That's true, the first thing the United States of America did was get rid of slavery, then they restored all the stolen land to the natives, proving that the War of Independence was about the rights of men everywhere.
1) We did, eventually, get rid of slavery, and it was, again, the blood of free men who made it possible. Your attempt at refutation only serves to further cement my point.
2) Manifest Destiny was not and is not part of the Constitution, and thus, non sequitur.
I hear you on the point that it would be easier to make an informed judgement if we could get the whole story... but I've had enough experience with the likes of DHS, ATF, and TSA to know that the probability that Arrington's account is at least accurate in regards to the attitude of the agent approaches 1.
Arrington might not be the most reputable source, but neither are the Alphabet Soup agencies.
Oh, come now - even the government has stopped trotting that tired old meme out. The guys who did / planned that now 11 year old event are all dead, and as I highly doubt you worked in the WTC, I'm hard pressed to believe that you, personally, were a target of that particular attack. Get over yourself.
So do the hordes of documents recovered at Bin Laden's compound.
Really? Those documents name you, specifically, as a target? Or is this just another example of the paranoid bloviating that I called you out on originally?
So do the daily speeches from various Imams, religious leaders, political leaders and sundry others throughout the world. So do postings from numerous organizations.
If you think third-world despots talking shit and making vague, random threats regarding the US is some new phenomenon, I'd have to ask what rock you've been living under since... well, since the US started playing Team America: World Police.
Not to mention, our government does it's own fair share of saber rattling and beligerant assault, so it's not like we're completely innocent in all this, contrary to what American Exceptionalism has brainwashed you to believe.
So do the thwarted attempts at car and suicide bombings.
You don't find it odd that the only domestic 'terrorists' the government could find in the past decade were ones they created themselves?
Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn? I'll give you a great deal.
Most importantly, so do the words from the people we have killed wherein they have stated their goal is to attack the U.S.
See above response regarding saber-rattling. Also, are you really afraid of what dead men said they would do, presuming they were still alive?
Or are you saying all those people are merely plants by the CIA?
FBI, but yea, quite a few. Of course, it's a well known fact (among those of us who can stomach facts) that Osama Bin Laden was originally funded and trained by the CIA; so was the Taliban. Considering our government's track record on training attack dogs that end up turning on us... can you prove any of them aren't government plants?
I'm sure Arrington, with his long history of reporting the facts, is telling us the entire story. And if he is? It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy . ..
So, you think the guy's an asshole; big whoop. What does that have to do with whether or not he's afforded his Constitutionally guaranteed rights?
In the immortal words of E.B. Hall: "I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The DHS had the authority to hold the boat the minute it arrived on US soil, for customs clearance.
Where in the Constitution does it say that? To be honest, I'm having trouble finding any reference in that document that would authorize a Department of Homeland Security at all...
This is what I would have done in the same situation (and I have). I agree though, given the competence of this "agent", she probably wouldn't have accepted that either even though that is also perfectly legal and the correct thing to do.
Indeed.
Were this not a case of some power-mad douchenozzle flexing authority just because she knew she could, the conversation would have gone like this:
Arrington: Hey, there's an error here - the price is marked in USD, should be CAD
DHS Functionary: Oh, so it is. OK, we'll just correct the amount, cross out 'USD' and replace it with 'CAD...' Okey-dokey, initial the changes and sign in the box.
Arrington: Huzzah, I has boat!
DHS Functionary: Huzzah, you has a boat. Now get the fuck off my dock.
Or, just sign and don't worry since CAD and USD are at basically the same value these days (a 2 cent difference).
Yea, sure, if you don't mind the risk that some petty bureaucrat is going to have a hissy over the difference, charge you with felony tax evasion, and have your ass sent to the federal penitentiary for 2-5.
He did try to fix it, and the DHS agents acted like morons.
Says who? If the customs agent wrote a blog, would it say the same? What if she wrote her blog first and it was posted to Slashdot as "Arrington acts like and a**hole, gets yacht confiscated"? Do we just believe whichever side gets posted to Slashdot first?
Words of someone who's obviously never had to deal with a petty bureaucrat's Napoleon complex.
Piece of advice, Broseph - this is a nation whose police officers regularly murder citizens, and are awarded with paid vacations (oh, I mean, "paid administrative leave") for doing so.
Expecting an honest answer from these jack-booted thugs is like expecting water to not get you wet - Ain't gonna happen.
I don't understand why more people don't get this.
Because it's utter bullshit.
FYI, this nation, the United States of America, wasn't founded with fancy words and courtrooms, it was created with the blood of men and women who would have rather died standing as free people, than live kneeling as slaves.
We see the choice you've made, Benedict, but you shouldn't think for a second that you made the right one.
Then maybe the people shouldn't shelter, assist or allow these people to be in their villages which would obviate the need for drones to be overhead.
Besides, if we're not going to get on Israel's case for their collective punishment of Palestinians, what makes you think we care about collective punishment for those who harbor people who are trying to attack us?
Jesus Christ, but some folks sure are paranoid.
Bit o' wisdom: No one is trying to attack you. Just because a government claims someone is, does not make it so.
That said... can someone explain to me how this is not a police state? 'Cuz, save the concentration camps, I fail to see what's missing...
Because as long as there's one place which the state can claim is worse, apologists for the state will sneer at you for even suggesting the place you're in is not a paragon of liberty.
"That said... can someone explain to me how this is not a police state? 'Cuz, save the concentration camps, I fail to see what's missing..."
I hate to tell you this, but those have already been built. And no, it's not "conspiracy theory". DHS has built internment camps around the country. I've seen them on television, not just "crazy" internet sites. They're real.
I suppose, so long as they aren't rounding up particular ethnic groups, that most people will just continue to have their heads in the sand regarding all this...
There's still people out there who honestly believe that if the mass media doesn't report on something, it didn't really happen... and that makes me a sad panda:(
Trap guns (included computer-activated ones) are illegal in every state of the U.S. and grounds for whoever gets shot (including intruders) to win a massive lawsuit on the gorunds of per se liability. And if you are lucky enough to kill someone with one of these, enjoy your jail time for felony murder.
I'm surprised this company has not been sued into the ground yet or the owners brought up on criminal charges by the ATF.
Well, if you actually read their website instead of freaking out over nothing, you'd know that the primary purpose of these automated turrets is for recreational paintball/airsoft games.
Of course, assuming you're one of my fellow Americans, expecting you to think with your brain instead of your glands may be asking too much.
Lots of stuff is unconstitutional (whether by a state constitution or the US Constitution) and is still enforced; the 4th Amendment in particular has been null and void for a long time...
Much of the second as well. That's why you can't have machine guns, silencers, short shotguns, and a number of other guns or accessories in most states and to have them where the states don't ban them you must go through major federal hoops, (fingerprints, $200 tax per item, risk of federal prison {or a shoot the dog, stomp the cat, throw the pregnant wife against the wall and make her miscarry, raid} if the BATF {thinks} your paperwork is defective or you have something you didn't tell them about).
U.S. v. Miller (1939) said the fed could tax guns that AREN'T suitable for "militia" (military) use, in particular a short barreled ("sawed-off") shotgun (because Miller and his team weren't there to "bring to judicial notice" that they were also called "trench guns" and were an important weapon in WW I). The federal and state governments have taken that to mean they can tax any gun any amount, erect arbitrarily draconian red tape barriers, then bust anyone for screwing up the red tape or failing to pay the tax - "revenuer"/"untouchables"/Waco/Ruby Ridge style.
That said... can someone explain to me how this is not a police state? 'Cuz, save the concentration camps, I fail to see what's missing...
Hey, you know what? If you can't posit your viewpoint without childish namecalling, I'm not going to waste my time reading your posts anymore, let alone responding.
This type of unlocking has been illegal since '98, with an exemption being granted from '06 - '12. It's not that it's suddenly illegal, it's now just no longer not-illegal (again).
Right - based on the opinion of a non-elected buearucrat.
There's something inherently wrong with that in a country that, supposedly, has democratically elected representation.
I think some waiting periods are reasonable. I think some magazine limits are reasonable. I think 24 is the correct number for both. Hours and rounds.
