News Police State of the USA/The loss of civil liberties at home

[The Smoking Man]

Come on loseyourname what exactly do seatbelts and raves have in common?

Raves are an assembly of people. The permit is required for any assemblage of people greater than 250.

GREAT HUH?!

That sure as hell prohibits the right to assemble in my book. Which by the way is guaranteed in the constitution. Weird. Because no where in the constitution does it say you can drive without a seatbelt. But it does say you have the right to assemble. I wonder why that is. Hm.. Maybe because its "significant" enough to be guaranteed. Let's do some critical thinking now. Right to assemble guaranteed in the constitution. Permit required for assemblies greater than 250 people.

Yep everything seems in order what was I thinking, boy good old critical thinking.

Sorry, Max, youSTILL don't get it.

They DID have a permit.

What they didn't realize was that they needed TWO permits.

And, security guards are not enough ... they need to make sure that they hire off duty cops and SWAT officers to confiscate drugs.

Geez ... now wonder they were pissed ...

They were cutting into their moonlighting pay!

It might not be a Police State but there does seem to be a lot of rendering unto Ceasar.

(Oh, and the rules for all of this are in the citizenship manual issued with either your birth certificate or your green card. Not the constitution, silly)

 

[ray b]

raves are a kind of religion, a belife system in the brotherhood of man
the christians and their subcults [mormans] are useing lawinforcement
to supress this movement and that is wrong
sad that few can see that basic fact
it is not nessicary to have gods or written dogma to be a religion

 

[Skyhunter]

As pointed out by Loseyourname, and myself, this is Utah we're talking about. Salt Lake City is the home of the Mormons. If you don't already know they are a religious group so anal retentive that they are not allowed to even drink caffiene.

Actually, now that the church owns a significant share of Pepsico stock, it is ok for Mormons to drink pepsi.

Is this what they mean when they say religious hypocrisy?

 

[Skyhunter]

raves are a kind of religion, a belife system in the brotherhood of man
the christians and their subcults [mormans] are useing lawinforcement
to supress this movement and that is wrong
sad that few can see that basic fact
it is not nessicary to have gods or written dogma to be a religion

And I thought raves were parties where everyone took ecstasy and danced to loud music.

I must be getting old.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Actually, now that the church owns a significant share of Pepsico stock, it is ok for Mormons to drink pepsi.

Is this what they mean when they say religious hypocrisy?

Didn't we already go through this when it was revealed the Vatican Bank owned a large interest in the company that developed the birth control pill?

 

[alexandra]

You guys! What about the big ol' 'Patriot Act'? Jeez - it's all over, dudes. Smile and be merry now...

 

[Hurkyl]

The right to assemble is not the right to "assemble at any place at any time to do any thing".

When searching online for just what the "right to assemble" means, every reference I followed talks about assembling to discuss political issues, public affairs, or for assembling for protests, pickets, et cetera. Even the Bill of Rights itself said:

Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Friendly Immigrant]

Things like this are bound to happen in countries where 50% don't vote. Dysgenics in effect.

 

[MaxS]

The right to assemble is not the right to "assemble at any place at any time to do any thing".

When searching online for just what the "right to assemble" means, every reference I followed talks about assembling to discuss political issues, public affairs, or for assembling for protests, pickets, et cetera. Even the Bill of Rights itself said:

Wow don't be so close minded. According to your interpretation as long as the rave had a government protest theme it would be protected under the constitution. Just stupid, the right to assemble is the right to assemble whether its in protest or not.

 

[Smurf]

Wow don't be so close minded. According to your interpretation as long as the rave had a government protest theme it would be protected under the constitution. Just stupid, the right to assemble is the right to assemble whether its in protest or not.

I'm willing to bet that rave had a protest theme anyways..

 

[Hurkyl]

Wow don't be so close minded. ... Just stupid, the right to assemble is the right to assemble whether its in protest or not.

I would listen if you presented reasons why I should adopt your opinion over the opinion of the courts. You, however, call the legal opinion "stupid" and merely reiterate your opinion. You're calling the wrong person closed-minded.

According to your interpretation as long as the rave had a government protest theme it would be protected under the constitution.

First off, it's not my interpretation. Secondly, only the right to protest would have been protected: other activities would not. Thirdly, even if all they were doing is protesting the government, that would still not be enough: for example, there was a case where the supreme court (unanimously!) upheld a city ordinance requiring a permit for parades and processions on a public street.


And finally, some advice. if you really are afraid of the government taking away your basic rights, then silly grievances like this do more harm than good: everytime someone makes a ridiculous claim of a violation of the bill of rights, it detracts from those who make legitimate claims.

