Free to Search and Seize (NY Times OP ED)

NY Times ^ | 06/22/2011 | DAVID K. SHIPLER

[The Magical Mischief Tour]

We’re talking about a civilized society that must have some ground-rules.

The point you keep sailing right past is that how can we be a "civilized society" that has "some ground-rules", when those we hire to enforce our ground-rules, simply ignore them altogether far too often?

You get all puffed up at the mere thought of someone painting the cops with a broad brush yet here you are more or less doing the same, just in the opposite direction...

[The Magical Mischief Tour]

This may sound good to you. It doesn’t to me.

You would much rather risk being killed by the cops or a SWAT Team who are acting under the guise of exigent circumstances, furtive gestures or information obtained via a criminal informant?

The pendulum swings both ways.

[DoughtyOne]

I acknowledge that there are good cops, and you don’t acknowledge there is even one. This to you indicates that I am as biased as you are.

Wow.

[DoughtyOne]

You really don’t have a clue what I believe or don’t.

I think our society has gone SWAT crazy. I don’t believe in quite a bit that is taking place. I’m am perfectly willing to address problem areas. I am not in lock step behind everything the police do.

The place to address what police do, is not to hate the individual officer. It’s to make it so hot for the local city council and managers that they reign in the attack dog portion of their police departments.

If a particular officer is known to be a very problematic guy, then by all means take it to the police chief and the city council and get the guy or guys reigned in. If they won’t do anything, then wage a war against them. Get them removed. Get new people in there who are more sane on such matters.

[DariusBane]

It is all about how much risk you are willing to shoulder for yourself. I want the government hindered and the people free.

This scenario is not without risk. That is why we need an unfettered 2nd amendment.

You call it anarchy. I call it liberty.

[DoughtyOne]

DB, it seems to me that people who make the arguments you are making, have not thought it all the way through. You may think I haven’t either. I guess that’s the nature of this argument.

Someone could come to your home during the day and cause all sorts of havok with your family.

Witnesses could tell the police a lot of information, but then there are no police. No license plate can be presented. No description of the car can be presented. No description of the man or even his name can be provided, even if people know it.

No, the guy is free to drive off and do it again in the U.S. or some place else.

There are literally hundreds if not thousands of scenarios like this that could play out pretty much the same way.

It would take no time at all before war-lords would take over much the same way Somalia was (perhaps still is) being run.

Is that Liberty? Really? No, you give up civilized society for an uncivilized one.

Are you free to travel today? Are you free to associate with whom you chose to? Are you able to procure what you want? Are you able to chose what line of work you wish to participate in? Are you able to chose your own wife, and have relationships with family and friends in a safe environment?

With few exceptions, you are.

You look at exceptions to the rule and blow them out to make it look like we’re living in a police state. I do recognize there are some problems, and I’ve addressed ways to counter them.

We are not living in a police state. We are living in a civilized society, where the power has temporarily swung too far in the direction of law enforcement.

There are ways to remedy that. Campaign for it locally. Get a group together to oppose city councilmen and the police chief who disagrees with you.

Don’t advocate for war-lord replacements.

[DariusBane]

War Lord replacements? Please.

If we have warlords it is cities next to interstate farming the traffic for revenue. That is just “good government” to most people. I reject it as State sponsored extortion.

The idea of having Police to protect property is fine with me. That is a very limited mission. But you keep telling me over and over how little respect you have for the fourth amendment.

I want Liberty. I demand Freedom. It is my birthright it is my heritage. You want safety. You are willing to give up far too much to get it.

Let me ask you. Should I be required to have a permit to carry a revolver in my belt?

[DoughtyOne]

DB, there’s so much confusion in your posts that it’s pointless to continue this.

I haven’t defended one fourth amendment violation. I have explained ways to counter what I believe to be Fourth Amendment infringements.

You say we don’t need police and then you say you actually do see a need for them. Your definition of what cities are, is just bazaar.

You may wish we could live like six people on an island, but it’s not that sensible laws help protect individual rights.

[DoughtyOne]

Should read..

You may wish we could live like six people on an island, but it’s not that way, and sensible laws help protect individual rights.

[DariusBane]

No confusion here. You want a nice flexible living constitution.

Your confusion lies that I have two threads. One thread is supporting the fourth amendment, the other thread of thought is my criticism of the way conservatives vote.

I want freedom. I don't want overlords. How is that confusing?

[DoughtyOne]

I know that’s how you see it. I can’t change that.

When I deal with people who think the fourth amendment and Constitution guarantee them that they should never run into a road-block, they frequently state something to the effect that they should be able to do anything they want, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. Ah, there’s the catch.

