backtop


Print 73 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on Sep 15 at 9:42 PM


Edward Snowden  (Source: wired.com)
Snowden is releasing more details about the NSA's tactics

The National Security Agency (NSA) was called out by its former contractor -- Edward Snowden -- for its various efforts to spy on American citizens and abroad. Now, Snowden has leaked new details about the NSA's ability to tap into communications and even bypass almost any encryption.

According to an article by The New York Times, Snowden revealed that the NSA will go to far lengths to subvert most types of encryption, including court orders, supercomputers, technical stunts and even by working with tech companies to gain back-door access to security methods. 

For instance, both American and British spy agencies pushed to gain back-door access to tech giants like Google, Yahoo, Facebook, and Microsoft. This went on for at least three years, and by 2012, Government Communications Headquarters had created new access opportunities with Google.

An international standards group had a fatal security flaw pushed into it by the NSA.
Microsoft engineers found the flaw in 2007. 

Snowden went on to say that there is even a small group of intelligence officials around the globe that have full access to decoding technologies. This is a group of analysts from the Five Eyes, which consists of the NSA and its equivalents in Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

However, Snowden did say that "strong crypto systems" couldn’t be decoded by the NSA. 

To top it off, Snowden said that the NSA spends about $250 million USD to diminish international encryption standards (as well as products) so that it can decode what it wants. The NSA has also said, according to Snowden, that decrypting messages from Syria and al-Qaeda leaders are critical for national security. 

Edward Snowden uncovered the spying methods used by U.S. intelligence agencies earlier this year, which included collecting data from phones. This was used to fight terrorist attacks, but the public feared for their privacy after such revelations.

Last month, reports said that the NSA admitted to touching 1.6 percent of total globe Web traffic. Its technique was to filter data after harvesting it, which led to over-collection on a major scale. 

Days later, an internal audit showed that the NSA broke the law nearly 3,000 times from 2011 to 2012. More specifically, the May 2012 audit revealed that the NSA had abused its power to either accidentally or intentionally spy on Americans and green card holders 2,997 times in that time period. 

Source: The New York Times



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Correct me if i am wrong
By Ammohunt on 9/6/2013 3:52:26 PM , Rating: -1
But i thought The Traitor Snowdens asylum in Russia was contingent on him no longer leaking damaging information? More Russian lies?




RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By eagle470 on 9/6/2013 3:58:01 PM , Rating: 5
The NSA and US Government violates your Constitutionally guaranteed rights and Snowden is the traitor?

You allegiance should be to you country and it's constitution, NOT tot he government.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Reclaimer77 on 9/6/13, Rating: 0
RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By half_duplex on 9/6/2013 4:49:21 PM , Rating: 1
He puts me in a tough spot...

I'm glad he confirmed what I already knew, and may have at least slowed down the NSA, but on the other hand, giving information to China makes him a traitor.

China is as guilty as the NSa when it comes to these things, if it's about what's right and wrong, he wouldn't want anything to do with the Chi-Comms.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Reclaimer77 on 9/6/13, Rating: -1
RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By PaFromFL on 9/7/2013 8:40:34 AM , Rating: 5
Your comments probably captured Snowden's motivation, if you replace "person" with "government".

"The average person <government> seems to think the ends justify the means....

You <The government> can't betray America, and be an American hero at the same time...

Whatever he <the government> gave China and Russia <and all the other countries we "aid">, you can bet it won't be used for the betterment of the American citizen. That's for damn sure."

The old system of checks and balances is broken. Now that the press has been cowed and co-opted by the government, and the government has been hijacked by the wealthy and powerful, the only way to expose governmental wrongdoing is through people like Snowden and Manning. They are perhaps more noble than the spies we use against other nations. Whether spies are noble or not is questionable, but they are often useful.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By superstition on 9/8/2013 6:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
The law has always been a tool that serves elite privilege.

Always has been. Always will be.

