you wait and watch.. because we have to allow every nut to have a gun, no matter fucking what

[boston bean]

we will give up our fourth amendment rights.


"The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he 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."

If you don't succumb to these searches you won't be able to rent a room and will probably be put on a hotel no stay list.

how much longer are we going to give up our freedoms in the name of one freedom that makes all the others null.

You cannot have freedom at the end of a barrel of a gun.

[NutmegYankee]

1. As private property, the 4th doesn't stop a hotel from requiring searches.

But people will likely not patronize a business that degrades them, and any hotel trying this will probably fold.

[boston bean]

3. I understand this, but the premise of privacy exists in most peoples minds anyhow.

this is a step too far... and not far out of the realm of possibiities.

They are discussing it on the news like no biggie.

We have to start to learn to frame these issues. let the republicans say they want to infringe on peoples personal privacy.

[NutmegYankee]

4. You can frame security of person as part of liberty.

Some definitions: Liberty: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

Liberty :the quality or state of being free:
a :the power to do as one pleases
b :freedom from physical restraint
c :freedom from arbitrary or despotic (see despot 2) control
d :the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e :the power of choice

A classic example is stop and frisk - people stopped and harassed daily for just walking down the road are not enjoying liberty under (d); there is no "liberty and justice" for them. The left could easily snatch the "freedom" phrase from the right. Liberalism is all about giving liberty to all. Conservatism has been about keeping inequality and an unjust social order as the natural order. They do not believe in equal rights and never have.

[tblue37]

11. Like airlines? nt

[NutmegYankee]

12. Techncially the airlines are complying with government regulations.

And there is a lack of alternatives. In the case of hotels, the government doesn't have the legal basis to order such searches (Hospitality has existing common law precedents, airlines never did.) Most hotels would not make the changes because they are expensive and annoy customers. And hotels can't be used to attack other targets - they are stationary, so the legal interests that courts have weighed in air travel won't apply.

[greeny2323]

2. Forced buy

They'll go further. They will force everyone to buy a gun.

[elehhhhna]

5. If I recall correctly a town in the south try to actually do this several years ago

[Hoyt]

6. Kennesaw, Georgia, a white wing suburb of Atlanta. Only the white wing racist pay attention to the

law, but that's a good size group.

[NutmegYankee]

13. The law is unconstitutional unless if allows people the option to not own them.

It's a freedom of religion issue. Several faiths do not believing in owning weapons, others like some on DU have sincere and deeply held beliefs against owning them.

IIRC, the law has never been actually enforced, mainly because contact with a court would be fatal.

[Hoyt]

14. No one pays attention to the "law," but it is the typical kind of crap white wing gun-humpers do.

Here's one of the gun-humpers who supports the "law" in Kennesaw.

[NutmegYankee]

15. Your picture doesn't load.

Not that I need a picture. I live in rural Connecticut and see my fair share of ignorant white right-wingers on a regular basis. They know my views, and I theirs, but we still manage to be civil.

[sl8]

23. Kennesaw, GA? Snopes summary:

From http://www.snopes.com/kennesaw-gun-law/ :

...
In other words, Kennesaw residents were required to own guns … save for those Kennesaw residents who couldn’t afford guns, couldn’t use guns, couldn’t legally own guns, or simply didn’t want to have guns. Essentially, Kennesaw residents were never actually required to own guns, making most assertions about mandatory gun ownership and crime rates in that town highly problematic.

That law was a direct response to a (since repealed) 1981 handgun ban implemented in Morton Grove, Illinois. An important point of distinction was that Kennesaw’s law was largely symbolic and was never intended to be enforced; as such, it is clearly not an exceptionally good indicator of the effect of such a mandate on crime statistics.

