|
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
|
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
"Slow Code" wrote in message
... The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society with crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this keeps society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its' citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type of crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape, etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue is the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with unalienable rights by his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees that any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones rights to the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those resources granted us by our creator. I am no attorney, however, I suspect that could only be made to work against felons who are incarcerated or on probation/parole. Still, the logic fails me of why you would ever revoke someones license who had been convicted of, say, a felony regarding bank fraud--felony drunk driving--manslaughter--etc. This type of logic, once again, demonstrates why I hold such a low esteem for some in amateur radio. Most likely, in all cases, if the criminal had spent more time in the hobby aspect of radio his desire to commit a crime would have been diminished! Best we help this criminals before society suffers, rather than punish them after the fact (and someone ends up without his/her property, or worse, dead!) JS |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
John Smith wrote:
"Slow Code" wrote in message ... The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society with crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this keeps society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its' citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type of crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape, etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue is the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with unalienable rights by his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees that any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones rights to the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those resources granted us by our creator. That's certainly one way to look at it. Here's another, somewhat similar view: An amateur radio license is not a right. It is a privilege, granted by a process that includes passing the required examinations *and* demonstrating that the licensee is trustworthy to follow the rules and regulations. The FCC assumes that all license applicants are trustworthy, unless and until they prove they are not. Conviction of a serious crime is considered by the FCC to be an indication of not being trustworthy. Note that the conviction is considered to be an indication, not proof. License revocation is not automatic. The person whose license was revoked was offered the opportunity to show that they were still trustworthy in terms of an FCC license. But the person in question did not reply to the FCC's letter at all, so FCC had the license revoked. I am no attorney, however, I suspect that could only be made to work against felons who are incarcerated or on probation/parole. Maybe. OTOH, the argument that a license is a privilege and not a right might win out. Still, the logic fails me of why you would ever revoke someones license who had been convicted of, say, a felony regarding bank fraud--felony drunk driving--manslaughter--etc. Because such convictions indicate a lack of trustworthiness. Or to put it another way, the ability to make good choices and control one's behavior. Someone convicted of felony drunk driving obviously has problems in those areas. And note again that the revocations are not automatic. This type of logic, once again, demonstrates why I hold such a low esteem for some in amateur radio. It is the FCC, not amateurs, who make these decisions. Most likely, in all cases, if the criminal had spent more time in the hobby aspect of radio his desire to commit a crime would have been diminished! Maybe. It would be interesting to see the rate of serious criminality among licensed radio amateurs compared to the general population. Best we help this criminals before society suffers, rather than punish them after the fact (and someone ends up without his/her property, or worse, dead!) You're talking prevention rather than punishment - and I agree. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
wrote: John Smith wrote: "Slow Code" wrote in message ... The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society with crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this keeps society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its' citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type of crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape, etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue is the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with unalienable rights by his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees that any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones rights to the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those resources granted us by our creator. That's certainly one way to look at it. Here's another, somewhat similar view: An amateur radio license is not a right. It is a privilege, granted by a process that includes passing the required examinations *and* demonstrating that the licensee is trustworthy to follow the rules and regulations. The FCC assumes that all license applicants are trustworthy, unless and until they prove they are not. Conviction of a serious crime is considered by the FCC to be an indication of not being trustworthy. Note that the conviction is considered to be an indication, not proof. License revocation is not automatic. The person whose license was revoked was offered the opportunity to show that they were still trustworthy in terms of an FCC license. But the person in question did not reply to the FCC's letter at all, so FCC had the license revoked. the problem with that is was he truly offered such by virtue of him BEING in jail at the time of the hearing and notice I am no attorney, however, I suspect that could only be made to work against felons who are incarcerated or on probation/parole. Maybe. OTOH, the argument that a license is a privilege and not a right might win out. it might indeed OTOH the regalotry pupose might as well as well an aurguement he lacked access to the proceeding because he was in jail at the time Still, the logic fails me of why you would ever revoke someones license who had been convicted of, say, a felony regarding bank fraud--felony drunk driving--manslaughter--etc. Because such convictions indicate a lack of trustworthiness. Or to put it another way, the ability to make good choices and control one's behavior. Someone convicted of felony drunk driving obviously has problems in those areas. And note again that the revocations are not automatic. This type of logic, once again, demonstrates why I hold such a low esteem for some in amateur radio. It is the FCC, not amateurs, who make these decisions. currently in theroy However at least We the pople though elected reps decide how they will work Most likely, in all cases, if the criminal had spent more time in the hobby aspect of radio his desire to commit a crime would have been diminished! Maybe. It would be interesting to see the rate of serious criminality among licensed radio amateurs compared to the general population. Best we help this criminals before society suffers, rather than punish them after the fact (and someone ends up without his/her property, or worse, dead!) You're talking prevention rather than punishment - and I agree. indeed we can all agree 73 de Jim, N2EY |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
|
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
wrote in message
ups.com... John Smith wrote: "Slow Code" wrote in message ... The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society with crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this keeps society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its' citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type of crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape, etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue is the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with unalienable rights by his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees that any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones rights to the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those resources granted us by our creator. That's certainly one way to look at it. Here's another, somewhat similar view: An amateur radio license is not a right. It is a privilege, granted by a process that includes passing the required examinations *and* demonstrating that the licensee is trustworthy to follow the rules and regulations. The FCC assumes that all license applicants are trustworthy, unless and until they prove they are not. Conviction of a serious crime is considered by the FCC to be an indication of not being trustworthy. Note that the conviction is considered to be an indication, not proof. License revocation is not automatic. The person whose license was revoked was offered the opportunity to show that they were still trustworthy in terms of an FCC license. But the person in question did not reply to the FCC's letter at all, so FCC had the license revoked. I am no attorney, however, I suspect that could only be made to work against felons who are incarcerated or on probation/parole. Maybe. OTOH, the argument that a license is a privilege and not a right might win out. Still, the logic fails me of why you would ever revoke someones license who had been convicted of, say, a felony regarding bank fraud--felony drunk driving--manslaughter--etc. Because such convictions indicate a lack of trustworthiness. Or to put it another way, the ability to make good choices and control one's behavior. Someone convicted of felony drunk driving obviously has problems in those areas. And note again that the revocations are not automatic. This type of logic, once again, demonstrates why I hold such a low esteem for some in amateur radio. It is the FCC, not amateurs, who make these decisions. Most likely, in all cases, if the criminal had spent more time in the hobby aspect of radio his desire to commit a crime would have been diminished! Maybe. It would be interesting to see the rate of serious criminality among licensed radio amateurs compared to the general population. Best we help this criminals before society suffers, rather than punish them after the fact (and someone ends up without his/her property, or worse, dead!) You're talking prevention rather than punishment - and I agree. 73 de Jim, N2EY I "suppose" they (the FCC) could consider a way of reinstating said license - much like any State Bureau of Motor Vehicles would for a person found DUI/etc - if proper conditions were placed into effect. I doubt that will ever happen. Quite frankly, I don't see what "CB/Ham/2 way" radio in general - has to do with a "Felon" - UNLESS they were used in the commission of said crimes - which by the way - carries additional penalties. I mean - if a person has it in them to kill someone - rob a bank, etc..... radio "didn't" drive them to it - unless maybe they're looking for cash to build a bigger station, etc. That is laughable. People commit crimes for various reasons. Money, Jealousy, definate Mental impairment which breeds anti-social behaviour - and so on. Was Hitler a "ham"? Probably not. Was Osama Bin Laden or any of his ass kissing henchmen? Probably not! I am willing to bet - the majority of criminals have had NO or very little exposure to radio - with exception of maybe CB and FRS - since they're so prevalent and easily used and acquired. But even at that - the aforementioned issues are mainly at fault and I'm sorry - I fail to see where "Radio" has anything to do with it. I will agree with the one poster - had anyone "convicted" of a crime who "was" into Ham - been more involved in the hobby, it "may" have prevented said crimes. FWIW - crimes differ from state to state as to what may be considered as a "felony". What may be a felony in one state, may not be in yet another. Then again - some people - regardless if it is "ham" radio, "CB", pick up games of sports, etc. - lose their cool so very easily - and BAM - a crime is committed. People have died at youth sports games when the "parents" went nuts and attacked others. You can't blame the "Youth" sports for those deaths - anymore than you can Ham radio for a crime. People are just going bonkers more and more now days and they use any little excuse to try to justify their cause. Not only "Ham", but CB and FRS as well, AND even on a Police channel on the scanner - a couple times - I've heard people argue to the point of telling others - they were going to kiss their ass. Yes, I've heard COPS get into it on the radio. Talk about "professionalism"! Yes, I've heard of fights on Ham and CB where one person is "trying" to talk and another - instead of acting like a gentleman - acts like an ass - and whalah - an argument ensues. Instead of changing channels or letting the issue drop - they pursue it. Some - yes - to the point of personally hunting the other down for an ass kicking or murder. That is "rage" which was brought on - not by radio - but by those who have issues dealing with others - who don't like to be crowded. The radio was only a means of them asserting their behaviour publicly - and finding a victim. Not much different than Road Rage. You can't pick "just" HAM RADIO out of the bunch - any hobby, sport, activity, job, etc - can set people off. Conducting research to see how many hams committed crimes - would be "less" interesting than one which shows how many accidents were as a result of using all radio modes while driving - be they Ham, CB, 2 way, etc. - AS OPPOSED to CELL PHONE! I don't EVER recall seeing the states cracking down on CBers or Hams - due to "irratic driving" as they are now - with Cells. With the heavy use of Cell Phones, I'd be willing to bet that Ham radio "IF" responsible for ANY crimes - is like maybe 1/1000th of a percent - compared to cells - which are used for harassment, stalking, spying, etc. "Maybe" - just "maybe" - I could go along to some very minor extent - but for the most part - I DOUBT Ham is as responsible for crimes as this post seems to suggest. IF there are any "psychologists/psychiatrists" out there or "social workers" who read these, PLEASE DO - chime in. I'd love to see your opinion as well. It's not "ham radio", CB, vehicles, etc.......... it is SELF CONTROL - which makes the difference. |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
"John Smith" wrote in message ... "Slow Code" wrote in message ... The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society with crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this keeps society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its' citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type of crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape, etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue is the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with unalienable rights by his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees that any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones rights to the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those resources granted us by our creator. That is in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. Dee, N8UZE |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
Dee:
HELLO! You are quite correct (and unalienable is used.) I am guilty of "clumping" all of these together, including the amendments also ... I am guilty of being "pro-for-the-people" and quite lax about maintaining confines when it comes to their rights. Warmest regards, JS "Dee Flint" wrote in message . .. "John Smith" wrote in message ... "Slow Code" wrote in message ... The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society with crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this keeps society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its' citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type of crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape, etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue is the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with unalienable rights by his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees that any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones rights to the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those resources granted us by our creator. That is in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. Dee, N8UZE |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