The differences lie in how fooled the public is at a given time.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By superstition on 9/8/2013 6:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
... and also how well the public is being placated by the siphoning of resources from other peoples.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Fritzr on 9/8/2013 11:45:44 PM , Rating: 4
He had 2 choices ... leave the country and seek asylum or disappear into the Federal intelligence system "in the interest of National Security"

First choice ... the mainstream news keeps covering the ongoing adventures of the fugitive along with side remarks about why he is a fugitive

Second choice ... With all question being answered "no comment, sorry", the national news quickly returns to stories of worldwide importance such as celebrity divorce, the Queen's great-grandchildren and the newscaster's new puppy.

These stories have a much greater audience than do the reports of government wrongdoing where the President makes an impassioned speech about "How awful it is...we will definitely think a bit about making an investigation...someday" and then sits back declaring we are still looking into it, until the reporters drop the story and move onto the next big thing.

This tactic has successfully shut down public opposition to these programs in the past. No reason to suspect the general public has gotten any smarter over the past 120 years.

Reclaimer, you should realize that what the NSA didn't want him to give to US citizens is unlikely to be intended to benefit US citizens


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By danjw1 on 9/6/13, Rating: -1
RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Reclaimer77 on 9/6/2013 7:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
There's actually nothing in the Patriot act that grants them the power to do this. Certainly nothing that says they can collect everyone's cell phone activity.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Falacer on 9/6/2013 6:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'm on this same boat he put the info out there to make the people of this country aware they were being spied on by the NSA.

However handing over info to China made him a traitor of that very same country.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Piiman on 9/7/2013 11:31:19 AM , Rating: 5
Can you point me to some facts that prove he handed China or Russia anything? I know you assume he did but do you really know?


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/7/13, Rating: -1
RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By ritualm on 9/8/2013 3:50:43 PM , Rating: 3
Disclosure of any information to the world can be treated as providing data to China or Russia. Or to put this more bluntly, in the eyes of your government, you are actively "aiding the enemy" even when you're not doing anything wrong.

What's your point again, private? Honor and duty... you have neither, let alone independent, free thinking. All you can lay claim about is being an obedient slave to your masters.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Piiman on 9/14/2013 3:20:34 PM , Rating: 1
The OP said he "handed over" your claim that telling the world the NSA was spying on US citizens is hardly the same as actually handing over Top Secret Documents.

So what is it you think China and Russia changed now that they know the NSA gathered Meta Data on us? I'm guessing nothing.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By rvertrees on 9/6/2013 7:53:43 PM , Rating: 3
I dont like that fact that he is handing over information to Russia and China but what other options does he really have. To continue releasing information to the American people he has to stay in possession of the material and he has to stay alive.

Turning himself in would remove the material from the equation and I wouldnt put it past our government to just off the guy.

Going to an country that is friendly with the US Government poses the same issues. Either the USG would collect him or simply eliminate him.

His only option is to go to a non-america friendly country that is powerful enough to keep a retrieval team from coming in and that list is pretty short. His only currency that would get him into one of these countries is the information he possess. Its not an ideal situation but I beleive he followed the only course open to him.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Reclaimer77 on 9/6/13, Rating: -1
RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By rvertrees on 9/6/2013 8:12:16 PM , Rating: 3
He spent all the information he gathered all at once and it was pretty inconsequential in the first place. The information Snowden is releasing is far more damaging to the reputation of the Government as this is uncovering decisions made by high level official.

As for killing him I would respond that citizens oversees have already be hit with drone strikes for terrorist activity. Whats keeping them from saying Snowden is a traitor and a terrorist for damaging the reputation of the USG and compromising the programs that gather information on terrorist activity. Its not a huge stretch.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By ebakke on 9/6/2013 8:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
Huh? Manning did, effectively, the same thing. He didn't release the information the in the "responsible" way you're suggesting Snowden should've. So how could he have been muted as the posted above was describing?

