|
myk - this is my attempt to answer what you've said to me and about me. i felt that i had done so in previous posts but to be sure, i went back and re-read all of them. any references i make to previous posts are paraphrases.
in #39 you stated that it was okay if DELL puts everyone through an f.b.i. instant check. your reasoning being that the equal application makes it okay.
in #49 i stated that i don't want to live in a police state. i was supprised at what you said because of your "live free or die scroll".
in #53 you state that it's okay w/you if there are data bases kept on our purchases. i vehimently disagree w/that.
somewhere you refered to something i said as an argument you've heard by the anti-gun crowd - your way, i guess, of painting me anti-gun. i thought that was very underhanded and desperate, on your part, as i am obviously pro gun rights. you have also indi- cated that because i said the 2nd amentment is about defense against tyranny that, somehow, this prohibits the use of a firearm in the defense of ones own life or property. i am supprised that you could draw such a conclusion. does my bringing up defense against the tyranny by goverment make you think that i would not value life and property in any other instance? use your head.
in #59 i proposed a hypothetical situation of using an unregistered firearm to defend against an intruder. i said i would take the fall- out (legal consequences) of having an unregistered weapon. does this sound like i am anti-gun? in the same post, i referred you to Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, the best gun rights org- anization i know of. they have scrupulously documented the history of gun control, all over the world. they are in milwaukee, wi.
in #60 you state that because i am so "gung-ho" about data bases being kept on private citizens that i must not drive a car, use banks, buy books from stores w/computer inventories, have back- ground checks, etc.
in #61 i said that i have been subject to the same intrusions as all americans and that there is probably a lot of information on me in data bases. i'm of the opinion that this is happening to people all over the planet and my concern should not be construed to mean that i am, somehow, immune from the dilemmas of the human race.
in #72 you accuse me of not answering your question of whether or not i am in such data bases. i thought i answered that in #61. yes, i have a long, recorded history, starting with my birth cer- tificate. i drive, i work (have a social security number), have had background checks done on me (for a criminal record), have had medical care, etc., etc., etc. the more i have learned about the compiling of information on private individuals, the more alarmed i've become. you, apparently, feel that i'm in no position to protest as long i have lost my privacy. in your eyes, i am a hypocrite for attempting to fight back. in this same post, you say that it it easy to get myself in an uproar and you indicate that i've not backed up my beliefs with action or facts. what do you know about me? for all you know, i may have taken on the i.r.s. over constitutional issues (at a time, i might add, that a local federal judge said that anyone raising a constitutional issue in "his court" was going to have the book thrown at them). you don't know shit about me.
in #66 (and others) you argue that an equally applied infringement is no infringement at all. THAT does not warrent another response.
in #70 you call me a troll. now, i'm a first time computer user (about a month now) and this forum stuff is new to me. i have always thought of troll as a term used in fishing or a little gnome type of creature living underground. i'm not familiar w/the lexicon here but i'm not stupid. judging from the context in which you've used the word, it sounds like you are accusing me of being an agent provocateur. if that is the case, then you are really reaching to go to such lenghths to discredit someone who takes issue with your notions about "equality". in this post, as well, you say it takes goverment to violate a civil right. that is my understanding, too (though i'm no legal expert). did not DELL claim they were complying w/a LAW? last i checked, it's government that passes law. this is, however, a minor point with me. i don't give a damn who came up with the idea to screen customers for computer purchases, I DON'T LIKE IT! you also state that businesses are free just like we are. DELL is a corporation and a corporation is a legal fiction. the unalienable rights of a human being are not the same as the priveledges extended to a corporation. even if there were not a difference, i STILL would be oppsed to this type of screening.
in #64 you say "find me one constitutional amenedment that says that your public information is not to be kept in a data base". well i'm not too sure what you mean by the word "public". it seems to me that what is private fast becomes public, these days. in any event, i would point to amendment IX, in my opinion, the most important. i think that i have a RIGHT to privacy and i don't need any court to affirm it. i guess you do.
you reply in any way you see fit. i don't plan to. i don't think this forum was meant for these types of lengthy exchanges and i think i've just about worn out my welcome. i never intended to get so carried away but, i admit, it was immpossible not to respond to you. may all who have endured this, please, accept my apology.
|