In article ,
"John Smith" wrote: Dee: HELLO! You are quite correct (and unalienable is used.) I am guilty of "clumping" all of these together, including the amendments also ... I am guilty of being "pro-for-the-people" and quite lax about maintaining confines when it comes to their rights. But the rights flow only from the Constitution legally and otherwise. |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Dee: HELLO! You are quite correct (and unalienable is used.) I am guilty of "clumping" all of these together, including the amendments also ... I am guilty of being "pro-for-the-people" and quite lax about maintaining confines when it comes to their rights. Warmest regards, JS "Dee Flint" wrote in message . .. "John Smith" wrote in message ... "Slow Code" wrote in message ... The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society with crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this keeps society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its' citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type of crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape, etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue is the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with unalienable rights by his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees that any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones rights to the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those resources granted us by our creator. That is in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. Dee, N8UZE Still it is an important distinction that it is in the Declaration of Independence but not in the Constitution. And is it important to understand the differences in their purposes. The Declaration was designed to explain to the world why the colonies wished to separate themselves from England. It was intended to elicit sympathy and support from the enemies of England and to convince England's allies to stay out of it. The majestic rhetoric of "unalienable rights" and "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were geared towards those goals. On the other hand, the Constitution was designed to define how we were actually going to govern ourselves. The rhetoric of the Declaration is inappropriate Let us take liberty as a very simple example. If that were included in the Constitution as an "unalienable" right, we wouldn't be able to lock up serial killers. Let's also take that "pursuit of happiness" in terms of radio spectrum resources. If each of us could operate whenever, where ever, and however we pleased because we had the right to pursue happiness, it would be utter chaos and very few would actually be happy. In the early days of radio, that very situation existed and it caused problems and thus was born the predecessor to the FCC. In every group or society, some type of structure is necessary to enable the group or society to survive and thrive. This means that there are rules and regulations in almost everything we do affecting our daily lives. That by its very nature limits people's rights. Dee, N8UZE |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
Dee: "Dee Flint" wrote in message Still it is an important distinction that it is in the Declaration of Independence but not in the Constitution. And is it important to understand the differences in their purposes. Yes indeed. There are two (in fact more) documents protecting our rights and agreeing people are the true power, and NOT governments. The Declaration was designed to explain to the world why the colonies wished to separate themselves from England. It was intended to elicit sympathy and Yes, and they did a very fine job of it. Indeed, I have not seen many papers which make humanity the reason for its arguments, and individual rights in particular. Some now wish to find reasons to weaken these premises and arguments, strange how societies can never rid themselves of fools destined to repeat the same mistakes ... On the other hand, the Constitution was designed to define how we were actually going to govern ourselves. The rhetoric of the Declaration is inappropriate Absolutely NOT, while kings, rulers, dictators, powerful corporations, the wealthy, and the mentally challenged might confuse rights with rhetoric, those whose ancestral line runs back to these time, and the traditions carried forth to this time have no such confusions. There is no rhetoric in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is not rhetoric in "God given rights." There is no rhetoric in being secure in person and property. You give me nightmares in the type of world you would allow to come. I only hope you never run for office, even dog catcher would worry me in your case! (however, you are probably a nice person) Let us take liberty as a very simple example. If that were included in the Constitution as an "unalienable" right, we wouldn't be able to lock up serial killers. Preposterous, that is like arguing liberty = murder. We all have absolute liberty, granted by our creator, we govern ourselfs in its use. The people have that right, the government does not, unless it serves as only a tool of the people in doing so. There is much confusion here, laws do NOT give us rights and/or liberty, they only serve to remove or control those. Before we apply law, we are only governed by our creator, and he has given us all free will. Let's also take that "pursuit of happiness" in terms of radio spectrum We all also have unlimited rights to the pursuit of happiness, limits on those pursuits are simply when they deprive another of exercising their rights to such pursuits. A child learns this early in school, a finer tutoring includes sharing ... if we deny others what we have, especially though little tests and requirements as a policy of picking and choosing "who we want to play with", we are NOT maintaining order, we are screwing people, plain and simple, in fact only a simple person would have difficultly seeing through that rubbish. No Dee, you are simply another, "The sky is falling!", decrier. No Dee, the sky is not falling, some are simply made a prisoner to their own fears, fears which lead them into depriving other Americans of their rights--in so doing, the "champions of justice" end up becoming the evil which controls, deprives, and punishes people who do not think as they do. These groups have come and gone through our history. Open your eyes, todays world is much different than the one which you were born into. Today you can call anywhere in the world from anywhere, if you are even in most remote areas a cell phone allows you such access; if that fails, there are satellite phone. Today, the internet will let you converse to anyone anywhere in the world, allow you to view and access materials anywhere in the world or share any such materials to anyone, anywhere in the world. In this world, amature radio tries to keep itself isolated as an island, a religious club of fanatic devotes with far too many decrying the sky is falling ... the sky is not falling ... radio is dying. The good news is, much awaits amateur radio's future from its' ashes. From those ashes will spring forth a service which will bear little resemblance to the old, antique and outdated practices of the past. It is an exciting time to be alive ... Warmest regards, JS |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
John Smith wrote:
wrote: That's certainly one way to look at it. Here's another, somewhat similar view: An amateur radio license is not a right. It is a privilege, granted by a process that includes passing the required examinations *and* Whoa! Let's be accurate! Radio frequencies are a "natural resource", granted us by our creator and the laws of physics he/she/it/"the-aliens" constructed. I agree! The problem is, they are a limited resource, to be shared among a lot of people. For example, if each of us 300,000,000 Americans were to ignore the other six billion humans on earth, and divide up the HF spectrum equally, how much would we each get to call our own? Less than a tenth of a Hertz on HF. Even if we allow time separation, so that 100 Americans share the same allocation, that's less than 10 Hz each. Why I will allow a gov't agency to manage these in a manner which is ultimately governed by "the people", I will not support laws, rules or regulations which run contrary to such ... or in short, the people control the use of the air waves, and the air waves are made available to the people in a very logical method. Agreed - but who determines what the logical method is? What you see in radio regulations is a set of compromises among differing uses. For example, I think there are some folks who would be happy to see amateur radio eliminated, or reduced in power/spectrum/privileges so much that it would effectively disappear. Those folks would rather see the amateur bands used for something else, like broadcasting, BPL, etc. To them, ham radio itself is illogical. OTOH, we hams think that polluting the radio spectrum with BPL noise is illogical. Yet we have to push and prod the regulators to understand that simple idea. btw, this "character" issue isn't just aimed at hams. It was originally used against broadcasters. The FCC assumes that all license applicants are trustworthy, unless and The FCC can assume anything it wishes, but I insist it obeys the constitution and the laws of the creator in doing so. What does either say about the radio spectrum, and access to it? Maybe. OTOH, the argument that a license is a privilege and not a right might win out. I don't believe there is any argument of merit which can be proposed which would take radio frequencies from us, they are simply one of those "inalienable rights" our creator has gifted upon the peoples of this earth. I would quite openly question anyones sanity who claim differently. Do you think each of us has the inalienable right to operate an uncoordinated transmitter on, say, 90.9 MHz? I don't, and I don't think you do either. Think about why. It is the FCC, not amateurs, who make these decisions. I live in America, I grew up when the constitution was not "interpreted", rather, we took it for granted our forefathers "said what they meant, and meant what they said." The Constitution has always been interpreted. That's one of the reasons for the Supreme Court, and why it has struck down laws that contradicted their interpretation of the Constitution. Not a new thing. And one of the greatest wisdoms of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution (near here, in Philadelphia, btw) was that it would not be a static, unchangeable document, but rather one that would evolve and develop over time. Yet at the same time, the amendment process was set up to try to keep changes from happening on a whim. A pretty ingenious system, all told. You're talking prevention rather than punishment - and I agree. I am pleased we agree on the above, I like to live in a safe country, composed of safe states, harboring safe cities/towns, which are conductive to safe neighborhoods ... Exactly. And that safety means reasonable regulations, laws, and other measures to ensure order. At the same time, we must be careful that we do not try to obtain "safety" at the price of our freedoms. Warmest regards, JS Same to you, "John" 73 de Jim, N2EY |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
John Smith wrote: Dee: HELLO! You are quite correct And you are Quitefine. |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Dee: "Dee Flint" wrote in message Still it is an important distinction that it is in the Declaration of Independence but not in the Constitution. And is it important to understand the differences in their purposes. Yes indeed. There are two (in fact more) documents protecting our rights and agreeing people are the true power, and NOT governments. The Declaration was designed to explain to the world why the colonies wished to separate themselves from England. It was intended to elicit sympathy and Yes, and they did a very fine job of it. Indeed, I have not seen many papers which make humanity the reason for its arguments, and individual rights in particular. Some now wish to find reasons to weaken these premises and arguments, strange how societies can never rid themselves of fools destined to repeat the same mistakes ... On the other hand, the Constitution was designed to define how we were actually going to govern ourselves. The rhetoric of the Declaration is inappropriate Absolutely NOT, while kings, rulers, dictators, powerful corporations, the wealthy, and the mentally challenged might confuse rights with rhetoric, those whose ancestral line runs back to these time, and the traditions carried forth to this time have no such confusions. There is no rhetoric in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is not rhetoric in "God given rights." There is no rhetoric in being secure in person and property. You give me nightmares in the type of world you would allow to come. I only hope you never run for office, even dog catcher would worry me in your case! (however, you are probably a nice person) Let us take liberty as a very simple example. If that were included in the Constitution as an "unalienable" right, we wouldn't be able to lock up serial killers. Preposterous, that is like arguing liberty = murder. We all have absolute liberty, granted by our creator, we govern ourselfs in its use. The people have that right, the government does not, unless it serves as only a tool of the people in doing so. There is much confusion here, laws do NOT give us rights and/or liberty, they only serve to remove or control those. Before we apply law, we are only governed by our creator, and he has given us all free will. No I'm saying that all our rights do have limits and that it is for a very good reason. If our rights were absolute, they would have no limits and we could indeed kill each other to attempt to insure those rights. Society has decided (and rightly so) that doesn't work too well for the survival of society. The moment society decides that some rules are required to make that society work, then our rights are limited. Let's also take that "pursuit of happiness" in terms of radio spectrum We all also have unlimited rights to the pursuit of happiness, limits on those pursuits are simply when they deprive another of exercising their rights to such pursuits. A child learns this early in school, a finer tutoring includes sharing ... if we deny others what we have, especially though little tests and requirements as a policy of picking and choosing "who we want to play with", we are NOT maintaining order, we are screwing people, plain and simple, in fact only a simple person would have difficultly seeing through that rubbish. Again if it were an absolute right, one could pursue that at the expense of others. Again society has decided that doesn't work too well and of necessity puts some limits on it. Then it becomes a matter of opinion whether those limits are appropriate. It so happens that I think code is a basic of radio and should be required at a basic level. I do not consider it a filter, right of passage or other such nonsense. No Dee, you are simply another, "The sky is falling!", decrier. No Dee, the sky is not falling, some are simply made a prisoner to their own fears, fears which lead them into depriving other Americans of their rights--in so doing, the "champions of justice" end up becoming the evil which controls, deprives, and punishes people who do not think as they do. These groups have come and gone through our history. I haven't predicted any major catastrophe so I think you've tagged the wrong person with your Chicken Little reference. I have discussed what others seem to fear but I do not fear it. Open your eyes, todays world is much different than the one which you were born into. Today you can call anywhere in the world from anywhere, if you are even in most remote areas a cell phone allows you such access; if that fails, there are satellite phone. Today, the internet will let you converse to anyone anywhere in the world, allow you to view and access materials anywhere in the world or share any such materials to anyone, anywhere in the world. That is irrelevant to amateur radio. In this world, amature radio tries to keep itself isolated as an island, a religious club of fanatic devotes with far too many decrying the sky is falling ... the sky is not falling ... radio is dying. Again, I'm not the one worried about it. I see people every month joining our ranks. If you look at the statistics, it is quite obvious that amateur radio is not dying. It has its ups and downs but the numbers are quite robust. The good news is, much awaits amateur radio's future from its' ashes. From those ashes will spring forth a service which will bear little resemblance to the old, antique and outdated practices of the past. Since it's not dying, there won't be any ashes. I've seen the proposals so far and there is nothing exciting in them. Digital voice? Ho-hum, I've got that on my cell phone. And it can be implemented any time hams want to spend money on new equipment New digital modes? Sure but they're just new flavors of the same old thing. Hooking to the internet? Already been done and that's not terribly exciting either. Once upon a time, radio led technology (i.e. linked repeater systems with phone patches pre-date cell phones). Now it doesn't and there is nothing exciting in emulating commercial implementations in amateur radio. Basically, radio is a mature field. As with any mature field, improvements can be made but that's about it. The excitement comes in the personal growth and development and in helping others to discover those for themselves. Dee, N8UZE |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
Radiosrfun wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: "Slow Code" wrote in message ... The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society with crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this keeps society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its' citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type of crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape, etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue is the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with unalienable rights by his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees that any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones rights to the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those resources granted us by our creator. That's certainly one way to look at it. Here's another, somewhat similar view: An amateur radio license is not a right. It is a privilege, granted by a process that includes passing the required examinations *and* demonstrating that the licensee is trustworthy to follow the rules and regulations. The FCC assumes that all license applicants are trustworthy, unless and until they prove they are not. Conviction of a serious crime is considered by the FCC to be an indication of not being trustworthy. Note that the conviction is considered to be an indication, not proof. License revocation is not automatic. The person whose license was revoked was offered the opportunity to show that they were still trustworthy in terms of an FCC license. But the person in question did not reply to the FCC's letter at all, so FCC had the license revoked. I am no attorney, however, I suspect that could only be made to work against felons who are incarcerated or on probation/parole. Maybe. OTOH, the argument that a license is a privilege and not a right might win out. Still, the logic fails me of why you would ever revoke someones license who had been convicted of, say, a felony regarding bank fraud--felony drunk driving--manslaughter--etc. Because such convictions indicate a lack of trustworthiness. Or to put it another way, the ability to make good choices and control one's behavior. Someone convicted of felony drunk driving obviously has problems in those areas. And note again that the revocations are not automatic. This type of logic, once again, demonstrates why I hold such a low esteem for some in amateur radio. It is the FCC, not amateurs, who make these decisions. Most likely, in all cases, if the criminal had spent more time in the hobby aspect of radio his desire to commit a crime would have been diminished! Maybe. It would be interesting to see the rate of serious criminality among licensed radio amateurs compared to the general population. Best we help this criminals before society suffers, rather than punish them after the fact (and someone ends up without his/her property, or worse, dead!) You're talking prevention rather than punishment - and I agree. 73 de Jim, N2EY I "suppose" they (the FCC) could consider a way of reinstating said license - much like any State Bureau of Motor Vehicles would for a person found DUI/etc - if proper conditions were placed into effect. I doubt that will ever happen. Actually, those conditions are already in place. The person who had his license revoked could, after getting out of prison, apply for a new license and take the test over again. The application asks if the person has ever had a license revoked, so the person could give the details, and then say that s/he'd reformed and would follow the rules. That revocation doesn't mean the person can never ever have a license. Quite frankly, I don't see what "CB/Ham/2 way" radio in general - has to do with a "Felon" - UNLESS they were used in the commission of said crimes - which by the way - carries additional penalties. I mean - if a person has it in them to kill someone - rob a bank, etc..... radio "didn't" drive them to it - unless maybe they're looking for cash to build a bigger station, etc. That is laughable. People commit crimes for various reasons. Money, Jealousy, definate Mental impairment which breeds anti-social behaviour - and so on. Was Hitler a "ham"? Probably not. Was Osama Bin Laden or any of his ass kissing henchmen? Probably not! I am willing to bet - the majority of criminals have had NO or very little exposure to radio - with exception of maybe CB and FRS - since they're so prevalent and easily used and acquired. But even at that - the aforementioned issues are mainly at fault and I'm sorry - I fail to see where "Radio" has anything to do with it. The point isn't "Radio" - it's trustworthiness. At least that's FCC's point of view. If a person has it in them to commit a serious crime, why should we trust that they will follow FCC radio regulations? That's FCC's point of view. I will agree with the one poster - had anyone "convicted" of a crime who "was" into Ham - been more involved in the hobby, it "may" have prevented said crimes. FWIW - crimes differ from state to state as to what may be considered as a "felony". What may be a felony in one state, may not be in yet another. Then again - some people - regardless if it is "ham" radio, "CB", pick up games of sports, etc. - lose their cool so very easily - and BAM - a crime is committed. People have died at youth sports games when the "parents" went nuts and attacked others. You can't blame the "Youth" sports for those deaths - anymore than you can Ham radio for a crime. Good point! People are just going bonkers more and more now days and they use any little excuse to try to justify their cause. I don't know if people are really "just going bonkers" nowadays, or if we are simply hearing about it more. Not only "Ham", but CB and FRS as well, AND even on a Police channel on the scanner - a couple times - I've heard people argue to the point of telling others - they were going to kiss their ass. Yes, I've heard COPS get into it on the radio. Talk about "professionalism"! Yes, I've heard of fights on Ham and CB where one person is "trying" to talk and another - instead of acting like a gentleman - acts like an ass - and whalah - an argument ensues. Instead of changing channels or letting the issue drop - they pursue it. Some - yes - to the point of personally hunting the other down for an ass kicking or murder. That is "rage" which was brought on - not by radio - but by those who have issues dealing with others - who don't like to be crowded. The radio was only a means of them asserting their behaviour publicly - and finding a victim. Not much different than Road Rage. Being mostly a CW operator, I've not heard anything like that on the ham bands. You can't pick "just" HAM RADIO out of the bunch - any hobby, sport, activity, job, etc - can set people off. Of course. And ultimately it is the person who is responsible. Conducting research to see how many hams committed crimes - would be "less" interesting than one which shows how many accidents were as a result of using all radio modes while driving - be they Ham, CB, 2 way, etc. - AS OPPOSED to CELL PHONE! I don't EVER recall seeing the states cracking down on CBers or Hams - due to "irratic driving" as they are now - with Cells. I think there's a basic difference with cell phones. With radio, it's one-way, with a phone, it's two-way. A lot of mobile radio is a roundtable-type discussion, where you spend only a small part of the time talking. And you can put the mike down when not talking! With the heavy use of Cell Phones, I'd be willing to bet that Ham radio "IF" responsible for ANY crimes - is like maybe 1/1000th of a percent - compared to cells - which are used for harassment, stalking, spying, etc. "Maybe" - just "maybe" - I could go along to some very minor extent - but for the most part - I DOUBT Ham is as responsible for crimes as this post seems to suggest. IF there are any "psychologists/psychiatrists" out there or "social workers" who read these, PLEASE DO - chime in. I'd love to see your opinion as well. Perhaps the biggest factor is simply popularity. There are less than a million US hams, and of those, the number actively operating mobile is a couple hundred thousand at most. Compare that to the more than 100 million cell phones now in use.... It's not "ham radio", CB, vehicles, etc.......... it is SELF CONTROL - which makes the difference. Well said. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
"John Smith" wrote in
: "Slow Code" wrote in message ... The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society with crime, Homosexuality is a crime against humanity. SC |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
"John Smith" wrote in
: Dee: HELLO! You are quite correct (and unalienable is used.) I am guilty of "clumping" all of these together, including the amendments also ... I am guilty of being "pro-for-the-people" and quite lax about maintaining confines when it comes to their rights. Democrats do that all the time to try to come up with ways to push their pro-homosexual, anti-morality, anti-America adgenda. SC |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
wrote in message
ups.com... Radiosrfun wrote: wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: "Slow Code" wrote in message ... The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society with crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this keeps society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its' citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type of crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape, etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue is the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with unalienable rights by his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees that any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones rights to the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those resources granted us by our creator. That's certainly one way to look at it. Here's another, somewhat similar view: An amateur radio license is not a right. It is a privilege, granted by a process that includes passing the required examinations *and* demonstrating that the licensee is trustworthy to follow the rules and regulations. The FCC assumes that all license applicants are trustworthy, unless and until they prove they are not. Conviction of a serious crime is considered by the FCC to be an indication of not being trustworthy. Note that the conviction is considered to be an indication, not proof. License revocation is not automatic. The person whose license was revoked was offered the opportunity to show that they were still trustworthy in terms of an FCC license. But the person in question did not reply to the FCC's letter at all, so FCC had the license revoked. I am no attorney, however, I suspect that could only be made to work against felons who are incarcerated or on probation/parole. Maybe. OTOH, the argument that a license is a privilege and not a right might win out. Still, the logic fails me of why you would ever revoke someones license who had been convicted of, say, a felony regarding bank fraud--felony drunk driving--manslaughter--etc. Because such convictions indicate a lack of trustworthiness. Or to put it another way, the ability to make good choices and control one's behavior. Someone convicted of felony drunk driving obviously has problems in those areas. And note again that the revocations are not automatic. This type of logic, once again, demonstrates why I hold such a low esteem for some in amateur radio. It is the FCC, not amateurs, who make these decisions. Most likely, in all cases, if the criminal had spent more time in the hobby aspect of radio his desire to commit a crime would have been diminished! Maybe. It would be interesting to see the rate of serious criminality among licensed radio amateurs compared to the general population. Best we help this criminals before society suffers, rather than punish them after the fact (and someone ends up without his/her property, or worse, dead!) You're talking prevention rather than punishment - and I agree. 73 de Jim, N2EY I "suppose" they (the FCC) could consider a way of reinstating said license - much like any State Bureau of Motor Vehicles would for a person found DUI/etc - if proper conditions were placed into effect. I doubt that will ever happen. Actually, those conditions are already in place. Yeah, you're right, I forgot about that - but then again, I've never been in a spot to "test" that! After I read your reply - I recalled some statements on various FCC forms regarding such. The person who had his license revoked could, after getting out of prison, apply for a new license and take the test over again. The application asks if the person has ever had a license revoked, so the person could give the details, and then say that s/he'd reformed and would follow the rules. That revocation doesn't mean the person can never ever have a license. Quite frankly, I don't see what "CB/Ham/2 way" radio in general - has to do with a "Felon" - UNLESS they were used in the commission of said crimes - which by the way - carries additional penalties. I mean - if a person has it in them to kill someone - rob a bank, etc..... radio "didn't" drive them to it - unless maybe they're looking for cash to build a bigger station, etc. That is laughable. People commit crimes for various reasons. Money, Jealousy, definate Mental impairment which breeds anti-social behaviour - and so on. Was Hitler a "ham"? Probably not. Was Osama Bin Laden or any of his ass kissing henchmen? Probably not! I am willing to bet - the majority of criminals have had NO or very little exposure to radio - with exception of maybe CB and FRS - since they're so prevalent and easily used and acquired. But even at that - the aforementioned issues are mainly at fault and I'm sorry - I fail to see where "Radio" has anything to do with it. The point isn't "Radio" - it's trustworthiness. At least that's FCC's point of view. I got your point - but here is what "I" was replying to - as was stated above - in a past post......... in this thread: It would be interesting to see the rate of serious criminality among licensed radio amateurs compared to the general population. If a person has it in them to commit a serious crime, why should we trust that they will follow FCC radio regulations? That's FCC's point of view. I will agree with the one poster - had anyone "convicted" of a crime who "was" into Ham - been more involved in the hobby, it "may" have prevented said crimes. FWIW - crimes differ from state to state as to what may be considered as a "felony". What may be a felony in one state, may not be in yet another. Then again - some people - regardless if it is "ham" radio, "CB", pick up games of sports, etc. - lose their cool so very easily - and BAM - a crime is committed. People have died at youth sports games when the "parents" went nuts and attacked others. You can't blame the "Youth" sports for those deaths - anymore than you can Ham radio for a crime. Good point! People are just going bonkers more and more now days and they use any little excuse to try to justify their cause. I don't know if people are really "just going bonkers" nowadays, or if we are simply hearing about it more. This could be true too! More media coverage certainly would make for more coverage of nut cases! Not only "Ham", but CB and FRS as well, AND even on a Police channel on the scanner - a couple times - I've heard people argue to the point of telling others - they were going to kiss their ass. Yes, I've heard COPS get into it on the radio. Talk about "professionalism"! Yes, I've heard of fights on Ham and CB where one person is "trying" to talk and another - instead of acting like a gentleman - acts like an ass - and whalah - an argument ensues. Instead of changing channels or letting the issue drop - they pursue it. Some - yes - to the point of personally hunting the other down for an ass kicking or murder. That is "rage" which was brought on - not by radio - but by those who have issues dealing with others - who don't like to be crowded. The radio was only a means of them asserting their behaviour publicly - and finding a victim. Not much different than Road Rage. Being mostly a CW operator, I've not heard anything like that on the ham bands. I wonder if that is because - too easy to say it all "verbally" and well - with code - one wouldn't have quite as big an audience - therefore the aggressor wouldn't be able to make himself/herself look bigger when in actuality - we know it is the opposite. Most people don't copy MOST messages in code - or ANY for that matter - unless looking for the call to be next in line, wanting to join in, practicing copying code. You can't pick "just" HAM RADIO out of the bunch - any hobby, sport, activity, job, etc - can set people off. Of course. And ultimately it is the person who is responsible. EXACTLY! Conducting research to see how many hams committed crimes - would be "less" interesting than one which shows how many accidents were as a result of using all radio modes while driving - be they Ham, CB, 2 way, etc. - AS OPPOSED to CELL PHONE! I don't EVER recall seeing the states cracking down on CBers or Hams - due to "irratic driving" as they are now - with Cells. I think there's a basic difference with cell phones. With radio, it's one-way, with a phone, it's two-way. A lot of mobile radio is a roundtable-type discussion, where you spend only a small part of the time talking. And you can put the mike down when not talking! Yes, but the point is - the discussion was somewhat leaning towards a study of "criminals" in Ham radio! It is far easier to commit crimes with "cell"! AND as we all know - some people can't talk and chew bubble gum at the same time. I don't care if you're (meaning anyone) in a house, phone booth, or in your car with a cell phone - if you have a person who talks a lot with the hands, guess what is going to be happening as they're driving! The hands come off the wheel and whalah - lost control. I've seen people reading news papers and driving, watching TV, talking on their cells AND using the hands - a LOT. Women putting on make-up - no hands on wheels, etc. So - I'll not place "all" the blame on Cell phones - but rather the people who can't use them - shall we say - "safely". With the heavy use of Cell Phones, I'd be willing to bet that Ham radio "IF" responsible for ANY crimes - is like maybe 1/1000th of a percent - compared to cells - which are used for harassment, stalking, spying, etc. "Maybe" - just "maybe" - I could go along to some very minor extent - but for the most part - I DOUBT Ham is as responsible for crimes as this post seems to suggest. IF there are any "psychologists/psychiatrists" out there or "social workers" who read these, PLEASE DO - chime in. I'd love to see your opinion as well. Perhaps the biggest factor is simply popularity. There are less than a million US hams, and of those, the number actively operating mobile is a couple hundred thousand at most. Compare that to the more than 100 million cell phones now in use.... Agreed! It's not "ham radio", CB, vehicles, etc.......... it is SELF CONTROL - which makes the difference. Well said. 73 de Jim, N2EY WE agree - but I think some points made were being a tad confused OR overlooked. |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
Slow Code wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in : Dee: HELLO! You are quite correct (and unalienable is used.) I am guilty of "clumping" all of these together, including the amendments also ... I am guilty of being "pro-for-the-people" and quite lax about maintaining confines when it comes to their rights. Democrats do that all the time to try to come up with ways to push their pro-homosexual, anti-morality, anti-America adgenda. You should read the papers more often. The Party of Deviancy seems to be NOT the democrats. http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2006/11/9071.php http://fp.uni.edu/northia/article2.a...5495&SECTION=2 http://www.thelawparty.com/FranklinCoverup/franklin.htm http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=42954 http://snipurl.com/bh9y Lots more out there. mike |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
wrote in message
Well, I hope the tech boys really sharpen their pencils. Because if sharing those freqs is that damn tight we are going to either have to petition the FCC for band expansion, go into the ghz for specific uses, or have a lottery to issue ham licenses, develop new technology, or some combination of the above. Regards, JS |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
NO! The sky is NOT falling! No Dee, "the people" are the gov't. Let me give you an example. No one in his or her right mind would ever trust any president, representive, or group of them to decide whether an individual dies or not (or any other group of bueraucrats either!) We would only allow citizens to do that. It is called a jury and there are 12 of them to make sure they get it right (yes, I know, there are still far too many mistakes and DNA evidence has released a sizeable number from death row--perhaps with DNA evidence we can increase our accuracy a bit.) Well, the FCC is just like that. And we should never trust them to make a really important decision for us. The FCC can only do its' job correctly if all 350 million of us are looking over their shoulders and telling them what to do. Trouble is, my president, senators and reps look a bit raggy around the edges, even to the point of making me think they are corrupt criminals. I am trusting they will get around to fix that soon ... straight face If someone is a lazy ass laying around trusting their gov't to do it for them or for the other citizens, he or she is far from a great Amerian. A great American is always active in making sure the peoples voice is heard. What makes America great is everyones' right to free speech, activism, protests, etc. It will all shake out in the end, any one mans/womans opinion, or even any one group of men and women is unimportant in the much larger picture. In the final say, only the people have a right to place limits and they only need to place limits to keep one from infringing on another, but you already know that, our founding fathers documents could serve as no better example, they need no "interpretation" on what anyone person thinks they either are or are not--that is difficult enough. Regards, JS |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
"Slow Code" wrote in message
In my personal opinion, perverts, baby killers, wife killers, husband murders, serial killers, etc. need to be watched the rest of their lives. If I were king you would NOT want to break the law (well, if you were a family member or one of my buddies you could, well, unless I really needed some money, then you would have to pay me for my "help.") grin However, I will accept what the majority of the people want, I am just afraid we are NOT getting that. But then, when I consider the last presidents since kennedy a bunch of corrupt criminals, how do I really expect much at all? Regards, JS |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
"John Smith" wrote in message ... "Dee Flint" wrote in message NO! The sky is NOT falling! You are getting very confused. I'm not the one that is panicking over changes. I've already said several times that I'm am not worried about the changes. No Dee, "the people" are the gov't. Let me give you an example. I've not said anything to the contrary. I've repeatedly said that society (i.e. the people) find it necessary to have rules to insure the health of the society. No one in his or her right mind would ever trust any president, representive, or group of them to decide whether an individual dies or not (or any other group of bueraucrats either!) We would only allow citizens to do that. It is called a jury and there are 12 of them to make sure they get it right (yes, I know, there are still far too many mistakes and DNA evidence has released a sizeable number from death row--perhaps with DNA evidence we can increase our accuracy a bit.) Well, the FCC is just like that. And we should never trust them to make a really important decision for us. The FCC can only do its' job correctly if all 350 million of us are looking over their shoulders and telling them what to do. Trouble is, my president, senators and reps look a bit raggy around the edges, even to the point of making me think they are corrupt criminals. I am trusting they will get around to fix that soon ... straight face If someone is a lazy ass laying around trusting their gov't to do it for them or for the other citizens, he or she is far from a great Amerian. A great American is always active in making sure the peoples voice is heard. I've never advocated that. Each person has a right to be heard. But you forget that each person has their own opinion. Should your opinion have any more weight than mine or vice versa? What makes America great is everyones' right to free speech, activism, protests, etc. It will all shake out in the end, any one mans/womans opinion, or even any one group of men and women is unimportant in the much larger picture. In the final say, only the people have a right to place limits and they only need to place limits to keep one from infringing on another, but you already know that, our founding fathers documents could serve as no better example, they need no "interpretation" on what anyone person thinks they either are or are not--that is difficult enough. Regards, JS It's already been pointed out to you that our founding fathers included the Supreme Court for the very purpose of "interpreting" the Constitution. Dee, N8UZE |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
Dee: When I said, "NO! The sky is NOT falling!" I meant we have firmly decided that! I caught that you were stepping away from other amateurs decrying the death of ham radio due to changes ... it was satire and I see how it could be taken much differently ... I read over you text much too quickly and was quick to take a much different spin on it that the one I see now. Yes. The supreme courts whole reason for existence is to enforce the constitution to the letter, you are, again, correct, strange no one is seems more upset by the gross inability of it to have done so in recent decades .... The crux is this, I see citizens playing much more into their self gov't. Let me give you an example of just how much so: ALL police officers and sheriffs should be drafted, and go through a "boot camp." At the end of 12 weeks of boot, we press them into service for a four year term. The pay scale is fair and adjusted for special cases. But, we all accept this as our duty. With this one change we could just about completely remove corruption and restore respect to law enforcement. Plus, the added benefit would probably be an overall reduced cost to the tax payer. But, this is only one change in a sea of changes I would make. Many I see are disenfranchised by gov't playing a mother/father role for them, this was never meant to be. I don't need a president, senator or rep "with a plan", I simply need them to be honest and upfront with the people, then represent the peoples wishes--this seems almost opposite from what I am experiencing. If I can trust 12 men with my life on a jury, then I can darn well trust 350 million governing ourselves beside me ... Regards, JS |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
Please folks, do not reply to these off topic posts.
If these idiots never get any replies, they will eventually give up and go away. Thanks, Bill, W6WRT |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
"Bill Turner" wrote in message ... Please folks, do not reply to these off topic posts. If these idiots never get any replies, they will eventually give up and go away. Thanks, Bill, W6WRT Shut up Bill you ****ing asshole. |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Preposterous, that is like arguing liberty = murder. We all have absolute liberty, granted by our creator, we govern ourselfs in its use. The people have that right, the government does not, unless it serves as only a tool of the people in doing so. There is much confusion here, laws do NOT give us rights and/or liberty, they only serve to remove or control those. Before we apply law, we are only governed by our creator, and he has given us all free will. No I'm saying that all our rights do have limits and that it is for a very good reason. If our rights were absolute, they would have no limits and we could indeed kill each other to attempt to insure those rights. Society has decided (and rightly so) that doesn't work too well for the survival of society. The moment society decides that some rules are required to make that society work, then our rights are limited. in many cases we CAN indeed kill those that inpinge on our rights Here in Michigan I can as can you Kill to defend yourself or your property the laws inhibiting were pared back effective around the first of OCT of this year in other case we may indeed argue some form of justifaction for even the act of homocide in defense of our right |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
Those documents are "just paper" free to be changes by presidential will!
Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... "Slow Code" wrote in message ... The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society with crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this keeps society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its' citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type of crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape, etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue is the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with unalienable rights by his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees that any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones rights to the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those resources granted us by our creator. That is in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. Dee, N8UZE -- Joe Leikhim K4SAT "The RFI-EMI-GUY"© "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." "Follow The Money" ;-P |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
"Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... "Dee Flint" wrote in message NO! The sky is NOT falling! You are getting very confused. I'm not the one that is panicking over changes. I've already said several times that I'm am not worried about the changes. No Dee, "the people" are the gov't. Let me give you an example. I've not said anything to the contrary. I've repeatedly said that society (i.e. the people) find it necessary to have rules to insure the health of the society. Snipped Hi All, If you read the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution) there are 2 distinct groups ie "The People" and "Congress" . I paraphrase - Congess shall make no law regarding the peoples right to ..................... etc. etc. Ace - WH2T |
Democrats just want to attack the Bible, they don't want to attack terrorists.
m II wrote in news:X1Jeh.51898$hn.48438@edtnps82:
Slow Code wrote: "John Smith" wrote in : Dee: HELLO! You are quite correct (and unalienable is used.) I am guilty of "clumping" all of these together, including the amendments also ... I am guilty of being "pro-for-the-people" and quite lax about maintaining confines when it comes to their rights. Democrats do that all the time to try to come up with ways to push their pro-homosexual, anti-morality, anti-America agenda. You should read the papers more often. The Party of Deviancy seems to be NOT the democrats. http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2006/11/9071.php http://fp.uni.edu/northia/article2.a...5495&SECTION=2 http://www.thelawparty.com/FranklinCoverup/franklin.htm http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=42954 http://snipurl.com/bh9y Lots more out there. mike Awww Jeez, not that crap again. You sorry ass liberals need to come up with a new flavored kool-aid. We're getting tired seeing your same old socialist smear job of the truth bull****. SC |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
"an_odd_freak" wrote in
oups.com: in many cases we CAN indeed kill those that inpinge on our rights Here in Michigan I can as can you Kill to defend yourself or your property No Markie, You don't have to worry about anyone trying to take your property unless they want a garbage dump. Learn CW! SC |
FCC suspends Felon's Amateur License
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:45 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com