If you think the information either man released would've become public had either man come forward with the information while within the grasp of the US government, you're smoking something fierce. The second he went public with "hey, I have proof that some really nasty stuff is happening" they would've absolutely confiscated the information he had and imprisoned him. Game over.

I'm not saying Snowden or Manning would've fallen into this category, but I absolutely believe the US government captures or kills individuals it deems to be threats to our country. We know they do this to people they label terrorists, including US citizens. But considering the vastness of "state secrets" and classified information, I would be truly shocked if there aren't more/other individuals we never hear about. Who they are, and what they've done (or been accused of doing) is deemed classified as well. You seem to be arguing that we're delusional and wearing tin foil hats. Do you not agree that the above scenario is possible, and/or likely?


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Reclaimer77 on 9/7/2013 10:09:35 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm you would think people like Rush Limbaugh would have had a fatal "car accident" by now or something. If our Government really did just go around and eliminate everyone who's a threat.

Hell I can come up with 20+ people who are a bigger threat than Snowden, who are walking and talking just fine.

And who are these people that got 'disappeared'? Can you name some for me?

The idea that Snowden had to flee to China and Russia because they're keeping him safe from CIA hit squads, or the Yakuza being contracted to eliminate him, is straight out of some Hollywood writers dream.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By ebakke on 9/7/2013 5:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
Killing a (relatively) unknown person is completely different from killing a nationally recognized figure like Rush, and you know it.

Of course I can't list people the US government may or may not have secretly killed, or imprisoned without trials. I can only list the people they've publicly admitted to killing or capturing.

I'm not claiming the US government would've killed Snowden immediately. What I am claiming, is that they have the power to silence those within its grasp. Frankly, I'm shocked that you disagree with that assertion.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By superstition on 9/8/2013 6:16:01 PM , Rating: 2
What happened to Bush's IT guy, the one whose friends warned him not to fly his plane because of sabotage?

What happened to the DC Madam (David Vitter, Eliot Spitzer, and more)?

"Accidents", "suicides", and other assorted things...

(Also, note that one of Vitter's political opponents had her car bombed.)


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By ebakke on 9/6/2013 8:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please tell me how giving the Chinese that information was helping to protect me as a citizen from my Government? Answer that, and I'll shut up.
You're arguing his actions were indefensible because he may or may not have given the Chinese government other information beyond what has been publicly released, and that may or may not have been damaging to you. You're claiming, without any evidence to support it, that he did give the Chinese info and that it was bad. I can't tell you how giving the Chinese government information I don't know exists (or the contents of it, if it does exist), is good or bad for you.

What I do know, is that the US government trampling on the liberty of individuals worldwide is something I want shared with everyone, because only the severe and punishing backlash of an angry citizenry will stop it.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/7/13, Rating: 0
RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By ebakke on 9/8/2013 12:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
No liberties are guaranteed anywhere. They're merely codified in law. But that law means nothing if the citizenry collectively shrugs when its broken.

To the point you were making, I wasn't specifically referring to laws. I was more viewing liberty in the abstract. I think humans, regardless of their country of residence, have the right not to be tracked. The right not to have their every movement recorded for future analysis. I think humans have the right to peacefully exist without the world's largest, and most powerful government keeping a list of who's naughty and who's nice.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By chripuck on 9/9/2013 1:36:29 PM , Rating: 2
Where's your source for him providing state secrets to anyone? You keep spouting this off but I have yet to see anything showing it as such.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Ammohunt on 9/6/13, Rating: -1
RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By ClownPuncher on 9/6/2013 5:46:15 PM , Rating: 2
Not even requiring warrants for wiretaps and surveillance would be one violation.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Ammohunt on 9/6/13, Rating: -1
RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By ClownPuncher on 9/6/2013 6:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
" "

How is a standing warrant from a secret court legal?


