Gun ownership poll

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Your opposition to protecting kids in schools with metal (gun) detectors and armed guards tells me all I need to know about your "concern" for the kids. You only want armed law enforcement on scene after the kids have begun to get killed.

More straw man garbage. I don't think you even read my reply to you if you really believe that. Peace and be well.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

More straw man garbage. I don't think you even read my reply to you if you really believe that. Peace and be well.

Okay, I re-read your previous post. You were against the idea of metal detectors and armed guards in schools, but did concede some bit of merit in the idea. I infer you're maybe 70% opposed, maybe 30% willing to give it a try.

To me, given the fact we've had a lot of success in airports, and the fact politicians want their armed protection for themselves, that we should all agree kids in schools deserve the same protection, period.

Reality is, there are homicidal nut cases in this country. Yes it's annoying, but we need to protect ourselves and our kids, even when inconvenient.

[G1911]

I am for a cop in schools. My state university, of a normal size, had an entire police department to bust students for a dime bag or drinking at 19. They can easily afford to put a cop in each elementary school. I get that making money off speeding tickets or arresting college kids for victimless crime is easier for police departments, but I cannot fathom why protecting kids should not be the priority. It would be a good PR move for them as well, an image of protecting kids will probably play better than hustling people for victimless petty crap.

I am against metal detectors in public schools, on 4th amendment grounds that searching every single person who enters a building (which they are effectively compelled to do by the state) is not reasonable cause for search. I am against it at airports for the same reason - reasonable cause is necessary to search. I am fine with it if a private business makes their own rules, but government needs to follow the Constitution. I am aware this view will probably be agreed with by nobody.

[Deertick]

[QUOTE=irv;2237369]Is this sarcasm or are you being serious?

Originally Posted by Deertick

Vax "mandates" were not forcing someone to do something against their will. It was the definition of "choice". Get a vaccine to protect society at large, or find another job, just not on the government teat.

/QUOTE]

Yes

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am against metal detectors in public schools, on 4th amendment grounds that searching every single person who enters a building (which they are effectively compelled to do by the state) is not reasonable cause for search. I am against it at airports for the same reason - reasonable cause is necessary to search. I am fine with it if a private business makes their own rules, but government needs to follow the Constitution. I am aware this view will probably be agreed with by nobody.

I think it's a different matter with schools. For instance, schools can have dress codes or even have uniforms for students. Schools can punish kids who speak out of turn, or run down hallways, or tease their classmates. Many of the rules students must comply with would certainly be unconstitutional if imposed on the populace at large.

Kids shouldn't have guns or knives in school, and they, or their parents, should consent to electronic inspections for them.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I think it's a different matter with schools. For instance, schools can have dress codes or even have uniforms for students. Schools can punish kids who speak out of turn, or run down hallways, or tease their classmates. Many of the rules students must comply with would certainly be unconstitutional if imposed on the populace at large.

Kids shouldn't have guns or knives in school, and they, or their parents, should consent to electronic inspections for them.

I don’t think a dress code really violates the Bill of Rights. History strongly supports that children have restricted rights, but it also supports that they do still have rights. Detectors and searches would also be for all adults who enter a government building at which being present is mandatory or effectively mandatory (it’s illegal to just not send your kids if you can’t full time homeschool them, at least in most jurisdictions that I am aware of).

Of course I agree kids shouldn’t tote a Glock to class; but I do not think this rare case and interest overrides the 4th amendment rights of everyone. Searching everyone is exactly what the 4th prohibits. This is one of the reasons I am against them in most places such as the airport - boarding an airplane is not reasonable cause that someone is likely engaging in criminal activity.

I know this view will be unpopular and I disagree with most on ‘my side’. I just don’t see a way that this doesn’t violate the 4th and I usually come down on the side of the right of the individual over a right of the state to regulate that individual, even when it isn’t so directly constitutional. Ironically, that made me pretty left wing not too long ago.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by G1911

Not even the most anti-gun left-wing courts in the land are going to rule that the police 'randomly' searching, with no suspicion whatsoever, who are just out in general public and not a sensitive location that some courts consider separate (a courthouse, federal buildings, etc.) in order to arrest them for carrying a gun (which has just been reaffirmed as a core constitutional right), but for no other legal violations is in any way constitutional. It is an absurdly blatant violation of the 4th amendment that protects exactly against being searched without any cause or warrant.

This will lose 9-0 on the current court.

Can easily say random or some search at 10 pm call it a gun curfew...or if in a high prior shooting crime area...can easily make it more than 'random'

15 year olds dont have a right to carry a concealed gun on the streets at least the most anti gun left wing courts would agree to that.....the idea is we can come up with something.......

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Carter08

A broad variety of perspectives from all different races, ages and genders leads to better outcomes. Almost all Fortune 500 companies, for example, have concluded this. Some still resist the concept.

it more about diversity of opinion than just diversity based on gender and age......

i do think there should be extra pay for a qualified 'armed' teacher and a back up when that teacher is not there...having one officer and one teacher makes it difficult to take the campus by surprise by killing the one lone guard etc..

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Do all old men (for example, Breyer and Alito) think the same way? Do all women (for instance Barrett and Sotomayor) think the same way? Can't women be fair and clear thinking when it comes to the law, and vice versa?

Your comment is sexist.

I agree..its like saying all old men think alike.. like all people of a racial group think the same as some monolithic group....its very offensive to say someone will think one way just because of the color of their skin or their gender...

[G1911]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Can easily say random or some search at 10 pm call it a gun curfew...or if in a high prior shooting crime area...can easily make it more than 'random'

15 year olds dont have a right to carry a concealed gun on the streets at least the most anti gun left wing courts would agree to that.....the idea is we can come up with something.......

This is blatantly illegal for reasons beyond the 2nd. I get some of you apparently want to live in a total police state where they may search anyone at any time for no reason and punish people who exercise constitutionally protected rights you don’t like (but, hilariously, your idea gives blanket immunity to ANY actual criminal item these people have on them) but the vast majority of both right and left is strongly against living in such a state.

It is already illegal for a 15 year to conceal carry. It is illegal for a 15 year old to purchase a handgun at all.

Some of these ideas here are just batshit crazy. Banning post civil war technology is somehow the LEAST extreme idea proposed the last several pages by the regulators. And they wonder why gun owners don’t want to ‘come to the table for common sense reform’ when every demand is to just blatantly null and void the Constitution while ignoring the legal mechanisms to actually do that.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

I agree..its like saying all old men think alike.. like all people of a racial group think the same as some monolithic group....its very offensive to say someone will think one way just because of the color of their skin or their gender...

When you have homogeneous groups of privileged men making the decisions, you end up with things like ( to remain true to the topic of the constitution) black people being considered property, and women being denied the right to vote. Or, to use a baseball example, allowing only white people to play major league baseball.

I'm sorry you were offended - try and imagine for a moment that you were not in that priveliged group! You would experience a lifetime of offenses that might give you a different perspective on things.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

This is blatantly illegal for reasons beyond the 2nd. I get some of you apparently want to live in a total police state where they may search anyone at any time for no reason and punish people who exercise constitutionally protected rights you don’t like (but, hilariously, your idea gives blanket immunity to ANY actual criminal item these people have on them) but the vast majority of both right and left is strongly against living in such a state.

It is already illegal for a 15 year to conceal carry. It is illegal for a 15 year old to purchase a handgun at all.

Some of these ideas here are just batshit crazy. Banning post civil war technology is somehow the LEAST extreme idea proposed the last several pages by the regulators. And they wonder why gun owners don’t want to ‘come to the table for common sense reform’ when every demand is to just blatantly null and void the Constitution while ignoring the legal mechanisms to actually do that.

In 2022, during a troubling time when leadership attempted to come to bipartisan solutions, there was just one man who understood how to read the Constitution and we are all forever grateful.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

In 2022, during a troubling time when leadership attempted to come to bipartisan solutions, there was just one man who understood how to read the Constitution and we are all forever grateful.

Okay, explain how his proposal to search anyone anywhere for no reason for an item that is not even necessarily illegal while ignoring items that actually are illegal, is not in violation of the 4th. This will be good.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Okay, explain how his proposal to search anyone anywhere for no reason for an item that is not even necessarily illegal while ignoring items that actually are illegal, is not in violation of the 4th. This will be good.

Did not like that idea myself. It just seems you so easily dismiss literally every other proposals in the thread as batshit crazy while thinking with confidence that yours are not. My con law professor at Duke would have thought your ideas were batshit crazy. Maybe tone down the conviction.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Did not like that idea myself. It just seems you so easily dismiss literally every other proposals in the thread as batshit crazy while thinking with confidence that yours are not. My con law professor at Duke would have thought your ideas were batshit crazy. Maybe tone down the conviction.

Did you just figure out that people in a debate favor their own ideas? Just now? How are you not dismissing every other idea? You just yesterday admitted some of Mark’s ideas might work but declined to consider them because they aren’t banning or de facto banning guns.

It’s not even difficult. There are legitimate arguments for gun control, but those are not being made in this thread. Bizarrely contradictory arguments and simply pretending laws you don’t like don’t exist are very poor arguments. Your side typically has a somewhat logical argument to make.

Even you won’t defend this lunatic proposal to just pretend the 4th also doesn’t exist at all.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Ask the parents of the murdered kids how THEY feel about it.

Can we ask them how they feel about more gun restrictions, background checks, and red flag laws, too?

[Deertick]

For every batshit crazy person that wants to bans all guns there are an equal number of batshit crazy people who want zero restrictions. And both ends of the spectrum like to pretend that it is a binary choice. But if the batshit crazies scream loud enough, people in the middle start to give too much credence to the claims. Ain't our society grand?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Deertick

For every batshit crazy person that wants to bans all guns there are an equal number of batshit crazy people who want zero restrictions. And both ends of the spectrum like to pretend that it is a binary choice. But if the batshit crazies scream loud enough, people in the middle start to give too much credence to the claims. Ain't our society grand?

Batshit crazy was used to refer to the proposal that the 4th amendment be ignored and a police state set up to search anyone anywhere without any cause whatsoever, to see if they have a gun and arrest them, while ignoring any other illegal things they may be doing.

Banning everything I called extreme. It becomes crazy when the proposal is to ban basically everything or everything from the last century and a half of development without first using the legal process to actually eliminate the 2nd amendment. Nobody has proposed doing this (which would at least be a logical and coherent argument, just one I disagree with) - each proposal is to simply ignore constitutional rights they find inconvenient, the 2nd, the 4th, etc.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Batshit crazy was used to refer to the proposal that the 4th amendment be ignored and a police state set up to search anyone anywhere without any cause whatsoever, to see if they have a gun and arrest them, while ignoring any other illegal things they may be doing.

Banning everything I called extreme. It becomes crazy when the proposal is to ban basically everything or everything from the last century and a half of development without first using the legal process to actually eliminate the 2nd amendment. Nobody has proposed doing this (which would at least be a logical and coherent argument, just one I disagree with) - each proposal is to simply ignore constitutional rights they find inconvenient, the 2nd, the 4th, etc.

No one is proposing an amendment because it can’t be done as a practice matter and it doesn’t need to be done. The second amendment does not provide a right or privilege for a citizen to acquire any type of weapon they can get their hands on. So, what does it provide? Bazookas, nuclear weapons, semis? Constructive debate may ensue…

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

No one is proposing an amendment because it can’t be done as a practice matter and it doesn’t need to be done. The second amendment does not provide a right or privilege for a citizen to acquire any type of weapon they can get their hands on. So, what does it provide? Bazookas, nuclear weapons, semis? Constructive debate may ensue…

“Nuclear weapons, semi’s”

See, you’ve got to be trolling. You aren’t even trying to form a coherent argument.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

“Nuclear weapons, semi’s”

See, you’ve got to be trolling. You aren’t even trying to form a coherent argument.

Just because you don’t understand something…

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Just because you don’t understand something…

Actually, I think we established earlier you didn't know what a semi-automatic even actually meant. So... nice burn?

[Carter08]

Earlier you said you agreed people do not have the right to nuclear weapons. Use the Second Amendment and explain how you can possibly agree with that. Please address this straight on.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by G1911

Batshit crazy was used to refer to the proposal that the 4th amendment be ignored and a police state set up to search anyone anywhere without any cause whatsoever, to see if they have a gun and arrest them, while ignoring any other illegal things they may be doing.

Banning everything I called extreme. It becomes crazy when the proposal is to ban basically everything or everything from the last century and a half of development without first using the legal process to actually eliminate the 2nd amendment. Nobody has proposed doing this (which would at least be a logical and coherent argument, just one I disagree with) - each proposal is to simply ignore constitutional rights they find inconvenient, the 2nd, the 4th, etc.

I must have missed the comment on this.

I did see the mention of using real "stop and frisk" laws on underage people violating a theoretical curfew. I really wish the 'constitutionalists' wouldn't pick and choose which to defend. The real threat has been the erosion of our 4th amendment all under the guise of 'law and order'.

So although I don't agree with it, I really can't see a disconnect with
the permitting of firearms, and then being subjected to the same bullshit subjective criteria of being 'suspicious' in someone's judgment and being asked to provide some info to law enforcement. I mean, the argument for stop and frisk always was along the lines of "If they have nothing to hide, why not comply".

And if we're talking about historical context, a flintlock took a few minutes to reload, a musket around 8 sec. What's the AR-15 again? Do you think that the Founding Fathers might have written a little differently if bump stocks were available?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Deertick

I must have missed the comment on this.

Post 567.

Originally Posted by Deertick

I did see the mention of using real "stop and frisk" laws on underage people violating a theoretical curfew. I really wish the 'constitutionalists' wouldn't pick and choose which to defend. The real threat has been the erosion of our 4th amendment all under the guise of 'law and order'.

The constitutionalists are not picking and choosing. You were just complaining about a post where I attacked ignoring the 4th amendment just as much as ignoring the 2nd amendment. That is the opposite of pick and choose...

Originally Posted by Deertick

So although I don't agree with it, I really can't see a disconnect with
the permitting of firearms, and then being subjected to the same bullshit subjective criteria of being 'suspicious' in someone's judgment and being asked to provide some info to law enforcement. I mean, the argument for stop and frisk always was along the lines of "If they have nothing to hide, why not comply".

The proposal was too search anyone and everyone, not people with a concealed weapons license. Stop and frisk is also, as I have made clear, I think against the 4th. I am against unreasonable search and seizure. Standing on the sidewalk is not probable cause. Exercising my right to free speech is not probably cause. Exercising my 2nd amendment rights is not probable cause. One needs probable cause of committing a crime, not probably cause for disagreeing with a certain political faction.

Originally Posted by Deertick

And if we're talking about historical context, a flintlock took a few minutes to reload, a musket around 8 sec. What's the AR-15 again? Do you think that the Founding Fathers might have written a little differently if bump stocks were available?

A flintlock is, in fact, a kind of musket, so your point is kind of odd there. It did not take a "few minutes" to reload. I cannot think what musket you are thinking of that takes "8 sec." to reload either.

An AR-15 is an Armalite Rifle, their 15th model.

Do you understand what a bump stock actually is? Reading this, it sounds like you do not. A bump stock does not make a rifle more lethal, it makes it less lethal, really, by wasting rounds and harming controllability and practical aiming. Bump stocks are range toys.

I think a preponderance of the evidence suggests to me that no, they would not write it differently. The Founders, quite explicitly, added the 2nd because they wanted an armed population, armed with what was the AR-15 of the time. It was not for hunting. The American forces often had severe supply line problems and not enough arms, but their American-produced arms were the best in the world. A Kentucky rifle was a significantly better fighting gun than a Brown Bess, and was largely responsible for being able to build up enough cost to the British to keep the effort going long enough for them to just give up. The project to figure out a producible, practical repeating arm was well under way by 1789, and some of the founders themselves were involved in arms development projects. There is no reason to think that they have any objection to technology improving with time, or that they thought citizens should not arm themselves with the best (which I don't think an AR-15 even is; it's one of the better designs of 60 years ago). They wanted a population capable of fighting, quite explicitly. Hard to do with the tech of 2 centuries ago.

As has been gone over ad nauseam, even if we 1) assume without evidence the founders thought technology would freeze, do we hold any other amendment to this standard? Speech on a phone is not protected, because George Washington didn't have an iPhone. Search without a warrant is fine - if they are searching you for something that did not exist in 1789. No. Nobody believes this. This argument only works by taking for granted that the 2nd is separate and not equal to the rest. Politically convenient, logically senseless.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Earlier you said you agreed people do not have the right to nuclear weapons. Use the Second Amendment and explain how you can possibly agree with that. Please address this straight on.

We have already been over this, straight on. No private individual has a nuclear bomb at all. How the hell can I conceal carry a Nuke? How can I possibly use a nuke for home defense? How can I possibly use a nuke to defend myself or my family outside the home? It has no legitimate use at all, it is huge, it takes tons of people to maintain, store, and keep. Also, again, it does not even exist as a private arm at all. We went over the SC's common use standard, we went over the very narrow and limited ways the state can put restrictions on core rights, we have been over this ad nauseam. It has already been answered in depth. You just don't like it.

It should be treated the SAME as the rest of the Bill of Rights (apply some basic logic). Not even the most left wing courts in America are not agreeing with an ability to do what you have proposed.

Do you have any logical, reasonable points? I've even given your side some to use, since the ones you choose to make are so poor that you must be trolling. Are you still upset over PWCC's fraud ring? I know that got you to weirdly stalk me around a few threads. Are we just on part 2 of that? You've got to be trolling.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

We have already been over this, straight on. No private individual has a nuclear bomb at all. How the hell can I conceal carry a Nuke? How can I possibly use a nuke for home defense? How can I possibly use a nuke to defend myself or my family outside the home? It has no legitimate use at all, it is huge, it takes tons of people to maintain, store, and keep. Also, again, it does not even exist as a private arm at all. We went over the SC's common use standard, we went over the very narrow and limited ways the state can put restrictions on core rights, we have been over this ad nauseam. It has already been answered in depth. You just don't like it.

It should be treated the SAME as the rest of the Bill of Rights (apply some basic logic). Not even the most left wing courts in America are not agreeing with an ability to do what you have proposed.

Do you have any logical, reasonable points? I've even given your side some to use, since the ones you choose to make are so poor that you must be trolling. Are you still upset over PWCC's fraud ring? I know that got you to weirdly stalk me around a few threads. Are we just on part 2 of that? You've got to be trolling.

Did not address it head on and went to some seriously unhinged rants yet again. Is your standard for what is allowed something you can conceal carry? Something that can logically be used in home defense?

[1952boyntoncollector]

My point was not really allow search for guns for whatever reason..

going to be a big argument of what is a reasonable search, but yeah, allow for a reasonable search.......someone claim heard a gun shot down the block and now there are 4 kids at 2 am hanging out at the corner nearby......is that reasonable to search? what if no real description..

So fine, can use 'reasonable' search, you can say guns are illegal to be carried by kids on the street and they still are right now, but obviously this law is not being enforced with all of the killing.

Thus was the idea of a metal detector. However as we have seen, people see police encounters against minorities and we see people getting killed for being pulled over initially for a air freshiner or perhaps people running away from the police because had some other non violent item..

I just making a proposal. there has got to be a way to remove guns off the street besides persuing someone who just killed someone.

in my proposal you are allowed to have gun in your house....

they are trying to say 18 year olds shouldnt have a gun, heck i would say anyone under 50.....i dont see many gun crimes caused by people over 50..perhaps under 50 brains arent fully formed plus kids would think twice before trying to rob an 'older ' person.....i not serious on this but you get my point with arbitary ages..

another issue i propose is that you have to pass some higher scrutiny to have a gun on a street and pay for insurance , and people representing poorer people would say it is unfair to the poor but if it costs 5k or so to be able to get a concealed weapon permit which includes testing for mental health etc. and a million in liability insurance or post it yourself. maybe thats an idea as well... i dont see an insurance carrier providing insurance to someone who committed a prior gun crime..

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Did not address it head on and went to some seriously unhinged rants yet again. Is your standard for what is allowed something you can conceal carry? Something that can logically be used in home defense?

Did you even read? There is no possible legal use of a nuclear bomb, and it does not even exist as a thing private individuals have

As for the unhinged, it appears to be exactly what you did. After your weird "ok" stalking around, you posted in this thread as #14 that you don't own a gun because you are too lazy to learn how to use one, and thus it wouldn't be safe (which seems to be extremely different from your current stance that a de facto ban for all via a 10,000x tax should be implemented). You then joined again at 277 after I said I wasn't very smart to say "Glad the point was conceded", a little sarcastic shot that I am dumb. Which I am, but it's a little weird that this was the 3rd or 4th thread after you threw a tantrum that I made a joke about PWCC's fraud ring that you've done this kind of thing. I told you in 278 that "your personal obsession is weird", because... well, it is. Then you actually joined the debate, with what appears to be a parody of the actual viewpoints. The documentary record shows that yeah, your weird obsession is what got you here. I assume it's a factor in the subsequent bizarre and contradictory arguments and focus on absurdities like gun-owners possessing nuclear bombs in their homes. So I guess you win in a way, I took you sincerely for awhile. So... congratulations? I hope you find a healthier and happier obsession.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

My point was not really allow search for guns for whatever reason..

going to be a big argument of what is a reasonable search, but yeah, allow for a reasonable search.......someone claim heard a gun shot down the block and now there are 4 kids at 2 am hanging out at the corner nearby......is that reasonable to search? what if no real description..

So fine, can use 'reasonable' search, you can say guns are illegal to be carried by kids on the street and they still are right now, but obviously this law is not being enforced with all of the killing.

Thus was the idea of a metal detector. However as we have seen, people see police encounters against minorities and we see people getting killed for being pulled over initially for a air freshiner or perhaps people running away from the police because had some other non violent item..

I just making a proposal. there has got to be a way to remove guns off the street besides persuing someone who just killed someone.

in my proposal you are allowed to have gun in your house....

they are trying to say 18 year olds shouldnt have a gun, heck i would say anyone under 50.....i dont see many gun crimes caused by people over 50..perhaps under 50 brains arent fully formed plus kids would think twice before trying to rob an 'older ' person.....i not serious on this but you get my point with arbitary ages..

another issue i propose is that you have to pass some higher scrutiny to have a gun on a street and pay for insurance , and people representing poorer people would say it is unfair to the poor but if it costs 5k or so to be able to get a concealed weapon permit which includes testing for mental health etc. and a million in liability insurance or post it yourself. maybe thats an idea as well... i dont see an insurance carrier providing insurance to someone who committed a prior gun crime..

This is in direct contradiction to the proposal in 567, though the proposal to only any 2A rights to people over 50 is no less strange and absurd. Not even the 9th circuit will agree with that. Good luck.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Did you even read? There is no possible legal use of a nuclear bomb, and it does not even exist as a thing private individuals have

As for the unhinged, it appears to be exactly what you did. After your weird "ok" stalking around, you posted in this thread as #14 that you don't own a gun because you are too lazy to learn how to use one, and thus it wouldn't be safe (which seems to be extremely different from your current stance that a de facto ban for all via a 10,000x tax should be implemented). You then joined again at 277 after I said I wasn't very smart to say "Glad the point was conceded", a little sarcastic shot that I am dumb. Which I am, but it's a little weird that this was the 3rd or 4th thread after you threw a tantrum that I made a joke about PWCC's fraud ring that you've done this kind of thing. I told you in 278 that "your personal obsession is weird", because... well, it is. Then you actually joined the debate, with what appears to be a parody of the actual viewpoints. The documentary record shows that yeah, your weird obsession is what got you here. I assume it's a factor in the subsequent bizarre and contradictory arguments and focus on absurdities like gun-owners possessing nuclear bombs in their homes. So I guess you win in a way, I took you sincerely for awhile. So... congratulations? I hope you find a healthier and happier obsession.

Way to answer the simple question. Color me shocked.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don’t think a dress code really violates the Bill of Rights. History strongly supports that children have restricted rights, but it also supports that they do still have rights. Detectors and searches would also be for all adults who enter a government building at which being present is mandatory or effectively mandatory (it’s illegal to just not send your kids if you can’t full time homeschool them, at least in most jurisdictions that I am aware of).

Of course I agree kids shouldn’t tote a Glock to class; but I do not think this rare case and interest overrides the 4th amendment rights of everyone. Searching everyone is exactly what the 4th prohibits. This is one of the reasons I am against them in most places such as the airport - boarding an airplane is not reasonable cause that someone is likely engaging in criminal activity.

I know this view will be unpopular and I disagree with most on ‘my side’. I just don’t see a way that this doesn’t violate the 4th and I usually come down on the side of the right of the individual over a right of the state to regulate that individual, even when it isn’t so directly constitutional. Ironically, that made me pretty left wing not too long ago.

I do disagree with you somewhat on the 4th Amendment:

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.

To my thinking, metal detectors at the entrance to schools is reasonable, when the specific things to be seized are weapons such as guns or knives.

In fact, I would argue that metal detectors and armed guards at schools is not only more effective at preventing mass shootings, but it is also more in line with Constitutional rights.

The idea that background checks will prevent potential murderers from obtaining weapons is problematic several ways. If I say the guy next door seems unhinged or angry, or if I claim he said something that I interpreted as a threat, can I report that and thus take away his Constitutional right to own a gun? Can his ex-wife or ex-girlfriend?

Background checks give the power of one person's Constitutional rights over to anybody who might want to take them away, by claiming that person said something, like wanting to shoot up a movie theater, or whatever. Such a statement, unprovable either way, could go on a background check record and stay there forever.

Even if someone fails a background check, it's still possible for them to obtain guns illegally. I'll bet your average gang member didn't go through the legal process in obtaining his weapons.

I'm all in favor of trying to stop bad guys from getting and owning guns, but I'm also saying that because it is difficult and sometimes impossible to know who will suddenly turn into a mass killer, it's also imperative for people to protect themselves and their kids. Hence, safety measures at schools, beginning with armed guards, same as politicians demand for themselves.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I do disagree with you somewhat on the 4th Amendment:

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.

To my thinking, metal detectors at the entrance to schools is reasonable, when the specific things to be seized are weapons such as guns or knives.

In fact, I would argue that metal detectors and armed guards at schools is not only more effective at preventing mass shootings, but it is also more in line with Constitutional rights.

I think it is unconstitutional, because it is a blanket search of every person who enters a building that they are forced to be at by the government. While some people with the free time can homeschool their children, attendance is effectively compulsory for most people. A search, without any specific cause to suspect the person being searched has done anything wrong, is not probable cause. There is no oath or affirmation that there is any specific reason to search them as an individual. That the search is to seize contraband found does not, I think, under the 4th justify a search in and of itself - there must be reasonable cause to suspect that person specifically actually has contraband.

A private business has great leeway to do whatever they want on their property. I am not sure it should be this way, but private property is not really held to much of a Constitutional standard.


As to whether it would work, I think yes and no. I do not think it would help in the incidents this thread has focused on. If a person is shooting up a school, who cares if the metal detector bleeps as they run through with their rifle? It might shift the scene of the massacre to the entrance instead of a classroom. It might make the person operating the metal detector the first to be shot. I don't think it really changes the broad picture.

I think it would probably help in less severe incidents, like when a 15 year old gang member keeps a Glock in his backpack in Chicago, for example. It's illegal, it's not good, they may commit a further vicim-based crime with it at some point, but they aren't coming with mass slaughter in their soul. It might help here by causing them to not bring it.

However, I don't think end result analysis is really valid, or justifies that the Constitution can be violated if one effect of violating is 'good' (i.e., if data shows X lives are saved or improved and no value is given to the rights of the people, it's good to go). Pretty much every right would have to go out the window, there is some area or facet anything can be shown to have a negative result.

Originally Posted by Mark17

The idea that background checks will prevent potential murderers from obtaining weapons is problematic several ways. If I say the guy next door seems unhinged or angry, or if I claim he said something that I interpreted as a threat, can I report that and thus take away his Constitutional right to own a gun? Can his ex-wife or ex-girlfriend?

Background checks give the power of one person's Constitutional rights over to anybody who might want to take them away, by claiming that person said something, like wanting to shoot up a movie theater, or whatever. Such a statement, unprovable either way, could go on a background check record and stay there forever.

Even if someone fails a background check, it's still possible for them to obtain guns illegally. I'll bet your average gang member didn't go through the legal process in obtaining his weapons.

I agree. This is my problem with 'red flag' laws - what this usually means in legislation is bills that strip away due process and allow claims from people the accused barely even knows to be ruled on by a Judge without the accused being involved (like my state has set up). I like due process.

It is very easy to get a gun illegally, and it is not difficult to simply make one. Even without 80%ers and 3D printing you can easily manufacture one from Home Depot. The only real challenge for those with even a little technical inclination is rifling the barrel, which is not necessary to commit short-range crime.

Originally Posted by Mark17

I'm all in favor of trying to stop bad guys from getting and owning guns, but I'm also saying that because it is difficult and sometimes impossible to know who will suddenly turn into a mass killer, it's also imperative for people to protect themselves and their kids. Hence, safety measures at schools, beginning with armed guards, same as politicians demand for themselves.

I concur completely. I don't see much good argument against the idea; it's usually the $$ grounds the left uses to object to this one. If they can afford to place entire police departments on college campuses to harass young adults for petty victimless stuff, they can put a single cop in an elementary school. Everyone wins. We'll see if it works in these incidents (I'm not saying it wouldn't help, I'm saying there's just not data at present because it is not done), it's a PR win for police departments, nobody loses.

This is one of many reasons it is clear that the agenda is more 'ban guns' than 'protect kids'.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think it is unconstitutional, because it is a blanket search of every person who enters a building that they are forced to be at by the government. While some people with the free time can homeschool their children, attendance is effectively compulsory for most people. A search, without any specific cause to suspect the person being searched has done anything wrong, is not probable cause. There is no oath or affirmation that there is any specific reason to search them as an individual. That the search is to seize contraband found does not, I think, under the 4th justify a search in and of itself - there must be reasonable cause to suspect that person specifically actually has contraband.

First of all, it isn't a surprise search, like randomly pulling cars over on a country road and searching through them. It is a well known, publicized procedure. So, suppose it was constructed differently...

I believe you agreed it's okay for schools to have dress codes. Part of that might include how long a girl's skirt must be, at minimum. Schools can confirm compliance, either by measuring, or if the girl, while kneeling, has her skirt touch the floor. So, there can be dress codes, and there can be compliance verification.

Let's say a public school institutes a dress code that includes no metal objects as part of it. As in the skirt example, the school simply verifies compliance by electronically scanning for metal objects. If a gun or knife is found, it violates the dress code policy. If a knife, it must be removed from the premises (much as the girl in the above example must change into a more appropriate outfit.) If a gun is found, it too must be removed of course, and will (no pun intended) trigger further action.

Practical application would mean you'd want an armed guard or two near the detector to be instantly on site in case of a breach, so a killer couldn't simply run through as the detector vainly beeped.

Originally Posted by G1911

I concur completely. I don't see much good argument against the idea; it's usually the $$ grounds the left uses to object to this one. If they can afford to place entire police departments on college campuses to harass young adults for petty victimless stuff, they can put a single cop in an elementary school. Everyone wins. We'll see if it works in these incidents (I'm not saying it wouldn't help, I'm saying there's just not data at present because it is not done), it's a PR win for police departments, nobody loses.

This is one of many reasons it is clear that the agenda is more 'ban guns' than 'protect kids'.

Absolutely. It's almost humorous watching politicians defend their own elaborate security details and procedures, while saying it wouldn't work for children at school.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

First of all, it isn't a surprise search, like randomly pulling cars over on a country road and searching through them. It is a well known, publicized procedure. So, suppose it was constructed differently...

I believe you agreed it's okay for schools to have dress codes. Part of that might include how long a girl's skirt must be, at minimum. Schools can confirm compliance, either by measuring, or if the girl, while kneeling, has her skirt touch the floor. So, there can be dress codes, and there can be compliance verification.

Let's say a public school institutes a dress code that includes no metal objects as part of it. As in the skirt example, the school simply verifies compliance by electronically scanning for metal objects. If a gun or knife is found, it violates the dress code policy. If a knife, it must be removed from the premises (much as the girl in the above example must change into a more appropriate outfit.) If a gun is found, it too must be removed of course, and will (no pun intended) trigger further action.

Practical application would mean you'd want an armed guard or two near the detector to be instantly on site in case of a breach, so a killer couldn't simply run through as the detector vainly beeped.





Absolutely. It's almost humorous watching politicians defend their own elaborate security details and procedures, while saying it wouldn't work for children at school.

This is from a recent study of all school shootings from 1980-2019:

“[A]rmed guards were not associated with significant reduction in rates of injuries; in fact, controlling for the aforementioned factors of location and school characteristics, the rate of deaths was 2.83 times greater in schools with an armed guard present.”

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

This is from a recent study of all school shootings from 1980-2019:

“[A]rmed guards were not associated with significant reduction in rates of injuries; in fact, controlling for the aforementioned factors of location and school characteristics, the rate of deaths was 2.83 times greater in schools with an armed guard present.”

Why call police then, if armed professionals are of little, or negative, help?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Why call police then, if armed professionals are of little, or negative, help?

When a shooting happens you need to roll in with force to stop him or her. A few armed guards at the school preemptively does little to help (except I suspect make everyone feel even more unsafe than they already feel).

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

First of all, it isn't a surprise search, like randomly pulling cars over on a country road and searching through them. It is a well known, publicized procedure. So, suppose it was constructed differently...

I believe you agreed it's okay for schools to have dress codes. Part of that might include how long a girl's skirt must be, at minimum. Schools can confirm compliance, either by measuring, or if the girl, while kneeling, has her skirt touch the floor. So, there can be dress codes, and there can be compliance verification.

I don't think surprise is actually relevant to this. The 4th prohibits search without reasonable cause that the person being searched is guilty of a crime necessitating that search. Whether they are warned ahead of time isn't relevant to the 4th - it's not in accord either way. Just like the state saying "you have a week to turn in all your guns" wouldn't be in accord with the 2nd, notice of an impending infringement does not justify the infringement or make it legal.

I am, personally, against dress codes in schools for liberal reasons - I almost always come down in favor of the right of an individual to live life their way over a right of the state and its institutions to tell them what to do, wear, look, say, think, or behave. I think dress codes are not a constitutional issue though, and are left to the people under the 10th. I would say a school can enforce a legally valid rule it has set, to a reasonable degree. There is nothing prohibiting them from measuring a girls skirt, though as a tax payer I would question why this is what my tax dollars are paying them to do, and if I was a parent and it was my daughter, I'd have some questions for the teacher checking out skirt lengths.

Originally Posted by Mark17

Let's say a public school institutes a dress code that includes no metal objects as part of it. As in the skirt example, the school simply verifies compliance by electronically scanning for metal objects. If a gun or knife is found, it violates the dress code policy. If a knife, it must be removed from the premises (much as the girl in the above example must change into a more appropriate outfit.) If a gun is found, it too must be removed of course, and will (no pun intended) trigger further action.

I think there are some different considerations here. In the gun example, the school is being used as a trap for law enforcement to conduct mass warrantless searches to arrest people, without any reasonable cause or evidence that any person they are searching is actually guilty of anything.

It's more complicated if the school is searching for non-legal reasons; that is the school is operating as an arm of the state but not of the law. In this example though, it seems to be a veil to permit them to actually search for contraband, and turn over to the state's law enforcement arm students violating, again with no actual cause or evidence that that student was guilty. I think this violates a 4th, putting up a smokescreen doesn't change what is actually being done.

As a lover of terrible puns - well done.

Originally Posted by Mark17

Practical application would mean you'd want an armed guard or two near the detector to be instantly on site in case of a breach, so a killer couldn't simply run through as the detector vainly beeped.

I think this just shifts the scene, if anything.

The assailant has the tactical advantage - only they know what is about to ensue. An armed guard or cop sitting there running the machine poses little threat. They just shoot them first and go through, or go through a window, or shoot up the school entrance at drop off. I don't think it changes much, in these very rare mass incidents where a shooter with intent to survive comes in solely to deal as much damage as possible.

I do think it would probably reduce gang violence in troubled schools where this is a problem - where students bringing knives and guns are doing so with a very different mindset.

An armed guard would need to be around, but not just the clear first target to start the massacre. Otherwise, they don't really do much.

Originally Posted by Mark17

Absolutely. It's almost humorous watching politicians defend their own elaborate security details and procedures, while saying it wouldn't work for children at school.

The largest arms dealer in the world, surrounded by his tax-paid and well-armed shooters, telling us we don't need guns and we don't need armed protection either, rings a bit hollow. If I had 2 dozen loyal and armed men following me everywhere, I'd be willing to give up my gun too. Easy for them to say. If armed guards don't work, they can give up their own teams. If armed guards do work, then try it.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Let's say a public school institutes a dress code that includes no metal objects as part of it.

That would be a very poorly thought out way to state a dress code.

It would ban
Nearly all pants - Zippers, buttons...
Nearly all belts - Buckles
many if not most Bras
Some shoes
Most work boots.
Most watches
Nearly all jewelry


Dad was in charge of my HS and both the towns Jr Highs. I found a loophole in the student handbook that basically allowed me to take a day off with little trouble.*
AS punishment, he made me swear to not tell any other students, and I had to spend a portion of my summer vacation helping rewrite the student handbook to eliminate similar loopholes.

*Absence could be excused by presenting a "note from home" I took a day off, had my younger sister write the note in front of him at the breakfast table while he laughed... Then showed the housemaster the exact rule when he refused to accept the note, saying that the note had indded come from home and that dad had seen it being written. He called dad, who skipped a school committee meeting to tell me how it was going to be. (I also heard there had been a "bit of swearing" when he found out during the call.)

[bnorth]

The Founding Fathers were sitting around a table sometime in 1776, working on the constitution. It had been a long day.
Father1: Whew! It's getting rather warm in here, isn't it?
Father2: Shall I open the window?
Father1: No, that's alright. I'll just take off my jacket, and roll up my sleeves.
Father2: Hey, that's a good idea. Why don't we include that in the constitution?
Father1: What? That we're allowed to take our jackets off and roll up our sleeves while at work?
Father2: Yeah, but that doesn't sound very smooth. How about "Everyone shall have the right to bare arms?"

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by bnorth

The Founding Fathers were sitting around a table sometime in 1776, working on the constitution. It had been a long day.
Father1: Whew! It's getting rather warm in here, isn't it?
Father2: Shall I open the window?
Father1: No, that's alright. I'll just take off my jacket, and roll up my sleeves.
Father2: Hey, that's a good idea. Why don't we include that in the constitution?
Father1: What? That we're allowed to take our jackets off and roll up our sleeves while at work?
Father2: Yeah, but that doesn't sound very smooth. How about "Everyone shall have the right to bare arms?"

Very interesting interpretation of the Constitution

Enjoyable read

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Very interesting interpretation of the Constitution

Enjoyable read

Well you know what they say. If you don't think about it, it makes sense.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by bnorth

The Founding Fathers were sitting around a table sometime in 1776, working on the constitution. It had been a long day.
Father1: Whew! It's getting rather warm in here, isn't it?
Father2: Shall I open the window?
Father1: No, that's alright. I'll just take off my jacket, and roll up my sleeves.
Father2: Hey, that's a good idea. Why don't we include that in the constitution?
Father1: What? That we're allowed to take our jackets off and roll up our sleeves while at work?
Father2: Yeah, but that doesn't sound very smooth. How about "Everyone shall have the right to bare arms?"

The next day, while they were taking a break, James Madison was using the outhouse when Thomas Jefferson accidentally walked in on him. Madison said, "Hey, I have a right to privacy....."

But for whatever reason, they decided not to include that in the Constitution.

[irv]

https://www.tiktok.com/@lexitmovemen...10508643880238

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by irv

https://www.tiktok.com/@lexitmovemen...10508643880238

can increase pay for teachers with guns.....if you ask the students like this video they will all say they feel safer with their teachers with guns

i would submit a teacher (who know their students very well) would do more to risk their lives for students than law enforcement.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

can increase pay for teachers with guns.....if you ask the students like this video they will all say they feel safer with their teachers with guns

i would submit a teacher (who know their students very well) would do more to risk their lives for students than law enforcement.

They will “all say they feel safer with their teachers with guns”? Um no. There’s a reason the vast majority of parents whose kids have been gunned down call for sensible restrictions on access to guns than they do for weaponized teachers. This is an issue where it may be better if older people without actual kids in the schools have less of a say in the matter.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Carter08

They will “all say they feel safer with their teachers with guns”? Um no. There’s a reason the vast majority of parents whose kids have been gunned down call for sensible restrictions on access to guns than they do for weaponized teachers. This is an issue where it may be better if older people without actual kids in the schools have less of a say in the matter.

- I'm not entirely sure these people are in the right state of mind to make sound, educated, emotionless decisions. Maybe we should let these families grieve instead of constantly throwing them in front of the media.

- You mean people who came from a more respectful society should have less say in a matter that encompasses respect - for firearms, for each other, for themselves?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

- I'm not entirely sure these people are in the right state of mind to make sound, educated, emotionless decisions. Maybe we should let these families grieve instead of constantly throwing them in front of the media.

- You mean people who came from a more respectful society should have less say in a matter that encompasses respect - for firearms, for each other, for themselves?

More respectful? Where does that judgment come from? I’m not saying whether I agree or disagree but there are many that would disagree and thank the fact that we have tried to evolve from some pretty bad ways of treating each other in the past. Seems like a pretty big take to have - wondering what is your basis for saying it.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Carter08

More respectful? Where does that judgment come from? I’m not saying whether I agree or disagree but there are many that would disagree and thank the fact that we have tried to evolve from some pretty bad ways of treating each other in the past. Seems like a pretty big take to have - wondering what is your basis for saying it.

I'm not saying previous generations were/are perfect. There is a very fine balance between traditional and progressive. Parents actually parented back in the day. There was respect for life - not just one's own life, but others' lives as well.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-suspect.html

Modern "progressive" is regression in disguise in many ways.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Carter08

They will “all say they feel safer with their teachers with guns”? Um no. There’s a reason the vast majority of parents whose kids have been gunned down call for sensible restrictions on access to guns than they do for weaponized teachers. This is an issue where it may be better if older people without actual kids in the schools have less of a say in the matter.

disagree, the vast majority wish there to be some weaponized teachers at least for now..perhaps a few talking heads on TV on stations you watch may share what you stated.