Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Deadshot wrote:
I know perfectly well how the warrant thing works. I'm saying it shouldn't exist and cops should be able to just do their job of fighting bad guys. And I firmly believe that anyone who obstructs justice or aids a criminal in any way should be treated as such. If you have a couple dirty magazines that you don't want found, deal with it, odds are the cops have seen nipples before. And if you have drugs or a mafia meeting in there well then you are going to be arrested anyway.

That is extremely dangerous thinking there boy-o, because who decides what is and isn't a bad guy? The police, who have free reign to enter our homes in the job of "fighting bad guys"? If the police become the deciding factor of what is probable cause to search and enter my property, then we've removed a check and balance of power that limits the police. Warrants can only be obtained with a judge signing off on it, meaning that you need probable cause to get a warrant i.e. evidence of illegal activity. If I'm in my house cooking dinner and meth, and you have no reason to suspect I'm cooking either, you have no right to enter my house or get a warrant.

Yes, it would require total blind obedience and remorselessness of the soldiers.
In a hypothetical reality, what I'm saying is that the simple existence of the Constituition isn't enough to bury your head and say it is impossible to occur.

We're not burying our heads and saying it's not impossible, we're looking at you and going, "This will not happen except under a complete and total overhaul of government and the armed forces overnight."

Whembly, I wasn't saying it was going to happen I said it is possible if the right conditions are fulfilled. That's all. Not that I want it, expect it, hope for it, or that it will, that its probable, only that its possible.

Everything is possible, let's at least dwell in the realm of probability, and like it has been pointed out, most nations have rights granted to your citizens, one such right that you as a member of the United Kingdom have is, "Freedom to petition the monarch without fear of retribution." Huh, also apparently you all have the right to bear arms, "No royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law." Though you lot added in the "as allowed by law" and that gives a control to the system. I still like ours in comparison to yours, but I do feel we need to fix the gun problem in the country, I don't believe it has anything to do with amending the 2nd Amendment.

Well, the right to bear arms in the US kinda also stems from the fact that;
1. You guys had just overthrown your lawful government because the King wasn't cool no more.

2. With no real standing army and facing a war, plus the likelihood of further armed conflict down the road, the right to bear arms was as much about freedoms as it was a means for civil defense since the militias played a huge role in fighting off the Brits.
Add in the fact that the armed forces were in their infancy, the distance between places and that the fastest mode of travel was by horseback, and suddenly letting every home owner stockpile guns isn't such a bad idea! (especially when your home is being invaded by unfriendly foreign forces)

3. North American wildlife is still very, very angry and tends to think of you as a instant all-you-maul&eat buffet!


Do we honestly need the age-old right to bear arms as it was intended back in the day? Probably not, but after being there for going on 3 centuries, the massive population explosion and modern production, it's pretty much impossible to remove all the guns from the US now.

Besides, amending the constitution and removing that right still won't stop gun violence, especially from the criminal aspect... those bad guys who are already ignoring the law to commit crimes are still just as likely to go and get their illegal guns.
Maybe that's why they're criminals?!

Well if I had the same right to bear arms as "back in the day" I would have full rights to artillery as well...

Alfndrate, I agree with you. I even previously stated that its not probable in the quote from me that you used. It won't happen in a sane world. The point I was trying to make was that just because the Constitution, a little piece of paper, won't stop someone from doing something, unless they want to. If someone decides the rules don't work for them they stop following them.

 Frazzled wrote:
Well if I had the same right to bear arms as "back in the day" I would have full rights to artillery as well...

Why do I suddenly have this mental image of a wiener dog operated catapult that fires cats wrapped with dynamite & semtex??? or else just your average cannon that shoots cats w/laser beams...

Both of those sound about right...