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By 1prophet on 9/6/2013 7:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
It isn't, just like white only public water fountains or your skin color determining where you sit on the bus, all were legal at one point until courageous people started challenging their constitutionality.

do a search on "Star Chamber " and how its abuses were one of the reasons for the 4th amendment.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Reclaimer77 on 9/6/2013 7:33:05 PM , Rating: 3
Just because people put something into law doesn't make it Constitutional.

Also the NSA's mandate was that its intelligence gathering apparatus was never to be used against the American people. So quite simply they ARE breaking the law.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By M'n'M on 9/6/2013 11:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not debating whether what the NSA is doing is right or wrong but saying they violated my Constitutional guarantees is nonsense.


Part of the 4'th Amendment ..
quote:
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Please tell me the *particular* place or person that allows the NSA tapping as they've done ... on most everyone ? The 4'th Amendment is written to prevent the PTB from going on "fishing expeditions" to find anything wrong with people whom they have no suspicion otherwise to have have committed some crime.

That a secret FISA court might have ruled the "warrant" congruent with the law as written doesn't mean the law and warrant are constitutional.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Ammohunt on 9/7/2013 8:18:20 PM , Rating: 1
Name one American citizen that was prosecuted based on evidence collected by this NSA program that wasn't involved with international terrorism.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By M'n'M on 9/7/2013 11:55:30 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have to. Does that mean what's been done by the NSA is perfectly fine and well ? That it meets some Constitutional muster ? Again how does searching everyone not violate the concept clearly espoused that searches must have a specific person in mind with the intent that they have, perhaps, broken some law or are about to ? An arrest is not mentioned in the 4'th Amendment.

As for the harm that's done ... do you really believe that this power, left unchecked, won't be abused by some future administration ? If you were involved in litigation vs the govt, would you mind that they had access to every communication you had with your lawyers ?


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Ammohunt on 9/9/2013 10:55:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does that mean what's been done by the NSA is perfectly fine and well ? That it meets some Constitutional muster ?


The supreme court would determine if it is unconstitutional; ultimately try petitioning your government. What i have said is that what they are doing is legal according to the laws on the book now.

quote:
As for the harm that's done ... do you really believe that this power, left unchecked, won't be abused by some future administration?


We have possessed nukes for almost 70 years why haven't they been abused? You have a knife in your kitchen left unchecked how can we trust you won't stab someone? Sorry that's a nonsense argument and again lacks an understanding of where US Government power is derived.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By chripuck on 9/9/2013 1:48:51 PM , Rating: 2
Really? The best you have is nuclear weapons. Two words: mutual destruction. We don't use nukes because we value our own lives. And plenty of people use knives to kill people sherlock.

Here's a doozie that you can't seem to get: in 1776 we were under rule of law by a civilized country. We deemed the laws enforced on us were unfair, denying us the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Did we sit still and do nothing, after all, it was "the law." No, we revolted and created a better place. It was through these "traitors" that this great nation was founded. So I say this: screw our laws that strip us of our liberties, I will not let the terrorists win, not today, not tomorrow, not ever.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Piiman on 9/14/2013 3:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
SO what are you doing about it? Oh I see ranting on DT


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By ebakke on 9/9/2013 2:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We have possessed nukes for almost 70 years why haven't they been abused? You have a knife in your kitchen left unchecked how can we trust you won't stab someone
Those are two terrible arguments. Using a nuclear weapon to decimate hundreds of thousands of people is nothing close to persecuting a single (in all likelihood, relatively unknown) person.

