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.

 Manchu wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
You follow it as though it were a mantra and seem to derive your morals from it.

While I agree that some Americans seem idolatrously invested in the Constitution, I disagree that a general prohibition on warrantless searches is no longer timely.

I'm more refering to the arguments posted in this thread. Here it comes across that whenever someone poses an argument against something it always comes down to North Americans running back to the constitution. Really, pose a point other than that, because it gets a little old.

And on the matter of random searches, I'll reiterate my point.

"You have military hardware in your house, yeah I think we should have a look at that..."

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
That is not "disregarding the Constitution".

That is adding an interpretation to a situation which was likely not considered by the founding fathers in a document which was written in an age where there was a very real fear that the government would turn out to be the same as the one they had left behind.

I believe most legal scholars - and sitting judges - would agree that allowing random "inspections" of a home to check for criminal activity without a warrant or probable cause, or the threat of imminent danger or evidence destruction, or the chance of a suspect escaping would be considered to be disregarding the Constitution.

Sitting judges and legal scholars are there to interpret the Constitution, not to add to it.

 Kanluwen wrote:
In all seriousness, how much government involvement is already present in owning a firearm for concealed carry?

Depends on where you live. Not a lot, in my case. I have to renew the permit every five years, but that just involves sending in the form again.

Which is one of those things which I feel is absolutely, unequivocally stupid.

What possible harm could come from allowing random searches? I really want to know, because every argument seems to be predicated upon the idea that "I can carry guns because the 2nd Amendment says I can!".

And every argument in favor of free speech seems to be predicated upon the idea that "I have freedom of speech because the 1st Amendment says I do!"

It's almost like that's what the Bill of Rights was designed for, laying down a certain set of rights that required no further proof of legitimacy.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Really, pose a point other than that, because it gets a little old.

As I posted before, what is really tiresome is seeing folks outside of the US using this incident and similar ones to have a go at what they obviously feel is our cultural inferiority. We value our rights and the legal system that protects them. If you feel otherwise regarding your own place of residence, that's okay. But devaluing your own rights provides no justification for judging us wrong to value ours.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Sitting judges and legal scholars are there to interpret the Constitution, not to add to it.

And they would interpret your proposal as unconstitutional.

Which is one of those things which I feel is absolutely, unequivocally stupid.

If concealed carry permit holders were routinely turning up in mugshots, I suspect the law would be toughened. Doesn't seem to be the case.

And yet, "free speech" has its limitations.

So why the hell does the right to bear arms not have the same?

It does, actually. If it doesn't, it's news to me, and I'd like to order a couple of M4s, please.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Police or ATF agents acting under the umbrella of "gun inspections" are restricted to the "plain sight" mandate and firearms related offenses.

BAM. Your argument. It is refuted.

You have refuted nothing. Your hypothetical regulation would only create liability for abuses of the illegal searches you are proposing -- it would certainly not prevent them. The existence of the fourth amendment and its importance in our jurisprudence might have alerted you to that ... But this is indicative of your rather naive view of authority: that a law is effective merely by enactment. For people with this viewpoint, the notion of "gun control" is very appealing. What everyone can see this actually boiling down to, at least in the case of your arguments here, is a limitless appeal to authority.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Man, I wish I would have such a snazzy uniform...

Oh I know you do. I can tell from your other posts ITT>

 Manchu wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Really, pose a point other than that, because it gets a little old.

As I posted before, what is really tiresome is seeing folks outside of the US using this incident and similar ones to have a go at what they obviously feel is our cultural inferiority. We value our rights and the legal system that protects them. If you feel otherwise regarding your own place of residence, that's okay. But devaluing your own rights provides no justification for judging us wrong to value ours.

