The 4th Amendment

[townpete]

I'll look for an actual response in the correct thread.
Meanwhile, are you still in the "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about" camp, or is what is happening to the 4rh starting to become clear for you?

At the same time you are in the hysterical gun grabber camp because "everything should be on the table". Your words.

Please feel free to show where I said something remotely equivalent about the 4a. Link please.

 

[Kev3188]

Projection is gauche. You can do better.

So did you sit idly by while the 4th got trampled or not? Seems to me you've been struggling to answer that since KC first asked.

As for 2A, I absolutely advocate reform, but you're still in the wrong thread.

 

[townpete]

Projection is gauche. You can do better.
So did you sit idly by while the 4th got trampled or not? Seems to me you've been struggling to answer that since KC first asked.
As for 2A, I absolutely advocate reform, but you're still in the wrong thread.

So you do advocate for the gutting of one but not the other.

Still looking for where I said anything remotely about gutting the 4a.

Please enlightien me.

Typical liberal weasel.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Please feel free to show where I said something remotely equivalent about the 4a. Link please.

Act like a pr!ck towards police, bad things happen. 

A quick glance back at the Sandra Bland thread is all it takes to see where you land on reasonable search and seizure.

 

[townpete]

A quick glance back at the Sandra Bland thread is all it takes to see where you land on reasonable search and seizure.

Yes because assaulting a public servant usually ends badly.

lol

 

[Dog Wonder]

Driving while Black in the wrong neighborhood justifies anything?

 

[Kev3188]

Who said anything about assault?

 

[KCFlyer]

Who said anything about assault?

 
Second hand smoke could have caused cancer, and she refused to put iher cigarette out...therefore, she "assaulted" the officer.   YOu have to connect the dots.  I'm wondering when he's going to take up (his) arms and head over to Syria to protect the freedom of the state, as the second amendment says he should. 

 

[delldude]

"The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly ..."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment


To whom does it apply...and how?

The founding fathers surely thought ahead like they did with the 2nd.

Should we be able to search, seize anyone, especially suspected terrorists, person and /or property based on them being ________?

Let's hear from the Champions of the 2nd amendment here.

 
Tell me about your confidentiality between you and your doctor under Obamascare.
You're barking up the wrong Tree here, Quags.
 
Are terrorist non citizens afforded COTUS rights?
 
The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.  The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.
 

It is also "ok" to comduct random drug testing without any probable cause, search warrant, or even a mere suspicion that the individual actually did anything, because some people might do something bad sometime and some other people are scared.

Ditto sobriety checkpoints

All with the rabid support of the scared little law and order "if you haven't done anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about" crowd.

The fake conservatives who hypocritically believe that the constitution is fungible and should be intrepreted in light of today's reality when it suits them, and strictly by the letter of the 1789 worldview when that fits their perverse version of christianity or morality.

All of everyone's rights are every bit as important as any of anyone's.

 
Those you cite exist because the populace let it.

 

[Ifly2]

"Those you cite exist because the populace let it."

Let it hell, they demanded it, as in " Somebody should do something" or "There ought to be a law".

I cite them because those violations of the Fourth are widely supported among the public, -_including_ those who scream bloody murder over any or the slightest perceived "infringement" of the 2nd.

If the public safety demands violation of individuals' 4th Amendment freedoms and rights, then perhaps the public safety also demands reasonable regulation, and the means to enforce that regulation, of gun ownership, sales and purchases.

To track logically, random psycological and drug and alcohol testing of gun owners would definitely be indicated. According to the NRA narrative, the "problem" is unstable, mentally ill and "medicated" persons getting guns.

So fix that. Fix it in The exact same way that "we" fixed the threat to public safety of some people using illicit drugs at work, or alcohol while driving.

There is wide support, even among the most vocal 2nd supporters, for prohibitions on gun ownership by felons, foreign nationals, domestic abusers, drug users (unless the drug of choice is alcohol...) crazies, people who take anti-depressants, and now Muslims.

What sense does it make to support those restrictions and oppose the means to make them effective?

 

[Ifly2]

"Those you cite exist because the populace let it."

BTW, just where was the "2nd Amendment exists to check a tyrannical government" crowd when these blatant violations of fellow Americans' individual rights and freedoms were being proposed and implemented?

Keeping their powder dry for the "real" battle?

 

[delldude]

"Those you cite exist because the populace let it."

Let it hell, they demanded it, as in " Somebody should do something" or "There ought to be a law".

I cite them because those violations of the Fourth are widely supported among the public, -_including_ those who scream bloody murder over any or the slightest perceived "infringement" of the 2nd.

If the public safety demands violation of individuals' 4th Amendment freedoms and rights, then perhaps the public safety also demands reasonable regulation, and the means to enforce that regulation, of gun ownership, sales and purchases.

To track logically, random psycological and drug and alcohol testing of gun owners would definitely be indicated. According to the NRA narrative, the "problem" is unstable, mentally ill and "medicated" persons getting guns.

So fix that. Fix it in The exact same way that "we" fixed the threat to public safety of some people using illicit drugs at work, or alcohol while driving.

There is wide support, even among the most vocal 2nd supporters, for prohibitions on gun ownership by felons, foreign nationals, domestic abusers, drug users (unless the drug of choice is alcohol...) crazies, people who take anti-depressants, and now Muslims.

What sense does it make to support those restrictions and oppose the means to make them effective?

 
What you cite as wide support is written law. Alcohol is a legal beverage, illicit drugs are not. Law against gun ownership by domestic abuse was signed into law by slick Willie. The VA made moves on Vets with PTSD forfeiting their 2nd amendment rights without a law.
Its a very slippery slope. Where does one rationally and logically draw a line with "mental issues" or mental instability"? Minor bout with depression and using prescribed meds for a period and you can no longer possess firearms? Someones psychotic, that's another story. 
Someone could put all Republicans on a no fly list or forbidden gun ownership list. Then what? Don't think its too far a reach, either. You got a closet fascist in power now.
And what of all the mantra about increased background checks? Worked quite well for that Pakistani woman, didn't it? 
And of banning firearm ownership due to "mental issues"....where do you draw the line? Obamascare already has all the tools in place for 4th amendment privacy right violations via sharing your personal health information and Doctor/patient confidentiality.....mental issues? Who has the info and power now? Where were you and others lobbying against this massive abuse of power? I heard gnarly a word over the issue. The government owns your HC records now.
And if you have 4th amendment concerns, where's the movement to shut down that neat NSA facility out in Utah which collects every phone call, every credit card action, and just about everything else done electronically?
 
Because "We the People" let it happen.
 

"Those you cite exist because the populace let it."

BTW, just where was the "2nd Amendment exists to check a tyrannical government" crowd when these blatant violations of fellow Americans' individual rights and freedoms were being proposed and implemented?

Keeping their powder dry for the "real" battle?

 
The second amendment crowd, through personal lobbying with their representatives, and pro rights lobbying organizations made it known where they stand and where they stood many times, with much success.
If the populace is fine with letting limited intrusions into their Constitutional rights demanded by a minority and not supported by the majority, then so be it...until the majority demands change.

 

[Ifly2]

Pretty much what I have been saying

I have no wide study to cite.

~25 or 30 years of talkimg anout this with a largely conservative, pro Constitution, Very pro gun rights crowd and nearly everyone opines/responds that RANDOM drug testing is ok, as "if you're not doing anything you have nothing to worry about"?

When I ask about that slippery slope, the answer is " that's different", or some varianr,

When I ask here, your answer is that if the majority is ok with it, so be it.

It is the NRA, "conservative" commentators, gun rights advocates and Republican candidates now saying that "we" need to find a way to keep guns out of the hands of those who "might do something", yet opposing any rational attempt to do just that.

Is that pandering, or is it hypocrisy, or just a big lie?

BTW, we have RANDOM alcohol testing too, even though alcohol is a legal drug. Testing to see if people "might just have done somethi g wrong".

How is that different than RANDOM searches of peoples' homes and persons, just to see if maybe they "might have done something wrong"? Maybe received stolen goods? Maybe kidnapped someone? Maybe whatever...?

You say the anti tyranny gun owners "made their positions known". I thought that guns were to enable the citizenry to respind with lethal force when the government overstepped, or trampled the peoples' freedom and rights?

Where were these patriots, and their guns, and their bravery, when their fellow Americans' rights were being trampled?

Hiding in the basement?

Writing letters supportimg the ciolations in the name of "Law and Order" ?

Again, why support reasonable, rational and responsible gun laws - or any law - and then oppose the means to enforce them?

 

[Ifly2]

As for the ACA, do government officials actually have access to individuals' private health information - without the individual giving permission - , or is the info de-identified.?

Every time I go to the Dr I sign a HIPPA form, authorizing release to the Insurance Company, other doctors, etc. Even my spouse can not access that info without my permission.

Are you saying the local sheriff, or some clerk at the CDC, or other government officials can access my personal information?

NSA equal Patriot Act.
A (very...) few of us did speak out against that

Where were the armed militias of concerned patriots?
In their basements writing letters supporting W's efforts to make them feel safe?

Keeping their powder dry?

 

[Ifly2]

The "keep the government in check" story is merely a myth...

Could have been a practical alternative 200 or so years ago.

Pretty much died with the war to preserve slavery.