Enforce gun bans by house to house searches?

[Civil War Man]

Just an observation from reading this thread. The arguments being made by both sides are similar to one of the hypothetical scenarios brought up when debating the death penalty. Namely the one going "would you be willing to let 20 guilty people go in order to spare the life of one innocent?" or, conversely "would you let 20 innocents burn in order to get at one guilty person?"

Except it isnt life and death, it's fucking inconvenience...

What part of the word "similar" makes you think "identical"? Barring corrupt or racist police officers, it's not life and death. But the basic idea is how much a person's willing to do in the name of The Law. The arguments you've been making is that the guilty must get theirs, regardless of how many innocent people you have to go through to get to them. Glock, et al have been arguing more on the vain of being willing to let some guilty go to ensure that everyone else doesn't get punished for something they didn't do.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

You cannot 'unpunish' the innocent. You can, however, redouble your investigative efforts to catch the ones that slip through. Couple that with decriminalization of victimless crimes and everyone is happy.

Well, everyone except the murderers and rapists; they'll get caught with more regularity due to the police not having stupid drug and morality laws to fuck the blotter up.

[Aeolus]

Texans are almost (clearly we are the uberednecks) West Virginians but with a nationalistic pride in their state.

Holy fucking shit do they ever. I literally can't take a shit without seeing at least two items with the shape of Texas either on them or formed into. These people are very nationalistic with their state, and everyone and their dog has a gun and knows how to use it (I can't really complain though, I'd be a hypocrite to do so, plus it's not really anything to complain about: range trips are fun).

What can I say Texas history is a required course in our schools.

[wolveraptor]

How is getting your house searched an inconvenience anyways? It's not like you have to drop your plans to come and help. They can always do it when you're not at home. However, I would say that we need to get rid of all the federal laws we have concerning drugs before random searches for gun can be implemented. Liberal areas of the country shouldn't have to suffer through cops "searching for guns" and finding drugs, leading to the arrest of yet another victim (probably a minority). It ought to be a state by state thing.

[Keevan_Colton]

Just an observation from reading this thread. The arguments being made by both sides are similar to one of the hypothetical scenarios brought up when debating the death penalty. Namely the one going "would you be willing to let 20 guilty people go in order to spare the life of one innocent?" or, conversely "would you let 20 innocents burn in order to get at one guilty person?"

Except it isnt life and death, it's fucking inconvenience...

What part of the word "similar" makes you think "identical"? Barring corrupt or racist police officers, it's not life and death. But the basic idea is how much a person's willing to do in the name of The Law. The arguments you've been making is that the guilty must get theirs, regardless of how many innocent people you have to go through to get to them. Glock, et al have been arguing more on the vain of being willing to let some guilty go to ensure that everyone else doesn't get punished for something they didn't do.

Except, a minor incovenience isnt really comperable to being KILLED. Is it? Oh no, I've lost five minutes of my time compare to oh shit, I'm dead...

[Rogue 9]

What part of the word "similar" makes you think "identical"? Barring corrupt or racist police officers, it's not life and death. But the basic idea is how much a person's willing to do in the name of The Law. The arguments you've been making is that the guilty must get theirs, regardless of how many innocent people you have to go through to get to them. Glock, et al have been arguing more on the vain of being willing to let some guilty go to ensure that everyone else doesn't get punished for something they didn't do.

Except, a minor incovenience isnt really comperable to being KILLED. Is it? Oh no, I've lost five minutes of my time compare to oh shit, I'm dead...

A major abrogation of rights is not a minor inconvenience. Do you want to know why we have the unreasonable search and seizure provision? Well? I'll tell you why; it's what the fucking British Empire did and we saw what they did with it. House to house searches with the Army. I'm sorry, we will not have that again.

[Keevan_Colton]

Yeah and we still have longbow practice to repel the French...

[Rogue 9]

That threat went away; the threat of government overstepping it's bounds never will. The comparison between search and seizure and longbow practice supervised by the local clergy is completely inapplicable.

[Rogue 9]

Ghetto edit: Its bounds, not it is bounds.

[SirNitram]

Except, a minor incovenience isnt really comperable to being KILLED. Is it? Oh no, I've lost five minutes of my time compare to oh shit, I'm dead...

A major abrogation of rights is not a minor inconvenience. Do you want to know why we have the unreasonable search and seizure provision? Well? I'll tell you why; it's what the fucking British Empire did and we saw what they did with it. House to house searches with the Army. I'm sorry, we will not have that again.

Full points for indignit outrage and rhetoric, but I'm afraid it's not exactly a rebuttal. Really, is it asking much that these threads not be composed of non-sequitors?

[Rogue 9]

Okay then, cut the part about why the provision exists if you really must. An abrogation of rights is not a minor inconvenience. There must be restrictions on government to curb its all-too-human excesses. It is naïve in the extreme to place absolute trust in the government; if we could do that, then we might as well just place absolute trust in people in general and just not have government in the first place. After all, if the people in government are suddenly incorruptible and noncriminal, what makes them so special?

Here's the shocker: It's not up to me to prove that my house shouldn't be searched. It is up to the police to prove that it should. This is simple burden of proof rules here; I should think anyone posting on this forum would know about them.

