Gun Control & RKBA

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)

12. Watch a lot of movies, do you?

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 03:46 PM

Jan 2012

Public safety is an issue for local governments to decide. How they implement it is up to them. There is no violation of 4th amendment rights. CCTV cameras are already ubiquitous in urban America. The latest technology will soon be available and will not require armed cops on 24/7 surveillance duty. Just a computer.
Makes 1,000 times more sense than anyone carrying a gun in these areas.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

95 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Action put off on guns-in-parks issue [View all] SecularMotion Jan 2012 OP

Another interesting quote.. X_Digger Jan 2012 #1

It looks like the idea to to make sure honest citizens do no have firearms in a park... spin Jan 2012 #2

How about no guns in the parks. Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #3

Great idea... liberal_biker Jan 2012 #4

There are all kinds of detection devices available. Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #7

So every public place in America should have metal detectors? Really? hack89 Jan 2012 #8

If it saves lives, why not? Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #10

Why not? liberal_biker Jan 2012 #11

Stick around, you'll witness all kinds of things around here. Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #20

What insult? n/t liberal_biker Jan 2012 #21

Is this how you normally walk into a room full of strangers? Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #22

If someone says something disgusting liberal_biker Jan 2012 #23

I find it offensive that you put individual gun carrying above public safety. Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #31

"Parks are for recreation, not shootouts." X_Digger Jan 2012 #33

"...get criminals to agree with that." Yep. That usually ends the debate.... SteveW Jan 2012 #86

Actually I put individual safety above unfounded fears liberal_biker Jan 2012 #38

"Incidentally, I don't play with my guns." Simo 1939_1940 Jan 2012 #48

Your desire to live a world where honest people can't carry firearms... spin Jan 2012 #54

My desire is to live in a world where nobody carries handguns in public. Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #57

No, I don't share that desire... spin Jan 2012 #60

How sad! Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #61

That's just simple reality... spin Jan 2012 #62

Those rose-colored glasses clash with reality. n/t X_Digger Jan 2012 #66

That is not a bad start. ManiacJoe Jan 2012 #64

"Stick around, you'll witness all kinds of things around here." Simo 1939_1940 Jan 2012 #47

Nice one. With distortions like that, I assume you don't belief in karma. Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #56

This message was self-deleted by its author Simo 1939_1940 Jan 2012 #89

How are you going to pay for it all? They are cutting education right now hack89 Jan 2012 #14

Why cut education and healthcare? Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #18

Because education and social services are the biggest chunk of local budgets hack89 Jan 2012 #24

Take it out of those HS dollars. Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #27

What money.... liberal_biker Jan 2012 #28

Free clue: The police have no legal responsibility to protect you. X_Digger Jan 2012 #32

Do you appreciate how minuscule the gun economy is hack89 Jan 2012 #36

"the privileged elite who like to fly over America,"? rl6214 Jan 2012 #78

More tax on gun sales. ellisonz Jan 2012 #19

Sales taxes are a state issue - good luck with that. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #25

A federal tax on firearms purchases? liberal_biker Jan 2012 #29

Pssst, there already is one. PavePusher Jan 2012 #50

Hence "more"... ellisonz Jan 2012 #55

Not if it is for the purpose of restricting 2A. nt SteveW Jan 2012 #87

If it saves lives, we can hire every other person to be a cop and follow the other people around.. X_Digger Jan 2012 #16

Ok so your solution is.... liberal_biker Jan 2012 #9

Watch a lot of movies, do you? Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #12

Somebody has to monitor the output liberal_biker Jan 2012 #13

One person can monitor a lot of input. Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #52

I think you're far too optimistic about this technology, and too cavalier about the BoR petronius Jan 2012 #30

I guess we'll see what violation of privacy can be shown. Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #34

What the fuck makes a park sacred? X_Digger Jan 2012 #37

"Do criminals avoid the parks due to its 'sacredness'?!?" Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #53

"No, but they should".. When they do, we'll chat. X_Digger Jan 2012 #63

A park-cum-prison? In your mind, maybe. Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #71

"No, but they should" PavePusher Jan 2012 #69

What on earth do you mean? Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #70

"No, but [criminals] should." They will be blinded by the glare of your logic... SteveW Jan 2012 #88

If you feel that going to the park means engaging in self defense Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #91

If it's not firearms it'll just be something else. So really, a better solution would petronius Jan 2012 #92

Uh, no. You miss-read again... SteveW Jan 2012 #94

You don't think so? liberal_biker Jan 2012 #39

Why would a park be sacred? petronius Jan 2012 #51

And how is that surveillance going to stop someone from taking a gun into a park? rl6214 Jan 2012 #80

Wow. Maybe we could have TSA agents at the gates to the parks... spin Jan 2012 #15

Too much TV and movies in your life. Not enough reality. Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #26

Precisely the opposite liberal_biker Jan 2012 #40

So you set up a metal detector at the gates to a park... spin Jan 2012 #41

Yea, the criminals might dig a tunnel to take their guns into the park. Hoyt Jan 2012 #46

So you support a surveillance state? Patriot Act didn't go far enough for you? nt hack89 Jan 2012 #43

I do not support the Patriot Act or a surveillance state. Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #59

Which means that in public places citizens are been surveilled by the government hack89 Jan 2012 #65

That *is* a surveillance state. X_Digger Jan 2012 #67

A dense metal detector is a search? What drivel. Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #72

Yesterday's SCOTUS decision must have caused your authoritarian streak to squeak, eh? X_Digger Jan 2012 #74

Got me pegged, don't you? You must live in a very isolated place. Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #79

"secure in their persons" - ring a bell? -- fuck that anti-4th amendment noise. X_Digger Jan 2012 #81

Explain, please, how it is not a search. It is looking for something... PavePusher Jan 2012 #75

It is detecting objects in a given area, not focusing on individuals. Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #76

This is, effectively, an X-ray, although by a slightly different mechanism. PavePusher Jan 2012 #83

Spam deleted by petronius (MIR Team) Kingfounds Nov 2012 #95

Did I miss something somewhere? one-eyed fat man Jan 2012 #73

And when you go to an ATM you are giving your consent. Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #82

"Walking down the street you are giving your consent." PavePusher Jan 2012 #84

Sure you are unless you wear a mask. It's de facto consent. Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #90

If you can not see the difference between a camera (and I oppose those, by the way).... PavePusher Jan 2012 #93

Giving consent to be seen, perhaps (even by a camera) petronius Jan 2012 #85

And you are going to have an armed cop by the entrance metal detectors rl6214 Jan 2012 #77

How many crimes do you think get committed in those parks now? Not many and certainly not enough Hoyt Jan 2012 #44

That depends on the park... spin Jan 2012 #58

So, how much are the fences and security check-points going to cost? PavePusher Jan 2012 #6

Oh, God, the "we can't afford it" arguement . . . . . .so often used by right wing obstructionists. Hoyt Jan 2012 #45

You find the money for it, I'll consider it. Good luck. n/t PavePusher Jan 2012 #49

How about you support 6ft of fencing, we'll even put a plaque up with your name like anti-littering. X_Digger Jan 2012 #68

Another interesting quote... Atypical Liberal Jan 2012 #5

any decision on if they plan to allow criminals with guns into country parks? ileus Jan 2012 #17

More importantly. Glassunion Jan 2012 #35

They aren't allowed now.. liberal_biker Jan 2012 #42