Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Rigby5]

Apparently, it was. The whole problem with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater was that it would cause a panicked stampede and endanger people.

You really think shouting fire in a crowded theater will cause a stampede?

And here's the thing Justice Holmes made that remark regarding a case that was overturned 40 years ago.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Regardless, the fundamental premise is correct: no right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited’; no right is comprehensively immune from regulation and restriction by government.

Speech advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence is not entitled to First Amendment protection.

Fourth Amendment case law allows for the police to conduct searches absent a warrant given specific circumstances.

And the Second Amendment is no different.

Not really disagreeing with your general principles.
But with the Second Amendment, clearly what restrictions can legally be places are to only be state and local, with a total prohibition on any federal weapons jurisdiction at all.
While speech inciting violence is normally wrong, it can be right if violence is necessary in order to defend rights.
Like Jefferson said, since corruption is inherent, likely revolutions are needed on a reoccurring basis.
But I am unaware of police ever having the right to conduct warrant-less searches, ever?
What did you have in mind?

They do it to us truck drivers all the time. But then again, truck drivers never had constitutional rights.

You don't have a right to drive

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

But even though driving is not a right, the police to not have the authority to steal your time without probable cause.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You really think shouting fire in a crowded theater will cause a stampede?

And here's the thing Justice Holmes made that remark regarding a case that was overturned 40 years ago.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Regardless, the fundamental premise is correct: no right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited’; no right is comprehensively immune from regulation and restriction by government.

Speech advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence is not entitled to First Amendment protection.

Fourth Amendment case law allows for the police to conduct searches absent a warrant given specific circumstances.

And the Second Amendment is no different.

Not really disagreeing with your general principles.
But with the Second Amendment, clearly what restrictions can legally be places are to only be state and local, with a total prohibition on any federal weapons jurisdiction at all.
While speech inciting violence is normally wrong, it can be right if violence is necessary in order to defend rights.
Like Jefferson said, since corruption is inherent, likely revolutions are needed on a reoccurring basis.
But I am unaware of police ever having the right to conduct warrant-less searches, ever?
What did you have in mind?

They do it to us truck drivers all the time. But then again, truck drivers never had constitutional rights.

You don't have a right to drive

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

But even though driving is not a right, the police to not have the authority to steal your time without probable cause.

It's more than time. After all, I get paid by the hour. What they do is check out your entire truck and trailer. They look inside of it to see what you're carrying. Then they look at the accompanying paperwork for the load. One time I even had one have me open up the hood of the truck so he could check out the engine compartment. What he was looking for, I have no idea.

Of course, they take your license and copy that. They demand to see your medical card so you have to surrender that to them as well.

Point is, imagine what would happen if they started to do this with any motorist. It would be wall to wall news coverage. Politicians would start getting involved. The ACLU would be at least looking into the matter, and possibly represent some motorist in a lawsuit against the government.

But because it's only truck drivers, nobody really cares.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[


Then that is an issue with the state and courts, not the police. Police simply enforce the law--not create it.

That is not excuse for putting the grandfather in jail for doing what the Constitution says he has a right to do.

Jackbooted thugs "just doing their duty" has never been an excuse for oppression.

Of course it's their excuse. He broke the law, and that's what the law says to do with them. What kind of police would we have if they didn't arrest people they were supposed to because of their political beliefs?

Your issue isn't the police. They are only doing the job they are ordered to do. If this guy wants, he can press your issues to the Supreme Court if they're willing to hear it. But you can't blame cops for simply doing their job. What would the media do if they found out the cops let this guy go? What would the police chief do to these officers?

No, many laws are intended to allow police discretion, where it would be wrong for the police to prosecute most of the time, but the law is only there for those rare situations when it is right to prosecute.
Take the example of the law against carrying concealed in a Post Office.
If a night duty nurse forgets to take her carry pistol out of her purse before going to the post office, there is no harm done and no criminal intent.
If the police were to prosecute in those sorts of circumstance, they would be committing a crime.
Police are supposed to remember they are ONLY authorized by the need to protect the rights of others.
When it protects no one, then it is actually illegal for police to arrest and prosecute.
They MUST remember that their bosses, the politicians, and the legislators are NOT where their authority comes from/
The ONLY source of any legal authority at all in a democratic republic, comes from the need to defend the rights of individual. If police harm someone without it being needed in order to protect the rights of others, then police are committing a crime.

The police have to follow the law like everybody else. If you have issues with the laws, penalties, or arrests, that's to be taken up with the politicians and courts, not the police officer.

The guy in the school was suspicious. He not only broke the law by taking the gun into the school, but he had an extra magazine which most people don't carry around just for personal protection. The police did the right thing by arresting him. They did their job.