Again, I make the point that it seems that your only argument is that its as part of your rights. The rights of a country's people are subject to change, so quit refering to them as though they're written in stone. Posters here seem to think that they're 100% correct, and yet if that's the case then why're people argueing against them? Yes, North Americans really do give off the impression that you follow your mantra unoquivically, not as a whole of course but merely those that're argueing for those rights layed out in it. You may not agree with this, but its how you come across. =/

 Wyrmalla wrote:
"You have a weapon designed to kill people in your possession. May I check it to make sure that its stored in the correct manner"

"If you want to do than they'll you'll have to get through me and my friends armed with said weapons"

Well doesn't that make you come across as non confrontational...

Thats the point. Thats whats called an illegal search.

 Manchu wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Police or ATF agents acting under the umbrella of "gun inspections" are restricted to the "plain sight" mandate and firearms related offenses.

BAM. Your argument. It is refuted.

You have refuted nothing. Your hypothetical regulation would only create liability for abuses of the illegal searches you are proposing -- it would certainly not prevent them.

And yet, those liabilities go a long way towards preventing abuses of illegal searches.

The existence of the fourth amendment and its importance in our jurisprudence might have alerted you to that ... But this is indicative of your rather naive view of authority: that a law is effective merely by enactment.

Enactment is the first step for a law to "be effective". In order for reform to begin, you need a problem to start with.

For people with this viewpoint, the notion of "gun control" is very appealing. What everyone can see this actually boiling
down to, at least in the case of your arguments here, is a limitless appeal to authority.

Only if you don't actually read my posts maybe.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Man, I wish I would have such a snazzy uniform...

Oh I know you do. I can tell from your other posts ITT>

Snazzy uniforms are awesome. Let's face facts here.

Historically, gun control in America has been aimed at preventing African-Americans and Native Americans from getting their hands on weapons, so I've always been uneasy at talk of more gun control.

As for screening for mental health problems, that sounds unworkable as well. Besides, how do you stop the following: A normal guy, no criminal record, decent family guy, etc etc comes home and catches his wife in bed with another man and shoots them both. No screening in the world is going to stop that. Also, as I type this, there are probably people getting killed in the USA due to gang/drug related violence. No screening in the world will stop that either.

Why is America unique in this instance? Other countries like Canada, Finland and the Swiss, have loads of guns as well. Sorry If I sound like Michael Moore, but other countries have the same violent films/games etc

Is it the US military to blame? The USA is drone attacking people abroad and in recent years has invaded various countries. Due to its frequency, America seems to have become numb to gun violence. Are school shootings the logical conclusion to these things?

Is it because of American mythology - wild west, civil war, revolution?

Earlier I posted an article that asked why school shootings have increased since the 1980s? What has happened in American culture since the 1980s?

I'm not supporting one view or another, nor am I having a go at Americans on this site or the USA in general. Many of my points probably have flawed logic, but I'm including them to keep the debate going. You have to ask questions, even if they turn out to be wrong.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Also, as I type this, there are probably people getting killed in the USA due to gang/drug related violence. No screening in the world will stop that either.

The fact sheet that KalashnikovMarine posted earlier stated that 94% of firearm homicides in the US are drug-related. Yeah, I'd say yours is a safe bet.

 Seaward wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Also, as I type this, there are probably people getting killed in the USA due to gang/drug related violence. No screening in the world will stop that either.

The fact sheet that KalashnikovMarine posted earlier stated that 94% of firearm homicides in the US are drug-related. Yeah, I'd say yours is a safe bet.

I don't like to see anybody killed, especially over something that they should be legally allowed to buy IMO.

It's always the law-abiding majority that gets it in the neck though.

In the UK, because some people can't handle alcohol or drink themselves to death, there is a presumption that nobody can handle alcohol and so the government tries to crack down on it year year out. . Sometimes, the gun debate reminds me of this.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Well Crime Blitzes are ever so effective mind...

But really, it does come across as pretty lax that your government doesn't even bother to check up on the condition of the weapons carried by its citizens. Admitedly though enforcing it'd be a tad difficult considering that everyone and they're mother has the damn things, and that your rather touchy about the supposed infringment of your rights.

Meh, I guess countries have different idealologies which aren't compatible with one another. I mean how many people on this thread outside of the US are actually adovacating their current handling of gun laws? =P

We call those searches. We killed a whole lot of Brits to insure those searches had minimal requirements of legality. Your mileage may vary.

=P The laws in the UK over alcohol, at least in Scotland, are there because we have the higest alcohol related crimes in the whole of Europe. Yes, it may be that the majority of those that commit the crimes may be of the demographic that are partial to criminal activities, and that making the availability of the substance isn't going to phase them from its use, but that's not to say that we shouldn't try and do something about it. If we make a substance readily available to everyone then somehow that's going to lower the crime rates? I'd think rather that that'd increase them. Instead you put in laws to make it more controlled, it doesn't matter that the criminals will find ways to get the stuff in the end, its that its harder. Your average Joe'll be dettered too, unless they've got convictions, thus there's less of the flippant criminality too.

Really I don't care much about the price rises for alchohol. If it leads to less kids drunk on the streets at night then I don't give a damn for the methods.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Really I don't care much about the price rises for alchohol. If it leads to less kids drunk on the streets at night then I don't give a damn for the methods.

So you're for a ban on alcohol, then? After all, that would surely lead to the least amount of kids drunk on streets at night, and you do not care about the methods.

 Seaward wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Really I don't care much about the price rises for alchohol. If it leads to less kids drunk on the streets at night then I don't give a damn for the methods.

So you're for a ban on alcohol, then? After all, that would surely lead to the least amount of kids drunk on streets at night, and you do not care about the methods.

Uh, yeah? Question answered?

I'm in a college class where the majority don't drink, or those that do seem to get horrendously drunk. Scotland's got a major alcohol abuse problem, you think I'm at all bothered if it gets fixed with prohibition of it?

 AustonT wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Individuals known to have firearms should, in my opinion, be subject to random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that firearms are stored properly in accordance with the training and certification that the individuals received.

You better have a warrant and you better bring a lot of friends.

And people wonder why people consider the pro-gun lobby to be so confrontational...

Yeah I tend to be confrontational with fascist windbags. Wierd.

I tend to be confrontational with anyone that stands between me and coffee/chocolate. I'm pretty confrontational with the local chicken hawk which suddenly reappeared. He and I may have fisticuffs if he gets near the house again. TBone will not tolerate raptors trying to fly away with him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
=P And like I said, your Constitution makes it awfully hard to change your mindset. You follow it as though it were a mantra and seem to derive your morals from it.

Thats kind of the point.

It'd be nice if someone actually got around to updating it for the 21st centuary, instead of youknow, using laws written out how many hundreds of years ago to define your current society. Not to say that every other country doesn't use decrees from x amout of years ago for this either. An issue would be say that you're abusing the right to defend yourself against foreign invasion from the British to allow everyone to go about toting military hardware...

Why. I like being free to speak my mind, attend the church I wish to (or not) and not have British troops quartered in my house. Not sure what needs updating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And I tend to be confrontational with illogical arguments.

Weird.

Would you consider, "The Fourth Amendment doesn't just disappear because you think it would be a good idea," to be an illogical argument?

Would you consider "What constitutes an unreasonable search?" to be an illogical response?

In all seriousness, how much government involvement is already present in owning a firearm for concealed carry?

What possible harm could come from allowing random searches? I really want to know, because every argument seems to be predicated upon the idea that "I can carry guns because the 2nd Amendment says I can!".

This is why we have the ACLU.

So Kan,

If the police are allowed to enter my home for a random gun inspection, and I place my rifle in my closet and shut the door, do the police or ATF have cause or reason to enter my closet?

 Wyrmalla wrote:

I'm more refering to the arguments posted in this thread. Here it comes across that whenever someone poses an argument against something it always comes down to North Americans running back to the constitution.

