I’d like to have a rational debate about this, but given the subject, I think I’ll save the Mods the headache and put it here.
I find it rather curious, a lot of lefty pundits and a lot of left wing people period are screaming our 4th amendment rights are being trampled upon.
Yet, these are the same folks that tell the gun rights activist “Chill man, we’re not taking your guns away.”
So I’d like to know, why is it OK to “redefine” (for lack of a better word) the 2nd amendment, but it’s NOT OK to redefine our 4th?
Why is it the 4th is so much more sacred than the 2nd?
Is this maybe a golden opportunity for gun control advocates to see where the 2nd amendment folks are coming from?
No, establishing the precedent that the government can ignore the law/Constitution whenever enough people caterwaul about “safety” will never, ever have unintended consequences or impact something the caterwauler values. Never.
I am not seeing anyone trying to seriously take away anyone’s guns though it may be that I am not paying close enough attention. Here in Colorado, a bill recently passed that limited magazine size and required background checks on all firearm purchases. While the pro-gun crowd hates this law and it is (I believe) viewed nationally as pretty progressive, not a single gun has been seized. Maybe you can point out a place where they are trying to take guns away.
Meanwhile, the 4th amendment is under attack and has been eroding for sometime. These attacks are much more constant and successful than the attacks on the second amendment have been in my opinion. Mostly because I think there is much less “screaming” about the invasions of personal information possible under laws like the Patriot Act with no warrant needed than there is screaming about attempts to limit how many bullets can be loaded into a gun. The NRA has been very successful at organizing and marketing their agenda and there is not a similar group, at least that I know of, that is trying to protect the 4th.
While I think universal background checks are a good idea, I think all gun control is a losing issue for “lefty pundits”. The Supreme Court has ruled pretty definitively on gun rights; Heller and McDonald are pretty clear that there is little government can do to control private possession of guns. Regarding the NSA scandal, I hate that the government may be legally monitoring my email communications or what I am posting to the SDMB. I hated it when it started under the Bush administration and I hate it now that a Democrat is president.
Okay, companies have been storing our information for over a decade now. And unlike the Government, they’re actually doing shit with it like selling it to advertisers. Or using that information to build their own personal profiles of it’s customers.
Which is worse? What the Government is doing? (Which in no way harms you) Or what companies are doing which actually does affect you. Like all that spam in your Email for instance.
I don’t really expect an intricate legal analysis in the Pit, but this OP is simply idiotic.
Neither the 2nd, nor the 4th Amendment contain rights that cannot be infringed in any way, shape, or form. There is always some kind of limit on those, and every, asserted right. So it’s inane to assert that you have to support no limits on either right or that you have the same limits for both or else you’re a hypocrite.
Tell that to the guy that blew the whistle on the NSA’s shenanigans. Read this article. It’s like a script for the sequel to Enemy Of The State or something. Scary.
Yes, they’re all equal under the constitution, and I think that that is part of the problem of arguing a position by appealing to our “rights” as outlined by constitutional amendments (and indeed, by the constitution itself).
I would never argue that the rights that follow from the 4th amendment (or any) are good and just and correct because of the amendment.
“The constitution says I can have a gun,” or, “The constitution says I can have privacy,” are equally meaningless arguments.
My question is: what issues are the amendments meant to address, and do they continue to do so as interpreted?
If I don’t want a company to have my information, I can choose not to do business with them, or not agree to terms which allow them to sell my information to advertisers.
If I don’t want the government to have my information, what can I do?
Frankly, I don’t like what happens in the first scenario but I don’t have a constitutional amendment that’s supposed to protect me from it.
Do you really think you have any privacy? I bought a pair of Keen shoes about a month ago, using my credit card. Guess which ads have been popping up in my browser since then. Everything you post online on this message board can be read by anybody with internet service. Any time you purchase something online, you are targeted with ads for similar items from other businesses.
The government has been keeping records on citizens since Hoover ran the FBI and the OSS was a fledgling spy agency in the 40s. Electronic eavesdropping was inevitable, and frankly, given the threat of terrorist attacks , necessary for the protection of citizens, which is the government’s primary responsibility. Warrantless wiretaps are far more concerning to me than someone logging in my phone calls, and the militarization of the CIA (and general broadening of Presidential powers) is far more alarming than any of that.
There are some differences between the 2nd and the 4th. The second does not have language that modifies the phrase “shall not be infringed” so we [should] apply the same sort of standards to infringing the second amendment right as we do to the first amendment right.
The 4th amendment provides immunity from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. Reasonable searches and sezures are permissible.
Warrants can be issued on probable cause. So you only have to establish probable cause. I believe there were warrants in all these cases.
The second amendment right seems more absolute than the 4th amendment right. The government is allowed to invade your privacy if they have a good reason. I think Obama has been making his argument for why these searches are reasonable.
If only the Founding Fuckups had offered the draft version of the 2nd Amendment for our criticism and approval, a great deal of trouble might have been avoided. As it stands, it is a masterpiece of ambiguity stated in concrete terms of “Absitively Yes and Posolutely No!”
I think the major difference is the unfortunate consequences of the Second Amendment tend to be more noticeable than the unfortunate consequences of the Fourth Amendment. When somebody goes on a shooting spree, the fact that they owned a gun is pretty obvious. There are, of course, also crimes that could have been prevented if there were no limits on searches but the connection is rarely as obvious.
