again it is not an attempt to stifle free speech, it is an attempt to provide security and considering the numerous times Presidents in our country have been assassinated it may not be such a bad idea.Freedom of speech has ended in this country... now it's 'free speech zones' and other similar speech restrictions. Our speech is no longer free, just 'lightly restricted when needed'.
Um I believe you're referring to the Pittsburgh black bloc during the G20 summit, sorry sport you have the right to peaceably assemble not to stage black bloc riots as they do everytime they protest.Yes... like we saw in Pittsburgh... where there is video of people sitting on their porches, or on campus being told that they were participating in an 'illegal gathering' and then blasted with a sound cannon, beat up, pepper sprayed and arrested.
Um no that was right after the anarchists started trying to incite a riot by rolling dumpsters towards the police line. Giving a lawful order for an unruly mob to disperse is not a violation of free speech, for Christ's sakes John Adams successfully defended the ****ing red coats after the Boston Massacre for a far more viscous assault.Not to mention that the permitted march was denied access to part of the permitted area and then blasted with the sound cannons (that's right before the "anarchists" pushed the trashcans towards the police line)
How does a church being tax exempt harm freedom of religion one iota?True... although most churches have signed away their rights as a religion but instead are 'tax-exempt charities' under the law... 501(c)3
They got rid of the computerized voting machines. First those who screamed frauds in 2000 wanted computerized voting machines, then those who screamed fraud in 2004 wanted to get rid of the computerized voting machines, and after 2008 you don't hear anyone screaming about fraud now do you? Gee I wonder why that could be, could it be that the leftist activists finally got the results that they wanted?With voting machines designed for ease of fraud, specifically the computerized ones.
Once again that is false as demonstrated.Unless you are charged under patriot act.
The Seattle Times: Local News: Marijuana smuggling case first local use of Patriot Act provision (Using patriot acts 'sneak and peak' warrants)Show me some cases where your average, everyday pothead gets the Patriot Act treatment. Then tell me some smugglers from Columbia helping to bring in over 80% of the nation's cocaine, killing anyone who gets in their way, don't deserve to be considered terrorists?
Yes, I do agree that a cartel is quite likely to engage in terrorism... but funny thing is that the CIA and FBI have been caught so many times bringing drugs INTO the US that elements of these agencies are just as complicit in those terroristic aspects of the business as the actual cartels going around killing the competition.
Ya... I should take this more lightly, but it's like half the time I'm stuck trying to prove that something EXISTS rather then being able to get into the purpose of the discussing whether or not it's a good thing. So, I do get frustrated sometimes.The Stossel thing was a joke, dude. It's to keep an air of humor around here.
I'm actually surprised that even after bringing up the potential that this shooter might very well have been a victim of 'mk-ultra' experiments... it's been partially declassified that it IS POSSIBLE to create a 'manchurian candidate' (ie a person so mind-f****d by drugs and hypnotic suggestions that they can litterally be given a completely new identity and be 'triggered' into action).... that noone has even touched... whether or not that is the case... at the very least I would put money that he was on some sort of SSRI (prozac / ritalin) type drug, because it's pretty well ALWAYS the case in mass shootings that the perpetrator had a psychotic reaction to the drugs.
I asked you a series of questions for the purpose of engaging you in debate. You only get to ask me questions after you've answered mine.
Take a look at your post no. 92 on this thread. Then take a look at my post no. 113 on this thread. If you feel you might be up to a no holds barred debate then answer my questions. Otherwise you're through on this thread.
It's my understanding that it becomes up to the courts once the law is passed to interpret these laws... so regardless of our interpretations, it's really how the judge sees it relative to the cases... right? Now, I may have been a little 'over-the top' in my interpretation, but you still got people arguing that the second ammendment does not protect a citizens right to bear arms, so anything is possible in these interpretative efforts.