Because the Constitution isn't just a set of laws. It's set of ideals that the United States was founded on. It's no mistake that the second thing they could all agree on after 'we can all say and think what we like' was that the citizens of the United States had the right to defend themselves. From criminals. From invaders. From their own government, if need be.

Make no mistake, they envisioned an army. They already had police. These were not things they could not imagine. Instead, these were things they realized the limitations of.

If not for my right to bare arms, I'd be dead. Now that I'm back in Pennsylvania, home invaders around here are not random schmucks with ballbats. They carry shotguns and illegal weapons. The police are, on a good day, a 30 min drive away.

Considering the number of times we've had to defend ourselves out here, thank god the founding fathers were so forward thinking.


Again, guns are not required for atrocity. A Ukrainian judge and his entire family were found beheaded in their home over the weekend at some point. The heads are still missing.

=P You live in a country where firearms are so readily available that its the case that the people think that they need to take them up to defend themselves. There's been a few breakins around where I live lately, not one has involved a firearm, hell none of the guys were even armed. I suppose few of these in the Uk actually involve guns though. I mean at least in my case where the criminals did encounter the home owners they just turned around and walked out actually. In the US I suppose the same situation would have wound up like a mexican standoff instead.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
=P You live in a country where firearms are so readily available that its the case that the people think that they need to take them up to defend themselves. There's been a few breakins around where I live lately, not one has involved a firearm, hell none of the guys were even armed. I suppose few of these in the Uk actually involve guns though. I mean at least in my case where the criminals did encounter the home owners they just turned around and walked out actually. In the US I suppose the same situation would have wound up like a mexican standoff instead.

if guns are as prolific in our country as you say they are (and they very well may be), I would like at least a fighting chance before my family get's murdered for a tv and my xbox...

Whoa...

The St. Louis Police Chief is bringing a proposal to have some Teachers/Administrators trained and armed.

If that's the case, which signs would be more effective?

 Wyrmalla wrote:
I suppose few of these in the Uk actually involve guns though. I mean at least in my case where the criminals did encounter the home owners they just turned around and walked out actually. In the US I suppose the same situation would have wound up like a mexican standoff instead.

According to BBC this morning, it may end in the entire family being decapitated in countries where guns are uncommon. I think I'll stick to guns.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:

I'm more refering to the arguments posted in this thread. Here it comes across that whenever someone poses an argument against something it always comes down to North Americans running back to the constitution.

Because the Constitution isn't just a set of laws. It's set of ideals that the United States was founded on. It's no mistake that the second thing they could all agree on after 'we can all say and think what we like' was that the citizens of the United States had the right to defend themselves. From criminals. From invaders. From their own government, if need be.

Make no mistake, they envisioned an army. They already had police. These were not things they could not imagine. Instead, these were things they realized the limitations of.

If not for my right to bare arms, I'd be dead. Now that I'm back in Pennsylvania, home invaders around here are not random schmucks with ballbats. They carry shotguns and illegal weapons. The police are, on a good day, a 30 min drive away.

Considering the number of times we've had to defend ourselves out here, thank god the founding fathers were so forward thinking.

Ouch... it sounds as if you're halfway towards a state of armed siege there! I assume you're unable to move somewhere safer for economic reasons? And why hasn't the government (i.e. the police force) done something about this? It sounds like the US is halfway towards being a failed state if this is true...

And forgive me if I'm somewhat glad not to be living somewhere that dangerous...

 whembly wrote:

If that's the case, which signs would be more effective?

Something tell em the second one would be much more effective.

 Hedgehog wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:

I'm more refering to the arguments posted in this thread. Here it comes across that whenever someone poses an argument against something it always comes down to North Americans running back to the constitution.

Because the Constitution isn't just a set of laws. It's set of ideals that the United States was founded on. It's no mistake that the second thing they could all agree on after 'we can all say and think what we like' was that the citizens of the United States had the right to defend themselves. From criminals. From invaders. From their own government, if need be.

Make no mistake, they envisioned an army. They already had police. These were not things they could not imagine. Instead, these were things they realized the limitations of.

If not for my right to bare arms, I'd be dead. Now that I'm back in Pennsylvania, home invaders around here are not random schmucks with ballbats. They carry shotguns and illegal weapons. The police are, on a good day, a 30 min drive away.

Considering the number of times we've had to defend ourselves out here, thank god the founding fathers were so forward thinking.

Ouch... it sounds as if you're halfway towards a state of armed siege there! I assume you're unable to move somewhere safer for economic reasons? And why hasn't the government (i.e. the police force) done something about this? It sounds like the US is halfway towards being a failed state if this is true...

And forgive me if I'm somewhat glad not to be living somewhere that dangerous...

It ain't that dangerous here... o.O

EDIT: By some measures, the UK is extremely violent...


Perspective matters...

EDIT part deux: To be fair, that data is old...

I have a South African friend who was faced with armed criminals every day of his life. He said he'd have his hous broken into by kids with pistols. Did he use a gun to defend himself, nope. Most of all he hates the Ak47 (he works in an art gallery that was featuring them and chewed out any kids who said "ooh cool" at it). The guys breaking into your home are either so out of their heads on drugs that you fighting back's only going to incite them, or if you fight back then they'll see you as a threat and kill you instead of just robbing you. Oh you'll say, "they could just shoot him anyway because he was unarmed", they could have, but him not fighting back gave him a higher chance of living when it came to the sane criminals.

He's not a pacifist, he's just lost too many friends to shoot outs with twelve year olds over a few rand. If you come across a road block stationed with cracked out kids you do what they say or drive the hell out of there, shooting back's not going to make a difference when you've got your kids in the back seat. He's living in Scotland as a museum attendant now. Why? Well for one he merrits his chances more against a guy with a knife, but no, its that the country's civilised enough that the threat of being mugged at gun point isn't something that crosses anyone mind. =P

 Manchu wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Police or ATF agents acting under the umbrella of "gun inspections" are restricted to the "plain sight" mandate and firearms related offenses.

BAM. Your argument. It is refuted.

You have refuted nothing. Your hypothetical regulation would only create liability for abuses of the illegal searches you are proposing -- it would certainly not prevent them. The existence of the fourth amendment and its importance in our jurisprudence might have alerted you to that ... But this is indicative of your rather naive view of authority: that a law is effective merely by enactment. For people with this viewpoint, the notion of "gun control" is very appealing. What everyone can see this actually boiling down to, at least in the case of your arguments here, is a limitless appeal to authority.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Man, I wish I would have such a snazzy uniform...

Oh I know you do. I can tell from your other posts ITT>

You have to give him credit for the use of BAM! though. I though I was on a cooking show. BAM! now we have Pizza!

 Kanluwen wrote:
In order for reform to begin, you need a problem to start with.

I think that is more revealing than you intended: starting with a solution (gun control) and looking for a problem (too many people have guns) to justify it.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Only if you don't actually read my posts maybe.

Don't even try that one on me, Kan. I read them alright and I appraise them as poor at best not to mention more than a touch loony.

 Hedgehog wrote:

Ouch... it sounds as if you're halfway towards a state of armed siege there! I assume you're unable to move somewhere safer for economic reasons? And why hasn't the government (i.e. the police force) done something about this? It sounds like the UA is halfway towards being a failed state if this is true...

Nothing has been done because of 'budget cuts' cutting back police and fire. Used to be there was a police station only five miles away. Now it's closer to 50. And, yes, there's a certain siege feel to it. We can't all leave the place at once, one of us is always on guard. They got driven off the one try they made. My neighbors have not been so lucky.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Because the Constitution isn't just a set of laws. It's set of ideals that the United States was founded on.

And yet Americans cheered on as a vast majority of those rights were stripped away when some planes crashed into some buildings a few years ago, but giving up the "right" that would actually make your country safer is a taboo subject!

You guys are weird...