Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×
EU Government Privacy

Patriot Act Author Warns EU Against Dragnet Response To Terror (politico.eu) 138

schwit1 writes: Jim Sensenbrenner, former chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, was one of the driving forces behind the Patriot Act. He introduced the legislation a month and a half after the Sept. 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, and in 2013 he led the charge to scale back its powers, after Edward Snowden's revelations. Now, in the wake of the tragedy in Paris, Sensenbrenner is warning the EU that sweeping surveillance measures are not a proper response. Sensenbrenner said, "The cautionary tale is that democracy depends upon a respect for civil liberties. ... Talking about it in practical terms, the answer is to target the people which you know are up to bad stuff rather than bringing in the 99.8 percent of the inhabitants there, including the vast majority of followers of Islam, who have no intention whatsoever of conducting a terrorist attack."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Patriot Act Author Warns EU Against Dragnet Response To Terror

Comments Filter:
  • by PvtVoid ( 1252388 ) on Friday December 04, 2015 @02:25PM (#51058209)

    Instead, the Euros should do like we do here in the U.S. and hand out AR-15's and Glocks to anybody who wants one. That'll keep them safe.

    • Instead, the Euros should do like we do here in the U.S. and hand out AR-15's and Glocks to anybody who wants one. That'll keep them safe.

      We don't do that. That is part of the problem from the viewpoint of the gun rights supporters.

      • Re:Exactly Right (Score:4, Interesting)

        by PvtVoid ( 1252388 ) on Friday December 04, 2015 @02:39PM (#51058321)

        We don't do that. That is part of the problem from the viewpoint of the gun rights supporters.

        Good point. Any sane reading of the Second Amendment should make it obvious that citizen gun purchases should be financed by government, as part of the militia. Any citizen should be able to pop up to their local National Guard armory and pick up an AR-15 and a couple of thousand rounds of ammo, no questions asked. It's the only way to keep a free society.

        • That is an interesting, while accurate, way to read the Second Amendment.

          Lets pass a law funding it!

          • Re:Exactly Right (Score:4, Informative)

            by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Friday December 04, 2015 @02:55PM (#51058439)

            That is an interesting, while accurate, way to read the Second Amendment.

            Technically no, as a militia at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment was comprised of citizens who brought their own weapons. So a more accurate reading of the 2nd Amendment would be that the military or local National Guard unit would provide instructors to lead regular drill sessions that are open to local citizens training with their own weapons.

            • by suutar ( 1860506 )

              I like that idea. They say you don't really understand something until you can teach it, so this will also help the military unit ensure good proficiency. Win-win!

            • Re:Exactly Right (Score:5, Interesting)

              by GlennC ( 96879 ) on Friday December 04, 2015 @04:08PM (#51058987)

              ...the military or local National Guard unit would provide instructors to lead regular drill sessions that are open to local citizens training with their own weapons.

              To expand on that idea, how about we automatically enlist all gun owners in the National Guard, with all attendant requirements?

              Want to keep your gun? Attend the monthly training and annual 2-week deployments. If you can't be bothered to be part of a "well-regulated militia," why should you be trusted with a gun?

              • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

                ...the military or local National Guard unit would provide instructors to lead regular drill sessions that are open to local citizens training with their own weapons.

                To expand on that idea, how about we automatically enlist all gun owners in the National Guard, with all attendant requirements?

                Want to keep your gun? Attend the monthly training and annual 2-week deployments. If you can't be bothered to be part of a "well-regulated militia," why should you be trusted with a gun?

                Fine with me, as long as the training focuses on firearm safety/proficiency and medical training, because the bulging disk in my back kind of limits my physical agility. I'd be perfectly capable and qualified to drive an intel desk though.

              • To expand on that idea, how about we automatically enlist all gun owners in the National Guard, with all attendant requirements?

                Have you ever read the Militia Act? Everyone, not just gun owners, are automatically members of the Militia, unless they're enlisted in the Military (which would include the National Guard).

                So your suggestion is superfluous, really. It's been that way since the country was founded....

              • Folks..it has been settled by the Supreme Court:

                In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that th

              • Lets expand on this idea further. We take those who are too afraid of guns to use one and press them into mandatory service as well. They can be required to do all the setup and cleanup at all the sessions.
                Or you can just admit that you have an irrational hatred for guns and do not care about your own freedoms which are protected from the government by those guns.
            • So a more accurate reading of the 2nd Amendment . . .

              Which, of course, is exactly what was done. You, the citizen, had to bring your own weapon, your own powder, and on a specific date, perform drills.

              The catch was, and the NRA will deny this with its last breath, the citizens who owned firearms had to be registered with their local government entity. That's how it was known who to call up in times of war or insurrection (the two main reasons for the militia).

