Isn't the bill of rights over 200 years old? Isn't it possible that we've made some progress in the last 200 years that might give us a slightly better perspective?

hmmm... that may have had more to do with her profile than anything else. Cops do tend to be a little randy... ;)

well, I'm not so sure. I remember another case after RK where a guy videotaped some cops smacking around a kid at a gas station (after a car chase, I think, but I could be wrong). a few days after the the video hit the airwaves, the LAPD swat smashed down the guys door in the middle of the night and dragged him off. turns out he had a bench warrant for a misdemeanor in a different county (which cops generally ignore unless and until you pulled in on another charge). LAPD, I guess, just thought they'd send a message about pointing your camera the wrong way.

the pen may be mightier than the sword in general, but not when it's pointed at your face.

I'll point out that in the military (at least originally), handguns were only issued to officers, and their main use was field execution of soldiers who refused to obey orders. they are designed to establish your (personal) power over some (individual) person. I'd be perfectly fine with banning guns completely, but if you're not going to ban some guns, I think you should ban handguns and keep the heavy weaponry legal. peace is best, but mutually assured destruction is a great motivator.

Agree that URWM's should not have guns. If there was a blood or urine test for Ultra Right Wing Militancy I'd have no problem with anyone else owning a long gun or with folks who live in rattlesnake territory carrying pistols.

lol - I remember reading a sci-fi book in which political assassination was a protected right of the electorate. tongue-in-cheek, maybe, but the story sure had a whole lot of honest, hard-working, and dedicated (if paranoid) politicians. :D

Yes, and responsibility is responsibility. It shouldn't be possible for anyone, including gun owners, to abdicate their responsibilities.

Well, you are right and the 2nd amendment of our bill of rights is widely misunderstood and debated heavily.

Here are my problems with gun control:

1) Creates more government
2) Citizens lose their guns but LEOs and Military do not
3) Does not affect violent crime at all
4) Is not even our biggest problem
5) Goes against our rights
6) Does not stop criminals from getting guns

Poverty is a bigger problem than gun control and a lot of these violent crimes you see are really a product of poverty in inner cities. The shootings you hear about that happen in malls and schools really can not be avoided at all. There is no way to tell when someone just goes crazy and snaps and starts shooting people. If you outlaw guns they will just acquire a gun illegally, which creates more crime in the end.

I also never said that the right removes any responsibility from any consequences that may happen if you break the law with a fire arm. I don't even know why that was brought up, of course every gun owner is responsible for their guns, period.

on kind of a side-note, there is some (usually ignored) support for gun control in the 2nd amendment itself. the passage literally reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" - implying that gun-ownership should only be associated with militias. militia is an ill-defined word, of course, but it clearly implies a defense of the social order (nation, state, or community), not the right of individuals to defend themselves or their property.

just a thought...

I brought it up because in the US people are rarely held responsible for the problems they cause. If they were, there wouldn't be much motivation for supporting gun control.

I am confused. Do you actually have people who have illegal weapons and don't know it, or are you expecting criminals who do have illegal weapons to make an appointment for a search? I really am confused here... really.

Yup, but it is included in the list with all the other rights granted to individuals indicating it might just be an individual right.

I think the basic worry is that if you don't agree to to have your house searched, then you are implicitly confessing guilt (to something or other...). The program isn't designed to have actual results, but just to induce (or should I say increase) paranoia in "suspect" communities.

Stalin would have loved it. :rolleyes:

Should have guessed. We have voluntary searches down here, too..... it goes something like:

Officer to driver: Can I search your vehicle, or would you rather sit in the hot sun on a 95 degree temp day, with the engine off.... for about two hours while I call in a dog to sniff around your car to see if there's probable cause to search it? Might need to roll the windows up to keep you from escaping, Mr. Good Citizen who has obviously given me no legal reason to search your vehicle or I'd be searching instead of asking.

And that's a true story. Stalin would have loved some of our local sheriffs' tactics, too.

While I don't doubt that this happens often, people could avoid it by knowing their legal rights.

"Am I under arrest, officer?"

If "Yes"

"What are the charges?"

If "No"

"Then I'm free to go, right?"

The officer can't have it both ways; either you're under arrest (or being detained with probable cause) or you're free to go.

When pulled over, any information beyond your name and address is, frankly, none of the officer's business and should generally not be volunteered. It is, however, a very good idea to be very polite and respectful when not volunteering information, with ignition keys on the dash and hands in sight on the top half of the steering wheel.

Best practice is to exercise your rights even if you have nothing to hide. Exercising rights should not imply guilt in any way.

actually, that doesn't quite work with cars. first off, a car has been ruled to be a semi-public place, meaning that the officer has more rights to invade your privacy there then he would in most other personal settings. second, the courts have been pushing the 'driving is a privilege, not a right' agenda for a couple of decades now. essentially, the officer can't detain you if you demand to leave, but he can confiscate your license, and consequently your car, at his or her discretion. if you want to get out of your car and walk away, that might work. otherwise you're stuck.

He can also put you in jail overnight on any pumped up charge he wants such as disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, etc. Course the judge will throw it out the next day (if you're fortunate enough to see a judge the next day), but you spent the night in jail and the officer made his point.

Saw one kid charged with public intox because he smarted off (very minor I thought) to the police inside the police station (hardly in public, and hardly there of his own free will)... he was a little drunk and was there for DWI. The PO'd police then piled on a half dozen addl charges. Instead of going home after being charged with the DWI, he spent the night in jail. Six months later and with no drivers license in between (guilty until proven otherwise), a judge threw out all the charges including the DWI. But, it cost the kid $3k in attorneys fees and a whole lot of inconvenience.

Here, you must provide a drivers license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance card. And soon to be added, your National ID Card or proof of citizenship.

If the police want to search my car, the answer is going to be, "Go for it, SIR." I just don't want the aggravation.

(I ran drug/alcohol rehab and equal opportunity programs in a former life -- saw lots of crap.)

I'm with AEH. There are rights and there's common sense in this issue. Go for it is the common sense side of the argument. Like it or not, a policeman can delay you for a long time while a search will not.

I'm sorry, I can't take that seriously. Of course it's not the ridiculous situation you describe.

You can read about the Boston plan here. The goal, a laudable one IMOH, is essentially to give parents in high crime areas a way to rid their homes and neighborhoods of illegal weapons. Whether the chosen method to reach that goal is a good one is debatable.

I do not smoke, drink alcohol, or use "recreational" drugs. Never have. But I have long hair, earrings, and as tattoo. I was pulled over one morning. Before I had a chance to roll down the window, the cop was yelling that he smelled pot (I had a cup of hot chocolate) and ordered me out of the vehicle to be searched. It was surreal to be asked why I was "barely driving the speed limit, with both hands on the wheel." "Um, because I'm supposed to, sir." I was polite and cooperative (despite being furious) and soon on my way.

I didn't like it, but I knew from previous experience that there was really nothing else I could do.