If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1032
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message ... On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 12:25:50 -0800, "William Graham" wrote: This could be true, but there are some circumstances where this may not be true.....If your only means of transportation is by plane, and you have to transport yourself in order to live, or remain a functioning part of the society, you might have the constitutional right to avoid such a search. - It's sort of similar to the argument that the automobile is the normal, accepted way of transporting oneself from state to state, and, since travel between states is by constitutional law, not requiring of any license or passport, the drivers license is therefore an illegal, unconstitutional document. You're very big on convenience of the individual, aren't you? Wait until a madman starts running round YOUR town. Road-blocks and blanket searches will suddenly sound like a VERY good idea. Well, I'm just quoting cases that I've heard about, or read about.....I don't necessarily agree with all the decisions. Also, what makes you think that there are no madmen "running around my town"? Believe me, we have our share of madmen....... |
#1033
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
Michael Benveniste wrote:
"William Graham" wrote: But that wasn't the question. the question was why just talk about the cost of a police effort, and not mention the cost of just letting the criminals do whatever they please. While I have an opinion on that question which hinges on such things as responsibility, duty, and sovereignty, it's not the question I was answering. I was challenging the assertion that the framers of the U.S. Constitution succeeded to a great extent in guarding against governments restricting freedoms. They were imperfect men who created an imperfect document. They did recognize this and built in an amendment process, but also built in a clause which effectively negated all of those rights in case of rebellion or invasion. They then proceeded to ignore those freedoms immediately at the State level, and with a decade at the Federal level. I'd argue that the second best safeguard against government abuse in the U.S. system isn't found in the Constitution. It was invented by John Marshall in the dicta of a petty little political patronage case, a case he should have recused himself from hearing at all. Such are the accidents of history. The framers of the constitution included more than on process for change. Amendments have several ways to become part of the document. In addition, the armed citizen still acts as the best limit to the abuse of citizens by the government. Both the process for change, and the process for 'the right of the people to alter, or abolish, it, by force of arms, if necessary, are some of the basic pillars upon which the whole document rests. |
#1034
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
William Graham wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message ... William Graham wrote: "Ken Lucke" wrote in message ... In article , Ron Hunter wrote: Pudentame wrote: Walter Banks wrote: Locked solid cockpit doors would have prevented 9/11 the plan depended on physical control of the airplane. The same controls hijackings. To some extent, but there's evidence that at least one of the hijackers out of Logan was dressed in a pilot's uniform and was "extended the courtesy" of riding in the cockpit by the flight crew. We collectively have given up a lot of freedoms in exchange for security. Surprisingly we critisize countries for oppression that may actually have found the balance between freedom and security. We have collectively given up a lot of freedom. I don't see where we have indeed have received security in return. From where I sit it looks kind of a lopsided exchange. One would need MUCH more that a uniform to get into the cockpit! As for giving up freedoms relative to flying now, as opposed to before 2001, just what freedoms? You mean taking off your shoes, or not carrying a pocket knife is an 'essential freedom' to you? Still, no one forces you to fly, there are other means of transport not so restricted as to what you can carry. Although on a recent cruise, the security approached what you see on an airliner. Ever heard of the 4th amendment? "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." A search's "reasonableness" under the Fourth Amendment generally depends on whether the search was made pursuant to a warrant issued upon probable cause. [U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701 ('83)]. 'An essential purpose of a warrant requirement is to protect privacy interests by assuring citizens subject to a search or seizure that such intrusions are not the random or arbitrary acts of government agents.' [Skinner, 489 U.S. at 421-2]' 'Except in certain narrowly limited cases, the Court repeatedly has stated its 'insist[ence] upon probable cause as a minimum requirement for a reasonable search permitted by the Constitution.' [Chambers v. Moreny, 399 U.S. 42, 51 ('70)].' '[t]he integrity of an individual's person is a cherished value in our society,' searches that invade bodily integrity cannot be executed as mere fishing expeditions to acquire useful evidence: 'The interests in human dignity and privacy which the Fourth Amendment protects forbid any such intrusions on the mere chance that desired evidence might be obtained.' [Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 772, 769-70].' Blanket searches are unreasonable, however 'evenhanded' they may be, in the traditional criminal law enforcement context. See, e.g., Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91-2, 92 n.4 ('79) (invalidating a blanket patdown search of all patrons in a tavern, even though there was probable cause to search the bartender and the premises). The ill that the Fourth Amendment prevents is not merely the arbitrariness of police discretion to single out individuals for attention, but also the unwarranted domination and control of the citizenry through fear of baseless but 'evenhanded' general police searches. Yes, but one might argue that entering an airplane could be contingent upon the individual agreeing to give up his 4th amendment rights, and allow a search to take place.....Sort of like if I gave a private party in my house, and told everyone that they aren't invited unless they agree to be searched.....Do the airlines have the right to force their customers to give up their 4th amendment rights? And, if not, then why not? Forced? In what way. One can always just walk away from that search. This could be true, but there are some circumstances where this may not be true.....If your only means of transportation is by plane, and you have to transport yourself in order to live, or remain a functioning part of the society, you might have the constitutional right to avoid such a search. - It's sort of similar to the argument that the automobile is the normal, accepted way of transporting oneself from state to state, and, since travel between states is by constitutional law, not requiring of any license or passport, the drivers license is therefore an illegal, unconstitutional document. This has been successfully argued in the courts. incidentally. By the same token, if ones only means of transport is by airplane, then one should be allowed to fly without having ones 4th amendment rights violated....... LUDICROUS! One can STILL walk, ride a horse, ride a bicycle, wheelchair, lawnmower, or crawl on his belly, to another state. None of these will likely motivate a search. Please cite a case where a DL was declared unconstitutional by a US court. |
#1035
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
William Graham wrote:
"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message ... On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 12:25:50 -0800, "William Graham" wrote: This could be true, but there are some circumstances where this may not be true.....If your only means of transportation is by plane, and you have to transport yourself in order to live, or remain a functioning part of the society, you might have the constitutional right to avoid such a search. - It's sort of similar to the argument that the automobile is the normal, accepted way of transporting oneself from state to state, and, since travel between states is by constitutional law, not requiring of any license or passport, the drivers license is therefore an illegal, unconstitutional document. You're very big on convenience of the individual, aren't you? Wait until a madman starts running round YOUR town. Road-blocks and blanket searches will suddenly sound like a VERY good idea. Well, I'm just quoting cases that I've heard about, or read about.....I don't necessarily agree with all the decisions. Also, what makes you think that there are no madmen "running around my town"? Believe me, we have our share of madmen....... yeah, there's this diabetic night-blind guy..... Grin. |
#1036
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 11:34:50 -0800, "William Graham" wrote: I certainly don't mind modifying the Constitution....The method for doing this is outlined in the document itself....What I object to is redefining the English language in order to make the document mean something that its drafters never meant for it to mean, and thereby usurping the method outlined in the document for modification. Yeah. And it's only words, anyway. America isn't strong because of the Constitution. It's strong because of abundant resources. Cheap labour (often from people the Constitution didn't seem to apply to) helped too. Again, your eyes are closed. Check out countries like Brazil, or Mexico. Vast, untapped, resources, people willing to work, yet are then world leaders? |
#1037
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
Pudentame wrote:
wrote: Pudentame wrote: wrote: wrote: Not a Wankel, a diesel.... Oops. My bad. You were talking about diesels. Reading comprehension not at its highest level this evening. Carry on.... Could you build a Wankel diesel? No, but if you direct me to one, I could take a photograph of it! Ok, let me rephrase that ... Could a Wankel diesel be built, i.e. could a Wankel design develop sufficient compression for combustion to occur in the absence of a spark plug? Probably, as this is mostly a function of the shape of the chamber. But a very high compression ratio would put extra strain on the seals. |
#1038
|
|||
|
|||
Pentax not viable??
jeremy wrote:
Photographers for whom their lenses are mission-critical are not known for embracing third party lenses. What do they know that amateurs don't? Well considering how many people suffer sheeple mentality, I'd say they care more for the 5 letters emblazoned on the front cap than the glass quality. I know people who would buy anything with C A N O N on it, even if it just came out of a dog's butt. But I also know several working professionals who happily use 3rd party lenses. I know several who use Tamron 90mm macros and swear by them. One who does a lot of wildlife work uses the Tamron 200-500, because the overall combination of size, weight, zoom range and optic quality is better than anything with the C word on it. Many 3rd party lenses are just as good or better than the oem lenses. Even in the budget category, the Sigma budget offerings that get used as Pentax kit lenses here in Australia, blow the pants off the Canon, Sony & Nikon equivalents. Move up the scale a bit to the mid end, and once again the Sigma, Tamron and Tokina offerings hold their own against many name-brand lenses that are much more expensive. Tokina's ATX-PRO series lenses are excellent. Sigma's red-ring series and most Tamron lenses are likewise of excellent quality. Perhaps as an exercise you should check the specs of some oem-branded and 3rd party lenses - for example the sony 18-200 and sigma 18-200 come out as being practically identical except for the finish and price tag - right down to the weight in grams. Coincidence? maybe. More likely though that they are identical designs, and possibly even made in the same factory. Certainly after giving them a bit of a run (admittedly not a thorough test, but comparing shots taken one after the other of real world subjects), I couldn't tell any difference in optic quality at all. I would opt for an OEM's low-end line, or even OEM used equipment, before messing with third-party gear. Are you seriously saying you'd opt for Canon's kit 18-55 & 75-300 over a Tokina ATX-Pro? I do not see Tokina breaking any sales records. |
#1039
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 03:25:13 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote: In addition, the armed citizen still acts as the best limit to the abuse of citizens by the government. Eh? So if taxes go up too much, you march on Washington waving handguns? Or if your local sheriff gets above himself, you shoot him? What on earth are you talking about? |
#1040
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 03:30:17 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote: Yeah. And it's only words, anyway. America isn't strong because of the Constitution. It's strong because of abundant resources. Cheap labour (often from people the Constitution didn't seem to apply to) helped too. Again, your eyes are closed. Check out countries like Brazil, or Mexico. Vast, untapped, resources, people willing to work, yet are then world leaders? Too hot. The nearer to the equator, the less gets done. And no huge advantage of starting from scratch only a few hundred years ago with vigorous immigrant stock. Some of whom, remember, immediately formed communities dedicated to severely restricting everyone's individual freedoms on religious grounds. But not, I'm afraid, the lack of a Constitution. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pelican swallows pigeon | Daniel Silevitch | Digital Photography | 31 | October 31st 06 05:04 PM |
Hoya HMC CP filter | Eydz | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | October 22nd 06 01:21 AM |
Hoya 67mm circular polarizer + Hoya Skylight + Nikon D70 - some problems | Nicolae Fieraru | Digital Photography | 16 | April 10th 05 11:10 AM |
Hoya 67mm circular polarizer + Hoya Skylight + Nikon D70 - some problems | Nicolae Fieraru | Digital Photography | 0 | April 9th 05 06:03 AM |
Hoya Filters UV(0) OR UV(N) | ianr | Digital Photography | 0 | January 27th 05 10:31 PM |