Second admendment

[e60ral]

well stop and frisk doesn't work and it is unconstitutional so i don't know what part of wanting more of it is "common sense"

it's also downright terrifying for someone to advocate for further erosion of the 4th amendment, which have already been heavily eroded and is constantly under attack from both sides

illegal guns are a problem which is why things like background checks for all purchases, and requiring sellers to keep records of their gun sales, storage requirements, reporting requirements for stolen guns, etc... are all things to combat stolen guns and straw sales in order to reduce the number of guns

regular gun crime is the actual problem; as horrible as school shootings are they are still statistically pretty rare, the use of assault-style weapons in crimes is rare, handguns are by far the biggest threat.

 

[Hepar]

Fair question. Here's a good non-controversial start. In all of my time speaking with liberals and conservatives and moderates about gun violence I have yet to hear anyone who is opposed to the laws that prevent a convicted felon from possessing a firearm.

Definitely include me in there. Which is why I brought up the point I did. In my fairly limited research, I haven't found anything in Cruz's past that would have truly been something in the convict-able felony category. So, if you feel that he should never have owned a firearm, then the laws would need to have extended further than that line. Is that something you're ok with? And, if so what is that line?

 

[jordanrb81]

Fair question. Here's a good non-controversial start. In all of my time speaking with liberals and conservatives and moderates about gun violence I have yet to hear anyone who is opposed to the laws that prevent a convicted felon from possessing a firearm. Many states also have laws that prevent a person with a DV assault from possessing a firearm. I saw a study recently that 97% of the gun violence in Chicago was committed by people possessing illegal firearms. If we begin to seriously enforce and incarcerate for illegally possessing firearms it is reasonable to think we can make a serious dent in violent gun crime.

More controversial but equally important, we need to get back to common-sense law enforcement such as stop-and-frisk, which made such a massive difference in street violent crime in New York. Also, common sense interpretation and reform of the 4th Amendment search and seizure laws would allow the police to catch more violent criminals with guns and allow that evidence to be used in court to convict them.

Cheers, Steve.

Help me understand, the second amendment should be protected but not the 4th. the 4th amendment in our life time (ok MY lifetime) has been under attack first with the excuse of the war on drugs and then more recently the war on terror, and it is a right I hold quite dear. I don't think surrendering one right to protect another is a logical solution.

Though as with the war on drugs and specific to your comment about Chicago, if we could find a way perhaps to have a "task force" dedicated to stopping the sale or trade of firearms to people who cannot legally have them (to try to bring down your 97% number). I think that would be reasonable. I imagine many of us have sold guns here on this forum and specifically on this thread. whenever I have done so I have asked that the buyer meet me at a local gun shop for a fee they will run a background check and record the sale. I have through e-mail suggested this before and had a buyer disappear from earth... I have a pretty good guess why. So why not have like a "VICE" type of part of law enforcement dedicated to illegal gun trade, I know the ATF has something like this, but they are clearly not operating at the local, sort or street gang/drug dealer level. I think to wind up on the ATF's radar you need to be moving significant volume and or doing so over the boarder.

 

[Spokanesteve]

Help me understand, the second amendment should be protected but not the 4th. the 4th amendment in our life time (ok MY lifetime) has been under attack first with the excuse of the war on drugs and then more recently the war on terror, and it is a right I hold quite dear. I don't think surrendering one right to protect another is a logical solution.

Though as with the war on drugs and specific to your comment about Chicago, if we could find a way perhaps to have a "task force" dedicated to stopping the sale or trade of firearms to people who cannot legally have them (to try to bring down your 97% number). I think that would be reasonable. I imagine many of us have sold guns here on this forum and specifically on this thread. whenever I have done so I have asked that the buyer meet me at a local gun shop for a fee they will run a background check and record the sale. I have through e-mail suggested this before and had a buyer disappear from earth... I have a pretty good guess why. So why not have like a "VICE" type of part of law enforcement dedicated to illegal gun trade, I know the ATF has something like this, but they are clearly not operating at the local, sort or street gang/drug dealer level. I think to wind up on the ATF's radar you need to be moving significant volume and or doing so over the boarder.

First - I respectfully disagree - it is my (professional) opinion that the 4th amendment has expanded greatly during my career. In particular the laws about when police may and may not detain and frisk individuals have moved as well as the laws on vehicle searches. As to your further point about the reduction of rights being a tradeoff, I personally would rather see a reasonable diminution of the scope 4th Amendment before I would see restrictions on the 2d. YMMV.

