Memories Of Freedom - @dccommonsense

Share it if you like it!

Air Date: 5-8-14


Showing 3 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Zee Ve
    commented 2014-09-30 20:28:32 -0400
    The question isn’t whether or not the NRA has the “right to fight” for suit case nukes, they do. The idea being proposed is that the right to privacy in the fourth amendment is so important that a couple thousand people being killed by terrorists every once in a while is a small price to pay, just as second amendment supporters argue that a couple of Sandy Hooks now and then are nothing compared to their right to have high capacity assault rifles. In both cases, those who would give up their gun or email account are said to be giving into fear. I’m suggesting that in both cases it is also fear ( mixed with delusions of grandeur ) that allows one to trade the lives of their fellow citizens to protect themselves from a perceived threat from their own government.
  • Matthew Monsoor
    commented 2014-09-30 12:24:54 -0400
    Zee Ve, both have a line that is defined by the courts. The NRA does have a right to fight to have more powerful weapons just like this fight to define how much freedom we are willing to fight for under the fourth. We need to decide where we stand, hopefully leaning in support of the amendments language.
  • Zee Ve
    commented 2014-09-29 21:13:36 -0400
    This segment is absurd. The NRA makes the same argument about the second amendment that is being made about the fourth here. We must not voluntarily give up our high capacity assault riffles in the face of a Sandy Hook. We must be brave and accept that we will sacrifice some six year olds to protect the second amendment. They also accuse us of giving up guns because we are afraid, but isn’t it ones fear that caused them to get the gun in the first place? Here we are being asked to be “brave” and accept that there will be some “casualties” when terror plots that could have been uncovered through surveillance programs hit their intended targets. The trade off is that I’m able to have porn on my phone and computer without the “government” knowing. The brave thing we must do is be afraid of the government? It is healthy, wise, and reasonable to have open discussions about how much of a role technology will play in security, but it should be done realizing that our torture, drone, and intervention policies have mad lots of people really mad at us. Knowing that, shouldn’t we use technology to uncover potential plots? How much technology and under which circumstances should be the debate. Fear of terrorists or the government should not dictate policy. We must be brave. The reason the right and left agree on this issue is because it plays into the right wing fantasy that the “government” is out to get them. The left is being very right wing on this issue. Right now we have a government that cannot even ask the TEA Party to fill out additional forms proving their tax exempt status as a social welfare organization without it being a “scandle”. Yet we are asked to imagine what will happen if Pinochet takes over America. We could sit and wonder what might happen if the government turns our nukes on us as well, but it’s not a very productive conversation. In all situations we are fearing, Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Soviet Union, it was friends, neighbors, and co-workers that turned on each other, not some technological big brother.