Society and technology have changed drastically over a couple hundred years. It's not cut and dry, as much as you want to believe it is.
It is cut and dry. "The land of the free and the home of the brave" would not surrender our fundamental liberties for safety.
The constitution does not change just because technology changes. It is general for a reason. If you want to change it, you must amend it. Our rights are not invalid just because of some technological innovations.
And what the hell are you talking about? Are you one of those police bootlickers that sticks up for the police no matter what? If not, why did you take issue with that specific post? "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" and all the other common excuses are illogical nonsense. Trying to defend cops who abuse their powers and violate the constitution is something bootlicking authoritarians do. Do you take issue with that?
Also, some loss of freedom is considered acceptable.
That depends on how you define "freedom." Your statement is far too vague for me to agree or disagree with it.
just as much as those "bootlickers" have the right to defend their side.
Those bootlickers are trying to get government thugs to infringe upon our fundamental liberties and ignore the constitution. If they were merely speaking and doing nothing else, then fine, but they do not have the right to take away my rights in their quest for perfect safety.
Slashdot Mirror
Society and technology have changed drastically over a couple hundred years. It's not cut and dry, as much as you want to believe it is.
It is cut and dry. "The land of the free and the home of the brave" would not surrender our fundamental liberties for safety.
The constitution does not change just because technology changes. It is general for a reason. If you want to change it, you must amend it. Our rights are not invalid just because of some technological innovations.
And what the hell are you talking about? Are you one of those police bootlickers that sticks up for the police no matter what? If not, why did you take issue with that specific post? "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" and all the other common excuses are illogical nonsense. Trying to defend cops who abuse their powers and violate the constitution is something bootlicking authoritarians do. Do you take issue with that?
Also, some loss of freedom is considered acceptable.
That depends on how you define "freedom." Your statement is far too vague for me to agree or disagree with it.
just as much as those "bootlickers" have the right to defend their side.
Those bootlickers are trying to get government thugs to infringe upon our fundamental liberties and ignore the constitution. If they were merely speaking and doing nothing else, then fine, but they do not have the right to take away my rights in their quest for perfect safety.