Individuals having weapons, again is not comparable. For one, we've granted the government extraordinary (and enormous) power over other individuals. We have given the government a monopoly on force. We give them the power to create the laws, arrest, detain, and even kill citizens in the name of the public good. Individuals don't have those powers. I can't declare an action of yours illegal, then attempt to arrest you, and lawfully kill you if you forcefully resist. As the saying goes, "with great power comes great responsibility." Government has exceptional power granted to it, and thus has an exceptional burden to use it responsibly. And let's not forget, governments throughout all of human history, have an absolutely horrendous track record of abusing their power, and harming (if not outright killing) millions of people.

quote:
Sorry that's a nonsense argument and again lacks an understanding of where US Government power is derived.
If you're going to give us the whole "if you don't like it, change it! vote for someone else!" argument, spare me. I used to live in that fantasy land too. Problem is, I'm one voice. You're one voice. When you're in the minority, it doesn't matter what your beliefs are; the majority wins. The US government is immense, and has enormous power. Those who currently have power (judges, legislators, bureaucrats) want to keep it. Those who currently are employed by an ever growing bureaucracy want to keep their jobs. Those who are indirectly employed by the government (eg, military contractors) want to keep their jobs. The whole system is setup to keep this machine running, exactly as it is.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By M'n'M on 9/9/2013 2:55:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We have possessed nukes for almost 70 years why haven't they been abused? You have a knife in your kitchen left unchecked how can we trust you won't stab someone? Sorry that's a nonsense argument and again lacks an understanding of where US Government power is derived.

Nukes are a bit of an extreme don't you think ? How about we scale that back a bit and look at presidential abuse of authority, as in declaring war or committing acts, that if done to us, would be considered acts of war. Clearly the President is not granted that authority and yet almost every president in the last 20 years has abused his authority as commander in chief to commit acts of war (GWB, interestingly, is the exception).

How about the FBIs use of secret NSLs. No warrants granted by a judge there, and the gag order was ruled unconstitutional in 2004. Yet their use was continued until again found unconstitutional this year in a higher court. Does that imbue you with trust that the agencies under the President will comply with laws, let alone the intent of the laws ?

If the abuses of the FBI under Hoover or Nixon's administration are too long ago for you to recall how about the recent revelation that the DEA has been misusing it's power and then instructing co-operating PDs on how to hide the facts via "parallel discovery".

Do you recall the abuses of civil asset forfeiture during the drug wars of the 80's ? Initially only the bad guys were affected but over time the practice suffered from "mission creep" and soon innocent people people were losing their cars and cash.

Your analogy of "me" and a knife is imprecise. The better analog would have been if I had been found guilty of knife attacks and were now out after serving my sentence. I might well expect some restrictions given my past history (change knife to gun and it's a given). Various agencies over time have proven that powers granted to them will be abused. Sometimes at an agency-wide level, sometimes just at an individual level. Our whole system of Govt, it's separation of powers, checks and balances, acknowledges that Govt is not to be trusted. Granting the NSA to do what it does now (that we know of) will eventually lead to an abuse of that power. That's just a lesson history will teach you if you bother to listen.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By M'n'M on 9/10/2013 11:34:46 PM , Rating: 2
Just another reason why the NSA shouldn't be trusted (and why I should be trusted with a knife).

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-10/nsa-phone...
The U.S. National Security Agency violated rules on surveillance of telephone records for almost three years and misled a secret court , raising fresh concerns that spy programs lack adequate controls to protect Americans’ privacy.

The latest revelations show NSA spying was broader, violated restrictions on domestic surveillance more often, and may have targeted innocent Americans to a greater degree than previously known. They are contained in documents released today by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in response to privacy groups’ lawsuits.

The agency ran a select list of phone numbers against databases of millions of call records between May 2006 and January 2009 without having reason to suspect some of the numbers’ owners of terrorist ties , according to the records.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Piiman on 9/14/2013 3:35:27 PM , Rating: 2
"Clearly the President is not granted that authority and yet almost every president in the last 20 years has abused his authority as commander in chief to commit acts of war (GWB, interestingly, is the exception )."

WHAT?! That's a joke right?


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By ritualm on 9/8/2013 3:44:14 PM , Rating: 2
You can't even name one, and you're asking the rest of us to do that work for your lazy butt.

Translation: you are wrong.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By M'n'M on 9/6/2013 11:27:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only violations of my Constitutional rights i have seen is Colorado's recent guns laws that directly infringe on my 2nd amendment rights, laws that are obviously illegal. Where is the outrage for that?