See, you gave specifics, and sure enough, they're at least partially reasonable (I disagree with magazine limitations in general, as there is no known statistical correlation between large magazine ownership and negative social behavior).
A world of difference between what you've posted, and what OP said originally.
I think everything is subjective and I bet you would really hate the alternative.
1 - for the most part, though I feel it's safe to say that certain social mores are truly objective (aka, murder/theft is morally incorrect), and 2 - depends; I would need to hear the alternative first.
The alternative would be to operate on a science based least harm perspective. I would prefer that, but then you would find all kinds of illegal things made legal and regulated, and the opposite. You had better believe kids would be getting educated on sex in school and everyone would have to get their shots under that kind of system.
I prefer logic based myself, but science based is close enough, and a much better solution than the 'knee-jerk, emotional reaction' method currently employed.
Sure it does those are all reasonable things. That I as a gun owner fully support.
Why do you think they are not reasonable?
What is it that you claim is reasonable? OP doesn't name any specifics, only stating their belief that the people who oppose the things he supports are, allegedly, being unreasonable.
In short, for all we know, OP's idea of a reasonable waiting period is 1000 years, and a reasonable limitation on magazine sizes is 1 round. Hence my objection: reasonable is a purely subjective, emotion-based term, and should not be the basis for legislation.
Slashdot Mirror
That's true, the first thing the United States of America did was get rid of slavery, then they restored all the stolen land to the natives, proving that the War of Independence was about the rights of men everywhere.
1) We did, eventually, get rid of slavery, and it was, again, the blood of free men who made it possible. Your attempt at refutation only serves to further cement my point.
2) Manifest Destiny was not and is not part of the Constitution, and thus, non sequitur.
3) Nobody likes a douchebag pedant, you know.
I hear you on the point that it would be easier to make an informed judgement if we could get the whole story... but I've had enough experience with the likes of DHS, ATF, and TSA to know that the probability that Arrington's account is at least accurate in regards to the attitude of the agent approaches 1.
Arrington might not be the most reputable source, but neither are the Alphabet Soup agencies.
9/11 says otherwise.
Oh, come now - even the government has stopped trotting that tired old meme out. The guys who did / planned that now 11 year old event are all dead, and as I highly doubt you worked in the WTC, I'm hard pressed to believe that you, personally, were a target of that particular attack. Get over yourself.
So do the hordes of documents recovered at Bin Laden's compound.
Really? Those documents name you, specifically, as a target? Or is this just another example of the paranoid bloviating that I called you out on originally?
So do the daily speeches from various Imams, religious leaders, political leaders and sundry others throughout the world. So do postings from numerous organizations.
If you think third-world despots talking shit and making vague, random threats regarding the US is some new phenomenon, I'd have to ask what rock you've been living under since... well, since the US started playing Team America: World Police.
Not to mention, our government does it's own fair share of saber rattling and beligerant assault, so it's not like we're completely innocent in all this, contrary to what American Exceptionalism has brainwashed you to believe.
So do the thwarted attempts at car and suicide bombings.
What, you mean those fake terrorist plants created by the FBI?
You don't find it odd that the only domestic 'terrorists' the government could find in the past decade were ones they created themselves?
Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn? I'll give you a great deal.
Most importantly, so do the words from the people we have killed wherein they have stated their goal is to attack the U.S.
See above response regarding saber-rattling. Also, are you really afraid of what dead men said they would do, presuming they were still alive?
Or are you saying all those people are merely plants by the CIA?
FBI, but yea, quite a few. Of course, it's a well known fact (among those of us who can stomach facts) that Osama Bin Laden was originally funded and trained by the CIA; so was the Taliban. Considering our government's track record on training attack dogs that end up turning on us... can you prove any of them aren't government plants?
I'm sure Arrington, with his long history of reporting the facts, is telling us the entire story. And if he is? It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy . . .
So, you think the guy's an asshole; big whoop. What does that have to do with whether or not he's afforded his Constitutionally guaranteed rights?
In the immortal words of E.B. Hall: "I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The DHS had the authority to hold the boat the minute it arrived on US soil, for customs clearance.
