Millimeter waves are in the far infra-red part of the spectrum.
Just not the part we were discussing.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What has Happened to Civil Liberties
- Thread starter lerichards
- Start date
Just not the part we were discussing.
I can't imagine where you found this…
Correctamundo! FR, you missed the significance of "For those of you who aren't laughing yourselves silly, loosen your tinfoil hats."Dude, he was playing the irony/paranoia card.
You realize you're talking at cross purposes, don't you?They're tapping our phones, telling us what drugs we can take, and looking over our shoulders to see how we're raising our own children.
Who taps 'our' phones? No one without a court order based on probable cause. Please don't tell me you've swallowed the snake oil about the Patriot Act allowed unlimited and universal domestic phone monitoring?
I would agree with repealing all the 'controlled substance' laws, especially regarding prescription drugs. For one thing, we could rid the populace of any number of people who simply won't read directions.
Taking over raising our children? Yeah, that's a leftist ploy from the 1920s and before in Soviet Union and European socialist nations. I think a civilian government has some responsibility to protect children from irresponsible parenting, but on balance, the parent has to get the benefit of the doubt.
We're back to nine government employees for every citizen, right? And the "…fluoroscopes that see through our wives' clothing…" is right out of the Tinfoil Hat Underground, man. Great stuff.They've got back rooms full of leering civil "servants" in airports monitoring fluoroscopes that see through our wives' clothing as they go through the security lines!
Guns. Evil, nasty guns. Evil, black plastic guns. [cue off stage rumble and sinister organ prelude]
I love the way 'guns' are blamed for human activity.
"Gun Violence" like that is meaningful - or at least any more meaningful than "Fireplace Poker Violence". Agatha Christie and Erle Stanley Garner killed off a lot of folks with fireplace pokers.
In the United States, the personal ownership of firearms is recognized as a basic human right by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. For all you non-U. S. citizens, that doesn't mean much. What is really delineates is the not so subtle distinction between 'citizen' and 'subject'. It is the guarantee the Founding Fathers made to the populace the government would never take over all power.
It's no coincidence the same people who want to rid the United States of privately owned guns are the same ones who want to destroy all the other human rights as well. But they're doing a really fine job of concealing that.
Here's another significant bit of history. Firearms in civilian hands with minimal or no restrictions supress violent crime. Every nation that removes the right of ordinary people to own firearms has a drastic rise in violent crime. Usually, the number of violent crimes committed with firearms rises dramatically as well. Except for Japan; they seem to prefer to kill each other with knives. At least as far as we know, the Japanese government is very secretive about their crime statistics. But I digress...
For those of you who 'fear' guns; how do you ever ride in a car? Whatever guns are - steel, wood, plastic - cars are simply more of the same. And cars kill far more people accidently than guns do on purpose.
But you are good subjects. Your masters tell you to fear guns because they are evil and you do. Very good. Like that's going to help you when a thug from either the government or a criminal organization comes for you.
The ability to defend oneself from harm is the keystone to all human rights. Without that chance, one has no other chances. No other freedoms. Perhaps an illusion or two. Enjoy your illusions.
I love the way 'guns' are blamed for human activity.
"Gun Violence" like that is meaningful - or at least any more meaningful than "Fireplace Poker Violence". Agatha Christie and Erle Stanley Garner killed off a lot of folks with fireplace pokers.
In the United States, the personal ownership of firearms is recognized as a basic human right by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. For all you non-U. S. citizens, that doesn't mean much. What is really delineates is the not so subtle distinction between 'citizen' and 'subject'. It is the guarantee the Founding Fathers made to the populace the government would never take over all power.
It's no coincidence the same people who want to rid the United States of privately owned guns are the same ones who want to destroy all the other human rights as well. But they're doing a really fine job of concealing that.
Here's another significant bit of history. Firearms in civilian hands with minimal or no restrictions supress violent crime. Every nation that removes the right of ordinary people to own firearms has a drastic rise in violent crime. Usually, the number of violent crimes committed with firearms rises dramatically as well. Except for Japan; they seem to prefer to kill each other with knives. At least as far as we know, the Japanese government is very secretive about their crime statistics. But I digress...
For those of you who 'fear' guns; how do you ever ride in a car? Whatever guns are - steel, wood, plastic - cars are simply more of the same. And cars kill far more people accidently than guns do on purpose.
But you are good subjects. Your masters tell you to fear guns because they are evil and you do. Very good. Like that's going to help you when a thug from either the government or a criminal organization comes for you.
The ability to defend oneself from harm is the keystone to all human rights. Without that chance, one has no other chances. No other freedoms. Perhaps an illusion or two. Enjoy your illusions.
That's not snake oil, archie - that's policy. W's been doing it for several years now.archie said:Who taps 'our' phones? No one without a court order based on probable cause. Please don't tell me you've swallowed the snake oil about the Patriot Act allowed unlimited and universal domestic phone monitoring?
The recent telecom immunity squabble? That's what it's about - preventing individuals like you and me from suing the telecoms for monitoring our phone calls without a warrant or probable cause. W says that immunity is necessary. Why would he say that ?
If you have a minute, consider the implications of the fact that W&Co have now had several years to monitor the phones and emails of your Congresscritters, your local attorney generals and governors, and any political type people they may care to check up on, with no record and no accountability. Do you suppose there's a connection between that and the odd tendency of Congress and local authorities to just go along with some of the crazier stuff ?
Every nation that removes the right of ordinary people to own firearms has a drastic rise in violent crime. Usually, the number of violent crimes committed with firearms rises dramatically as well.
That just isn't true. Please compare US and UK homicide rates, and factor in 'gun defense' claims, where owning a gun has supposedly prevented a crime, and you will find that US citizens are far more likely to be the victim of crime than a citizen of gun free Britain.
Stop trying to justify gun ownership. Just admit that there isn't a solution to your gun violence problem, so you are where you are, warts and all.
Hey bub, You back that stuff up, eh? You made the claim
See, that was not so hard now was it?
Though by the attitude it seems having to explain yourself stung a bit. [RIGHT BUB] LOL.
Every conversation I have seen you in has went the same way. Burden of proof is fine, but again to say "I do not belive" without a good reason that you can BACK UP also is BS.
Your conversations start off with a chip on your shoulder then grow into aggravated then into hostility when you belive someone is wrong and they oppose you. [GOD FORBID]
It seems that any explanation, other then your own, has no merit regardless of the source. So again I grow tired of this child like demeanor and again put you on the ignore list.
I do not need to be able to read your reply to know one is coming. Even though you know I have you blocked and will not read what I'm sure is a stinging reply, your ego will force you to respond.
Have fun talking to the wind..................
Oh, darlin', loosen your tinfoil hat.That's not snake oil, archie - that's policy. W's been doing it for several years now.
The only monitoring that's been loosened in terms of authorization or permission is that of international calls. Either the caller or the reciever has to be outside the U. S. In addition to that, the call has to have some connection to terrorist activity. Not criminal like drug smuggling, but terrorist activity. Anything else is illegal.
The claim the legislation allows anyone in government to unqualified and unregulated eavesdropping on domestic phone calls is pure hokum.
The 47 or so suits currently in the court system allege improper actions on the part of various companies acting in legal cooperation with the federal government. The allegations are this is being done improperly and seek damages, not from the government for violation of civil rights, but from the companies.The recent telecom immunity squabble? That's what it's about - preventing individuals like you and me from suing the telecoms for monitoring our phone calls without a warrant or probable cause. W says that immunity is necessary. Why would he say that?
If these suits had any substance, they would be directed against the government for unconstitutional violations of the Fourth Amendment (unlawful search and seizure). But they don't have any substance, so they are suing for unspecified damages in an effort to intimidate private business. By the way, win or loose, the suing attorneys get paid great gobs of money - paid for by tax collections - for their time.
Completely untrue and undefensible in argument. That simply has not happened except in the rather twisted minds of people with too much time on their hands. Or the anti-American parties who seem to be able to control you.If you have a minute, consider the implications of the fact that W&Co have now had several years to monitor the phones and emails of your Congresscritters, your local attorney generals and governors, and any political type people they may care to check up on, with no record and no accountability.
Since it hasn't happened, the odds are against it. But what do you mean by 'crazier stuff'? Please expand on that. I really want to know.Do you suppose there's a connection between that and the odd tendency of Congress and local authorities to just go along with some of the crazier stuff ?
Archie said:Every nation that removes the right of ordinary people to own firearms has a drastic rise in violent crime. Usually, the number of violent crimes committed with firearms rises dramatically as well.
You might read what I wrote again.That just isn't true. Please compare US and UK homicide rates, and factor in 'gun defense' claims, where owning a gun has supposedly prevented a crime, and you will find that US citizens are far more likely to be the victim of crime than a citizen of gun free Britain.
Since the UK went on their last binge of 'gun oppression' the violent crime rate in the UK has gone up rather markedly. This rise in crime also shows a greater incidence of violent crimes using firearms. In other words, the UK has more 'gun crimes' (an idiotic term if ever coined) now than before the last banning fit.