The recent SCOTUS rulings have been pretty much pro-2'nd Amendment. That doesn't mean that states don't have the power to "regulate" firearms, like no sales to convicts, or to "mental patients". That broad power can be misused and it won't be a constitutional violation. Just be glad you don't live in MA, CA or NY**.

**ever wonder why Cuomo stopped at 7 rounds ? Because declaring the old west 6 shooter as a "high capacity weapon" was beyond even his power to lie about.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Reclaimer77 on 9/7/2013 8:43:41 AM , Rating: 2
Full disclosure, I'm a gun owner and licensed for concealed carry.

What disturbs me is that they keep chipping away at that right. We've seemed to lose the importance of that word - right - in modern society.

The Second Amendment grants us absolute rights to firearms. No if and's or buts. Gun control has been infringing on that right for so long it's just become accepted.

States have many rights, but the Constitution is clear. A State, while having some sovereignty, cannot pass laws that run afoul of the Constitution.

What's happening in Colorado is the worst kind of anti-gun fascism. This representative Fields is an out of control Liberal wacko with an anti-Constitutional agenda, and must be stopped.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Piiman on 9/7/2013 12:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
"The Second Amendment grants us absolute rights to firearms"

Now show us where it says ANY TYPE of firearm? Do you draw no lines? How about Tanks, bazooka's, short range Air to Air missiles? Do you also support any person owning a gun. ie felons or the mentally ill? It is their right after all, right?

No where in the constituion does it say you can have any and all arms you so disire. If it does feel free to point it out.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Reclaimer77 on 9/7/2013 2:01:42 PM , Rating: 2
I'm afraid you don't understand much about the Constitution. You're right, it doesn't say which weapons. That's the entire point. If it said "firearms such that is deemed necessary by the Government", well I wouldn't be able to say anything.

And no, calling an air-to-air missile a "firearm" is stupid and you know it.

quote:
Do you also support any person owning a gun. ie felons or the mentally ill? It is their right after all, right?


Well no, when you commit crimes you give up certain rights.

I'm not suggesting that there should be no limits at all. What I'm talking about is States that have made laws that clearly prohibit it's citizens from gun ownership, or place outrageous barriers in place. That's clearly Unconstitutional.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By M'n'M on 9/7/2013 5:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Full disclosure, I'm a gun owner and licensed for concealed carry.

As am I, in MA no less <weep>
quote:
What disturbs me is that they keep chipping away at that right. We've seemed to lose the importance of that word - right - in modern society.

You'll get no argument from me re: this. I'm constantly amazed how people misinterpret the very essence of the US Constitution, that it somehow grants rights instead of putting forth the limited powers of the Fed Govt. They seem to have the whole concept reversed.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Ammohunt on 9/7/2013 8:24:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What's happening in Colorado is the worst kind of anti-gun fascism. This representative Fields is an out of control Liberal wacko with an anti-Constitutional agenda, and must be stopped.


The worst part is they are backed by outside money and influence e.g. Joe Biden. With any luck I will be living in the new state of North Colorado soon ;-)


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By M'n'M on 9/8/2013 12:22:27 AM , Rating: 2
And within days after Sandy Hook various "organizers" were in Newtown doing their thing. There was an interesting PBS program on the shootings which, accidentally, showed the gungrabbers plying their trade. I'm not against emotion perse but it's no substitute for clear reasoning. And emotion rather than reason plays a huge part in laws like CO's


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By ClownPuncher on 9/9/2013 12:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
Most of that was manipulation of emotion, not emotion itself.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Reclaimer77 on 9/8/2013 10:03:55 AM , Rating: 2
Biden is a freaking idiot. "Just buy a shotgun" and fire "warning blasts". Which is actually illegal in most places as it violates safety laws, so you get arrested.

Great advice Mr. Vice Prez!