Where in the Constitution does it say that? To be honest, I'm having trouble finding any reference in that document that would authorize a Department of Homeland Security at all...
This is what I would have done in the same situation (and I have). I agree though, given the competence of this "agent", she probably wouldn't have accepted that either even though that is also perfectly legal and the correct thing to do.
Indeed.
Were this not a case of some power-mad douchenozzle flexing authority just because she knew she could, the conversation would have gone like this:
Arrington: Hey, there's an error here - the price is marked in USD, should be CAD
DHS Functionary: Oh, so it is. OK, we'll just correct the amount, cross out 'USD' and replace it with 'CAD...' Okey-dokey, initial the changes and sign in the box.
Arrington: Huzzah, I has boat!
DHS Functionary: Huzzah, you has a boat. Now get the fuck off my dock.
Source: I've been to the DMV more than once.
Or, just sign and don't worry since CAD and USD are at basically the same value these days (a 2 cent difference).
Yea, sure, if you don't mind the risk that some petty bureaucrat is going to have a hissy over the difference, charge you with felony tax evasion, and have your ass sent to the federal penitentiary for 2-5.
He did try to fix it, and the DHS agents acted like morons.
Says who? If the customs agent wrote a blog, would it say the same? What if she wrote her blog first and it was posted to Slashdot as "Arrington acts like and a**hole, gets yacht confiscated"? Do we just believe whichever side gets posted to Slashdot first?
Words of someone who's obviously never had to deal with a petty bureaucrat's Napoleon complex.
Piece of advice, Broseph - this is a nation whose police officers regularly murder citizens, and are awarded with paid vacations (oh, I mean, "paid administrative leave") for doing so.
Expecting an honest answer from these jack-booted thugs is like expecting water to not get you wet - Ain't gonna happen.
There are other options I'd like to bring along.
- an Italian-American mother who don't take no crap
This.
Who needs a gun, when you could be packing a Sicilian matriarch?
No, it's OK to temporarily seize his boat because there was an error on his paperwork (clerical or not).
An error put there by the same people who seized the boat. How... convenient.
Now take off your fucking blinders.
On the contrary, this is good news. If the DHS is pissing off rich people, maybe there will actually be some change.
Sure there will - they'll stop fucking with rich people, thus keeping their unconstitutional activities under the media radar.
I don't understand why more people don't get this.
Because it's utter bullshit.
FYI, this nation, the United States of America, wasn't founded with fancy words and courtrooms, it was created with the blood of men and women who would have rather died standing as free people, than live kneeling as slaves.
We see the choice you've made, Benedict, but you shouldn't think for a second that you made the right one.
Not sure why I come here anymore.
To bitch about how the old gray mare just ain't what she used ta be, obviously.
Then maybe the people shouldn't shelter, assist or allow these people to be in their villages which would obviate the need for drones to be overhead.
Besides, if we're not going to get on Israel's case for their collective punishment of Palestinians, what makes you think we care about collective punishment for those who harbor people who are trying to attack us?
Jesus Christ, but some folks sure are paranoid.
Bit o' wisdom: No one is trying to attack you. Just because a government claims someone is, does not make it so.
Because as long as there's one place which the state can claim is worse, apologists for the state will sneer at you for even suggesting the place you're in is not a paragon of liberty.
FTFY.
Remember, we've always been at war with Eastasia.
"That said... can someone explain to me how this is not a police state? 'Cuz, save the concentration camps, I fail to see what's missing..."
I hate to tell you this, but those have already been built. And no, it's not "conspiracy theory". DHS has built internment camps around the country. I've seen them on television, not just "crazy" internet sites. They're real.
I suppose, so long as they aren't rounding up particular ethnic groups, that most people will just continue to have their heads in the sand regarding all this...
There's still people out there who honestly believe that if the mass media doesn't report on something, it didn't really happen... and that makes me a sad panda :(
Trap guns (included computer-activated ones) are illegal in every state of the U.S. and grounds for whoever gets shot (including intruders) to win a massive lawsuit on the gorunds of per se liability. And if you are lucky enough to kill someone with one of these, enjoy your jail time for felony murder.
I'm surprised this company has not been sued into the ground yet or the owners brought up on criminal charges by the ATF.
Well, if you actually read their website instead of freaking out over nothing, you'd know that the primary purpose of these automated turrets is for recreational paintball/airsoft games.
Of course, assuming you're one of my fellow Americans, expecting you to think with your brain instead of your glands may be asking too much.
Lots of stuff is unconstitutional (whether by a state constitution or the US Constitution) and is still enforced; the 4th Amendment in particular has been null and void for a long time ...
Much of the second as well. That's why you can't have machine guns, silencers, short shotguns, and a number of other guns or accessories in most states and to have them where the states don't ban them you must go through major federal hoops, (fingerprints, $200 tax per item, risk of federal prison {or a shoot the dog, stomp the cat, throw the pregnant wife against the wall and make her miscarry, raid} if the BATF {thinks} your paperwork is defective or you have something you didn't tell them about).
U.S. v. Miller (1939) said the fed could tax guns that AREN'T suitable for "militia" (military) use, in particular a short barreled ("sawed-off") shotgun (because Miller and his team weren't there to "bring to judicial notice" that they were also called "trench guns" and were an important weapon in WW I). The federal and state governments have taken that to mean they can tax any gun any amount, erect arbitrarily draconian red tape barriers, then bust anyone for screwing up the red tape or failing to pay the tax - "revenuer"/"untouchables"/Waco/Ruby Ridge style.
That said... can someone explain to me how this is not a police state? 'Cuz, save the concentration camps, I fail to see what's missing...
I believe the typical response to such a left-field post as this would be Whoosh
Big ol' Whoosh.
you kneejerking ignorant twit.
Hey, you know what? If you can't posit your viewpoint without childish namecalling, I'm not going to waste my time reading your posts anymore, let alone responding.
Good day.
Right - based on the opinion of a non-elected buearucrat.
There's something inherently wrong with that in a country that, supposedly, has democratically elected representation.
If you don't like that your elected officials are delegating powers to non-elected people, let them know and/or vote them out.
I do let them know, regularly, but it seems the only response I ever get* some boilerplate nonsense C&P'd by some staffer as a response.
So it goes, I suppose.
* Almost every response - Claire McCaskill actually penned a direct response to one of my letters a while back, that was kinda awesome.
This type of unlocking has been illegal since '98, with an exemption being granted from '06 - '12. It's not that it's suddenly illegal, it's now just no longer not-illegal (again).
Right - based on the opinion of a non-elected buearucrat.
There's something inherently wrong with that in a country that, supposedly, has democratically elected representation.
I think some waiting periods are reasonable. I think some magazine limits are reasonable. I think 24 is the correct number for both. Hours and rounds.
See, you gave specifics, and sure enough, they're at least partially reasonable (I disagree with magazine limitations in general, as there is no known statistical correlation between large magazine ownership and negative social behavior).
A world of difference between what you've posted, and what OP said originally.
I think everything is subjective and I bet you would really hate the alternative.
1 - for the most part, though I feel it's safe to say that certain social mores are truly objective (aka, murder/theft is morally incorrect), and 2 - depends; I would need to hear the alternative first.
The alternative would be to operate on a science based least harm perspective. I would prefer that, but then you would find all kinds of illegal things made legal and regulated, and the opposite. You had better believe kids would be getting educated on sex in school and everyone would have to get their shots under that kind of system.
I prefer logic based myself, but science based is close enough, and a much better solution than the 'knee-jerk, emotional reaction' method currently employed.
Sure it does those are all reasonable things. That I as a gun owner fully support.
Why do you think they are not reasonable?
What is it that you claim is reasonable? OP doesn't name any specifics, only stating their belief that the people who oppose the things he supports are, allegedly, being unreasonable.
In short, for all we know, OP's idea of a reasonable waiting period is 1000 years, and a reasonable limitation on magazine sizes is 1 round. Hence my objection: reasonable is a purely subjective, emotion-based term, and should not be the basis for legislation.
Glad to be of service!