Who determines what harms anyone else? If a city agency comes up with a law that you can’t park more than 12-18 inches from the curb, it’s some people’s take that it’s an infraction of their Constitutional right to do as they please. Never mind that some other citizen might want to pass their parked car without having to cross the center median to do it. Yes, that person would be infringing on another person’s right to free unobstructed passage with his/her car parked too far out in the street.

You want to claim a Constitutional guarantee that prevents any public entity from setting up such ground rules.

I’m sorry, but just like the thirteen year old, you’re going to have to accept some rules in life.

It’s this thirteen year old kid’s view of why they can’t take the family car out for a spin thing, that makes me dismiss your take on things.

[DariusBane]

Are you law enforcement?

Now you are arguing for road blocks? Have you ever read the fourth amendment?

You have a patronizing tone. You liken me to a thirteen year old simpleton. I am always fascinated that when I assert liberty and freedom that desire is always demeaned$ this is FreeRepublic.

I love freedom. You do not. You make my point that as a “conservative” you advocate for more and more laws.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are incompatible with road blocks. I do not want to live in your world. Liberty is precious and rare. You don't want it. You never answered my 2nd amendment question either. Do you support permits for carrying firearms? I can't wait to see your reasons to ignore the second as you have supported road blocks.

Are you law enforcement? Have you drunk the kool aide?

[DoughtyOne]

Are you law enforcement?  No

Now you are arguing for road blocks? No

Have you ever read the fourth amendment? Yes

When I deal with people who think the fourth amendment and Constitution guarantee them that they should never run into a road-block, they frequently state something to the effect that they should be able to do anything they want, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. Ah, there’s the catch.

Okay, you're going on the record as having never seen the term "road-block" used as an expression meaning you can't do something you want to.

You have a patronizing tone.  Not really.  I'm just stating that you're using a thirteen year old's logic.  "Waaaaaa, what do you mean I can't drive the car?  That's not fair!"

You liken me to a thirteen year old simpleton.  Yep, you caught that.  Now, do you have any clue why?

I am always fascinated that when I assert liberty and freedom that desire is always demeaned$ this is FreeRepublic.  Look, we all want liberty and freedom.  Most adults recognize that it is reasonable to set up some societal ground rules that deliniate what you can/can't do, so that someone else doesn't have to confront you to explain how you are infringing on their rights.  What you lose sight of, is that other people have the same rights you do.  If you don't keep yourself in check, you can actually deny them their Constitutional rights.  That's what most laws are all about.  Most adults understand that.  You do not.

I love freedom.  Yes, and ultimately only for you.  If a law clearly deliniates what you can or can't do so that others have rights too, you get all pasty on us and start whimpering.

You do not.  Nice try.  I actually enjoy rights, and recognize that others have them too.  I'm happy about that.  And yes, I don't mind having my rights clearly defined so that others can enjoy their Constitutional rights too.

You make my point that as a “conservative” you advocate for more and more laws.  As a Conservative I realize that it is my duty to first and foremost conduct myself as an adult, to keep myself in check.  If I cannot control myself, I am unfit to try to control anything else.  Adults understand the need for some ground-rules.  Every game has them.  So does life.  If we don't have societal and civic rules, the rules of nature will take over.  If you think societal and civic rules are bad, you cannot fathom what natural rules full tilt would be like.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are incompatible with road blocks.  Good grief, we're back to that again.

I do not want to live in your world.  Obviously.  Once again we're back to the 13 year old mentality.  Life is so unfair to me.

Liberty is precious and rare. You don't want it.  There is no such thing as unbridled liberty.  You're like a pre-teen wanting to be an adult so you can do anything you want, no adults to tell you what you can and can't do, no rules to live by, free to do anything you like.  Then you become and adult and you realize there are more restrictive rules than the ones you had to live by as a child.

You have to work to support yourself.
You have to pay your bills or lose stuff.
You have to remain faithful to your spouse.
You have responsibilities to your family, your friends, your work-place, your lenders, your community, your republic...

You never answered my 2nd amendment question either. Do you support permits for carrying firearms?  No, I don't.  It's not a simple issue though.  If I can carry, so can gang members.  And if you think that you and I carrying weapons is going to eliminate gangs, I think you're going pie in the sky on me again.  A drive by shooting takes place.  Ten people come out of their homes with weapons and open fire on the fleeing vehicle with gang members in it.  Do more people die by gang violence or by good samaritans?

Watch American Idol, So You Think You Can Dance, America's Got Talent, paying attention to the selection process.  Then come back and tell me you feel comfortable with every person in those lines carrying a loaded weapon.

I can't wait to see your reasons to ignore the second as you have supported road blocks.  Can't wait?  Well, I guess you'll have to flop on the floor kicking and screaming then.

Are you law enforcement?  No

Have you drunk the kool aide?  No.  I grew up.