No, you are NOT supposed to follow the law.
You are supposed to do what is right, and laws are supposed to help you do that.
But by understanding what the authority for law is, which is the defense of the rights of others, and by intent of the particular law, you can do what is right instead.
For example, speed limits are to make driving safer normally, but when you have a medical emergency, by understanding the arbitrary and general nature of speed limits, you can drive faster and possibly save a life.
About the only law which does not have circumstances when you should violate the law is the one against rape.
I can't imagine any circumstances when it would be better to commit rape than not.

Laws against firearms near or in schools make no sense at all.
Just like the tradition shotgun over the mantel, schools MUST be armed in order to protect the children they are responsible for.
And I also disagree that an extra magazine is suspicious.
Everyone I know carries an extra magazine at least.
The holsters provide for them because they are desired.

So if some maniac with a CCW walks into a school, kills students your daughter is going to school with, and if she happened to be a victim, you would still believe that it's stupid to disallow guns in school?

Better yet, how do you think the public would react to that? After all, most politicians have people to answer to. Because you can't take all these proactive measures to try and ensure there is no mass shooting by using security guards, metal detectors, locked doors, and then allow anybody with a gun into the building.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You really think shouting fire in a crowded theater will cause a stampede?

And here's the thing Justice Holmes made that remark regarding a case that was overturned 40 years ago.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Regardless, the fundamental premise is correct: no right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited’; no right is comprehensively immune from regulation and restriction by government.

Speech advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence is not entitled to First Amendment protection.

Fourth Amendment case law allows for the police to conduct searches absent a warrant given specific circumstances.

And the Second Amendment is no different.

Not really disagreeing with your general principles.
But with the Second Amendment, clearly what restrictions can legally be places are to only be state and local, with a total prohibition on any federal weapons jurisdiction at all.
While speech inciting violence is normally wrong, it can be right if violence is necessary in order to defend rights.
Like Jefferson said, since corruption is inherent, likely revolutions are needed on a reoccurring basis.
But I am unaware of police ever having the right to conduct warrant-less searches, ever?
What did you have in mind?

They do it to us truck drivers all the time. But then again, truck drivers never had constitutional rights.

You don't have a right to drive

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

But even though driving is not a right, the police to not have the authority to steal your time without probable cause.

Actually not:

‘"Detentions" short of arrest do not require probable cause. Such temporary detentions require only "reasonable suspicion." This includes car stops, pedestrian stops and detention of occupants while officers execute a search warrant. "Reasonable suspicion" means specific facts which would lead a reasonable person to believe criminal activity was at hand and further investigation was required.’

Probable Cause - FindLaw

 

[OKTexas]

[


Then that is an issue with the state and courts, not the police. Police simply enforce the law--not create it.

That is not excuse for putting the grandfather in jail for doing what the Constitution says he has a right to do.

Jackbooted thugs "just doing their duty" has never been an excuse for oppression.

Of course it's their excuse. He broke the law, and that's what the law says to do with them. What kind of police would we have if they didn't arrest people they were supposed to because of their political beliefs?

Your issue isn't the police. They are only doing the job they are ordered to do. If this guy wants, he can press your issues to the Supreme Court if they're willing to hear it. But you can't blame cops for simply doing their job. What would the media do if they found out the cops let this guy go? What would the police chief do to these officers?

The cops know that the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A politician, judge or cop has not authority to do so. The Constitution is the highest law in the land, isn't it?

If the cops become the thugs of the idiots that passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are no better than the idiots, are they?

"I was only following orders" has been debunked as a moral justification many times in the past, hasn't it?

The Grandfather did nothing wrong. The law was unjust. The cops were assholes enforcing a law passed by shitheads that had no understanding of personal liberty.

Decisions by the Supreme Court are the supreme law of the land; the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

That means that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and that laws enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law do not ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.

I chuckle every time you tell that lie. The Supreme Court is a creation of the Constitution, they have no authority to rewrite it in accordance with their own opinions.

.

 

[MisterBeale]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

I would have been for any of those reforms, if they could have been proven to be an effective way at preventing any of the mass shootings we have had.


As it is, they haven't been spoken of in the media as saying; "LOOK! If we had done these things, none of this would have happened."


So, in the final analysis, it is just government intruding on, and making life more difficult for the law abiding people.

 

[Blues Man]

You really think shouting fire in a crowded theater will cause a stampede?

And here's the thing Justice Holmes made that remark regarding a case that was overturned 40 years ago.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Regardless, the fundamental premise is correct: no right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited’; no right is comprehensively immune from regulation and restriction by government.

Speech advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence is not entitled to First Amendment protection.

Fourth Amendment case law allows for the police to conduct searches absent a warrant given specific circumstances.

And the Second Amendment is no different.

Not really disagreeing with your general principles.
But with the Second Amendment, clearly what restrictions can legally be places are to only be state and local, with a total prohibition on any federal weapons jurisdiction at all.
While speech inciting violence is normally wrong, it can be right if violence is necessary in order to defend rights.
Like Jefferson said, since corruption is inherent, likely revolutions are needed on a reoccurring basis.
But I am unaware of police ever having the right to conduct warrant-less searches, ever?
What did you have in mind?

They do it to us truck drivers all the time. But then again, truck drivers never had constitutional rights.

You don't have a right to drive

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

But even though driving is not a right, the police to not have the authority to steal your time without probable cause.

A cop will tell you why you were pulled over all you have to do is ask

 

[Flash]

This is a great example of the stupidity of the Moon Bats.

in 2017 there were 11K killings with firearms. Of those 11K only 403 were with "rifles". ARs and other "assault weapons" would be a subset of that.

Why would these idiots be screaming about banning ARs when they contribute a statistically insignificant number of deaths? Are they idiots or what?

 

[hadit]

This is a great example of the stupidity of the Moon Bats.

in 2017 there were 11K killings with firearms. Of those 11K only 403 were with "rifles". ARs and other "assault weapons" would be a subset of that.

Why would these idiots be screaming about banning ARs when they contribute a statistically insignificant number of deaths? Are they idiots or what?

They react emotionally, not rationally.

 

[Rigby5]

Regardless, the fundamental premise is correct: no right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited’; no right is comprehensively immune from regulation and restriction by government.

Speech advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence is not entitled to First Amendment protection.

Fourth Amendment case law allows for the police to conduct searches absent a warrant given specific circumstances.

And the Second Amendment is no different.

Not really disagreeing with your general principles.
But with the Second Amendment, clearly what restrictions can legally be places are to only be state and local, with a total prohibition on any federal weapons jurisdiction at all.
While speech inciting violence is normally wrong, it can be right if violence is necessary in order to defend rights.
Like Jefferson said, since corruption is inherent, likely revolutions are needed on a reoccurring basis.
But I am unaware of police ever having the right to conduct warrant-less searches, ever?
What did you have in mind?

They do it to us truck drivers all the time. But then again, truck drivers never had constitutional rights.

You don't have a right to drive

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

But even though driving is not a right, the police to not have the authority to steal your time without probable cause.

It's more than time. After all, I get paid by the hour. What they do is check out your entire truck and trailer. They look inside of it to see what you're carrying. Then they look at the accompanying paperwork for the load. One time I even had one have me open up the hood of the truck so he could check out the engine compartment. What he was looking for, I have no idea.

Of course, they take your license and copy that. They demand to see your medical card so you have to surrender that to them as well.

Point is, imagine what would happen if they started to do this with any motorist. It would be wall to wall news coverage. Politicians would start getting involved. The ACLU would be at least looking into the matter, and possibly represent some motorist in a lawsuit against the government.

But because it's only truck drivers, nobody really cares.

Police have always been out of control to some degree, but they need to be reigned in.
Truckers need to publicize this more.
People would sympathize.
The police do not have authority to examine cargo without a warrant.
Having a CDL should not mean the stricter standards when not driving a dangerous vehicle.
There is a reality of what is right and wrong, and the police are acting wrong.

 

[Rigby5]

That is not excuse for putting the grandfather in jail for doing what the Constitution says he has a right to do.

Jackbooted thugs "just doing their duty" has never been an excuse for oppression.

Of course it's their excuse. He broke the law, and that's what the law says to do with them. What kind of police would we have if they didn't arrest people they were supposed to because of their political beliefs?

Your issue isn't the police. They are only doing the job they are ordered to do. If this guy wants, he can press your issues to the Supreme Court if they're willing to hear it. But you can't blame cops for simply doing their job. What would the media do if they found out the cops let this guy go? What would the police chief do to these officers?

No, many laws are intended to allow police discretion, where it would be wrong for the police to prosecute most of the time, but the law is only there for those rare situations when it is right to prosecute.
Take the example of the law against carrying concealed in a Post Office.
If a night duty nurse forgets to take her carry pistol out of her purse before going to the post office, there is no harm done and no criminal intent.
If the police were to prosecute in those sorts of circumstance, they would be committing a crime.
Police are supposed to remember they are ONLY authorized by the need to protect the rights of others.
When it protects no one, then it is actually illegal for police to arrest and prosecute.
They MUST remember that their bosses, the politicians, and the legislators are NOT where their authority comes from/
The ONLY source of any legal authority at all in a democratic republic, comes from the need to defend the rights of individual. If police harm someone without it being needed in order to protect the rights of others, then police are committing a crime.

The police have to follow the law like everybody else. If you have issues with the laws, penalties, or arrests, that's to be taken up with the politicians and courts, not the police officer.

The guy in the school was suspicious. He not only broke the law by taking the gun into the school, but he had an extra magazine which most people don't carry around just for personal protection. The police did the right thing by arresting him. They did their job.

No, you are NOT supposed to follow the law.
You are supposed to do what is right, and laws are supposed to help you do that.
But by understanding what the authority for law is, which is the defense of the rights of others, and by intent of the particular law, you can do what is right instead.
For example, speed limits are to make driving safer normally, but when you have a medical emergency, by understanding the arbitrary and general nature of speed limits, you can drive faster and possibly save a life.
About the only law which does not have circumstances when you should violate the law is the one against rape.
I can't imagine any circumstances when it would be better to commit rape than not.

Laws against firearms near or in schools make no sense at all.
Just like the tradition shotgun over the mantel, schools MUST be armed in order to protect the children they are responsible for.
And I also disagree that an extra magazine is suspicious.
Everyone I know carries an extra magazine at least.
The holsters provide for them because they are desired.

So if some maniac with a CCW walks into a school, kills students your daughter is going to school with, and if she happened to be a victim, you would still believe that it's stupid to disallow guns in school?

Better yet, how do you think the public would react to that? After all, most politicians have people to answer to. Because you can't take all these proactive measures to try and ensure there is no mass shooting by using security guards, metal detectors, locked doors, and then allow anybody with a gun into the building.

If someone wants to stop someone who looks suspicious and check them out, that is fine. But once they check out and there is no longer any reason to be suspicious, then it is wrong to press charges, and in fact the schools should be encouraging parents to volunteer time as armed security on school grounds. The FL school shooting shows you can not trust mercenaries, who can run from trouble when it actually happens. Armed parents would be much better and cheaper.

It will always be stupid to disallow guns in schools. The staff should always have been armed, as they used to be always someone who was armed. Where people got the bizarre notion that making it illegal for honest people to carry guns on school grounds could possibly make things safer, is hard to imagine. It is totally and completely irrational.

 

[Rigby5]

Regardless, the fundamental premise is correct: no right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited’; no right is comprehensively immune from regulation and restriction by government.

Speech advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence is not entitled to First Amendment protection.

Fourth Amendment case law allows for the police to conduct searches absent a warrant given specific circumstances.

And the Second Amendment is no different.

Not really disagreeing with your general principles.
But with the Second Amendment, clearly what restrictions can legally be places are to only be state and local, with a total prohibition on any federal weapons jurisdiction at all.
While speech inciting violence is normally wrong, it can be right if violence is necessary in order to defend rights.
Like Jefferson said, since corruption is inherent, likely revolutions are needed on a reoccurring basis.
But I am unaware of police ever having the right to conduct warrant-less searches, ever?
What did you have in mind?

They do it to us truck drivers all the time. But then again, truck drivers never had constitutional rights.

You don't have a right to drive

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

But even though driving is not a right, the police to not have the authority to steal your time without probable cause.

Actually not:

‘"Detentions" short of arrest do not require probable cause. Such temporary detentions require only "reasonable suspicion." This includes car stops, pedestrian stops and detention of occupants while officers execute a search warrant. "Reasonable suspicion" means specific facts which would lead a reasonable person to believe criminal activity was at hand and further investigation was required.’

Probable Cause - FindLaw

I disagree. Reasonable suspicion is a made up concept and has no basis in law.
That would allow profiling, which clearly has been ruled illegal.
A suspicion does not have to have any factual basis, and it is illegal to abuse the rights of anyone without factual basis.
Further investigation is always allowed, even on a hunch, but not to the point of conducting an illegal warrantless search, holding a person while waiting for background check, etc.
I think what the police do now is illegal.

 

[Rigby5]

Regardless, the fundamental premise is correct: no right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited’; no right is comprehensively immune from regulation and restriction by government.

Speech advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence is not entitled to First Amendment protection.

Fourth Amendment case law allows for the police to conduct searches absent a warrant given specific circumstances.

And the Second Amendment is no different.

Not really disagreeing with your general principles.
But with the Second Amendment, clearly what restrictions can legally be places are to only be state and local, with a total prohibition on any federal weapons jurisdiction at all.
While speech inciting violence is normally wrong, it can be right if violence is necessary in order to defend rights.
Like Jefferson said, since corruption is inherent, likely revolutions are needed on a reoccurring basis.
But I am unaware of police ever having the right to conduct warrant-less searches, ever?
What did you have in mind?

They do it to us truck drivers all the time. But then again, truck drivers never had constitutional rights.

You don't have a right to drive

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

But even though driving is not a right, the police to not have the authority to steal your time without probable cause.

A cop will tell you why you were pulled over all you have to do is ask

The context was with CDL truck drivers, who tell me are not pulled over with a valid reason.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course it's their excuse. He broke the law, and that's what the law says to do with them. What kind of police would we have if they didn't arrest people they were supposed to because of their political beliefs?

Your issue isn't the police. They are only doing the job they are ordered to do. If this guy wants, he can press your issues to the Supreme Court if they're willing to hear it. But you can't blame cops for simply doing their job. What would the media do if they found out the cops let this guy go? What would the police chief do to these officers?

No, many laws are intended to allow police discretion, where it would be wrong for the police to prosecute most of the time, but the law is only there for those rare situations when it is right to prosecute.
Take the example of the law against carrying concealed in a Post Office.
If a night duty nurse forgets to take her carry pistol out of her purse before going to the post office, there is no harm done and no criminal intent.
If the police were to prosecute in those sorts of circumstance, they would be committing a crime.
Police are supposed to remember they are ONLY authorized by the need to protect the rights of others.
When it protects no one, then it is actually illegal for police to arrest and prosecute.
They MUST remember that their bosses, the politicians, and the legislators are NOT where their authority comes from/
The ONLY source of any legal authority at all in a democratic republic, comes from the need to defend the rights of individual. If police harm someone without it being needed in order to protect the rights of others, then police are committing a crime.

The police have to follow the law like everybody else. If you have issues with the laws, penalties, or arrests, that's to be taken up with the politicians and courts, not the police officer.

The guy in the school was suspicious. He not only broke the law by taking the gun into the school, but he had an extra magazine which most people don't carry around just for personal protection. The police did the right thing by arresting him. They did their job.

No, you are NOT supposed to follow the law.
You are supposed to do what is right, and laws are supposed to help you do that.
But by understanding what the authority for law is, which is the defense of the rights of others, and by intent of the particular law, you can do what is right instead.
For example, speed limits are to make driving safer normally, but when you have a medical emergency, by understanding the arbitrary and general nature of speed limits, you can drive faster and possibly save a life.
About the only law which does not have circumstances when you should violate the law is the one against rape.
I can't imagine any circumstances when it would be better to commit rape than not.

Laws against firearms near or in schools make no sense at all.
Just like the tradition shotgun over the mantel, schools MUST be armed in order to protect the children they are responsible for.
And I also disagree that an extra magazine is suspicious.
Everyone I know carries an extra magazine at least.
The holsters provide for them because they are desired.

So if some maniac with a CCW walks into a school, kills students your daughter is going to school with, and if she happened to be a victim, you would still believe that it's stupid to disallow guns in school?

Better yet, how do you think the public would react to that? After all, most politicians have people to answer to. Because you can't take all these proactive measures to try and ensure there is no mass shooting by using security guards, metal detectors, locked doors, and then allow anybody with a gun into the building.

If someone wants to stop someone who looks suspicious and check them out, that is fine. But once they check out and there is no longer any reason to be suspicious, then it is wrong to press charges, and in fact the schools should be encouraging parents to volunteer time as armed security on school grounds. The FL school shooting shows you can not trust mercenaries, who can run from trouble when it actually happens. Armed parents would be much better and cheaper.

It will always be stupid to disallow guns in schools. The staff should always have been armed, as they used to be always someone who was armed. Where people got the bizarre notion that making it illegal for honest people to carry guns on school grounds could possibly make things safer, is hard to imagine. It is totally and completely irrational.

You ignored my questions on this:

What if some harm came to your child because the school allowed anybody with a gun to enter the building?

What do you think the media would do if something happened in a school that did allow guns in the building?

What do you think would happen to a police officer that decided not to arrest somebody he was supposed to?

I have no problem with somebody being armed in school. The school is made aware of it well ahead of time. The law permits it. They have the proper training to handle a mass shooting situation. No problem at all.

But we can't let every Tom, Dick and Harry into schools with guns, because that's an open invitation to somebody that does want to commit a mass shooting in a school.

 

[Flash]

[

But we can't let every Tom, Dick and Harry into schools with guns, because that's an open invitation to somebody that does want to commit a mass shooting in a school.

Why not? We did back when I was in school.

The mass shooter is going to be looking for a place that has no guns posted. It is safer for him. Meanwhile he will ignore the sign or the law.

A parent or grandparent with a concealed weapon should be allow to pick up a child from school without being arrested.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not really disagreeing with your general principles.
But with the Second Amendment, clearly what restrictions can legally be places are to only be state and local, with a total prohibition on any federal weapons jurisdiction at all.
While speech inciting violence is normally wrong, it can be right if violence is necessary in order to defend rights.
Like Jefferson said, since corruption is inherent, likely revolutions are needed on a reoccurring basis.
But I am unaware of police ever having the right to conduct warrant-less searches, ever?
What did you have in mind?

They do it to us truck drivers all the time. But then again, truck drivers never had constitutional rights.

You don't have a right to drive

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

But even though driving is not a right, the police to not have the authority to steal your time without probable cause.

It's more than time. After all, I get paid by the hour. What they do is check out your entire truck and trailer. They look inside of it to see what you're carrying. Then they look at the accompanying paperwork for the load. One time I even had one have me open up the hood of the truck so he could check out the engine compartment. What he was looking for, I have no idea.

Of course, they take your license and copy that. They demand to see your medical card so you have to surrender that to them as well.

Point is, imagine what would happen if they started to do this with any motorist. It would be wall to wall news coverage. Politicians would start getting involved. The ACLU would be at least looking into the matter, and possibly represent some motorist in a lawsuit against the government.

But because it's only truck drivers, nobody really cares.

Police have always been out of control to some degree, but they need to be reigned in.
Truckers need to publicize this more.
People would sympathize.
The police do not have authority to examine cargo without a warrant.
Having a CDL should not mean the stricter standards when not driving a dangerous vehicle.
There is a reality of what is right and wrong, and the police are acting wrong.

The police aren't, the politicians are. The police are only doing the job they were hired for.

Over here they train our state troopers in Department of Transportation inspections. Before they just used to have DOT guys stopping trucks. The problem was they were not authorized to write tickets, and had to call for a trooper to come along and do that. So now they just have the troopers puling over trucks. There are still a few DOT guys around, but not nearly as many.

Like anything else, they have a quota to meet. So they will write you up on the stupidest things.

The last time I was pulled over, the trooper wrote me up for a marker light on the back of the trailer. I told him the light was just fine, it's just that you can't see it in the sun. There was no shade for me to pull the trailer into to show him the light was working. He didn't care. He still wrote me up on it stating he has to be able to see those lights in day or night.

I took the trailer back to Penske the next morning, and the mechanic asked me WTF was wrong with the lights? They work just fine! I explained the situation to him. He was so pissed off he went to complain to his supervisor about it. So he had to remove the light bulb sockets and replace them with LED sockets and bulbs. We got to talking about what the cops do to us and the dumbest things we get written up for.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[

But we can't let every Tom, Dick and Harry into schools with guns, because that's an open invitation to somebody that does want to commit a mass shooting in a school.

Why not? We did back when I was in school.

The mass shooter is going to be looking for a place that has no guns posted. It is safer for him. Meanwhile he will ignore the sign or the law.

A parent or grandparent with a concealed weapon should be allow to pick up a child from school without being arrested.

You can petition your school, councilman, or state for that. The cop is not in charge of making the laws. But you would get little if any public support on that idea.

This isn't the old days. Columbine started a long string of copy cat crimes. Waiting until after a school shooting takes place to do something is too late. That's why no guns are allowed in schools. We need to be as proactive as we can to prevent them.

 

[Rigby5]

No, many laws are intended to allow police discretion, where it would be wrong for the police to prosecute most of the time, but the law is only there for those rare situations when it is right to prosecute.
Take the example of the law against carrying concealed in a Post Office.
If a night duty nurse forgets to take her carry pistol out of her purse before going to the post office, there is no harm done and no criminal intent.
If the police were to prosecute in those sorts of circumstance, they would be committing a crime.
Police are supposed to remember they are ONLY authorized by the need to protect the rights of others.
When it protects no one, then it is actually illegal for police to arrest and prosecute.
They MUST remember that their bosses, the politicians, and the legislators are NOT where their authority comes from/
The ONLY source of any legal authority at all in a democratic republic, comes from the need to defend the rights of individual. If police harm someone without it being needed in order to protect the rights of others, then police are committing a crime.

The police have to follow the law like everybody else. If you have issues with the laws, penalties, or arrests, that's to be taken up with the politicians and courts, not the police officer.

The guy in the school was suspicious. He not only broke the law by taking the gun into the school, but he had an extra magazine which most people don't carry around just for personal protection. The police did the right thing by arresting him. They did their job.

No, you are NOT supposed to follow the law.
You are supposed to do what is right, and laws are supposed to help you do that.
But by understanding what the authority for law is, which is the defense of the rights of others, and by intent of the particular law, you can do what is right instead.
For example, speed limits are to make driving safer normally, but when you have a medical emergency, by understanding the arbitrary and general nature of speed limits, you can drive faster and possibly save a life.
About the only law which does not have circumstances when you should violate the law is the one against rape.
I can't imagine any circumstances when it would be better to commit rape than not.

Laws against firearms near or in schools make no sense at all.
Just like the tradition shotgun over the mantel, schools MUST be armed in order to protect the children they are responsible for.
And I also disagree that an extra magazine is suspicious.
Everyone I know carries an extra magazine at least.
The holsters provide for them because they are desired.

So if some maniac with a CCW walks into a school, kills students your daughter is going to school with, and if she happened to be a victim, you would still believe that it's stupid to disallow guns in school?

Better yet, how do you think the public would react to that? After all, most politicians have people to answer to. Because you can't take all these proactive measures to try and ensure there is no mass shooting by using security guards, metal detectors, locked doors, and then allow anybody with a gun into the building.

If someone wants to stop someone who looks suspicious and check them out, that is fine. But once they check out and there is no longer any reason to be suspicious, then it is wrong to press charges, and in fact the schools should be encouraging parents to volunteer time as armed security on school grounds. The FL school shooting shows you can not trust mercenaries, who can run from trouble when it actually happens. Armed parents would be much better and cheaper.

It will always be stupid to disallow guns in schools. The staff should always have been armed, as they used to be always someone who was armed. Where people got the bizarre notion that making it illegal for honest people to carry guns on school grounds could possibly make things safer, is hard to imagine. It is totally and completely irrational.

You ignored my questions on this:

What if some harm came to your child because the school allowed anybody with a gun to enter the building?

What do you think the media would do if something happened in a school that did allow guns in the building?

What do you think would happen to a police officer that decided not to arrest somebody he was supposed to?

I have no problem with somebody being armed in school. The school is made aware of it well ahead of time. The law permits it. They have the proper training to handle a mass shooting situation. No problem at all.

But we can't let every Tom, Dick and Harry into schools with guns, because that's an open invitation to somebody that does want to commit a mass shooting in a school.

If someone has a child in the school and a valid reason for being there, the school should not stop them.
If they don't have a valid reason, they should be stopped.
Metal detectors and searching everyone is impractical, illegal, and dangerous.
What the media says, I could care less about.

The law NEVER requires the police to ever arrest anyone.
The final discretion, as to things like intent, are entirely up to police.
They NEVER have to arrest anyone.

There are things inherently wrong that no one should ever do, like rape.
But there are also things that normally are right and bizarre laws have made illegal illogically.
Such as the case of NYC laws prohibiting the transportation of a home defense firearm from primary residence to a second home.
Police arresting when the law is not based on an obvious need to protect others, is ILLEGAL, not by statute, but by the basic definition of what CAN be legislated.
Police must be taught that statutes are NOT law.
Law is a higher abstraction that legislation is supposed to try to implement.
But police are supposed to be taught to understand the higher abstraction, and to fix the flaws in legislation on the fly, when the legislation is flawed. And that discretion should always be in favor of leniency, not more strict.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The police have to follow the law like everybody else. If you have issues with the laws, penalties, or arrests, that's to be taken up with the politicians and courts, not the police officer.

The guy in the school was suspicious. He not only broke the law by taking the gun into the school, but he had an extra magazine which most people don't carry around just for personal protection. The police did the right thing by arresting him. They did their job.

No, you are NOT supposed to follow the law.
You are supposed to do what is right, and laws are supposed to help you do that.
But by understanding what the authority for law is, which is the defense of the rights of others, and by intent of the particular law, you can do what is right instead.
For example, speed limits are to make driving safer normally, but when you have a medical emergency, by understanding the arbitrary and general nature of speed limits, you can drive faster and possibly save a life.
About the only law which does not have circumstances when you should violate the law is the one against rape.
I can't imagine any circumstances when it would be better to commit rape than not.

Laws against firearms near or in schools make no sense at all.
Just like the tradition shotgun over the mantel, schools MUST be armed in order to protect the children they are responsible for.
And I also disagree that an extra magazine is suspicious.
Everyone I know carries an extra magazine at least.
The holsters provide for them because they are desired.

So if some maniac with a CCW walks into a school, kills students your daughter is going to school with, and if she happened to be a victim, you would still believe that it's stupid to disallow guns in school?

Better yet, how do you think the public would react to that? After all, most politicians have people to answer to. Because you can't take all these proactive measures to try and ensure there is no mass shooting by using security guards, metal detectors, locked doors, and then allow anybody with a gun into the building.

If someone wants to stop someone who looks suspicious and check them out, that is fine. But once they check out and there is no longer any reason to be suspicious, then it is wrong to press charges, and in fact the schools should be encouraging parents to volunteer time as armed security on school grounds. The FL school shooting shows you can not trust mercenaries, who can run from trouble when it actually happens. Armed parents would be much better and cheaper.

It will always be stupid to disallow guns in schools. The staff should always have been armed, as they used to be always someone who was armed. Where people got the bizarre notion that making it illegal for honest people to carry guns on school grounds could possibly make things safer, is hard to imagine. It is totally and completely irrational.

