B
BoomBoomBoy
Guest
Apples and oranges.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
J
Jas0n
Guest
Checkpoints don't violate the 4th.
J
Joe_Cool
Guest
Except for the cops who chase you down and pull you over for avoiding it. You don't read so good, do you?
S
seventh circle
Guest
So it's ok for a cop break the 4th amendment as long as I'm in my car?
Logic...
Logic...
L
LOL I LIKE COCKS
Guest
I know what you meant. You do not have "de facto" custodial rights to the use of property that you do not own, which would include the roads. You have a right to use your own roads, and if the state required you to obtain a license to use your road, that would be an infringement on your custodial rights.
A license to purchase a gun is an infringement in the market. The state does not own the gun (just as it does not own the private roads), and therefore cannot enforce a registration or licensing program without first obtaining its own "de facto" usage rights to the weapons. It does this by force, hence the infringement.
Licensing in itself (understood to be legal permission) isn't an infringement; it's the forceful acquisition of custodial rights that is. If the state simply contracted the weapons makers devoid of coercion, then there would be no market infringement, though I'd still take issue because that's not a proper function of government.
A license to purchase a gun is an infringement in the market. The state does not own the gun (just as it does not own the private roads), and therefore cannot enforce a registration or licensing program without first obtaining its own "de facto" usage rights to the weapons. It does this by force, hence the infringement.
Licensing in itself (understood to be legal permission) isn't an infringement; it's the forceful acquisition of custodial rights that is. If the state simply contracted the weapons makers devoid of coercion, then there would be no market infringement, though I'd still take issue because that's not a proper function of government.
7
7960
Guest
you?
[y]RqjoY51buf8[/y]
[y]RqjoY51buf8[/y]
J
Joe_Cool
Guest
Should I make a thread? It might lead to interesting conversation.
J
Joe_Cool
Guest
Yes, it is. There is a tacit agreement in society that it is acceptable to drive in designated areas (public roads) or on private property that you control, as long as you are not directing the vehicle in such a way as to endanger somebody.
Firing a gun toward a person is an aggressive act. In fact, firing a gun at all outside designated areas (shooting ranges) or private property that you control (with certain conditions), absent good cause, is an aggressive act.
The two are not even comparable.
Firing a gun toward a person is an aggressive act. In fact, firing a gun at all outside designated areas (shooting ranges) or private property that you control (with certain conditions), absent good cause, is an aggressive act.
The two are not even comparable.
S
Simius The Monkey
Guest
I don't know much about sobriety checkpoints... So I'm not arguing with you, just looking for clarification:
Are you saying that if I am driving down the road, without having checked before hand as to where sobriety checkpoints are or whatever, and I happen across one... I am given enough fair warning before I reach it that I can turn around or turn down another street without breaking any traffic laws to avoid it?
Are you saying that if I am driving down the road, without having checked before hand as to where sobriety checkpoints are or whatever, and I happen across one... I am given enough fair warning before I reach it that I can turn around or turn down another street without breaking any traffic laws to avoid it?
J
Joe_Cool
Guest
That's the actual ruling in Sitz, right? "Yeah it's a violation of the 4th amendment, but it's only a small violation so we let it stand"
(paraphrased, of course)
(paraphrased, of course)
J
Jas0n
Guest
...Furthermore, opposing them is kind of just silly.
7
7960
Guest
When it's his job to interpret the constitution, yes it is.
B
BadASSMan
Guest
no one gives a shit about your dumbass opinion gingerboy
R
rothbard
Guest
You're so cute
7
7960
Guest
show me where it says you have a right to privacy.
B
blackbirdbeatle
Guest
Don't hate because I think your AV is tired.
7
7960
Guest
Yep
J
Joe_Cool
Guest
You just quoted the answer to your question.
The unreasonable search is where they stop and search everyone, absent any cause, to see if they're doing something wrong. Would you understand it better in french?
La fouille abusive est l'endroit o
The unreasonable search is where they stop and search everyone, absent any cause, to see if they're doing something wrong. Would you understand it better in french?
La fouille abusive est l'endroit o
Z
Zee
Guest
On patrol they can pull you over, which is an embarassment IMO and make up some bullshit reason for due cause in pulling your ass over
Check Points any day
Check Points any day
R
rothbard
Guest
Wirelessly posted via wap.offtopic.com (Opera/9.80 (Windows Mobile; WCE; Opera Mobi/WMD-50369; U; en) Presto/2.4.13 Version/10.00)
Checkpoints do violate the 4th.
Checkpoints do violate the 4th.