Second, I am in favor of all weapon transfers and sales requiring the same background check as a new gun purchase. Loaning a firearm for temporary purposes should not require a background check. BUT, I don't think this will be very meaningful. The average citizen has no idea the number of black market guns that are being carried by criminals in their community. They are very common. I think most police/Sheriff's have designated units to look into gun crimes (as they should).

Cheers, Steve.

 

[Spokanesteve]

Definitely include me in there. Which is why I brought up the point I did. In my fairly limited research, I haven't found anything in Cruz's past that would have truly been something in the convict-able felony category. So, if you feel that he should never have owned a firearm, then the laws would need to have extended further than that line. Is that something you're ok with? And, if so what is that line?

Here in Washington - I see you are from the upper left as well - we already have certain misdemeanors such as domestic violence assault that prohibit weapons purchases. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expand that to include other misdemeanors such as threats/stalking/weapons on school grounds.

I can't speak to Florida law but threats to kill another person are generally felonies (they are in Washington and California). I have assumed that to be the case in Florida, the Miami-Herald article talks about cyberstalking being a felony in Florida

Law enforcement missed chances to arrest Parkland shooter | Miami Herald

https://www.city-journal.org/html/h...il&utm_term=0_6c08930f2b-41c9cf285d-109318249

I have been repeatedly struck by how preventable this seems to have been, without needing to take legal guns away from law abiding citizens.

Steve.

 

[jordanrb81]

First - I respectfully disagree - it is my (professional) opinion that the 4th amendment has expanded greatly during my career. In particular the laws about when police may and may not detain and frisk individuals have moved as well as the laws on vehicle searches. As to your further point about the reduction of rights being a tradeoff, I personally would rather see a reasonable diminution of the scope 4th Amendment before I would see restrictions on the 2d. YMMV.

Second, I am in favor of all weapon transfers and sales requiring the same background check as a new gun purchase. Loaning a firearm for temporary purposes should not require a background check. BUT, I don't think this will be very meaningful. The average citizen has no idea the number of black market guns that are being carried by criminals in their community. They are very common. I think most police/Sheriff's have designated units to look into gun crimes (as they should).

Cheers, Steve.

well, color me average, I have no idea how many black market guns there are in my community, or even an idea of how you would count them... I mean the carriers have a vested interest in keeping this a secret.. so how, aside from estimation, which is effectively speculation is one to know? you are a few years older than I, and I don't know your profession. I can say however that the erosion of our 4th amendment rights since 1981 (the year of my birth) is fairly well documented. beginning with Ronald Reagan and his war on drugs. Interestingly William F. Buckley jr. who endorsed Reagan later spoke out against the actions he took regarding the 4th and Ronnie's war on drugs. This practice continued under Bush and Clinton then after 2001 the talking point turned from the "war on drugs" to the "war on terror" but the systematic weakening of the 4th continued under Bush II and Obama. I believed that the lack of public outcry about this was largely in part because unlike a gun, this is a right you cannot hold in your hand. further the actions were presented with excellent press (war on terror, war on drugs) it's been a subtle grab. Maybe instead of people not noticing, they actually just didn't care.

 

[wallytoo]

Reminder everyone, I typed “faggot” once and Wally will bring it up incessantly however off topic it may be.

Another gold star on your good boy chart, good boy!

you are a caricature of a person; you are your own meme. you stand for nothing (except divisiveness), but you sit against everything. you are an admitted law-breaker (i assume for recreational drug use, from your own post about it - i'm not searching for the specific post here, though).

keep on keeping on, internet hero!

 

[wallytoo]

this was the band-aid solution that was put into place instead of the proper solution (removing SROs).

i have no problem eliminating SROs from schools. the schools in general have shirked their duty as far as disciplining students; years ago, that was more or less the assistant principal's job, but as our court system allowed more frivolous lawsuits and rendered more liberal verdicts, the school systems have responded by hiring attorneys, and using the attorneys to write school policy. so now a fistfight in school results in police intervention, rather than a trip to the assistant principal's office, lest the school district be sued by a parent or parents.

we cannot undo years of stupidity; our societal movement to absolve individuals of responsibility has created the environment that needs police to respond to carrots being thrown in the cafeteria. it is utterly ridiculous, yet it isn't going to change; it'll only get worse.

start taking away privileges instead of rights. i'm ok with that.

 

[Hepar]

Here in Washington - I see you are from the upper left as well - we already have certain misdemeanors such as domestic violence assault that prohibit weapons purchases. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expand that to include other misdemeanors such as threats/stalking/weapons on school grounds.

I can't speak to Florida law but threats to kill another person are generally felonies (they are in Washington and California). I have assumed that to be the case in Florida, the Miami-Herald article talks about cyberstalking being a felony in Florida

Law enforcement missed chances to arrest Parkland shooter | Miami Herald

https://www.city-journal.org/html/h...il&utm_term=0_6c08930f2b-41c9cf285d-109318249

I have been repeatedly struck by how preventable this seems to have been, without needing to take legal guns away from law abiding citizens.

Steve.

Would you be for those to be universal across all states?

 

[Bodhi327]

Oscars...

Bomb squad, Feds and armed guards, why is it anyone with money and power has guards and its such an issue for the rest of us to guard ourselves.

 

[e60ral]

First - I respectfully disagree - it is my (professional) opinion that the 4th amendment has expanded greatly during my career. In particular the laws about when police may and may not detain and frisk individuals have moved as well as the laws on vehicle searches. As to your further point about the reduction of rights being a tradeoff, I personally would rather see a reasonable diminution of the scope 4th Amendment before I would see restrictions on the 2d. YMMV.

terrifying!

patriot act, fisa, civil forfeiture, warrantless tracking, etc...

the war on drugs and war on terrorism have thoroughly eroded the 4th amendment, it's one of the few things that both left wing and right wing groups agree about. it's supposed to be hard for law enforcement to invade the privacy of americans, there are supposed to be hurdles in place to make sure it is only done when necessary and because of criminal activity. it has gotten easier to violate the privacy of american citizens and surveillance has become exponentially more widespread. we know now as a matter of fact and public record that virtually all americans are spied on by our own government with little accountability, all in the name of fighting a nebulous thing that can't be killed. we know that the use of civil forfeiture has exploded, police can seize your belongings with little due cause and a backwards burden of proof to try to recover them.

this is one of the few topics that both left and right civil liberty groups agree about

 

[ndcent]

you are a caricature of a person; you are your own meme. you stand for nothing (except divisiveness), but you sit against everything. you are an admitted law-breaker (i assume for recreational drug use, from your own post about it - i'm not searching for the specific post here, though).

keep on keeping on, internet hero!

“An admitted law breaker..” lmao..

Hey everyone, I enjoy recreational marijuana and maybe even *gasp* a few mushrooms on a summer camping weekend away. All in addition to having typed “faggot” once.

What this has to do with this thread I have no idea, but Captain Integrity can’t seem to get off my ballsack.

Back on topic already, JFC.

 

[e60ral]

Bomb squad, Feds and armed guards, why is it anyone with money and power has guards and its such an issue for the rest of us to guard ourselves.

i haven't seen anyone here call for gun bans or confiscation and there isn't nearly enough public support for those things to be a real threat

 

[wallytoo]

“An admitted law breaker..” lmao..

Hey everyone, I enjoy recreational marijuana and maybe even *gasp* a few mushrooms on a summer camping weekend away. All in addition to having typed “faggot” once.

What this has to do with this thread I have no idea, but Captain Integrity can’t seem to get off my ballsack.

Back on topic already, JFC.

unlike you, integrity matters to me. but we already know that. it's a personal choice. i dislike hypocrites (you) and keyboard heroes (you).

 

[Off-choader]

it’s not for hunting, Old George has been through it, Hey George thanks for looking out for us

 

[Hepar]

it’s not for hunting, Old George has been through it, Hey George thanks for looking out for us

Just an FYI, that "quote" has proven to be false. While he did say the first line, everything after that has been an addition.

 

[ndcent]

unlike you, integrity matters to me. but we already know that. it's a personal choice. i dislike hypocrites (you) and keyboard heroes (you).

Cool story, bro. What chapter do you shut the F up about it?

I also think you’re a clown but I don’t feel the need to follow you around T4R like some obsessed petty teenager constantly badgering you. So who’s the “internet hero” exactly?

Move on with your life. Ignore me. Be a man. You can do it.

 

[Off-choader]

Cool story, bro. What chapter do you shut the F up about it?

I also think you’re a clown but I don’t feel the need to follow you around T4R like some obsessed petty teenager constantly badgering you. So who’s the “internet hero” exactly?

Move on with your life. Ignore me. Be a man. You can do it.

Well boys we got us a sensitive little snowflake here!

 

[ndcent]

Just an FYI, that "quote" has proven to be false. While he did say the first line, everything after that has been an addition.

Fake news Soros something something cold dead hands.

 

[83Mule]

I am Conservative......I do not support the stop and frisk as implemented in NY.