Watching the Democrats - it's Fun and Macabre!

[Adak]

Originally Posted by glatt

What about the school buses? The kids aren't protected on the buses. Should we have armed guards there?

There are 50 thousand public elementary schools in this country. There are another 40 thousand middle schools and high schools. That doesn't even begin to count private schools. All told, there are probably 120 thousand schools in this country. To hire one guard for each one at $35,000 per year would cost about $4 Billion. But really you need more than one guard. The school won't be protected when they go to the bathroom or eat lunch. You need at least 2 per school. So that's $8 Billion. And what about those buses? And the bus stops? Let's say you have an average of 2 buses per school, and 10 bus stops per school that means you need another 12 guards. So let's see, 12 time 4 is 48, plus the two you already had at the school. Now we're at $52 Billion (per year) just for guards. And all you've protected in the kids at school. What about the library? and the park? Oh jeez. And the playgrounds! What about walking to the bus stops? And walking to school? We'll need a guard on every corner. this is going to start getting expensive.

Ridiculously expensive, but it is a solution that should be used in the short term, when needed. A little extra security, can go a long way.

And it's MUCH better than yanking the rug out from underneath our second amendment rights. Once the gov't has knocked those down, we'll never get them back.

And not to be a doomsayer, but once they can knock one part of the Bill of Rights down, then clearly they can see about knocking down other parts, as well. All they need is some kind of an emergency (real or imagined), and they'll be all over it.

There are practical steps that could be taken - but what I've heard proposed so far, is not good.

[IamSam]

Well, we could always grab all our guns, head for the hills, and demand the repeal of the Patriot Act.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by IamSam

Well, we could always grab all our guns, head for the hills, and demand the repeal of the Patriot Act.

I'm waiting for a case to go to the Supreme Court, on this Carnivore project in Utah. That's so invasive of our privacy, it's incredible.

The Patriot Act was just another "knee jerk, Washington needs to do something, and this is something, so we must do it", law. I doubt if it's legal - maybe during the wars in Iraq, etc., but after the troops come home from Afghanistan, the freedoms we gave up in that act, are going to seem like too much to give away, permanently.

I sure hope so.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Adak

And it's MUCH better than yanking the rug out from underneath our second amendment rights. Once the gov't has knocked those down, we'll never get them back.

And not to be a doomsayer, but once they can knock one part of the Bill of Rights down, then clearly they can see about knocking down other parts, as well. All they need is some kind of an emergency (real or imagined), and they'll be all over it.

These are serious concerns. They're just in the wrong thread, that's all.
They should be in a thread with a title mentioning Bush, Cheney, Patriot Act, and the last 12 years.

Warrantless wire-tapping? Detention without trial? "Enhanced interrogation"?

If you seriously think your gun rights are effectively protecting all your other rights, you haven't been paying attention for the last 12 years.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

These are serious concerns. They're just in the wrong thread, that's all.
They should be in a thread with a title mentioning Bush, Cheney, Patriot Act, and the last 12 years.

Warrantless wire-tapping? Detention without trial? "Enhanced interrogation"?

If you seriously think your gun rights are effectively protecting all your other rights, you haven't been paying attention for the last 12 years.

I agree with you 100%! The Patriot Act was a disaster for our freedoms, and Carnivore is only going to make it worse!

But after the troops are all back, I believe they both will be challenged or maybe just have their spending cut out from under them.

[glatt]

The police are randomly searching regular people going about their daily commutes without probable cause or warrants on public transit systems in many major US cities including Washington DC. I've seen it with my own eyes in person.

Fourth 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."

The Bill of Rights is being violated by the government on a daily basis already.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by glatt

The police are randomly searching regular people going about their daily commutes without probable cause or warrants on public transit systems in many major US cities including Washington DC. I've seen it with my own eyes in person.

Fourth 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."

The Bill of Rights is being violated by the government on a daily basis already.

Wait a minute - although I generally agree with you, especially on the Patriot Act and Carnivore, but I have to find exception with your conclusion here.

The Bill of Rights says we are free from "unreasonable searches and seizures". Note the "unreasonable" part of that.

I'm not familiar enough with the warrantless searches on people in cities back East, to know if it's unreasonable or not. Point is that ALL searches, according to the Bill of Rights, are NOT unreasonable - and therefore some are legal. Look at what the TSA is doing for air travelers, for crying out loud! THAT seems unreasonable to me.

BTW, the nude scanners are going to be removed from the airports, because the manufacturer (one of the major ones), says it can't diminish the resolution of the nude scan. (They tried to cheat in a demo showing they could do it, but got caught - shades of Lance Armstrong, eh? )

The other manufacturers of the nude scan equipment says that they can diminish the resolution, because they use slightly different technology in their scanners.

We shall see.

The cost is horrendous, but the gov't doesn't believe the nude scanner is legal, and has given the manufacturer plenty of time to find the fix for it - which it now says it can't find.

A less intrusive scanner will be put in place, of course.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Adak

I'm not familiar enough with the warrantless searches on people in cities back East, to know if it's unreasonable or not. Point is that ALL searches, according to the Bill of Rights, are NOT unreasonable - and therefore some are legal. Look at what the TSA is doing for air travelers, for crying out loud! THAT seems unreasonable to me.

That's unconstitutional too, IMHO. The idea is that public transportation is optional, therefor, it's OK to search anyone who uses public transportation. I think this is wrong thinking. Public transportation (buses, subways, trains, planes) is a way to get from one place to another, just as a public road or a public sidewalk is a way to get from one place to another. The founding fathers were very clearly opposed to just stopping people going about their business and searching them. They didn't want people to be searched simply because they were traveling. And it really is a slippery slope. If you can search people who have entered the publicly owned transit system because they have chosen to enter a system, you can also search people who have entered the public highway and road system. Nobody is safe. Or I should say, the only reason people aren't being searched on roads yet is because it's too difficult and the outcry would be too great. But if you just shrug and don't care that people commuting to work on the bus or a subway are being searched without warrants or probably cause, then you deserve to be searched in your car.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by glatt

Or I should say, the only reason people aren't being searched on roads yet is because it's too difficult and the outcry would be too great.

Not too difficult and no real outcry.

Stop and Frisk

The stop-and-frisk program of New York City is a practice of the New York City Police Department by which a police officer who reasonably suspects a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a felony or a Penal Law misdemeanor, stops and questions that person, and, if the officer reasonably suspects he or she is in danger of physical injury, frisks the person stopped for weapons.

About 684,000 people were stopped in 2011.

"Terry Stop" Terry v. Ohio

The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).

So basically, if the cops want to frisk you just for the hell of it, they can. They can also detain you without charges.

People in middle class America do not see this. If the economy worsens and more of them move to lower income neighborhoods, this will change.

Note: Stop and frisk was recently challenged and overturned in some cases, but noone knows if this will stand.