queencitybuckeye;1747463 wrote:If you want all guns gone, you basically have to tear up a nice big chunk of the Bill of Rights. Talk about a cure far worse than the disease.

You still haven't answered my question because you answered it with another question. I'll ask again. Why is repealing the 4th Amendment necessary to ban guns? There's no rationality behind that assertion.

lhslep134;1747460 wrote:1) That's an absurd conclusion
2) that doesn't answer why the 4th Amendment would need to be repealed


Bombs are illegal but they're not searching everyone to see if they have bombs.

I'm referring to getting rid of all of the guns and actually accomplishing the goal.
If you want the war on guns to succeed like the war on drugs succeeds then the 4th amendment wouldn't need to be touched.

MontyBrunswick;1747462 wrote:Yes it would, ask j_crazy LOL

You're an asshat. Seriously, someone needs to go Trick Montalban on your ass.

Banning and eliminating are not the same thing. But 4th amendment or not the point is that it's a stupid and logistically impossible idea.

Mulva;1747466 wrote:I'm referring to getting rid of all of the guns and actually accomplishing the goal.
If you want the war on guns to succeed like the war on drugs succeeds then the 4th amendment wouldn't need to be touched.

That doesn't change the absurdity of jumping to the conclusion that banning guns requires the repeal of the 4th Amendment, especially YOUR use of the war on drugs analogy. A comparison of the war on drugs to a potential war on guns is devoid of all context, particularly when it comes to the war on drugs.

Mulva;1747468 wrote:Banning and eliminating are not the same thing. But 4th amendment or not the point is that it's a stupid and logistically impossible idea.

That's not my point though. The mechanics of eliminating do not necessarily require the repeal of the 4th Amendment; that's such an absurd assertion that I want to understand the logic that QCB is using to make such a statement.

lhslep134;1747471 wrote:That's not my point though. The mechanics of eliminating do not necessarily require the repeal of the 4th Amendment; that's such an absurd assertion that I want to understand the logic that QCB is using to make such a statement.

How would you go about doing it?

Mulva;1747473 wrote:How would you go about doing it?

I'll answer this once QCB responds to my question, so he doesn't use my response in an attempt to spin his answer.

j_crazy;1747467 wrote:You're an asshat. Seriously, someone needs to go Trick Montalban on your ass.

good one

lhslep134;1747475 wrote:I'll answer this once QCB responds to my question, so he doesn't use my response in an attempt to spin his answer.

My understanding is that a search of my property requires some reasonable level of proof of wrongdoing. In the scenario I gave for myself, that proof is absent. The only way I can think of for the government to search would be come to my door, "fishing" for guns.

Mulva;1747468 wrote:Banning and eliminating are not the same thing.

Correct. Hopefully lhs is doing something more productive than parsing words, when it's obvious that the discussion is dealing with real-world actions. Hell, murder is banned, so we don't have a problem.

queencitybuckeye;1747479 wrote: The only way I can think of for the government to search would be come to my door, "fishing" for guns.

So you're incapable of thinking of the possibility that a person finds out their neighbor has a gun (either sees it, hears it, the neighbor brags about it, etc.), reports it to the police, and the police come to search for it?

Got it.

lhslep134;1747482 wrote:So you're incapable of thinking of the possibility that a person finds out their neighbor has a gun (either sees it, hears it, the neighbor brags about it, etc.), reports it to the police, and the police come to search for it?

Got it.

Police are allowed to search people's houses if you call on them whether it's true or false?

lhslep134;1747482 wrote:So you're incapable of thinking of the possibility that a person finds out their neighbor has a gun (either sees it, hears it, the neighbor brags about it, etc.), reports it to the police, and the police come to search for it?

Got it.

What if the neighbor is a gun owner too?

Mulva;1747473 wrote:How would you go about doing it?

I think the obvious needs to be stated first, that no method exists to guarantee the elimination of guns. This probably holds true even if you completely shut down the manufacturing of new weapons.

That being said you start with a voluntary turn-in. Then for the assholes who still won't turn them in, you financially incentivize them to (pay them for the value of the gun?).

Then you invoke unconditional laws for gun possession/any activities that come with a gun with a strong enough punishment that would serve as de-motivation. Get caught shooting a can outside your house? 15 years. Brandish a gun in public? 15 years. Obviously this would be on top of the strong punishments for crimes involving guns and it would involve some sort of penalty enhancement. Assault? 2 years. Assault with a gun? 20 years

Absurdly penalizing someone is a more realistic and plausible solution than repealing the 4th Amendment.

like_that;1747483 wrote:Police are allowed to search people's houses if you call on them whether it's true or false?

Uhm yes. That's how anonymous tips work. It's up the judge issuing the warrant to decide the veracity of the tip.


If I saw my neighbor slinging crack rocks and felt compelled to call the police I can. If the police are any good, they'll ask me questions to help determine my credibility as a tipster because the judge will be asking them the same questions.

superman;1747484 wrote:What if the neighbor is a gun owner too?

What is the point of your question? Better put, what are you trying to say? The same standard would apply to both neighbors.

lhslep134;1747482 wrote:So you're incapable of thinking of the possibility that a person finds out their neighbor has a gun (either sees it, hears it, the neighbor brags about it, etc.), reports it to the police, and the police come to search for it?

Got it.

The goal is to eliminate ALL guns. Your scenario is about "a person". Unless you think this fits "all persons", you've failed. Do you think there are alternative scenarios for all of the gun owners that traditional police work will solve?

lhslep134;1747485 wrote: Absurdly penalizing someone is a more realistic and plausible solution than repealing the 4th Amendment.

So preserve the 4th by shredding the 8th?

I think the best way is to tax guns. Make the tax so high that poor people won't be able to afford it.

queencitybuckeye;1747488 wrote:The goal is to eliminate ALL guns. Your scenario is about "a person". Unless you think this fits "all persons", you've failed. Do you think there are alternative scenarios for all of the gun owners that traditional police work will solve?

Your point, and now your response, necessarily assumes every person with a gun will continue to hold on to the gun until the police search them for it. If you continue to make your point premised on this assumption, then I'm wasting my time.

queencitybuckeye;1747490 wrote:So preserve the 4th by shredding the 8th?

Right, because there are no laws on the books currently that call for an enhancement on the sentence if a gun is involved...

Keep reaching dude. Your logical fallacies are enjoyable.

lhslep134;1747486 wrote:Uhm yes. That's how anonymous tips work. It's up the judge issuing the warrant to decide the veracity of the tip.


If I saw my neighbor slinging crack rocks and felt compelled to call the police I can. If the police are any good, they'll ask me questions to help determine my credibility as a tipster because the judge will be asking them the same questions.

I was legitimately asking. Just seems way too easy to get a cop to search property. Hell I have neighbors in DC that I could snitch on (drug related), but I doubt the cops would search their property.

sleeper;1747491 wrote:I think the best way is to tax guns. Make the tax so high that poor people won't be able to afford it.

The real best way, of course, is to realize that in spite of television coverage and social media making it appear otherwise, gun violence has been going down steadily for decades. Can realistic things be done to increase the rate of decline? Possibly. Do we have a runaway problem? Hardly.

like_that;1747495 wrote:I was legitimately asking. Just seems way too easy to get a cop to search property. Hell I have neighbors in DC that I could snitch on (drug related), but I doubt the cops would search their property.

Would and could are two different things though. Depending on what you're reporting to the cops (ie the crime, the evidence you see, etc.), they might.

And if that "seems easy" it's because it's very easy to give an anonymous tip. It's a lot harder to give an anonymous tip with enough credibility to actually get the cops to do something about it.