Police Intrusion: Does the End Result Justify the Means??

[Musketeer_alum97]

With some of the posts I have read in this thread, I wonder what everyone's take is on airport security. Isn't them making all passenger walk through metal detectors and/or having your luggage x-rayed "making you prove your innocense"? If everyone has such issues with invasion of privacy, then why hasn't anyone complained about this?

[halfback20]

With some of the posts I have read in this thread, I wonder what everyone's take is on airport security. Isn't them making all passenger walk through metal detectors and/or having your luggage x-rayed "making you prove your innocense"? If everyone has such issues with invasion of privacy, then why hasn't anyone complained about this?

 

Because an airplane can be used as a flying bomb...

[Run To State]

Because an airplane can be used as a flying bomb...

:thumb:

[Musketeer_alum97]

Because an airplane can be used as a flying bomb...

 

I understand this, and agree, but a car can be used as a bomb as well, as has been proven time and again. I was wondering why it is that so many people cry foul about the government invading privacy when it comes to roadside checkpoints or whatever, but justify private companies such as airlines doing the same thing. Again, I am not advocating police coming into my private home and searching my belongings, I am just intrigued about people's opinions.

[True blue (and gold)]

I understand this, and agree, but a car can be used as a bomb as well, as has been proven time and again. I was wondering why it is that so many people cry foul about the government invading privacy when it comes to roadside checkpoints or whatever, but justify private companies such as airlines doing the same thing. Again, I am not advocating police coming into my private home and searching my belongings, I am just intrigued about people's opinions.

 

You have an interesting point here.

[halfback20]

I understand this, and agree, but a car can be used as a bomb as well, as has been proven time and again. I was wondering why it is that so many people cry foul about the government invading privacy when it comes to roadside checkpoints or whatever, but justify private companies such as airlines doing the same thing. Again, I am not advocating police coming into my private home and searching my belongings, I am just intrigued about people's opinions.

 

A car can be used as a bomb in rare cases but it would be darn near impossible to check everyone getting into their car each day. Checking luggage at the airport is not that hard considering not as many people fly.

 

I have zero problem with roadside checkpoints. They are necessary in some cases and stopping people around the 4th of July to check if they are drinking is fine with me. It's the fact that they are forcing people to take the Breathalyzer that bothers me.

 

I'm pretty sure it isn't the private companies that are requiring the searches at airports btw. I'd say the FAA requires that and deals with it as well.

[stickymitts]

On a semi-related note. I went to NYC to watch a Yankees game. I took a one hour train ride from Trenton, NJ. Then a 30 minute subway ride from Penn Station to the Bronx and there was not one thing preventing me from bringing a backpack full of explosives on to any means of transportation.

 

Was easily the most amazing thing I saw on the trip...

[shamrock fan]

So, you guys are for repelling the laws in this country against the speed limit, the ability to go into a crowded place and yell fire, to make threats against the President's life?

 

That is giving up a little freedom and according to some dead guy from 200 years ago, we allow speed limits and we don't deserve freedom or security.

 

Life is NOT black and white buy shades of grey.

 

WHAT????:confused: So has the issue of abortion ceased to be black and white for you?

 

As to giving up a little freedom, why is it that we are always looking to add new ways to arrest, fine, punish and imprison people? What does that say about our society? Maybe I should take my tax rebate and buy stock in Correction Corporation of America. Sounds like a winner.

[ladiesbballcoach]

WHAT????:confused: So has the issue of abortion ceased to be black and white for you?

 

As to giving up a little freedom, why is it that we are always looking to add new ways to arrest, fine, punish and imprison people? What does that say about our society? Maybe I should take my tax rebate and buy stock in Correction Corporation of America. Sounds like a winner.

 

Death of a unborn INNOCENT human being is far different than the issues brought up in this thread.

[outlawcoach]

Some will take great offense at you saying it is a living document and the right for it to change.

 

Drunk driving has violated other people's freedom as they are now dead as a result of a drunk driver.

 

I dont think you understand....I am in agreement with you on the driving while drinking issue....that violates other people's rights!

 

And if people get mad at finding out that the US Constitution is a living document, I cant help that. Madison wrote, I didnt. They should have learned that in HS Civics...they do in my classes today!!!

[ladiesbballcoach]

I dont think you understand....I am in agreement with you on the driving while drinking issue....that violates other people's rights!

 

And if people get mad at finding out that the US Constitution is a living document, I cant help that. Madison wrote, I didnt. They should have learned that in HS Civics...they do in my classes today!!!

 

Living document, I would believe, would indicate that a well-armed militia is does not guarantee the right of citizens today to bear arms.

 

Is that what you mean by "living" document?

 

It has to change based upon NOT what was written over 200 years ago but rather the way what was written fits with the times today?

 

For example, the founding fathers would not have thought of automatic weapons and so those are not covered by the right to bear arms for the citizens of today.

[outlawcoach]

Living document, I would believe, would indicate that a well-armed militia is does not guarantee the right of citizens today to bear arms.

 

Is that what you mean by "living" document?

 

It has to change based upon NOT what was written over 200 years ago but rather the way what was written fits with the times today?

 

For example, the founding fathers would not have thought of automatic weapons and so those are not covered by the right to bear arms for the citizens of today.

 

You have asked several questions so I will try to answer them individually as best I can but before I do, realize that interpreting the Constitution is not an exact science. Example, you interpret the 2cd Amendment to mean that as long as the gov is providing an army, citizens are no longer allowed to own guns because the militia is no longer needed. I disagree that that was the intent of the founding fathers. Jefferson, and others, were of the French schools of thought from John Locke and Rousseou(sp) that believed that armed revolution every few years was a healthy thing. Jeffersom, "the roots os the tree of liberty need to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. At this point is where the court system has to step in to interpret the common sense of things such as, should we be able to go to store and buy a rocket launcher or a nuclear warhead? Obviously not, so where is the cut-off? The cut-off is determined by wise men from one branch of our gov that was appointed by another branch. Again, this system isnt perfect....its still a work in progress. However, our unique system still amazes the world every 4 years when we have a peaceful transfer of power.

 

As far as the Constitution being a "living" document, I means that the founding fathers didnt chisel it in stone. The US Constitution is designed to be changed as needed. This is the genius of the document.

 

I hope I answered some of your questions although I have a feeling that Im not going to change your mind about anything and thats ok. It just felt good to dust off the Political Science degree(thats about all its good for,lol)!

[outlawcoach]

Dang, I need a proof reader in the worst way.lol

[ladiesbballcoach]

You have asked several questions so I will try to answer them individually as best I can but before I do, realize that interpreting the Constitution is not an exact science. Example, you interpret the 2cd Amendment to mean that as long as the gov is providing an army, citizens are no longer allowed to own guns because the militia is no longer needed. I disagree that that was the intent of the founding fathers. Jefferson, and others, were of the French schools of thought from John Locke and Rousseou(sp) that believed that armed revolution every few years was a healthy thing. Jeffersom, "the roots os the tree of liberty need to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. At this point is where the court system has to step in to interpret the common sense of things such as, should we be able to go to store and buy a rocket launcher or a nuclear warhead? Obviously not, so where is the cut-off? The cut-off is determined by wise men from one branch of our gov that was appointed by another branch. Again, this system isnt perfect....its still a work in progress. However, our unique system still amazes the world every 4 years when we have a peaceful transfer of power.

 

As far as the Constitution being a "living" document, I means that the founding fathers didnt chisel it in stone. The US Constitution is designed to be changed as needed. This is the genius of the document.

 

I hope I answered some of your questions although I have a feeling that Im not going to change your mind about anything and thats ok. It just felt good to dust off the Political Science degree(thats about all its good for,lol)!

 

I don't mean what you say in the first part. What I mean is that some (NOT I) would tell you that the Contitution is a living document that despite what it says has to be viewed different ways. NOT changed but viewed what is says differently.

 

For example, did the right to bear arms include the right for a citizen today to have an AK57? The Founding Fathers would never have envisioned such a weapon. So, does the Constitution and it's right to bear arms include AK57's or is it a living document that has to be read differently based upon different times in our country's history?

 

You are not changing my mind because basically I agree with you but taking the point that many will take that the Constitution as literal and what is says and NOT a living document.

 

On the changing, I think that is where the argument lies. THe changing of the Constitution is going on via the courts and not the Congress.

 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was quoted on 60 Minutes saying the Constitution is a living document and you have to read it as it relates to this time in our history and not literally like the Founding Fathers wrote it.

 

Meaning if there is a time in our history that it is right to limit our Freedom of Speech, she might agree that it is okay to limit our Freedom of Speech.

[outlawcoach]

I don't mean what you say in the first part. What I mean is that some (NOT I) would tell you that the Contitution is a living document that despite what it says has to be viewed different ways. NOT changed but viewed what is says differently.

 

For example, did the right to bear arms include the right for a citizen today to have an AK57? The Founding Fathers would never have envisioned such a weapon. So, does the Constitution and it's right to bear arms include AK57's or is it a living document that has to be read differently based upon different times in our country's history?

 

You are not changing my mind because basically I agree with you but taking the point that many will take that the Constitution as literal and what is says and NOT a living document.

 

On the changing, I think that is where the argument lies. THe changing of the Constitution is going on via the courts and not the Congress.

 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was quoted on 60 Minutes saying the Constitution is a living document and you have to read it as it relates to this time in our history and not literally like the Founding Fathers wrote it.

 

Meaning if there is a time in our history that it is right to limit our Freedom of Speech, she might agree that it is okay to limit our Freedom of Speech.

 

You bring up some good, most of which convinces me that we are in basic agreement. The debate on what the Fathers meant in the 2cd am will rage on long after we are gone. I simply believe in a point that is a little off our subject....taking guns away from the citizenry is one of the first steps in Socialism. I know some people will go nuts when they read that but I, like Jefferson, believe in armed citizens. However, although I own many guns, I see no need for citizens to have automatic weapons and yes, I am an NRA member. There has to be a cut-off point.

 

Regardless, I have enjoyed our little debate.:thumb: