- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why is diminishing the 4th amendment acceptable, but not the 2nd
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:16 am to NYNolaguy1
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:16 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
I whole heartedly agree, but that wont change the "small govt conservatives" push for bigger prisons, more punishment, and harsher sentences.
That's an insane non-sequitur wrapped in a false equivalence that can't be unraveled.
1
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:19 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
NYNolaguy1
You seem to have skipped Pinecone's post? Wonder why?
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:26 am to Pinecone Repair
quote:
K, lets go...
This should answer your question about how long I have been beating this drum. Also about how long I have been posting. Youll find more than one person who thought I was wrong to leave the GOP.
LINK
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:26 am to homesicktiger
quote:
You seem to have skipped Pinecone's post? Wonder why?
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:28 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Those laws were passed by conservatives .
I don’t claim George Bush as a conservative.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:29 am to NYNolaguy1
No one is calling for diminishing the 4th amendment except liberals.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:30 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
I don’t claim George Bush as a conservative.
What about Ronald Reagan? Or the entire Republican Congress now and then?
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:34 am to thebigmuffaletta
That isn't true. The 4th amendment from a judicial standpoint creates weird-arse bedfellows.
Look at a case like Terry. William Brennan is in the majority. You would never in a million years think that.
Look at Atwater, the worst 4th amendment case in the last 200 years probably. Souter and Kennedy in the majority.
The court has a tough time balancing these issues and they are all over the map.
Wilson was a unanimous decision in favor of police limits. It really is a tough nut to crack.
Look at a case like Terry. William Brennan is in the majority. You would never in a million years think that.
Look at Atwater, the worst 4th amendment case in the last 200 years probably. Souter and Kennedy in the majority.
The court has a tough time balancing these issues and they are all over the map.
Wilson was a unanimous decision in favor of police limits. It really is a tough nut to crack.
This post was edited on 2/15/18 at 9:36 am
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:34 am to therick711
quote:
That's an insane non-sequitur wrapped in a false equivalence that can't be unraveled.
My only apology is that I am two days late to be referred to as a Lord of Misrule.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:50 am to NYNolaguy1
The (typo) classic false dilemma/strawman combo.
This post was edited on 2/15/18 at 10:01 am
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:53 am to McLemore
quote:
Try classic false dilemma/strawman combo.
I am curious what you think is false?
Posted on 2/15/18 at 10:05 am to NYNolaguy1
Do you know what a false dilemma fallacy is?
Here is your fallacious argument:
1) TD posters choose 2nd Am over 4th Am. Nowhere do you provide any evidence that anyone does this, much less a majority of TD posters. Much less everyone. So you've erected a strawman that you can knock down to make your baseless point seem credible and poignant.
2) In doing this, you present a false dilemma--that some how TD posters have to choose between strong 2nd and strong 4th A protections. You fabricated this dilemma just as you fabricated the supposed choice TD posters have made.
This is why your post sucks.
Here is your fallacious argument:
1) TD posters choose 2nd Am over 4th Am. Nowhere do you provide any evidence that anyone does this, much less a majority of TD posters. Much less everyone. So you've erected a strawman that you can knock down to make your baseless point seem credible and poignant.
2) In doing this, you present a false dilemma--that some how TD posters have to choose between strong 2nd and strong 4th A protections. You fabricated this dilemma just as you fabricated the supposed choice TD posters have made.
This is why your post sucks.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 10:28 am to McLemore
quote:
Do you know what a false dilemma fallacy is?
I believe the proper term is "false dichotomy".
quote:
TD posters choose 2nd Am over 4th Am. Nowhere do you provide any evidence that anyone does this, much less a majority of TD posters. Much less everyone. So you've erected a strawman that you can knock down to make your baseless point seem credible and poignant.
In the event you didnt know, all of those items listed (FISA, 702, asset forfeiture, the war on drugs, etc) were passed by Republican congresses and signed by multiple Republican presidents (up to and including Trump). Is it your impression that support for Republican ideas is waning here?
quote:
In doing this, you present a false dilemma--that some how TD posters have to choose between strong 2nd and strong 4th A protections. You fabricated this dilemma just as you fabricated the supposed choice TD posters have made.
No my point was that if we already sacrifice one freedom to gain security, why stop there?
If we think the big brother state keeps us safe enough to curtail one set of rights, you should have enough faith that big brother will keep you safe if you curtail another.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 10:39 am to NYNolaguy1
The way it's written:
It is not designed to stop searches and seizures. Just that they have to be reasonable and you have to jump through particular hoops to do it.
Compare that to the "shall not be infringed" of the 2nd amendment (or the "Congress shall make no law" of the first).
1 and 2 are basic rights, 4 is a procedural right. And even 1 and 2 have limits as no right is absolute.
quote:
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.
It is not designed to stop searches and seizures. Just that they have to be reasonable and you have to jump through particular hoops to do it.
Compare that to the "shall not be infringed" of the 2nd amendment (or the "Congress shall make no law" of the first).
1 and 2 are basic rights, 4 is a procedural right. And even 1 and 2 have limits as no right is absolute.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 10:42 am to Godfather1
quote:But they sure support Trump who appears to support all of the above.
I never see ANYBODY supporting ANY of these things.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 11:11 am to NYNolaguy1
Posted on 2/15/18 at 11:16 am to NYNolaguy1
Republican does not equal conservative. Although you will find more "conservative" types on the Republican side. Would you consider John McCain a conservative? Most people would not, yet he is a Republican.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 11:18 am to NYNolaguy1
Amen.
Patriot act takes rights to a trial, being charged, having an attorney or cross examining witnesses and seeing evidence.
These baws hide under, "I'm not a terrorist so they won't take me in the night, just you".
Patriot act takes rights to a trial, being charged, having an attorney or cross examining witnesses and seeing evidence.
These baws hide under, "I'm not a terrorist so they won't take me in the night, just you".
This post was edited on 2/15/18 at 11:19 am
Posted on 2/15/18 at 11:27 am to NYNolaguy1
How many Dem presidents, Congresses, Senates, and activist justices/judges have we had since FISA? How many years of DHS, PA, NSA, civilian monitoring, etc did we suffer under Obama and statist/lib/deep state Bush?
Also, you just totally changed your argument from your OP, which was:
Most of the regular posters on this board appear equally pro-4th and 2nd A. Anti-statism generally.
Speaking for myself, I "support" Trump to the extent his name isn't Hillary Rodham Clinton and to the extent he respects the Constitution. He is the head of the executive branch (not legislative or judicial) of the United States (not of the several states). When he does or says something contrary or inimical to either the Fourth or the Second Amendment, I am here to rebuke him. I enjoy DJT as president, from an entertainment standpoint, because he tends to confound noisy know-it-alls, such as....
Anyway, I ask: Who are all these imaginary people who would sacrifice their Fourth Amendment rights for the sake of their Second Amendment rights? I'm sure they exist, but you can find all manner of bad thinking (see OP). I don't see them often on this board except for the occasional troll.
To try to make some grand point based on ersatz political enemies is the heart of fallaciousness (and yes that's a word).
Also, you just totally changed your argument from your OP, which was:
quote:
I am curious as to why some on here are so opposed to the idea of diminishing the second amendment in the name of security. Especially considering that the 4th amendment was sacrificed for essentially the same purpose and was cheered on at the time and repeatedly, even within the last few weeks (Patriot Act, FISA, 702, asset forfeiture, various SCOTUS cases, etc.).
Why is sacrificing your rights for security acceptable for some things, but not others?
Most of the regular posters on this board appear equally pro-4th and 2nd A. Anti-statism generally.
Speaking for myself, I "support" Trump to the extent his name isn't Hillary Rodham Clinton and to the extent he respects the Constitution. He is the head of the executive branch (not legislative or judicial) of the United States (not of the several states). When he does or says something contrary or inimical to either the Fourth or the Second Amendment, I am here to rebuke him. I enjoy DJT as president, from an entertainment standpoint, because he tends to confound noisy know-it-alls, such as....
Anyway, I ask: Who are all these imaginary people who would sacrifice their Fourth Amendment rights for the sake of their Second Amendment rights? I'm sure they exist, but you can find all manner of bad thinking (see OP). I don't see them often on this board except for the occasional troll.
To try to make some grand point based on ersatz political enemies is the heart of fallaciousness (and yes that's a word).
This post was edited on 2/15/18 at 11:29 am
Posted on 2/15/18 at 11:29 am to CelticDog
quote:
These baws hide under, "I'm not a terrorist so they won't take me in the night, just you".
Who are "these baws"?
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News