              Obviously this will never fly
              • Which, of course, is exactly what was done. You, the citizen, had to bring your own weapon, your own powder, and on a specific date, perform drills.

                That's not quite right. Often, guns and powder would be provided by someone wealthy, who would raise a militia as a show of civic responsibility. They'd fund the training and buy most of the equipment.

              • by Agripa ( 139780 )

                Which, of course, is exactly what was done. You, the citizen, had to bring your own weapon, your own powder, and on a specific date, perform drills.

                And when they do this despite Congress' deliberate inaction to provide training for the unorganized militia, they get demonized as an evil militia. And oddly enough, one of the justifications for the 2nd amendment being a right of the *people* when it was drafted is that Congress could do that very thing which of course they did.

            • I'd love to see this reasonable, succinct take on the 2nd Amendment enacted. Continued participation required to maintain gun ownership; instructors able to weed out bad actors, too. Solves many problems.

              • I'd love to see this reasonable, succinct take on the 2nd Amendment enacted. Continued participation required to maintain gun ownership; instructors able to weed out bad actors, too.

                You made that part up yourself. The proposal was only to offer free/subsidized training. While the 2nd Amendment does state that a militia is necessary, the right to keep and bear arms is not predicated on membership or participation in a militia. It is a right "of the people". Denying gun ownership to people who do not qualify for the militia, or who choose not to participate, or who are classified as "bad actors" absent a conviction for any actual crime, would be a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.

            • The reason for the 2nd amendment and indeed much of the constitutional convention was Shay's Rebellion [wikipedia.org]. Shay's rebellion really freaked out the powers that be in the early US. Shay's rebellion was precipitated by many rural farmers were getting foreclosed on by banks so some folks rebelled and took-up arms. When the Governors called out the militia to put down the rebellion they found that the arms leftover from the revolution were in federal armories. The feds refused to open the armories to the states
        • It says a lot about America that some moron modded this "Interesting"....

        • by jcr ( 53032 )

          part of the militia.

          Not that stupid canard again.

          The militia, as referred to in the second amendment, is every man capable of bearing arms. The second amendment doesn't grant the right to keep and bear arms, it recognizes it as pre-existing, and forbids the government from infringing it.

          The constitution is not the source of our rights. It is the legal document through which we the people delegated certain of our sovereign powers to the government.

          -jcr

          • The second amendment doesn't grant the right to keep and bear arms, it recognizes it as pre-existing

            Is this sort of like a pre-existing condition, like kidney stones, or do you mean they were granted by Jesus [typepad.com] or something?

            • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

              The US constitution was written to head up a common law system, inherited from the British. Under common law, there are customary rights, responsibilities and laws that are traditionally assumed, but are not necessarily written down somewhere. To confuse things, philosophers at the time were debating "natural" rights which were somehow inherent in all humans. Well, except the black ones, brown ones, female ones, disabled ones, and maybe anybody who didn't own land.

            • by jcr ( 53032 )

              Is this sort of like a pre-existing condition, like kidney stones,

              Wow, that's incredibly fucking clever of you. I'll just comply with your wishes that I abandon my right to self defense now, and get killed by a criminal or the government like a good little sheep.

              -jcr

        • That would make us look like the damned dirty socialists in Switzerland. If you can't earn enough to pay for your own gun you clearly don't deserve liberty.

          (The Swiss do make you pay for the howitzers.)

        • Ironically, one of the laws from the early congresses was about requiring every military aged male to purchase and maintain a rifle, for the purpose of national defense. Can you imagine how many heads would explode on both sides of the political aisle if something like that were put forward now?
        • Any citizen should be able to pop up to their local National Guard armory and pick up an AR-15 and a couple of thousand rounds of ammo, no questions asked. It's the only way to keep a free society.

          Personally I prefer the Swiss system. All citizens are required to be members of the militia, members keep all personal equipment, including their rifle, at home. An armed populace is a free one and yes I choose freedom over safety.

        • The National Guard is not a militia, it is a military reserve unit. The second amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Clearly, the connection (and there certainly is one) between militia and arms is clear. However, the US is in the "Emperor's Clothes" mode and chooses to ignore the connection and insist that anyone can have arms whenever they want. The consequences of this will-full b

        • I have no problem with this.
          As a primary benefit, the world would tremble at the thought of invading us then, which is one of the primary reasons for the 2nd amendment, right behind keeping the government fearful of the citizens. The government should always fear the citizens.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        But you don't understand - if EVERYONE was armed then you'd only have a few people getting shot every day until the suicidal killer is killed, rather than in countries where guns are harder to access in which you have a few people shot every few months until the suicidal killer is killed.