As Kennesaw Police Department’s Lt. Craig Graydon explained in a February 2013 article, gun ownership wasn’t truly compulsory in Kennesaw (or ever intended to be):

'Kennesaw’s 1982 gun mandate was a direct response to a gun ban enacted a year earlier in Morton Grove, Illinois. That was later deemed unconstitutional, but Kennesaw’s law is still on the books.'
...

[aikoaiko]

7. "we have to allow every nut to have a gun, no matter fucking what' said no one.

Hyperbole doesn't suit you.

Hotels aren't going to do searches.

[sarisataka]

8. People are willing to give up many freedoms...

from what I have read this week, some people are willing to give up the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Amendments in order to get rid of the 2nd. I do not know if they expect those will be reinstated after civilian gun ownership is extinct.

Arbitrary lists are also quite popular in certain circles...

[Hoyt]

16. Have not seen one person willing to give up those "freedoms." The 2nd Amendment can be restricted

and we need to do so.

Gun-fanciers -- if they are truly responsible -- need to be the ones in the lead giving up guns that are clearly beyond hunting and any rational need for self-defense. In stead, gun-fanciers just keep whining, stonewalling and acting irresponsibly.

We need more of this from gun-fanciers --

Arizona Man Gives Police His Guns After Shooting at Las Vegas Music Festival

http://www.ntd.tv/2017/10/06/arizona-man-gives-police-his-guns-after-shooting-at-las-vegas-music-festival/

[sarisataka]

17. You need to look harder

This week-

Random search warrants

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9669047

From a bit farther back

I guess at this point, when we are talking about reducing the power and influence of the police, we need to consider the opposite: they need free reign to search any home and car in search of illegal weapons.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028074860#post9

Fully agree the 2nd can be restricted and have never stated otherwise.

I put forth a suggestion this week for expanded background checks, with seller/owner responsibility for any crimes related to a gun transferred w/out a BGC or loaned... Didn't even get a 'meh' from the control faction

the insistence on all or nothing will continue to result in nothing; and that is not on me.

[Hoyt]

18. I really don't think it is an illegal search if gunners are suspected of illegal weapons, or

their accumulation pattern represents they may be a threat to society.

Sorry, you are much to sensitive and defensive when it comes to protecting your guns. Time for that to change.

[sarisataka]

19. I would agree

if there is reason to suspect illegal weapons- that is probable cause. Get a warrant and search.

If you believe a search is allowed without a warrant simply because a person is, or may be a gun owner you need to consider if you support the 4th Amendment at all. "Gun owner" suddenly becomes a reason to search anyone's property, reminiscent of Bloomberg's 'stop and frisk'

[Hoyt]

20. You gunners need to consider whether you are going to continue ignoring society

for your dang lethal weapon fetish.

[sarisataka]

22. I will continue

to support all ten Amendments, regardless of the direction of attack

[Hoyt]

24. Yeah, because you love guns more than society. The 2A does not say you have

to buy guns, train to shoot people, promote more guns anywhere, parrot the NRA, and probably worse.

[sarisataka]

25. Have some spine...

Say what are you accusing me of doing by "probably worse"

[X_Digger]

9. The fourth, (all rights really) are protections from the government.

As long as the hotel is not rejecting patronage based on a protected characteristic, they can do quite a bit, none of which is covered by the fourth amendment.

Various states have enacted separate protections for guests, but none of these are based on the fourth amendment.

But it's a silly proposition, as most hotels have multiple entrances, even in vegas.

[Initech]

10. "Shall not be infringed!!!!" is what gun nuts say.

I think it's time to start infringing. The gun manufacturers got their pay day and Alex Jones and the Christian right spit on the graves of the victims, so it's all good for them until the next mass shooting.

[Hoyt]

21. +1. "Infringe" makes a great mantra.

Last edited Sat Oct 7, 2017, 10:38 PM - Edit history (1)

[sharedvalues]

26. As long as we have legalized political corruption

That allows gun companies to buy the NRA,
and allows GOP billionaires to buy votes via gun identity politics.

Need to change camapign finance.