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Piiman on 9/7/2013 11:54:41 AM , Rating: 2
There are many laws that are later ruled unconstitutional.

As for your Gun, what part of the constitution did they violate? Have they taken away all your guns? Or just restricted you from some (sorry not up on this new CO law)

So Show me were in the constitution it says what type of gun you can carry or even that it says you can carry any type?

On top of that since this is a law, much like the ones that allows the NSA to spy on us, then isn't it also now legal and thus constitutional as you claim the NSA spying orders are? So I summit to you that if this gun law can be unconstitutional then so can, and are, the ones that allow spying and warrantless wiretapping.

You just seem to pick and choose which are unconstitutional and which aren't based on how you feel they effect you and that’s wrong.

Heck just having a secret court should worry you much less supporting its rubber stamping whatever the government ask of it. I case you don't know they have Never turned down a request from the Government and they don’t even allow counter arguments, scary to say the least.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By M'n'M on 9/7/2013 5:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for your Gun, what part of the constitution did they violate? Have they taken away all your guns? Or just restricted you from some (sorry not up on this new CO law)

My guess is that there's a new "high" capacity limitation. I'm not sure if it would pass SCOTUS muster, I'd think they'd ignore any suit and pass the buck to the state. The state of course makes nonsensical laws like magazine limits, as if that were a real response to the Aurora shootings. The one where the killer used a shotgun at first, switched to his AR with 100 round mag, which then jammed about 20 rounds later, and then used 2 handguns to shoot the rest of the crowd trying to hide btw the seats. When any fool can swap magazines in under 2 sec w/o trying hard, tell me how a mag limit to XX rounds makes any real public safety difference.

quote:
So Show me were in the constitution it says what type of gun you can carry or even that it says you can carry any type?
Unless there's some specific clause given in the Constitution that allows the Govt to restrict the item, or it can logically be derived from some clause, then the Govt has no legal ability to make any restriction. The Constitution does not grant rights !!! At best the BoR enumerates some specific rights so as to ward off laws restricting them.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By ebakke on 9/9/2013 4:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unless there's some specific clause given in the Constitution that allows the Govt to restrict the item, or it can logically be derived from some clause, then the Govt has no legal ability to make any restriction. The Constitution does not grant rights !!!
Bingo. It grants specific, limited powers to the government. The assumption is that we're free to do as we see fit, not that we're "free" to do what the government says is allowed. How/why is this not common knowledge?


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By brasstax on 9/7/2013 2:01:22 PM , Rating: 3
The US Government and the United States are not the same thing.

The US Government is merely the organization that operates under the guide of the Constitution. It is as fallible as any large corporation and likely more so.

Like many entities, its allegiances are first and foremost to itself, regardless of the intentions of almost any one individual.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By M'n'M on 9/6/2013 11:13:21 PM , Rating: 2
As I understand it, Snowden has given all his info to those publishing papers and media. They are releasing the info and stories as they see fit ... perhaps with some collaboration w/Snowden ... perhaps not. Perhaps the media just want to show what the liars in DC are saying are lies ... in a timely fashion.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By ritualm on 9/9/2013 10:20:13 PM , Rating: 2
Most surefire way to hold a government accountable to its people:
1) don't give it any breaks
2) air its secret dirty laundry, even if this requires breaking various laws of the land and risking prison time/death to do it

A government that is allowed to have its cake and eat it is, by its very definition, a police state. Honestly, even though this isn't coming in the next 12 months, I can see the US government suspending parts or all of the Constitution so it can continue letting NSA abuses run undisturbed.

At this point, a civil war between the rich and the poor isn't a matter of if it will happen, but when.


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By ebakke on 9/10/2013 12:06:48 AM , Rating: 2
You had me right until the last line. When did this become a rich vs poor thing?


RE: Correct me if i am wrong
By Piiman on 9/14/2013 3:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
"A government that is allowed to have its cake and eat it"

So what's the point of having cake if you can't eat it?


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki