Teen Forums - Teen Chat, Teen Help, Teen Advice & Support

There's always that danger when someone makes an editorial on an issue such as this. Always better to read the actual source material.

Haha, can't believe this 4chan shit is being takes seriously, they just ripped half of that from V for Vendetta, no originality whatsoever.

I don't care ... sorry for off topic

^Lmao what?

Even if the bill isn't real...I'm not fond of the way our government runs things :(. I always feel as if I have no freedoms regardless of the Bill of Rights or not. It seems like the government is getting too big and the rights of the people are slowly disappearing. It makes me sad :(.

The editorial may not convince you, but is not my only source of evidence, read parts of the bill, which does exist, and tell me why only 2 paragraphs out of an over 900 page bill are being focused on.

Keep in mind that's it's since been changed since it was originally drafted. Also keep in mind it was drafted by McCain and a Michigan Democrat (I totally forgot his name) so it wasn't just McCain who came up with it.

The original draft really wasn't much to worry about, it was the revised version, in which things were stricken from the bill and words were revised to become much more vague. That's the real issue people were making with this.

It's that with the current version it could some day act as a loop hole that basically ends the Bill of Rights. Basically speaking, it could easily be misunderstood and misinterpreted in the future. Like, it says if you've committed an act of terrorism... well, what classifies as an act of terrorism? Terrorism can be redefined to suit the bill if necessary. Is it just whatever the government says is terrorism or what? From all that I have read, it never specified what an act of terrorism was. What if the government classified terrorism as protesting against the government, speaking up against them, even peacefully?

Simply put, it's too vague which could lead to it's original intentions being warped. Wording is everything when it comes to laws and bills. If you think someone won't attempt to interpret it differently somewhere along the line, then you're sorely mistaken.

So yeah I think the real issue isn't the bill itself but how it's worded. There wasn't too much of a problem with the first draft but the revised version had certain things stricken from it and words were changed around in order to be more vague to where if one wanted to strip a citizen of their rights and citizenship... then they could, with no real reason, because the bill would be vague enough to allow it. Even if that's not what it actually means, it's what it can be twisted into.

Probably because those paragraphs are the ones that have to do with rights and of citizenship. There's no real probable with the rest of the bill, it's really just those paragraphs. At the very least, it's the main focus.