What's new
By:

Whats wrong with stop and frisk if the left wants to take the guns away?

Hotdog

Hotdog

Well-Known Member
Also, wouldnt you have to do some sort of stop and frisk if you want gun control? The legal carriers would be forced to turn theirs in, and most would because naturally they abide by the laws. But the illegal carriers wouldnt. Just like they carry illegally now, they would be inclined to just keep doing it.
 
take a guess

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.
Click to expand...
 
"if the left wants to take guns away"

man you're dumb

Don't ask your far right buddies to explain to you what the "left" wants, okay. And if you do, don't ask questions based on what they tell you in public. It makes you look really dumb.
 
The judge in the New York ruling did not say stop and frisk was unconstitutional. The judge ruled that NY police were not stopping people based on "reasonable suspicion", and that the police were disproportionally stopping blacks and Hispanics. Stop and frisk still takes place in New York, I believe.
So, when Trump said Lester Holt was wrong to say stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional, Trump was technically correct. But Holt was correct in pointing out what had been unconstitutional about the stop and frisk policy as the NY police were practicing it before the judge's ruling.
 
Red said:
The judge in the New York ruling did not say stop and frisk was unconstitutional. The judge ruled that NY police were not stopping people based on "reasonable suspicion", and that the police were disproportionally stopping blacks and Hispanics. Stop and frisk still takes place in New York, I believe.
So, when Trump said Lester Holt was wrong to say stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional, Trump was technically correct. But Holt was correct in pointing out what had been unconstitutional about the stop and frisk policy as the NY police were practicing it before the judge's ruling.
Click to expand...

As far as I know you are right, but I don't support it because it IS a violation of the 4th Amendment. But the 4th amendment has pretty much lost all meaning. Gotta stay focused on the 2nd, guys. It's okay if we lose the rest so long as we fight tooth and nail to keep the second, amiright?
 
Red said:
The judge in the New York ruling did not say stop and frisk was unconstitutional. The judge ruled that NY police were not stopping people based on "reasonable suspicion", and that the police were disproportionally stopping blacks and Hispanics. Stop and frisk still takes place in New York, I believe.
So, when Trump said Lester Holt was wrong to say stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional, Trump was technically correct. But Holt was correct in pointing out what had been unconstitutional about the stop and frisk policy as the NY police were practicing it before the judge's ruling.
Click to expand...

Not to get too deep into semantics but what Trump and Hack mean by Stop and Frisk, as well as what most people envision when they hear the policy phrase Stop and Frisk, is unconstitutional. No one thinks that an officer may never stop, frisk, or both if they have reasonable suspicion of a crime. That's not really what we're talking about though. We're talking about a dragnet policy.

You may be technically correct that police in NY(and elsewhere)are still stopping and frisking people but they don't "Stop and Frisk" anymore.
 
Gameface said:
"if the left wants to take guns away"

man you're dumb

Don't ask your far right buddies to explain to you what the "left" wants, okay. And if you do, don't ask questions based on what they tell you in public. It makes you look really dumb.
Click to expand...

You have been triggered.

Man this is easy. Haha
 
Gameface said:
As far as I know you are right, but I don't support it because it IS a violation of the 4th Amendment. But the 4th amendment has pretty much lost all meaning. Gotta stay focused on the 2nd, guys. It's okay if we lose the rest so long as we fight tooth and nail to keep the second, amiright?
Click to expand...

You could just as easily be accused of favoring the 4th while not caring about the 2nd.
 
Computer said:
You could just as easily be accused of favoring the 4th while not caring about the 2nd.
Click to expand...

Nope. I think game face actually is a supporter if the second amendment. Not 100% sure, but your narrative that all liberals are the same is getting extremely tired. Also, you should probably ly stop it with this "you've been triggered" crap. It's getting really annoying too. Maybe just go back to not posting again.
 
b_line said:
Nope. I think game face actually is a supporter if the second amendment. Not 100% sure, but your narrative that all liberals are the same is getting extremely tired. Also, you should probably ly stop it with this "you've been triggered" crap. It's getting really annoying too. Maybe just go back to not posting again.
Click to expand...

So, saying you have been triggered, triggeres more people? Interesting.
 
I wonder how long it'll be before Hack makes another teary eyed post about how he's a "lover and not a fighter".
 
Hack, I can recite all of the first 10 amendments. There isn't one I would be in favor of repealing although I don't feel like the third is really all that relevant anymore. You obviously aren't familiar with my posts in any of the gun threads. That's fine. But to say I don't value the second amendment would be... wrong.
 
Siro said:
I wonder how long it'll be before Hack makes another teary eyed post about how he's a "lover and not a fighter".
Click to expand...

Gameface said:
Hack, I can recite all of the first 10 amendments. There isn't one I would be in favor of repealing although I don't feel like the third is really all that relevant anymore. You obviously aren't familiar with my posts in any of the gun threads. That's fine. But to say I don't value the second amendment would be... wrong.
Click to expand...

I apologize to both of you.
 
I think that I should be secure in my person against unreasonable search and seizure. If the police know what they are searching me for specifically and can explain why the believe it will be on my person they can get a warrant. Otherwise it's in violation of the 4th Amendment.
 
Gameface said:
Hack, I can recite all of the first 10 amendments. There isn't one I would be in favor of repealing although I don't feel like the third is really all that relevant anymore. You obviously aren't familiar with my posts in any of the gun threads. That's fine. But to say I don't value the second amendment would be... wrong.
Click to expand...

I actually dont even care for guns. Ive never owned one. The thread was more of a joke, but does pose a good question. Jokes just dont come off well through text. I do support the 2nd amendment though. For a number a reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top