Yes, I think the US still has more incidences of firearms used over all. It amounts to just less than one-half of one percent of all firearms extant in the US. However, that does not follow for all crime. One is more likely to be physically assaulted (raped, killed, beaten or strong arm robbed) in London than in New York City. And the incidence of violent, home invasion burglaries wherein the inhabitants of the house are assaulted by the criminals is now greater per capita in the UK than in the US. At this rate, the UK will be less safe than Washington DC pretty soon.
Why should I stop? It's still the best solution to violent crime. In fact, arguably it's the only solution to violent crime. Having the police come around later to make notes and haul off the bodies surely doesn't work anywhere.Stop trying to justify gun ownership.
Again, the structure of the statement is misdirected. The problem is not 'gun violence', any more than 'cricket bat violence' or 'petrol bomb violence' or 'whack 'em with a pint glass stolen from the local violence'; the problem is criminal activity by a finite and rather limited sub set of the populace.Just admit that there isn't a solution to your gun violence problem, so you are where you are, warts and all.
That is not the sort of problem one solves by blaming an inanimate object.
In point of fact, the areas in the United States with the highest incidence of gun ownership among private individuals are the areas with the lowest crime rates. Not just violent crime, but even the stuff like vandalism, graffitti and drunken driving.
You might read what I wrote again.
Since the UK went on their last binge of 'gun oppression' the violent crime rate in the UK has gone up rather markedly. This rise in crime also shows a greater incidence of violent crimes using firearms. In other words, the UK has more 'gun crimes' (an idiotic term if ever coined) now than before the last banning fit.
That is total bullshit, for many and various reasons. One, the last 'banning fit' removed 250,000 handguns from the UK, out of a population of 60,000,000 people. To assume causality with violent crime, you'd have to establish a link that handgun ownership deterred violent crime somehow. You cannot prove causality here though, because gun owners were bound by law to keep their guns locked in a gun safe, with the ammunition in a separate locked compartment, and these guns were NEVER used for self defense, just sporting purposes.
Also, during that period, the reporting method for crime was standardised across the UK, so some crimes rates changed merely due to definitions of crimes.
On gun crime, well, again, to say that has increased due to the 'ban' is just not true, there was actually a small dip just after the ban! There has been an increase more recently, and that is due to conflicts in Europe and the east, increasing the number of guns in circulation, and inreasing the number smuggled into the UK. Even then, the total number of firearms offences is about 10,000 per year at the moment, and that includes everything, owning an illegal weapon, having a replica gun in a public place, offences with air guns, etc.
Let's compare stats, shall we, gun homicides per 100,000 people in the USA: 3.97. Gun homicides per 100,000 in the UK: 0.14. What does this tell you? That a statistics citing 'gun homicides up X%' in the UK are pretty meaningless, as one incident can seriously skew the percentages.
btw, I used to shoot. I'm not anti-gun, nor a 'gun grabber'. I just recognise that widespread ownership of firearms by an untrained, and unaccountable populace is a bad idea, and that is proven by US vs UK statistics.
Every conversation I have seen you in has went the same way. Burden of proof is fine, but again to say "I do not belive" without a good reason that you can BACK UP also is BS.
I studied physics. I worked for a place that built satellite parts, and was involved in remote sensing, and astronomical imaging. I am aware of the limitations of hardware, and more importantly, physical advantages and limitations of imaging at various wavelengths. If someone starts telling me that you can be imaged inside your own home from space, and then someone else tells me that can be done with infra red, they have to back it up with evidence, because it doesn't sit alongside all the experience I have had so far.
Your conversations start off with a chip on your shoulder then grow into aggravated then into hostility when you belive someone is wrong and they oppose you.
There is your problem. You aren't opposing me, but making claims that defy the laws the of physics. It's not personal, unless you bring your ego to the table. Questioning things as you do, is laudable, challenging physics itself, is laughable.
It seems that any explanation, other then your own, has no merit regardless of the source. So again I grow tired of this child like demeanor and again put you on the ignore list.
What explanation? You have supplied no evidence. Oh, and throwing your toys out of the pram, and putting me on ignore when you have failed to make your point is so grown up is it? It's the Internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying 'nyah nyah nyah I can't hear you'. If you have a point, and have evidence, make it.
I do not need to be able to read your reply to know one is coming. Even though you know I have you blocked and will not read what I'm sure is a stinging reply, your ego will force you to respond.
Have fun talking to the wind..................
I don't know if I'm blocked, and like I care anyway. You've made a claim, failed to back it up, and then circled SF on your hobby horse. Playing the little boy done wrong card doesn't help your case.