[SirNitram]

Okay then, cut the part about why the provision exists if you really must. An abrogation of rights is not a minor inconvenience. There must be restrictions on government to curb its all-too-human excesses. It is naïve in the extreme to place absolute trust in the government; if we could do that, then we might as well just place absolute trust in people in general and just not have government in the first place. After all, if the people in government are suddenly incorruptible and noncriminal, what makes them so special?

Here's the shocker: It's not up to me to prove that my house shouldn't be searched. It is up to the police to prove that it should. This is simple burden of proof rules here; I should think anyone posting on this forum would know about them.

Jeez, black/white fallacy much? Either they're totally corrupt and out to get you, or they're sinless?

I never said you had to prove why they shouldn't search you, genius, I asked you to try and keep your posts to actual rebuttals. I realize that there's a strong need to go on irrelevent, paranoid ravings when gun control comes up, but logic is required here. Especially when your ranting and raving comes as a response to a question of 'Dying or being searched: Which is worse?'.

[Rogue 9]

Okay, dying is worse, but the question is utterly irrelevant. Who the fuck is going to die if we don't do house to house searches across the country compared to the numbers who will die if we do? If you want to start thousands of shootouts between the police and gun owners, this is the way to do it.

And I did not say they were totally corrupt and out to get you if they weren't sinless. It does not take total corruption or even anything close to it to justify placing limits on governmental power. This isn't about gun control as far as I'm concerned; this is about search and seizure, which is a different issue. This is only related insofar as the example is talking about seizing guns.

I realize that this might not have gotten across (no sarcasm; it just doesn't really come up much), but I care about the rights of citizens in general; the right to keep and bear is just the one that comes up the most. And giving police the power to search anyone and any residence at any time for any or no reason fucks with the first as well as second amendment. Think about it. If, every time you want to speak out to criticize the government, you have to consider the risk of the police "randomly" deciding to harass you, how often would people exercise their rights to free speech, press, and petition? It's called the chilling effect on speech, and it's a very real consideration in First Amendment law. The fear of punishment itself suppresses speech almost as effectively as actual punishment.

[Dooey Jo]

Wait, so this is why the officers on Cops and the likes always make people walk on lines and shit? Because they actually can't do a breath test first?

They do that in order to establish probable cause for the test.
The implied consent laws do not permit you to refuse the test once the officer has determined that probable cause exists.

I realise that, what I don't understand is how you can consider blowing in a machine, to test for alcohol in your breath, to be some huge violation of rights.

In other words, if a cop pulls you over for suspicion of DUI and you refuse the portable breath test, he can still force you to take a chemical test if other circumstances give him the probable cause to do so.
Generally if he's pulled you over, it's because you're operating the vehicle so erratically, a 'reasonable officer' would conclude that you were DUI and just be justified in mandating the implied consent chemical test.

I'm just saying that it's strange. If he refuses, why isn't that a probable cause to investigate him further, and thus making the officer authorised to force him to do it?

Sure we can, it's called a constitutional amendment.
Perhaps you don't understand, but the constitution is our basic law, and as such, other laws must conform with it.
Maybe we haven't amended it because our police have no problem busting drunk drivers without the Stasi-like powers of random search a lot of foreign police forces have.

No problem compared to what? But that's beside the point, so never mind.
They can make you blow in a fucking tube if you are driving. It takes all of a few seconds, and if you think they're harassing you, you can report them (and there will be a huge shitstorm in the media over it). This Stasi of ours isn't exactly making me shit my pants. They do seem pretty apt at keeping DUI figures down, though...

If the 4th amendment was a substantial bar to agressive DUI enforcement, groups like Mothers Aagainst Drunk Driving would be in the forefront of demanding it be changed.
Instead all you hear from them on that subject is the sound of chirping crickets.

I can't answer for them. Maybe there are negative emotions associated with constitutional amendments and they know opponents could easily twist the argument into slippery slope fallacies. Fuck knows how much that happens in second amendment arguments...

[Uraniun235]

I'm just saying that it's strange. If he refuses, why isn't that a probable cause to investigate him further, and thus making the officer authorised to force him to do it?

Such a stance could create a legal precedent, wherein any refusal to submit to a search could create probable cause... at which point, why not just drop the pretense and forget about asking permission to search people?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I'm just saying that it's strange. If he refuses, why isn't that a probable cause to investigate him further, and thus making the officer authorised to force him to do it?

Such a stance could create a legal precedent, wherein any refusal to submit to a search could create probable cause... at which point, why not just drop the pretense and forget about asking permission to search people?

That's how it is de facto anyway. You refuse a search, they see it as probable cause where it very well shouldn't be.

[Durandal]

Wait, so this is why the officers on Cops and the likes always make people walk on lines and shit? Because they actually can't do a breath test first? I thought they were just making fun of them. WTF! That is ridiculous in the extreme.

You know, I hear a lot of that about the 4th Amendment in this thread, but no one seems to provide any sort of argument to go along with it.