        • by Yokaze ( 70883 )

          If the Paris attacks happened every month in France, then the rate of homocides through guns would still be lower than the one in the US.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Instead, the Euros should do like we do here in the U.S. and hand out AR-15's and Glocks to anybody who wants one. That'll keep them safe.

      Glocks? Keep that unAmerican Eurotrash out of here. Give everyone Colt 1911s!

      • I prefer the dual Beretta from CS.

        • I prefer the dual Beretta from CS.

          Heckler and Koch MP7A1 . . . then I feel safe.

          Although, a Beretta CX4 is also something you might want to have around the house, for personal protection.

          • Heckler and Koch MP7A1 . . . then I feel safe.

            How could anybody even consider going to pick the kids up at school without one of these babies ready to hand? You can never be too vigilant.

          • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

            Although, a Beretta CX4 is also something you might want to have around the house, for personal protection.

            My home defense is (going to be, my grandfather currently still owns it, but he is going to give it to me) my family's heirloom Winchester 1897 12-gauge pump. It had to be cut down when my grandfather was young because he was out hunting with it, dropped it in snow, then warped the barrel when he fired it, so it is just about the length of the old military issue trench guns. There's just something comforting about feeling that racking mechanism when you pump it.

            • I've been quite happy with my Mossberg 590A1. 18.5" barrel, 9-round magazine, and a Knoxx Spec-Ops stock. The Knoxx stock is amazing - I did a full 8-hour self-defense course with it and after about 600 rounds including 3" magnum slugs, my shoulder wasn't the least bit sore.
    • by Kohath ( 38547 )

      So instead of having the government bully innocent Muslims, you'd have the government bully innocent gun owners?

    • Not that this article has anything to do with guns, but American gun owners would be fine with background checks and registration if we had assurances that registration would not lead to confiscation. As it stands we have no reason to trust the gun-phobic liberals not to take it too far, because it's clear they don't respect our rights.

      • Not that this article has anything to do with guns, but American gun owners would be fine with background checks and registration if we had assurances that registration would not lead to confiscation. As it stands we have no reason to trust the gun-phobic liberals not to take it too far, because it's clear they don't respect our rights.

        After all, it apparently took Braun smart liberal that he is all of two and a ruling class that is at once protected by men and women with guns but disavowed of any obligation to allow those they rule the same to your own lawn. Except that it really isn’ being gun free zone is a bad idea. And his solution: tighter background checks would be illegal without proper Constitutional authority, never entered the president’ t get into right now. This is absurd. Really.

    • by Tailhook ( 98486 )

      Exactly. Not allowing AR-15's and Glocks is why Paris didn't have mass shootings at Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan. Mass shootings only happen in 'Merica like Obama told us.

      • Exactly. Not allowing AR-15's and Glocks is why Paris didn't have mass shootings at Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan. Mass shootings only happen in 'Merica like Obama told us.

        So, thanks to local politicians, innocents who otherwise might have been able to pass background checks when purchasing their weapons, so those checks were worthless. He never struck me as a health technician responsible for Wednesday’ s the reality. Yet he presumably supports them in front of his home. Because a Gun Free Zone zone sign on his lawn is a bad idea. Gun free zones, places such as schools, where law abiding people won’ t carry guns. The good people in their echo chamber of effetenes

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Exactly. Not allowing AR-15's and Glocks is why Paris didn't have mass shootings at Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan. Mass shootings only happen in 'Merica like Obama told us.

        Yes, because in France you are destined to die at the rate of 0.22 people per 100,000 each year due to gun homicides.

        In the USA it's only 3.55 per 100,000 per year, because so many people have AR-15's and Glocks to protect themselves.

  • ... dollar short.
  • "The cautionary tale is that democracy depends upon a respect for civil liberties. ... Talking about it in practical terms, the answer is to target the people which you know are up to bad stuff rather than bringing in the 99.8 percent of the inhabitants there, including the vast majority of followers of Islam, who have no intention whatsoever of conducting a terrorist attack."

    Having seen the light, I wish this guy would run POTUS under the Common Sense wing of the GOP (which probably no longer exists, give

  • No Muslim is terrorist at birth. They join such groups at some point of time in their lives. Thus even if a handful of them do so, it is needed to monitor activity of all of them so that such a transition can be discovered as it happens. This, however, is a costly process. A long term solution is to educate the public about the effect of fundamentalist religious ideas on the development of minds of our children. Passing on such ideas is a social disease that perpetuates itself. All we need is 'that one sing

"Never give in. Never give in. Never. Never. Never." -- Winston Churchill

Working...