5 ms·

So much for the 4th amendment. It seems that most of america only cares about the second.

by isostatic 7y ago

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gnode 7y ago
You don't get the 2nd amendment at the border either.
- coldcode 7y ago
  I don't believe many of the things the border patrol does is actually intended in law. They like to claim it is, even bring out all sorts of papers, but in reality its stretching the whole idea so far it wraps around space-time. Border inspections were written in the constitution to support finding people who are avoiding duties and tariffs.
- isostatic 7y ago
  If the 2nd ammendment didn't apply at "The Border" (aka the 100 mile wide 'constitution free zone'), then perhaps there wouldn't be such a zone https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/styles/scale_1200w/public/wysiwyg/constitutionfreezonemap.jpg https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/styles/scale_1200w/...
  - gnode 7y ago
    It's actually worse than this; this map neglects the zones around international airports.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      IIRC they asked for those but they didn't get them because the other federal law enforcement gangs didn't want their turf encroached on. Did that change?
elmerfud 7y ago
I would say that most of America does not care for the vigorous defense of the second amendment but there is one very vocal organization and subgroup that does. It attempts to defend it against any abridgment no matter how minor or what others cite as "reasonable". The problem isn't the NRA's and gun owners staunch defense of the second amendment it's wondering why people aren't more inclined to defend the fourth amendment. Too many people accept the incremental abridgment of our constitutional protections because they seem "reasonable". Never looking forward to what the long term outcome will be. Instead of being critical of the tenacity of how the second is defended, tenaciously defending the others would be a good use of energy. Every protection should be fought like the NRA fights gun control, but it's easier point and blame than build up. NRA expenses $423 million ACLU budget $235 million Considering only 43% of US households own guns, and 100% use the 4th amendment we can that there's a huge number of apathetic people for you to motivate instead of tearing down something else. Go ahead and down vote because it's easier than reading the numbers and doing something. This is why we are in this problem.
- briandear 7y ago
  > I would say that most of America does not care for the vigorous defense of the second amendment Citation needed.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  It's not as if NRA are supported by taxes. If they're spending enough defending 2A, that just leaves the rest of us to defend the rest of the Constitution. ACLU, EFF, etc. take donations...
- hombre_fatal 7y ago
  As a rule, I downvote people who as for it because I don't like the attempt at manipulation, like you're somehow disarming or pre-empting people who would've downvoted you for their own reasons instead of the condescending one you offer.
  - elmerfud 7y ago
    I edited my post and added the last part because it was being down voted. You're not always the first to read something. There's nothing condescending in my post, if you read it that way then it is a reflection of you and your perceptions. It's a very simple point. You can point at others and whine that why do they have such staunch supporters, because all you can to is teardown, or you view as an incentive to motivate getting everyone more involved and passionate about defending all of the other freedoms with the same tenacity. It's clear you fall in to the teardown ideology.
jascii 7y ago
There are specific legal exemptions to the 4th amendment for the CBP, allowing them to do searches when crossing the border. The question here is if these exemptions apply, as the person in question was not crossing the border.
- munk-a 7y ago
  Those exemptions (which existed as you describe them for quite a while) were widened after 9/11 to give them those same powers when interacting with anyone within 100 miles of the board.
  - jascii 7y ago
    Interesting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception). Does anyone know if/how this applies to international airports(as is the case in this story) , and/or our coasts?
madengr 7y ago
I’d say it is the other way around. The ACLU is an example: https://reason.com/2019/04/12/the-aclu-defends-the-rights-of-gun-owner/ https://reason.com/2019/04/12/the-aclu-defends-the-rights-of...
- DuskStar 7y ago
  Didn't the ACLU recently have a memo leak that suggested they wouldn't defend the free speech rights of people carrying guns?
  - tbyehl 7y ago
    ACLU will stop defending the right of assembly to people who intend to be armed, and their reasoning is... reasonable. They've been very active in supporting the other 1st, 4th, 14th amendment rights of gun owners and have given no indication that is changing. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.pdf http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACL...

So much for the 4th amendment. It seems that most of america only cares about the second.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

gnode 7y ago

You don't get the 2nd amendment at the border either.

coldcode 7y ago
I don't believe many of the things the border patrol does is actually intended in law. They like to claim it is, even bring out all sorts of papers, but in reality its stretching the whole idea so far it wraps around space-time. Border inspections were written in the constitution to support finding people who are avoiding duties and tariffs.
isostatic 7y ago
If the 2nd ammendment didn't apply at "The Border" (aka the 100 mile wide 'constitution free zone'), then perhaps there wouldn't be such a zone https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/styles/scale_1200w/public/wysiwyg/constitutionfreezonemap.jpg https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/styles/scale_1200w/...
- gnode 7y ago
  It's actually worse than this; this map neglects the zones around international airports.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    IIRC they asked for those but they didn't get them because the other federal law enforcement gangs didn't want their turf encroached on. Did that change?

elmerfud 7y ago

I would say that most of America does not care for the vigorous defense of the second amendment but there is one very vocal organization and subgroup that does. It attempts to defend it against any abridgment no matter how minor or what others cite as "reasonable". The problem isn't the NRA's and gun owners staunch defense of the second amendment it's wondering why people aren't more inclined to defend the fourth amendment. Too many people accept the incremental abridgment of our constitutional protections because they seem "reasonable". Never looking forward to what the long term outcome will be. Instead of being critical of the tenacity of how the second is defended, tenaciously defending the others would be a good use of energy. Every protection should be fought like the NRA fights gun control, but it's easier point and blame than build up. NRA expenses $423 million ACLU budget $235 million Considering only 43% of US households own guns, and 100% use the 4th amendment we can that there's a huge number of apathetic people for you to motivate instead of tearing down something else. Go ahead and down vote because it's easier than reading the numbers and doing something. This is why we are in this problem.

briandear 7y ago
> I would say that most of America does not care for the vigorous defense of the second amendment Citation needed.
jessaustin 7y ago
It's not as if NRA are supported by taxes. If they're spending enough defending 2A, that just leaves the rest of us to defend the rest of the Constitution. ACLU, EFF, etc. take donations...
hombre_fatal 7y ago
As a rule, I downvote people who as for it because I don't like the attempt at manipulation, like you're somehow disarming or pre-empting people who would've downvoted you for their own reasons instead of the condescending one you offer.
- elmerfud 7y ago
  I edited my post and added the last part because it was being down voted. You're not always the first to read something. There's nothing condescending in my post, if you read it that way then it is a reflection of you and your perceptions. It's a very simple point. You can point at others and whine that why do they have such staunch supporters, because all you can to is teardown, or you view as an incentive to motivate getting everyone more involved and passionate about defending all of the other freedoms with the same tenacity. It's clear you fall in to the teardown ideology.

jascii 7y ago

There are specific legal exemptions to the 4th amendment for the CBP, allowing them to do searches when crossing the border. The question here is if these exemptions apply, as the person in question was not crossing the border.

munk-a 7y ago
Those exemptions (which existed as you describe them for quite a while) were widened after 9/11 to give them those same powers when interacting with anyone within 100 miles of the board.
- jascii 7y ago
  Interesting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception). Does anyone know if/how this applies to international airports(as is the case in this story) , and/or our coasts?

madengr 7y ago

I’d say it is the other way around. The ACLU is an example: https://reason.com/2019/04/12/the-aclu-defends-the-rights-of-gun-owner/ https://reason.com/2019/04/12/the-aclu-defends-the-rights-of...

DuskStar 7y ago
Didn't the ACLU recently have a memo leak that suggested they wouldn't defend the free speech rights of people carrying guns?
- tbyehl 7y ago
  ACLU will stop defending the right of assembly to people who intend to be armed, and their reasoning is... reasonable. They've been very active in supporting the other 1st, 4th, 14th amendment rights of gun owners and have given no indication that is changing. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.pdf http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACL...