Do we really have a choice?

Of that we may agree sir, never the less, murdering peacekeepers, which the British Army were there for and their families was not nescessary, You forget my friend, I lived and breathed this for 20 years. It's very easy to make judgements based on what has been reported.

No doubt both sides are filled with scum, and also filled with decent people, but does your sympathy extend to condoning the killing of British service men, their families and the countless other inoccent victims of the indescriminent killings?

I may have a biased opinion on this, earned I think, but I wish no harm to any law abbiding person.[/QUOTE

When the British army was first sent to Northern Ireland,they waere wamly welcomed by the nationalist community,who were being persecuted and burned out their homes,but that soon changed when they joined forces with the RUC and then murdered innocent civillians on "bloody sunday"

I dont like the murder of innocent civillians,but the RUC and British army were legetimate targets.

Of that we may agree sir, never the less, murdering peacekeepers, which the British Army were there for

"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."

That means, unless you have a warrant, I don't have to let you in my home or let you see anything I own, use or do. If you do have a warrant, you need to tell me what you're looking for and where you're looking for it, along with a damn good reason why.

This ensures privacy. The gov't can't go snooping through your stuff (this includes communications and communications devices... i.e. effects) unless they have a warrant.

Now do you see why these warrantless wiretaps violate the Constitution?

This ensures privacy.

This ensures privacy.

Where in your quote does it say you have a right to privacy?

And the key words in what you quoted is "unreasonable searches and seizures" Define reasonable?

And that is what is allowed without a warrant.It may insure some but it does not guarantee it or say it is a right?

Oh yes they can, if it's within reason remember.

Where in your quote does it say you have a right to privacy? And the key words in what you quoted is "unreasonable searches and seizures" Define reasonable? And that is what is allowed without a warrant.It may insure some but it does not guarantee it or say it is a right?
Oh yes they can, if it's within reason remember.

The whole thing.



Sure. When my property is searched without a warrant, it's unreasonable.



Can't come into my home, can't look through my things, can't take anything. I think you misunderstand the word "unreasonable". It does not only mean extreme or beyond a limit, it also means "without reason". If you don't have a valid reason to go through my things (this means a warrant), then GTFO.



Sure, if it's within reason (read: WARRANT). If they have a warrant to search my property, person, communications, media, whatever... I am not gonna stop them. They have a warrant, that's how the law works.

If not... there's the door, gentlemen.

The whole thing.

Sure. When my property is searched without a warrant, it's unreasonable.

Can't come into my home, can't look through my things, can't take anything.

I think you misunderstand the word "unreasonable".

It does not only mean extreme or beyond a limit,

If you don't have a valid reason to go through my things (this means a warrant), then GTFO.

Sure, if it's within reason (read: WARRANT). If they have a warrant to search my property, person, communications, media, whatever... I am not gonna stop them. They have a warrant, that's how the law works.

If not... there's the door, gentlemen.

I did, nothing about "a right to privacy?"

If the law thinks different, who takes precident?

If they think it is within reason, yes they can.

Nothing in there about either? You always make up sheit?

You don't decide what a valid reason is, they do. A cop walks up to your car, does he need a warrant to look inside?

You open your front door to see a cop, you have paraphernalia on your coffee table. He see's it. Guess where you spend the night, all without a warrant.

Probable cause. Your the one leaving.

It was written using the word "reasonable" for a specific reason, this is so it can adapt to the times.

Just by your response i can tell you have very little understanding of the American constitution.

Have you ever heard fo such things as implied rights?

Problem number 2 in this country, usually linked to number 1. Lack of knowledge and an understanding of what those words mean.




The law doesn't think. The law is stated very clearly. Free from unreasonable search and seizures, UNLESS with a warrant.



Not without a warrant. That's why if I get pulled, I can tell them to stick it if they wanna search my vehicle. Of course, they'll come back with a warrant to do so if they feel that I in fact have contraband in my car.

A cop asked if he could see inside my trunk. I replied "no, not really." and that was the end of it. No warrants, no forced searching, nothing. He let me go. Without a probable cause to search my trunk (i.e. reasonable), they can't do it.



Use all four definitions on Amendment 4. See whatcha get. Not having a reason, not in accordance with what is "normal", excessive, shall I go on?