You ignored my questions on this:

What if some harm came to your child because the school allowed anybody with a gun to enter the building?

What do you think the media would do if something happened in a school that did allow guns in the building?

What do you think would happen to a police officer that decided not to arrest somebody he was supposed to?

I have no problem with somebody being armed in school. The school is made aware of it well ahead of time. The law permits it. They have the proper training to handle a mass shooting situation. No problem at all.

But we can't let every Tom, Dick and Harry into schools with guns, because that's an open invitation to somebody that does want to commit a mass shooting in a school.

If someone has a child in the school and a valid reason for being there, the school should not stop them.
If they don't have a valid reason, they should be stopped.
Metal detectors and searching everyone is impractical, illegal, and dangerous.
What the media says, I could care less about.

The law NEVER requires the police to ever arrest anyone.
The final discretion, as to things like intent, are entirely up to police.
They NEVER have to arrest anyone.

There are things inherently wrong that no one should ever do, like rape.
But there are also things that normally are right and bizarre laws have made illegal illogically.
Such as the case of NYC laws prohibiting the transportation of a home defense firearm from primary residence to a second home.
Police arresting when the law is not based on an obvious need to protect others, is ILLEGAL, not by statute, but by the basic definition of what CAN be legislated.
Police must be taught that statutes are NOT law.
Law is a higher abstraction that legislation is supposed to try to implement.
But police are supposed to be taught to understand the higher abstraction, and to fix the flaws in legislation on the fly, when the legislation is flawed. And that discretion should always be in favor of leniency, not more strict.

Then you really have no understanding of police work. Few cops wanted to have body cams on them, but were forced to because that's what their city wanted. Cops are not the boss, their supervisors and politicians are. You do the job the way they tell you to do it right or wrong. If you don't want to do the job, then get out of that line of work and somebody else that listens to orders will do the job instead.

You can have your politics anytime in this country, but you can't practice your politics on the job, especially when you're a police officer. I'd be willing to bet that this officer had to arrest the guy because that's what he was instructed to do. If he didn't, he'd be out of a job today.

 

[Rigby5]

They do it to us truck drivers all the time. But then again, truck drivers never had constitutional rights.

You don't have a right to drive

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

But even though driving is not a right, the police to not have the authority to steal your time without probable cause.

It's more than time. After all, I get paid by the hour. What they do is check out your entire truck and trailer. They look inside of it to see what you're carrying. Then they look at the accompanying paperwork for the load. One time I even had one have me open up the hood of the truck so he could check out the engine compartment. What he was looking for, I have no idea.

Of course, they take your license and copy that. They demand to see your medical card so you have to surrender that to them as well.

Point is, imagine what would happen if they started to do this with any motorist. It would be wall to wall news coverage. Politicians would start getting involved. The ACLU would be at least looking into the matter, and possibly represent some motorist in a lawsuit against the government.

But because it's only truck drivers, nobody really cares.

Police have always been out of control to some degree, but they need to be reigned in.
Truckers need to publicize this more.
People would sympathize.
The police do not have authority to examine cargo without a warrant.
Having a CDL should not mean the stricter standards when not driving a dangerous vehicle.
There is a reality of what is right and wrong, and the police are acting wrong.

The police aren't, the politicians are. The police are only doing the job they were hired for.

Over here they train our state troopers in Department of Transportation inspections. Before they just used to have DOT guys stopping trucks. The problem was they were not authorized to write tickets, and had to call for a trooper to come along and do that. So now they just have the troopers puling over trucks. There are still a few DOT guys around, but not nearly as many.

Like anything else, they have a quota to meet. So they will write you up on the stupidest things.

The last time I was pulled over, the trooper wrote me up for a marker light on the back of the trailer. I told him the light was just fine, it's just that you can't see it in the sun. There was no shade for me to pull the trailer into to show him the light was working. He didn't care. He still wrote me up on it stating he has to be able to see those lights in day or night.

I took the trailer back to Penske the next morning, and the mechanic asked me WTF was wrong with the lights? They work just fine! I explained the situation to him. He was so pissed off he went to complain to his supervisor about it. So he had to remove the light bulb sockets and replace them with LED sockets and bulbs. We got to talking about what the cops do to us and the dumbest things we get written up for.

There essentially were no police until around 1900, and likely that is the way it should still be.
Police are always going to be inherently corrupt.
There is no way to fix that or prevent police from eventually requiring a violent revolution.
When you hire mercenaries, they do what those who sign their paycheck want, not what the laws says.
It can never work.
Paid police just are inherently wrong.
When people see a violation, then let them send in a dashcam video.
With trucks, just have a monthly inspections by the company.
There really is no need for police.
Never has been.
Police have never done any good, except to reduce lynchings.
And I doubt that is a problem any more.