 

[MaxS]

I would listen if you presented reasons why I should adopt your opinion over the opinion of the courts. You, however, call the legal opinion "stupid" and merely reiterate your opinion. You're calling the wrong person closed-minded.




First off, it's not my interpretation. Secondly, only the right to protest would have been protected: other activities would not. Thirdly, even if all they were doing is protesting the government, that would still not be enough: for example, there was a case where the supreme court (unanimously!) upheld a city ordinance requiring a permit for parades and processions on a public street.


And finally, some advice. if you really are afraid of the government taking away your basic rights, then silly grievances like this do more harm than good: everytime someone makes a ridiculous claim of a violation of the bill of rights, it detracts from those who make legitimate claims.

I don't think this is silly in any way. I think these people had their civil rights trampled on and I think its wrong of you to trivialize that.

P.S I know it probably sounded like it but I didn't mean to call you stupid. I was saying that for the rave to be legal it simply needed a protest theme.

 

[Hurkyl]

I didn't think you were calling me stupid, just the law.

Maybe your example is an example of the very principle I mentioned: when I look at it, I see what appears to be *sigh* yet another case of people who got busted for doing something illegal, and then trying to weasel out of it by saying that their rights are being violated. (Or, more generally, rationalizing by others who would participate in such activities) So, I'm more inclined to believe that interpretation given how often I've seen it before, whether or not it's actually the case.


Oh, another thing that has sprung to mind: you've made a big deal about the method of the bust... so how about a hypothetical:

What if the rave had been broken up by unarmed policemen?

Would you still complain that their rights are being violated?

If your answer is no, then I would reassert my statement about silly claims of rights violations.

If your answer is yes, I would like to complain that you would bring the method of the bust into the picture, since it seems the thing it does is emotionally charging the discussion (and provide another issue to distract people from your real issue). It would be more productive to just discuss the issue at hand. (Unless, I suppose, your goal was to rile up a mob, instead of rationally presenting a case)

(Since I'm trying to anticipate your response, I could have, of course, entirely missed some case)

 

[loseyourname]

Yep everything seems in order what was I thinking, boy good old critical thinking.

Okay, if you're just refusing to let go of a point you made because you made it and you've now gotten defensive, I can understand. I do that all the time. It's basic human psychology to refuse to admit an error while still arguing over something. But if you honestly believe that your interpretation of the "right to peaceably assemble for a redress of grievances" is more critically thought out than the Supreme Court's interpretation, and that it should cover people gathering in the middle of the night to throw a party, then I suppose I really don't know what to say to you.

 

[MaxS]

People in this country are supposed to be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others.

If you can't comprehend that I don't know what else to say to you.

 

[Townsend]

People in this country are supposed to be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others.

I agree, that is why I loath anti gun people so much.

 

[MaxS]

when the U.S. yearly homicide rate is about 10,000 more than the next country, and guns are equally available, something is wrong with the culture and not the availability of weapons for GI Johnny.

 

[Townsend]

when the U.S. yearly homicide rate is about 10,000 more than the next country, and guns are equally available, something is wrong with the culture and not the availability of weapons for GI Johnny.

yep...that is a fact.

 

[Hurkyl]

when the U.S. yearly homicide rate is about 10,000 more than the next country,

The homicide rate in the U.S. is high, but you should do the thing properly, rather than quote a meaningless statistic like that.

Why is it meaningless? The variables are not controlled very well. Here are some particular reasons:

How many times more people does the U.S. have than the next country on the list? All other things being equal, we would expect a country with N times the population of another country to have N times as many homicides.

Is 10,000 even a "big" number? 10,000 isn't a big difference if the actual homicide rate was something like 100,000.

Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting U.S. is at the top, but the U.S. is way behind the leaders in homicide rates. (WAY behind if you look at the per capita rates)


A meaningful thing you could have said? Maybe that the U.S.'s per capita rate is more than twice many Eurpoean countries.


(However, the U.S.'s per capita homicide rate is actually less than several European countries... in some cases, way behind)


(Misuse if statistics is one of my pet peeves)

 

[Smurf]

How many times more people does the U.S. have than the next country on the list? All other things being equal, we would expect a country with N times the population of another country to have N times as many homicides.

but if it's homocide rate, this wouldn't matter.

 

[MaxS]

The homicide rate in the U.S. is high, but you should do the thing properly, rather than quote a meaningless statistic like that.

Why is it meaningless? The variables are not controlled very well. Here are some particular reasons:

How many times more people does the U.S. have than the next country on the list? All other things being equal, we would expect a country with N times the population of another country to have N times as many homicides.

Is 10,000 even a "big" number? 10,000 isn't a big difference if the actual homicide rate was something like 100,000.

Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting U.S. is at the top, but the U.S. is way behind the leaders in homicide rates. (WAY behind if you look at the per capita rates)


A meaningful thing you could have said? Maybe that the U.S.'s per capita rate is more than twice many Eurpoean countries.


(However, the U.S.'s per capita homicide rate is actually less than several European countries... in some cases, way behind)


(Misuse if statistics is one of my pet peeves)

The statistics I used are not misleading in any way. In fact you have "analyzed" them in such a way as to make them misleading all by yourself.

I don't have the patience to dig up the actual numbers but you can do so yourself.

Here are the (approximate) statistics (which does not mean they are at all wrong but that i don't know the EXACT TO THE PERSON number of homicides by heart)


Firstly: The United States has the most homicides per year of any other country in the world. Period.

The number is not in the hundreds of thousands. In fact it is something like 10,700+ homicides every year in the United States. If memory serves correctly the next leading country is either Germany or England, with something like 1000+ homicides per year.

This is not a per capita or percentage based statistic. It is simply the raw number of homicides every year.

Which by the way is an insanely high number, especially considering we are a country of only a few hundred million.

As for expecting that N country with N times the population would have N times the number of homicides, you are very and obviously wrong. One should not apply the laws of mathematics when analyzing cultures or human motives, just a piece of advice; as doing so will certainly serve to mislead you, as it has here.

 

[The Smoking Man]

when the U.S. yearly homicide rate is about 10,000 more than the next country, and guns are equally available, something is wrong with the culture and not the availability of weapons for GI Johnny.

yep...that is a fact.yep...that is a fact.

I agree.

Keep the guns.

Ban Americans.

 

[MaxS]

LOL Now I know you get sensitive about China TSM and I'm not too far from agreeing with what you just said, but I would be far more afraid of Chinese sentiments (with regards to a majority of the population considering the slaughter of women and children acceptable in a war etc.) and the highly charged nationalistic zeitgeist (though I can't say the U.S. is far off from acheiving similar levels of nationalistic fervor).

 

[The Smoking Man]

LOL Now I know you get sensitive about China TSM and I'm not too far from agreeing with what you just said, but I would be far more afraid of Chinese sentiments (with regards to a majority of the population considering the slaughter of women and children acceptable in a war etc.) and the highly charged nationalistic zeitgeist (though I can't say the U.S. is far off from acheiving similar levels of nationalistic fervor).

Hence the need for that tongue-in-Cheek smiley.

I was being absurd because the excuse is absurd.

 

[champ2823]

Well, how many of those homicide's involved guns bought legally and registered? I don't have the stats on me but I do know that the vast majority are guns that were bought on the black market. BTW, I think per capita is a much better way to run statistics than overall numbers. And overall, deaths due to guns is nowhere near deaths due to prescription drugs and medical malpractice.

 

[Archon]

People in this country are supposed to be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others.

You mean like exterminate endangered species, walk around naked, burn down empty buildings, and drive drunk (as long as you don't crash)?

Or are you trying to say, for instance, that big corporations shouldn't do anything that resembles taking advantage of consumers?

If you can't comprehend that I don't know what else to say to you.

You haven't defined "harm." Until you do, this statement is just vague enough to be useless. When have you been harmed? Is it when you lose two dollars because some company has marked up prices for its own profit, or when you are injured by other people's actions, or when the potential for such injury exists?

 

[Townsend]

Hence the need for that tongue-in-Cheek smiley.

I was being absurd because the excuse is absurd.

I don't understand what you mean. Seriously, I don't want to be a prick or anything, I just don't understand what you mean... And could you please just explain what you mean for me? I hate it when you answer by posting a half dozen links that are suppose to answer a simple question...

 

[Archon]

I agree, that is why I loath anti gun people so much.

Think of it this way. We illegalize drunk driving because it endangers other people. These laws don't stop everyone from driving drunk, but you don't see people clamoring to legalize drunk driving. This is because drunk driving kills people. Guns are like this too, except they are used to kill people on purpose. Now tell me: what are the drawbacks of banning guns?

 

[Archon]

I agree.

Keep the guns.

Ban Americans.

Actually, this wouldn't be such a bad solution...

 

[MaxS]

Archon you are missing the point. Many countries have easily accessible weapons besides the US, but have no where near as many murders - due to guns or otherwise.

Obviously then guns are not the problem. You can't blame a murder on the weapon, just like you can't blame it on video games.