Know your rights

[THORHAMMER]

Boy, no kidding. I had no idea what the hell Thor was talking about. :mrgreen::mrgreen:

Sometimes I feel like I am a million years old.....:x:x:x:x

hahahahaha

sorry guys, Its my new word of the week. Hey im old too.!!!

:greenpbl:

 

[RMThompson]

THOR and RICK,

I am glad to see that there are people out there that haven't succumbed to the FEAR and place a false sense of security over the rights of people.

As Eisenhowser said:

If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.

Benjamin Franklin:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

 

[Los Angeles]

You are confusing the issue. The issue is our rights as we know them under the Constitution. Of course we live in dangerous times and measures have to be taken to prevent attacks against us and our country. But that type of scenario you described is a real, tangible, possible threat that we know that we need to exercise caution and check out.

Taking away the rights of folks to take pictures here and there, restrict who can go into a park and who can't, to restrict exactly where a person can go and what they can do, and so on is not a direct deterrent to the situation you described. When you have government agents running into libraries to see what everyone is looking at on the internet- there is something fundamentally wrong with that. To illegally wiretap our own citizens in the name of national security, to spy on our own citizens illegally- there is something wrong with that. This is where this is going. I don't want to live in a society like that.

The more rights we give up, the more they will take. Trust me.

My father once told me to always respect authority, but to never just blindly bend down and kiss it's ass. When we do that, we will give up every right
we have.

I agree with what your father had to say. I for challenging authority if you do not agree with it. That being said I dont feel like the ability to take a photograph is a Constitutional right.

What your missing is that its a grey area. Some people feel its ok to not let adults into a park with out a child others think its ok to hang around a park nude. Both are illegal at some parks in southern california. However you are only interested in supporting the person who wants to go with out a child. Do you see how your ideas of what is a right and what is not is a personal decision.

This will really get you jacked up but I dont care if the goverment wants to listen into my phone conversations or know what book I check out of the library. Personally I dont care. Im not sure why anyone would care.

The things I care about are lies about WMDs, 4000 us solidiers dead, and 100,000 with serious injuries, innocent people in foriegn countries that are being hurt and killed, Single bidding the vice presidents former company. THose are a few of the issues important to me.

 

[Los Angeles]

Sorry im no naive, You are about to be "POWNED NOOB "

I guess that fact that textbook definition of terrorism from princeton university :
(the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear )

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism


Yeah, that would include threatening to assault someone cause they wanted to do something not inherrently suspisious or illegal like pictures of kids at a park.

I guess Princeton is pretty naive. What a lame school , what do you have to say about that my realistic little friend ?

Your question about the plane is verbal diaherrea , that IS the law. You can legally be searched for setting off the machine. Why are YOU questioning the law? I thought I was the unrealistic one ?
Oh, maybye you dont know the law.

Go back and research the law before you post. might help. I'm not even questioning the law, I'm questioning its abuse.

The NOOB is now POWNED

you called me a terrorist, im not sure when I threaten somone?

Verbal diaherrea is a great expresion. However my question about the plane has to do with peoples rights. You feel as though its your right to be able to take photos in the middle of the night with out being detained for a period of time that you feel is excessive. I disagree. I feel that you should be detained and questioned.

 

[MarcusM]

Boy, no kidding. I had no idea what the hell Thor was talking about. :mrgreen::mrgreen:

Sometimes I feel like I am a million years old.....:x:x:x:x

haha...if you play video games online you would know what it meant.

Here is a good explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned

 

[THORHAMMER]

you called me a terrorist, im not sure when I threaten somone?
Verbal diaherrea is a great expresion. However my question about the plane has to do with peoples rights. You feel as though its your right to be able to take photos in the middle of the night with out being detained for a period of time that you feel is excessive. I disagree. I feel that you should be detained and questioned.

"If you are threatening to assault, or coerse someone to not take your picture, then it is YOU my friend that is the terrorist."

If you read all the posts you would have come across the person who was threatening to beat up or kill anyone who took his grandaughters picture.
That was directed towards that "attitude" that its ok to do that in the name of anti-terrorism which is hypocritical.