And you can't pass a law that makes this legal because of the holy constitution, which was written two million years ago and did not take in account such things as breath tests for there were no breath tests then, and in fact no drunk driving either because there weren't even any fucking cars (and horses have really good cruise control). Jesus Christ... American law and politics...

So what are we supposed to do? Throw out our fundamental legal document every time someone claims that it's ridiculous? You do realize that this is the exact same argument Bush and his cronies use to justify warrantless wiretapping and stripping defendants of habeas corpus, right? You know what I think is retarded? Keevan's comment that British police can just stop anyone in public and search him there on the spot for absolutely no reason at all, if it's true. That's borderline fascism, and it's certainly just as offensive to the idea of civil liberties as warrantless wiretapping, something he ceaselessly criticized the Bush administration for.

So let's review. Warrantless wiretapping is bad. But randomly stopping people in public and forcing them to submit to a search? Good!

American law is based around one, core principle: don't trust the government, because people in power will become corrupt. And this administration has certainly been a case-study in that philosophy. The fact that idiots like this can actually get elected and appointed to important positions is precisely the reason we don't want the government having more power to fuck with people's lives.

Getting back to drunk driving, as Rogue 9 said earlier (and I can't believe I'm agreeing with him on something), the sobriety test is more than sufficient to establish probable cause for a breathalyzer test. Everyone keeps whining about what an insignificant inconvenience it is to just blow into the device, but for some reason, a sobriety test is an unacceptable hoop for cops to have to jump through. I'd rather have the government jump through extra hoops any day of the week, and I think the people who wrote the Constitution would agree with me.

[Dooey Jo]

Wait, so this is why the officers on Cops and the likes always make people walk on lines and shit? Because they actually can't do a breath test first? I thought they were just making fun of them. WTF! That is ridiculous in the extreme.

You know, I hear a lot of that about the 4th Amendment in this thread, but no one seems to provide any sort of argument to go along with it.

You don't think it's ridiculous that the police can make people touch their noses and walk on lines, but not have them blow in breath analysers, because according to an interpretation of an old constitutional amendment, this uncovers things hidden in your breath, and uncovering things hidden in your breath is bad, but people standing on one leg is good? It's probably cultural differences, but in my book, that is fucking ridiculous.

And you can't pass a law that makes this legal because of the holy constitution, which was written two million years ago and did not take in account such things as breath tests for there were no breath tests then, and in fact no drunk driving either because there weren't even any fucking cars (and horses have really good cruise control). Jesus Christ... American law and politics...

So what are we supposed to do? Throw out our fundamental legal document every time someone claims that it's ridiculous? You do realize that this is the exact same argument Bush and his cronies use to justify warrantless wiretapping and stripping defendants of habeas corpus, right?

Yeah, except I'm not saying you should throw it out, or allow random internments, I'm saying breath analysers are quick and useful. Letting the police use them as one of those sobriety tests does not necessarily lead to death camps.

You know what I think is retarded? Keevan's comment that British police can just stop anyone in public and search him there on the spot for absolutely no reason at all, if it's true. That's borderline fascism, and it's certainly just as offensive to the idea of civil liberties as warrantless wiretapping, something he ceaselessly criticized the Bush administration for.

So let's review. Warrantless wiretapping is bad. But randomly stopping people in public and forcing them to submit to a search? Good!

I'd say it depends on what that search actually is. Breath tests are definitely a lot better than wiretapping, and maybe not even very bad at all. They are only checking your breath for alcohol, while wiretapping is going way into your personal life. And with wiretapping, you don't even know they're doing it.
I wouldn't want them to be able to do random body cavity searches on people though...

American law is based around one, core principle: don't trust the government, because people in power will become corrupt. And this administration has certainly been a case-study in that philosophy. The fact that idiots like this can actually get elected and appointed to important positions is precisely the reason we don't want the government having more power to fuck with people's lives.

I agree that evil assholes have a tendency to get elected over there, but that argument depends on the assumption that the government will give two shits about the constitution. Even Bush & Co. seem quite good at not doing precisely that, or can circumvent it by yelling "yarr terr'ists". So not using our European way of using breath analysers because it will stop your government from killing you all isn't a very good argument.

Getting back to drunk driving, as Rogue 9 said earlier (and I can't believe I'm agreeing with him on something), the sobriety test is more than sufficient to establish probable cause for a breathalyzer test. Everyone keeps whining about what an insignificant inconvenience it is to just blow into the device, but for some reason, a sobriety test is an unacceptable hoop for cops to have to jump through. I'd rather have the government jump through extra hoops any day of the week, and I think the people who wrote the Constitution would agree with me.

But why do you have you get rid of the whole amendment just let them use breath analysers? Do your laws always work like "either we let them do everything or nothing"?

[Surlethe]

I'd say it depends on what that search actually is. Breath tests are definitely a lot better than wiretapping, and maybe not even very bad at all. They are only checking your breath for alcohol, while wiretapping is going way into your personal life. And with wiretapping, you don't even know they're doing it.

I don't see why stopping a car to check someone for alcohol on his breath is analogous to stopping someone (even 92-year-old grandma with her walker) who's walking down the street and frisking him for a gun. Last time I checked, operating a vehicle is an earned privilege granted by the government, while simply being on public property is not.