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.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Also, just because the police have a right to mandatory inspection does not mean they have "absolute power to enter your home at any time, with no notice, and without probably cause" at all. Not even a little bit. You know, you can have mandatory inspections that are scheduled? Did you also know that it can still be illegal for an inspection to occur without you there? Did you know that you could write these things in to a law in order to stop things like you have suggested from happening?

"Fancy going for a drink friday night mate?"

"Sorry, I can't, I have a mandatory police inspection coming up on friday night, I hope I have everything securely stored!"

That sort of policy will absolutely ensure that everyone complies with firearm safety on a regular basis. Foolproof!

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I don't think that chart puts out the information you think it does. I don't even know what the numbers are on those columns or what any of the other accidental deaths are. It is not obvious even a little bit.

The numbers are very clearly indicated as to what they stand for. And I thought it was obvious that when it said total for accidental deaths, that it meant all accidental deaths. Total accidental deaths obviously, and in its plain English meaning, means total accidental deaths.

If that is still a source of consternation for you perhaps this is clearer;


According to the CDC about 0.6% of all accidental deaths in the US are firearm related.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Also, just because the police have a right to mandatory inspection does not mean they have "absolute power to enter your home at any time, with no notice, and without probably cause" at all. Not even a little bit. You know, you can have mandatory inspections that are scheduled? Did you also know that it can still be illegal for an inspection to occur without you there? Did you know that you could write these things in to a law in order to stop things like you have suggested from happening?

Which is not what was argued earlier. The argument was that the police should have right of entry just because someone enjoys a legally protected right. There was no qualification given. Household chemicals cause more deaths per year than firearms. Should the police be able to inspect private residences at will to ensure that those are stored safely?

If we had a graph like that post 9/11, we would have never gone to war with anyone.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

"Fancy going for a drink friday night mate?"

"Sorry, I can't, I have a mandatory police inspection coming up on friday night, I hope I have everything securely stored!"

That sort of policy will absolutely ensure that everyone complies with firearm safety on a regular basis. Foolproof!

I wonder how many shootings this invasion of privacy and civil liberties has prevented.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
If we had a graph like that post 9/11, we would have never gone to war with anyone.

Sadly we still would have. In times of crisis governments love to be seen to be doing something, the consequences can be addressed later.

For 2007, whats it like now? or a year or two ago.

Oh god where has the time gone :/

 Desubot wrote:
For 2007, whats it like now? or a year or two ago.

Oh god where has the time gone :/

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
Page 84 shows the rate is now 0.2 per 100,000. Or by comparison to other accidental deaths;
- five times less likely than drowning
- four and a half times less likely than dying in a fire
- thirty three times less likely than dying in a motor vehicle accident
- twenty one times less likely than falling

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Also, just because the police have a right to mandatory inspection does not mean they have "absolute power to enter your home at any time, with no notice, and without probably cause" at all. Not even a little bit. You know, you can have mandatory inspections that are scheduled? Did you also know that it can still be illegal for an inspection to occur without you there? Did you know that you could write these things in to a law in order to stop things like you have suggested from happening?

"Fancy going for a drink friday night mate?"

"Sorry, I can't, I have a mandatory police inspection coming up on friday night, I hope I have everything securely stored!"

That sort of policy will absolutely ensure that everyone complies with firearm safety on a regular basis. Foolproof!

Why are they inspecting you on a Friday Night? Also, why does that prevent you from going out? That is some real fancy nonsense you are spouting.

Dreadclaw, I hope you are able to catch the differences between the two charts you posted. One has really no specifics, just really general and misleading. That second graph is MUCH better at getting the point across. But your point is still silly. Can you show me where anybody has proposed that police be able to walk in to your house at any time? Please, quotes? Also, did you know if your child dies from consuming improperly secured chemicals you can be charged with negligence? We have already been over this and I have already stated that if you have a kid, you home should be safety inspected. Parents are idiots, as proven by the fact that household chemicals kill children. A safety inspection of a house to ensure the safety of a helpless child is not as bad a thing as you are making it out to be.

Also, just because something does not happen that often does not mean we should ignore it and let it continue. We can put forth laws to lower that number further and they can be implemented in a reasonable way. I mean, a lot of people do not have sex with animals. But, there are still laws against it. Should we get rid of those just because it doesn't happen that often?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Also, just because the police have a right to mandatory inspection does not mean they have "absolute power to enter your home at any time, with no notice, and without probably cause" at all. Not even a little bit. You know, you can have mandatory inspections that are scheduled? Did you also know that it can still be illegal for an inspection to occur without you there? Did you know that you could write these things in to a law in order to stop things like you have suggested from happening?

"Fancy going for a drink friday night mate?"

"Sorry, I can't, I have a mandatory police inspection coming up on friday night, I hope I have everything securely stored!"

That sort of policy will absolutely ensure that everyone complies with firearm safety on a regular basis. Foolproof!

Why are they inspecting you on a Friday Night? Also, why does that prevent you from going out? That is some real fancy nonsense you are spouting.

Why a friday night? It's called "an example". The time really doesn't matter at all. Substitute Thursday morning if you choose, or whatever. And why does it prevent you going out? Because you just brought up the subject of inspections requiring the presence of the person being investigated.

The point I was making (which seems to have flown over your head) is that scheduling an inspection to make sure somebody is following a practice is pointless as the person will make sure the conditions are satisfactory to pass the scheduled inspection and they can be as lax as they like inbetween them.

The real nonsense is you expecting a pre-arranged inspection to catch someone being irresponsible. If you want to enforce ethics, inspections must be random, and the idea of police randomly invading your privacy with no warrant or probable cause is repulsive to many of us, contrary to Constitutionally protected rights, and oftentimes unenforcible.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Also, just because the police have a right to mandatory inspection does not mean they have "absolute power to enter your home at any time, with no notice, and without probably cause" at all. Not even a little bit. You know, you can have mandatory inspections that are scheduled? Did you also know that it can still be illegal for an inspection to occur without you there? Did you know that you could write these things in to a law in order to stop things like you have suggested from happening?

"Fancy going for a drink friday night mate?"

"Sorry, I can't, I have a mandatory police inspection coming up on friday night, I hope I have everything securely stored!"

That sort of policy will absolutely ensure that everyone complies with firearm safety on a regular basis. Foolproof!

Why are they inspecting you on a Friday Night? Also, why does that prevent you from going out? That is some real fancy nonsense you are spouting.

Why a friday night? It's called "an example". The time really doesn't matter at all. Substitute Thursday morning if you choose, or whatever. And why does it prevent you going out? Because you just brought up the subject of inspections requiring the presence of the person being investigated.

The point I was making (which seems to have flown over your head) is that scheduling an inspection to make sure somebody is following a practice is pointless as the person will make sure the conditions are satisfactory to pass the scheduled inspection and if they are irresponsible they will continue to be so afterward.

The real nonsense is you expecting a pre-arranged inspection to catch someone being irresponsible. If you want to enforce ethics, inspections must be random, and the idea of police randomly invading your privacy with no warrant or probable cause is repulsive to many of us, contrary to Constitutionally protected rights, and oftentimes unenforcible.

So, you are saying that once somebody has been inspected, they are going to take out all their weapons, load them and randomly place them over the house or something?

It is not real nonsense. The real nonsense is thinking that people are only going to be compliant during an inspection and all other times they are going to be incredibly irresponsible. That kind of goes against the argument that everybody is already being responsible and storing their weapons correctly. Also, lets stop using invading and crap like that. Your weapons do not even have to be in your home during the inspection. You could keep a safe in the shed, like I know some people do. You could have trigger locks on your weapon and you could just bring them out and show them on the porch. You are making a lot of assumptions about this that make no sense.....

 Dreadwinter wrote:

So, you are saying that once somebody has been inspected, they are going to take out all their weapons, load them and randomly place them over the house or something?

If someone is keeping a loaded gun by a bed or behind a door or in a closet for the purposes of defense, absolutely. Or if someone is lax in their handling and storage and only cleans up for inspection time to avoid fines or jailtime, sure.

Make sure it all looks nice for the inspector and then as soon as he's gone, you can go back to not keeping them in the government-approved condition until the next scheduled inspection. The idea of scheduled inspections making anything safer is laughable.

As an example, my household consists of 2 adults.The only visitors to the house are our parents. I often have firearms out of the safe and may or may not have one loaded by my bed at times. I do not deem this irresponsible behavior, but it would not comply with the law you are suggesting. If such a law were to go into effect, I could quite easily make everything look nice for the inspector and then go back to my old ways when he leaves. It does absolutely nothing to change the situation.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

So, you are saying that once somebody has been inspected, they are going to take out all their weapons, load them and randomly place them over the house or something?

If someone is keeping a loaded gun by a bed or behind a door or in a closet for the purposes of defense, absolutely. Or if someone is lax in their handling and storage and only cleans up for inspection time to avoid fines or jailtime, sure.

Make sure it all looks nice for the inspector and then as soon as he's gone, you can go back to not keeping them in the government-approved condition until the next scheduled inspection. The idea of scheduled inspections making anything safer is laughable.

Okay, so a scheduled inspection would do a few things. It would prove that a person is capable of correctly storing a firearm by showing they have the equipment, education, and willingness to do so. Now, nobody said they could not store a weapon in a place by a bed or behind a door or in a closet. Those are perfectly normal things and you can do those and be safe at the same time. I think you are assuming that I think guns should be locked in a safe 24/7 when not in use and that is just not true.

But you are right, scheduled inspections would do nothing. They have absolutely no benefit at all....

To reply to your edit: Where did I suggest that the law requires a weapon be locked in a safe at all times? You are assuming an awful lot about my stance and jumping to worst case scenarios to prove your point.....

Sorry, I assumed you were for the requirement of storing firearms in safes due to this comment:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Don't speak for me. As an American I think that gun owners should be inspected to make sure that they are not fethheads leaving their guns laying around for children to play with.

But I still disagree with the notion of any kind of police inspection, scheduled or otherwise, unless they have probable cause to suspect someone of doing something illegal and have obtained a warrant.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Dreadclaw, I hope you are able to catch the differences between the two charts you posted. One has really no specifics, just really general and misleading.

You felt that a graph using CDC figures showing the total number of accidental firearm deaths against the total number of accidental deaths in the US was "misleading"? What was confusing or ambiguous about it?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
That second graph is MUCH better at getting the point across. But your point is still silly. Can you show me where anybody has proposed that police be able to walk in to your house at any time? Please, quotes? Also, did you know if your child dies from consuming improperly secured chemicals you can be charged with negligence? We have already been over this and I have already stated that if you have a kid, you home should be safety inspected. Parents are idiots, as proven by the fact that household chemicals kill children. A safety inspection of a house to ensure the safety of a helpless child is not as bad a thing as you are making it out to be.

I have already demonstrated that at least one user in this thread wanted the police to consider the fact that a firearm is owned as probable cause to enter the home, thus driving a horse and stagecoach through the 4th Amendment and the right to due process. What that means de facto and de jure is that the police then have a right to enter the private residence at any time. The poster did not attempt to outline a scheme of notification.

You dodged the question; Household chemicals cause more deaths per year than firearms. Should the police be able to inspect private residences at will to ensure that those are stored safely?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Also, just because something does not happen that often does not mean we should ignore it and let it continue. We can put forth laws to lower that number further and they can be implemented in a reasonable way. I mean, a lot of people do not have sex with animals. But, there are still laws against it. Should we get rid of those just because it doesn't happen that often?

Your bestiality comparison is a complete non sequitur, and at no time did I suggest that laws be repealed because they have don't happen that often. I won't ask you for quotes to demonstrate when I asked for these laws to be repealed as no such quote exists. As you are aware we have laws dictating the punishments for leaving a firearm unattended which leads to injury. The solution to what is a statistically insignificant problem is not to throw out 4th Amendment.


If you believe that merely by having a gun at home, or a child in the home, that your civil liberties may be suspended then I have nothing further that I can say to you as your position is wholly unreasonable. Out of curiosity are your posts here being vetted by a government official, or is the First Amendment not subject to your desire for arbitrary government inspections?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Dreadclaw, I hope you are able to catch the differences between the two charts you posted. One has really no specifics, just really general and misleading.

You felt that a graph using CDC figures showing the total number of accidental firearm deaths against the total number of accidental deaths in the US was "misleading"? What was confusing or ambiguous about it?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
That second graph is MUCH better at getting the point across. But your point is still silly. Can you show me where anybody has proposed that police be able to walk in to your house at any time? Please, quotes? Also, did you know if your child dies from consuming improperly secured chemicals you can be charged with negligence? We have already been over this and I have already stated that if you have a kid, you home should be safety inspected. Parents are idiots, as proven by the fact that household chemicals kill children. A safety inspection of a house to ensure the safety of a helpless child is not as bad a thing as you are making it out to be.

I have already demonstrated that at least one user in this thread wanted the police to consider the fact that a firearm is owned as probable cause to enter the home, thus driving a horse and stagecoach through the 4th Amendment and the right to due process. What that means de facto and de jure is that the police then have a right to enter the private residence at any time. The poster did not attempt to outline a scheme of notification.

You dodged the question; Household chemicals cause more deaths per year than firearms. Should the police be able to inspect private residences at will to ensure that those are stored safely?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Also, just because something does not happen that often does not mean we should ignore it and let it continue. We can put forth laws to lower that number further and they can be implemented in a reasonable way. I mean, a lot of people do not have sex with animals. But, there are still laws against it. Should we get rid of those just because it doesn't happen that often?

Your bestiality comparison is a complete non sequitur, and at no time did I suggest that laws be repealed because they have don't happen that often. I won't ask you for quotes to demonstrate when I asked for these laws to be repealed as no such quote exists. As you are aware we have laws dictating the punishments for leaving a firearm unattended which leads to injury. The solution to what is a statistically insignificant problem is not to throw out 4th Amendment.


If you believe that merely by having a gun at home, or a child in the home, that your civil liberties may be suspended then I have nothing further that I can say to you as your position is wholly unreasonable. Out of curiosity are your posts here being vetted by a government official, or is the First Amendment not subject to your desire for arbitrary government inspections?

Well, when your graph has Causes of Death on it and the two causes of deaths are listed as "Total" and "Firearms Related" it throws off the relation of "Firearms Related" to everything else. It also makes it look as if "Firearms Related" is incredibly low as it does not show what all is within "Total". If you look at the second graph you posted, do you see that by comparison to some of the other things, it is not that low? While it is still low, you are better able to compare it to things that are around its level. Posting something against a "Total" number does nothing to tell me how the actual total breaks down in comparison. You understanding?

Also, I did not dodge the question. You just asked something that I never said should be a thing. So the answer to your question is no. But I do think they should be able to have scheduled visits to ensure that guns are properly locked as well as chemicals are stored away properly. I have already been over that in this thread once.

I never said that you said we should repeal any laws. That is why I asked you that question. It follows your line of reasoning. If something does not happen often, why have a law?

I never said anything about suspending civil liberties. A home inspection is not unreasonable. Because, even though you seem to think I have been saying it the whole thread and I have not, I am against random inspections and I am advocating for scheduled inspections.

And lastly, what?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Well, when your graph has Causes of Death on it and the two causes of deaths are listed as "Total" and "Firearms Related" it throws off the relation of "Firearms Related" to everything else. It also makes it look as if "Firearms Related" is incredibly low as it does not show what all is within "Total". If you look at the second graph you posted, do you see that by comparison to some of the other things, it is not that low? While it is still low, you are better able to compare it to things that are around its level. Posting something against a "Total" number does nothing to tell me how the actual total breaks down in comparison. You understanding?

0.6%, or 0.2 per 100,000, is "incredibly low" no matter how you choose to look at it - even when compared to other causes of accidental death.
In no way was the initial graph misleading, unless you believe that total accidental deaths could mean something other than total accidental deaths

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Also, I did not dodge the question. You just asked something that I never said should be a thing. So the answer to your question is no. But I do think they should be able to have scheduled visits to ensure that guns are properly locked as well as chemicals are stored away properly. I have already been over that in this thread once.

You were claiming that firearms were so dangerous that the police should have the ability to inspect their storage without probable cause or a warrant, but I see that your contempt for civil liberties is universal. So at least you are consistent.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I never said that you said we should repeal any laws. That is why I asked you that question. It follows your line of reasoning. If something does not happen often, why have a law?

I was loathe to ask you for examples of asking for laws to be repealed in this thread, now I am going to have to insist so I can try to see where your misunderstanding is coming from.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I never said anything about suspending civil liberties. A home inspection is not unreasonable. Because, even though you seem to think I have been saying it the whole thread and I have not, I am against random inspections and I am advocating for scheduled inspections.

You are advocating for the end of privacy, due process, and the 4th Amendment based on the possession of perfectly legal items -.that is suspending the civil liberties of people who choose to possess them. Home inspections are wholly unreasonable. The police need a lawful reason to enter your home uninvited. The mere possession of a legal item is not sufficient grounds for the police to enter your property uninvited. You are proposing massive government reach into the private lives of citizens for a problem that is at best minimal.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
And lastly, what?

Again if you can give me specifics on what you are having issue with I can help you with your misunderstanding.

Did you read anything I wrote?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is the NRA's advice on gun storage?

http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx

Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons.
Many factors must be considered when deciding where and how to store guns. A person's particular situation will be a major part of the consideration. Dozens of gun storage devices, as well as locking devices that attach directly to the gun, are available. However, mechanical locking devices, like the mechanical safeties built into guns, can fail and should not be used as a substitute for safe gun handling and the observance of all gun safety rules.

...
...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The NRA is the world's foremost organisation promoting gun rights and keeping the law out of gun control. Clearly it's tied to this kind of case, don't you think?

Please clarify what you mean by "tied to this case". Is AAA tied to any case involving a traffic accident caused by negligence?

The NRA has campaign for many years successfully to stop mandatory gun safety such as training and licensing, safe storage, etc.

It offers voluntary training and advice on safe storage etc.

This bloke wasn't licensed, didn't store his gun safely, and as a result, a three year old died. If he had been required by law to store his gun safely, the chance of this happening would have been greatly reduced.

IDK what the AAA is, but guns and cars are completely different things anyway, so I doubt it's relevant.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The NRA has campaign for many years successfully to stop mandatory gun safety such as training and licensing, safe storage, etc.

And rightly so because mandatory training has been used in certain states to act as a barrier to exercising a lawful right by placing onerous restrictions on classes, locatio for training, class sizes, times, etc. If encouraging training (tax write off) etc. was done in good faith then this resistance would not be so prevalent
What you appear to be advocating for is essentially a poll tax on the exercise of a legal right which will only serve to disenfranchise the poor and minorities, and given that violent crime may often occur in these communities you are preventing some of those who need that right the most.
What of those who have suffered domestic abuse and wish to avail of their legal right to protect themselves and their families. Onerous requirements do nothing to protect them, and may in fact make them less safe - http://www.nj.com/camden/index.ssf/2015/06/nj_gun_association_calls_berlin_womans_death_an_ab.html

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It offers voluntary training and advice on safe storage etc.

Yes, it provides a useful pubic service with voluntary gun safety, Eddie the Eagle program, links on how to obtain firearm locks, safe storage tips, etc.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This bloke wasn't licensed, didn't store his gun safely, and as a result, a three year old died. If he had been required by law to store his gun safely, the chance of this happening would have been greatly reduced.

Nice post hoc argument.
Where are you seeing that he wasn't licensed? I did not see that from what the OP posted

 Kilkrazy wrote:
IDK what the AAA is,

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=AAA
The American version of the AA

 Kilkrazy wrote:
but guns and cars are completely different things anyway, so I doubt it's relevant.

So you will never again offer any sort of comparison, or try to demonstrate equivalency, because things are "completely different things anyway, so I doubt it's relevant."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Did you read anything I wrote?

Given that I not only read, but also rebutted your arguments it seems strange that you would feel the need to ask that question.

Well then, your rebutted arguments seem like you never read what I said. Again, I did not say you said to repeal a law. That is the second time I have said it, but you are still acting like I did and asking me to prove you said it. For some reason.....

The chart I already covered by letting you know that comparing a specific thing to a very broad category such as "Total" is very misleading. It does not give a great view of what is involved in "Total". But, I already said this once and you ignored it because Total means Total?

An inspection for safety is not an invasion of privacy and in fact I have gone over multiple ways where you can show you are being compliant and safe without the cops coming in to your home.

Again, I am not advocating for the end of Privacy, Due Process, or the 4th Amendment. To imply that is to not have read anything I said at all. I have, numerous times in this thread, said that I am not advocating for it but you continue to argue I am.

In the end this is my fault, I should have known better when you entered the thread. So I am going to leave, because you are going to continue saying the same things and attempting to put words in my mouth in order to prove your points.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

An inspection for safety is not an invasion of privacy

Requiring an agent of the government to come into your home in order to exercise a right is pretty much the definition of that I would think.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

An inspection for safety is not an invasion of privacy

Requiring an agent of the government to come into your home in order to exercise a right is pretty much the definition of that I would think.

It is. Anytime an agent of the government is required to enter your residence to "inspect" anything, your privacy is being invaded. Maybe you've never experienced it before, but as a member of the military I have many times, and it is incredibly invasive.


On an aside, I'd love to hear the suggestions of how we'd acquire the money to pay for the massive expansion in our bureaucracy that would be required to start inspecting as many as 40% of the homes in America.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
The chart I already covered by letting you know that comparing a specific thing to a very broad category such as "Total" is very misleading. It does not give a great view of what is involved in "Total". But, I already said this once and you ignored it because Total means Total?

Strawman.
Total is not misleading, Misleading would indicate that I presented something deliberately designed to obfuscate or confuse. Total has a very clear and plain English meaning. You could have made the argument that it lacks specificity by not showing what it was comprised of, but you did not make that argument.

In any event firearms account for 0.6% of all accidental deaths. It is an "incredibly low" cause of accidental death

 Dreadwinter wrote:
An inspection for safety is not an invasion of privacy and in fact I have gone over multiple ways where you can show you are being compliant and safe without the cops coming in to your home.

You have advocated for "home inspections", and the ridiculous notions that "Your weapons do not even have to be in your home during the inspection. You could keep a safe in the shed, like I know some people do. You could have trigger locks on your weapon and you could just bring them out and show them on the porch."
You are aware that a shed is still considered private property, correct? And that the police still need probable cause to enter private property?
What about jurisdictions where the display of a firearm, unless being used in self defense, is a crime (brandishing)?

Any time a police officer comes to your home and demands to see an item of private property it is an intrusion into your private life, and good cause/a warrant is required. The legal possession of an item is not sufficient cause for that to happen. This has been gone over multiple times and it seems to be a concept at the core of this discussion that you are having significant trouble acknowledging. Perhaps this will help;

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What you are proposing absolutely contravenes the Fourth Amendment, and you have not shown how your proposals respect the law other than bare claims that it does

.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Again, I am not advocating for the end of Privacy, Due Process, or the 4th Amendment. To imply that is to not have read anything I said at all. I have, numerous times in this thread, said that I am not advocating for it but you continue to argue I am.

Then please explain how your proposals for the police having de facto probable cause based on a private citizen's enjoyment of a legal right is compatible with the Fourth Amendment.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
In the end this is my fault, I should have known better when you entered the thread. So I am going to leave, because you are going to continue saying the same things and attempting to put words in my mouth in order to prove your points.

When you are able to acknowledge and understand the core concepts that we are discussing I welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you further.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

An inspection for safety is not an invasion of privacy

Requiring an agent of the government to come into your home in order to exercise a right is pretty much the definition of that I would think.

It is. Anytime an agent of the government is required to enter your residence to "inspect" anything, your privacy is being invaded. Maybe you've never experienced it before, but as a member of the military I have many times, and it is incredibly invasive.


On an aside, I'd love to hear the suggestions of how we'd acquire the money to pay for the massive expansion in our bureaucracy that would be required to start inspecting as many as 40% of the homes in America.

Oh, it is much higher than that. Dreadwinter would like home inspections of houses that have children;
" We have already been over this and I have already stated that if you have a kid, you home should be safety inspected. Parents are idiots, as proven by the fact that household chemicals kill children. A safety inspection of a house to ensure the safety of a helpless child is not as bad a thing as you are making it out to be."
Of course if we are inspecting the houses of parents are we also inspecting the houses of those In loco parentis?

 Ouze wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Oh, do the 4473's track firearm sales and register them nationally in a government databank to their owners and then track thefts?

Edit: Man, quote fail!

No. 4473 forms are stored by the retailer\dealer for 20 of years, but the government does not have any record of this data.

There is no general federal firearm registration in the US. Some states require and maintain registries, and the federal government does track NFA items, but these are both very, very rare.

And if a FFL goes out of business, their current 4473s have to be turned over the BATFE Out of Business Records Office. And if I recall correctly, the BATFE has no obligation to destroy the forms after 20 years.

Also, people with CCWs are also listed in State databases (multiple States if your State has reciprocal agreements with others) for quick access by LEOs and 911 operators. But that's to be expected, considering the requirements to get and maintain a CCW permit. You want the other good guys to know that you're legal to carry a concealed weapon when dealing with the law, after all.

I've gotta say, I am anti-gun, but they do have a point. I do get rather grumpy whenever the electrical or water meter people come to visit.

One issue that is (to my knowledge) uniquely American, is our mistrust of the police. You see pictures of European police, and they are doing people's dishes, and buying back wedding bands pawned off. Here the police are kicking people out of their homes and eating their food, and kicking handcuffed women. No way would I allow one into my home without a warrant. If the culture of mistrust and apparent abuse ends id still be against it, but more open

We, certainly from my point of view in England, also share a distrust of the Police. I'm not sure if we experience the same level of abuse from the police in general, or if it is just not in the news or public eye as much though.

I know that I, and most of the people I know, don't have any love for our Police.

I think it depends on where in England. Big cities, particularly London and Birmingham probably feel the same way. Small and medium sized towns tend to have a good relationship with the police I'd say.

I think Glasgow traditionally has a very good relationship with the police as a city though, right?

Or at least that's what my Weegie friends have said.

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
One issue that is (to my knowledge) uniquely American, is our mistrust of the police. You see pictures of European police, and they are doing people's dishes, and buying back wedding bands pawned off. Here the police are kicking people out of their homes and eating their food, and kicking handcuffed women. No way would I allow one into my home without a warrant. If the culture of mistrust and apparent abuse ends id still be against it, but more open

My uncle was able to get his German police buddy to try and intimidate my grandmother when my grandfather died, and police officers in the US bring Shaq to a basketball game down the street.

We should be careful to paint with too broad a brush, both positive and negative.

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
One issue that is (to my knowledge) uniquely American, is our mistrust of the police. You see pictures of European police, and they are doing people's dishes, and buying back wedding bands pawned off. Here the police are kicking people out of their homes and eating their food, and kicking handcuffed women. No way would I allow one into my home without a warrant. If the culture of mistrust and apparent abuse ends id still be against it, but more open

Being an ex-cop and corrections officer, I can tell you that this "culture of abuse" among U.S. law enforcement agencies is a load of gak overhyped by the media. The only time we had anything to do with people being "kicked out of their homes" was when they got an eviction notice from a landlord, and we were present to prevent further trouble. Occasionally, there were arrests (even landlords got a trip to lock-up if they got out of hand, and wanted to be pricks).


And not once has any officer I worked with, myself, or any I knew ever took anybody's property unless it was evidence or in recovery of stolen property after an arrest. The only time we ever used force against somebody cuffed in my 11 years as an officer was when people were still being combative, even when restrained. I personally applied OC pepper against individuals in cuffs spitting and trying to kick the back glass out of patrol car doors. And that was for the purposes of restraint and putting "spit guards" on them for our safety. Not so we could beat the ever-loving gak out of them. Sure, some of them probably could've used a good ass whipping. But that wasn't part of our job, it would be a rights violation, and it's unprofessional.


Yes, there are bad apples in law enforcement as in every aspect of life. But there is no "epidemic" of police brutality/corruption in this country, except in the eyes of the "DINDU" crowd, the sensationalist media organs, and the asshats that encourage the culture of victimhood.

Never had any problems with any LEO I've met. Been pulled over twice (light out and failed to take nearest lane when turning) and both times they were super professional. Hit a deer and the officer was very helpful. Got a regular customer at work who is an LEO and he's always very pleasant.

Doesn't mean I would want them rummaging through my home without good reason, but I have never experienced anything that would make me distrust any of the local departments or believe they engage in abusive behavior.

Probably just another case of the news finding something that gets them a lot of viewers and running with it, blowing it up to be more of a problem than it really is.