As for the detainment, we have different points of view;

On what legal grounds should I be stopped, identified, detained physcally for more then 20 minutes and illegally searched. ?
I would like to know the legal grounds you believe for which this should happen.

Or do you know that is illegal , but still suport it. ?


I'm not asking for anything thats not backed up concretely by state law.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

This will really get you jacked up but I dont care if the goverment wants to listen into my phone conversations or know what book I check out of the library. Personally I dont care. Im not sure why anyone would care.

Naw, if you truly believe that, then you, my friend, are really the enemy within.

There is absolutely nothing I could say here that would make you look any more foolish, than your own words.

And the sad part? Is that you have absolutely no concept of what your rights are or why they exist.

 

[Los Angeles]

Naw, if you truly believe that, then you, my friend, are really the enemy within.

There is absolutely nothing I could say here that would make you look any more foolish, than your own words.

And the sad part? Is that you have absolutely no concept of what your rights are or why they exist.

Becuase you value a right that I dont, im foolish? Ok Ill go with that. Help me to understand why its important if the goverment listens in to my conversations or knows what library books I check out.

Seriously.

 

[Socrates]

you called me a terrorist, im not sure when I threaten somone?

Verbal diaherrea is a great expresion. However my question about the plane has to do with peoples rights. You feel as though its your right to be able to take photos in the middle of the night with out being detained for a period of time that you feel is excessive. I disagree. I feel that you should be detained and questioned.

Apparently he also has some sort of a "right" to jam a camera in a strange child's face without any repercussions.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Nope. You do it yourself.

If you are this ignorant to basic human freedoms and rights, then I don't have the time, patience, or fortitude to deal with the likes of you.

You figure it out.

Buy a book, go online, do whatever you have to, to educate yourself.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Apparently he also has some sort of a "right" to jam a camera in a strange child's face without any repercussions.

This has gone far beyond the rights of photographers and speaks about our rights as individuals in our society.

Socrates, I know you do not believe this lunatic who thinks that government ought to have EVERY right to invade our privacy in order to protect us.

I have never read such utter bull****. And the scary part, is that he finds no problem with this premise.

 

[Socrates]

A group of photographers were in town and being quite inconsiderate. One man got within two feet of a blind beggar taking photos. She could hear the camera and was asking what was going on and he ignored her. When he finished he joined a group of friends at an outdoor cafe and ordered beer. I went over and started taking photos, very close, of them drinking beer. Suddenly, they were upset. They wanted to know what I was doing. I ignored them and kept snapping pictures and they got angrier. Then I said, "How's it feel?"

I'm amazed at the self-centered people whose world is defined by their rights.

The pictures on my walls are almost all of people I don't know and were taken in public. In the last ten years I've had perhaps two people object. I've had another six or so ask me not to take pictures when I asked them if I could. Big deal.

FWIW, if you choose to take photos at 3 a.m. in an area with no other people the police would be remiss if they didn't stop. I went through a phase of night shots in alleys and before long the police officers who worked nights knew me and usually just waved. Having a camera in your hand does not define you.

You just don't understand. The important thing is "Screw you, this is my RIGHT!"

 

[Socrates]

This has gone far beyond the rights of photographers and speaks about our rights as individuals in our society.

Socrates, I know you do not believe this lunatic who thinks that government ought to have EVERY right to invade our privacy in order to protect us.

I have never read such utter bull****. And the scary part, is that he finds no problem with this premise.

I removed my previous posts after having described a situation with a stranger shoving a camera in my granddaughter's face as I was tired of hearing about his alleged right. My sons, the father and the uncle, explained very strongly to the perp that he does not have that right. You were one of the ones that roundly criticized me for supporting my sons statements.

You gave up your "right" to travel without the need to prove your innocence first. It doesn't bother you. Hell, you gave up your right to visit the Liberty Bell without the need to prove your innocence first. It doesn't bother you. Yet, some pervert shoves a camera in my granddaughter's face and you shout that "It's his right!" That's the bullsh1t!

 

[Rick Waldroup]

haha...if you play video games online you would know what it meant.

Here is a good explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned

\

Thank you Marcus. I needed that.

 

[THORHAMMER]

you dont think taking a photo is a constitutional right ?
Why not ?

The burden of proof is on you since this is a proven constitutional right allready.