4 ms·

After Orlando, Senate bill seeks to allow FBI Web searches without court order

30 points by waterphone 10y ago

elgabogringo 10y ago
Of course it does. Every act of terrorism leads to more and more attacks on the rights of law abiding citizens. It's like the government doesn't view terrorism as a crisis, but an opportunity.
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  yeah but, would you not?
- Esau 10y ago
  To the government, the number one enemy of security is freedom.
  - ionised 10y ago
    To the government and their handlers, the number one enemy of their security is your freedom.
disposition2 10y ago
Seems as though the GOP Senate are equally steadfast against any discussion on limiting access to guns as they are to eroding what little privacy US citizens retain. How can one amendment be so untouchable that it actually harms another?
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  That's strange to me too. People on the terrorist watch list can't fly but they can buy guns. That doesn't really make sense.
  - waterphone 10y ago
    Should we be adding more power to a list that anyone can be added to for any reason with no recourse to get removed from it? And should a constitutionally protected right be revoked merely on vague suspicion? Being on a terrorist watchlist is not proof that you're a terrorist or have terrorist sympathies. There's no trial or opportunity for defense.
  - mynameislegion 10y ago
    People get on the no-fly list for "a reasonable suspicion". Basically you can get to the no-fly list for using the wrong search terms on the internet. I'm glad Ben Swann covers these topics, you should check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud9Kfuvdw4Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud9Kfuvdw4Q
  - doke01 10y ago
    You have an explicit right to own a gun. You don't have a right to fly. Throw into the fact that anyone can be put on a no-fly list for any reason with no recourse and you have just given the government the opportunity and means to deny ANYONE ownership of a gun.
    - rabboRubble 10y ago
      ... good?
      - IncRnd 10y ago
        Not really... If the federal government can take away the constitutional right for anyone to own a gun, they can and likely will take away every other constitutional right. Soon after an evisceration of the 2nd amendment, people will need to raise their hands, wait for approval, and only when approved step into free speech zones for saying what they believe. Then, if the speech is not in line with the consensus the person will have a lawsuit against them. All of those things have been proposed this year or are already enacted.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
- eternalban 10y ago
  It is quite clear: Becuase the State is in possession of WMDs, whereas The Pen is mightier than the sword.
widowlark 10y ago
I think everyone here agrees that this is a terrible correlation for people to make. Just because these tragedies occur does not mean that our liberty is no longer sacred. We need to figure out a way to translate that value to the average American - They need to understand what's really at stake and we have not done a good job explaining that.
doke01 10y ago
Thank god this crap was defeated... for now at least.
dsfyu404ed 10y ago
If they need a panic inducing tragedy to pass legislation it's not legislation worth passing.
- IncRnd 10y ago
  They don't really need anything. These are all wedge issues, not real issues they are interested in solving. As long as there is debate and people are unsatisfied, they will continue to get elected in order to fix the broken system. Just looking at the recent past, the Democrats had both houses of Congress and the Presidency. They were fully capable of passing every single piece of legislation that they have historically wanted. However, all they passed were a couple of measures on which the electorate were hugely split. Then they chose to sit on the floor, because the Republicans didn't let them vote on a gun measure. The Republicans have also acted this way when in power. These are politicians playing politics - 535 people who all believe they should be President. They are all willing to string the people along to further their political careers.

30 points by waterphone 10y ago

Of course it does. Every act of terrorism leads to more and more attacks on the rights of law abiding citizens. It's like the government doesn't view terrorism as a crisis, but an opportunity.

cloudjacker 10y ago
yeah but, would you not?
Esau 10y ago
To the government, the number one enemy of security is freedom.
- ionised 10y ago
  To the government and their handlers, the number one enemy of their security is your freedom.

disposition2 10y ago

Seems as though the GOP Senate are equally steadfast against any discussion on limiting access to guns as they are to eroding what little privacy US citizens retain. How can one amendment be so untouchable that it actually harms another?

maxxxxx 10y ago
That's strange to me too. People on the terrorist watch list can't fly but they can buy guns. That doesn't really make sense.
- waterphone 10y ago
  Should we be adding more power to a list that anyone can be added to for any reason with no recourse to get removed from it? And should a constitutionally protected right be revoked merely on vague suspicion? Being on a terrorist watchlist is not proof that you're a terrorist or have terrorist sympathies. There's no trial or opportunity for defense.
- mynameislegion 10y ago
  People get on the no-fly list for "a reasonable suspicion". Basically you can get to the no-fly list for using the wrong search terms on the internet. I'm glad Ben Swann covers these topics, you should check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud9Kfuvdw4Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud9Kfuvdw4Q
- doke01 10y ago
  You have an explicit right to own a gun. You don't have a right to fly. Throw into the fact that anyone can be put on a no-fly list for any reason with no recourse and you have just given the government the opportunity and means to deny ANYONE ownership of a gun.
  - rabboRubble 10y ago
    ... good?
    - IncRnd 10y ago
      Not really... If the federal government can take away the constitutional right for anyone to own a gun, they can and likely will take away every other constitutional right. Soon after an evisceration of the 2nd amendment, people will need to raise their hands, wait for approval, and only when approved step into free speech zones for saying what they believe. Then, if the speech is not in line with the consensus the person will have a lawsuit against them. All of those things have been proposed this year or are already enacted.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
eternalban 10y ago
It is quite clear: Becuase the State is in possession of WMDs, whereas The Pen is mightier than the sword.

widowlark 10y ago

I think everyone here agrees that this is a terrible correlation for people to make. Just because these tragedies occur does not mean that our liberty is no longer sacred. We need to figure out a way to translate that value to the average American - They need to understand what's really at stake and we have not done a good job explaining that.

doke01 10y ago

Thank god this crap was defeated... for now at least.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago

If they need a panic inducing tragedy to pass legislation it's not legislation worth passing.

IncRnd 10y ago
They don't really need anything. These are all wedge issues, not real issues they are interested in solving. As long as there is debate and people are unsatisfied, they will continue to get elected in order to fix the broken system. Just looking at the recent past, the Democrats had both houses of Congress and the Presidency. They were fully capable of passing every single piece of legislation that they have historically wanted. However, all they passed were a couple of measures on which the electorate were hugely split. Then they chose to sit on the floor, because the Republicans didn't let them vote on a gun measure. The Republicans have also acted this way when in power. These are politicians playing politics - 535 people who all believe they should be President. They are all willing to string the people along to further their political careers.