You sound familiar... the use of question marks where they shouldn't be, bad grammar... awfully familiar...

Anyway, once you take your definition and amendment and mix the two, you will get your answer.

You always make up werds?



To visibly see inside, no. Search anything within an arm's reach of my door, no (this includes the glovebox, guys UNLESS LOCKED). To open my door, take me out and go through everything including trim, bags, belongings, seats, etc... you better know he needs a warrant if I decline to allow his search.



Very true. Hide the bong.

If a cop sees a bong on my coffee table when I open the door, I'm busted. No doubts. That's within plain sight. Now, if he wants to search my closets to see if I have a grow room or a fat stash in there... sorry, Charlie. Come back with the papers.



Under such probable cause a warrant will be issued. Again, read the law:

"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"

Probable cause = warrant! It's that easy. But the warrant must be detailed as to what they want and where they're looking.

If an officer of the law does not have a warrant, then you do NOT have to allow him to search. That is the law. The Constitution was designed to protect *US* the citizen. It tells the government what it is NOT allowed to do. It CANNOT search people, their belongings, or their homes without a proper and detailed warrant.

Problem number 2 in this country, usually linked to number 1. Lack of knowledge and an understanding of what those words mean.

The law doesn't think. The law is stated very clearly. Free from unreasonable search and seizures, UNLESS with a warrant.

Not without a warrant.

A cop asked if he could see inside my trunk. I replied "no, not really." and that was the end of it. No warrants, no forced searching, nothing. He let me go. Without a probable cause to search my trunk (i.e. reasonable), they can't do it.

Use all four definitions on Amendment 4. See whatcha get. Not having a reason, not in accordance with what is "normal", excessive, shall I go on?

Anyway, once you take your definition and amendment and mix the two, you will get your answer.

To visibly see inside, no. Search anything within an arm's reach of my door, no (this includes the glovebox, guys UNLESS LOCKED). To open my door, take me out and go through everything including trim, bags, belongings, seats, etc... you better know he needs a warrant if I decline to allow his search.

If a cop sees a bong on my coffee table when I open the door, I'm busted. No doubts. That's within plain sight. Now, if he wants to search my closets to see if I have a grow room or a fat stash in there... sorry, Charlie. Come back with the papers.

"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"

Probable cause = warrant! It's that easy. But the warrant must be detailed as to what they want and where they're looking.

If an officer of the law does not have a warrant, then you do NOT have to allow him to search.

It CANNOT search people, their belongings, or their homes without a proper and detailed warrant.

Implied rights are for those who cannot support there case in factual word.

Read closely San^H^H^H^HDriven... This kinda puts it all into perspective:

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Under the amendment, law enforcement must receive written permission from a court of law, or otherwise qualified magistrate, in order to lawfully search for and seize evidence while investigating criminal activity. A court grants permission by issuing a writ known as a warrant. A search or seizure is generally unreasonable, i.e., unconstitutional, if conducted without a valid warrant.

The privacy in the 4th comes from that. Meaning that I do not have to worry about the gov't snooping in my stuff unless they have a REAL good reason, and they tell me they're doing it.

Another neat tidbit:

A seizure is not constituted by merely approaching the individual on the street or in another public place, and asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, or by asking him questions if he seems willing to listen, or by offering in evidence in a criminal prosecution his voluntary answers to such questions. The person approached, however, does not have to answer any questions under these circumstances; he can simply walk away. He may not be detained even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds for doing so; and his refusal to listen or answer does not, without more, furnish those grounds.

No where in the constitution does it give any power to instate a draft, no where in the constitution does it say our powers are to be seperated, no where does it say anything about public education, no where in the constitution does it say anything about free markets etc...

there are a lot of implied rights/powers in the constitution and whether you like it or not these powers are recognized by the courts!

no where does it say anything about public education

This is all contingent on not establishing probable? " law enforcement must receive written permission from a court of law, or otherwise qualified magistrate, in order to lawfully search for and seize evidence while investigating criminal activity. " If they are being unreasonable right? Have you established that yet?

That's states' rights.

That's a big jump. Maybe next time you'll make it. Keep implying all you want, when you come up with factual word, we will talk. Verbatim is where it's at.