Wow. Why is this thread still alive?!

[ParsedOut]

That's a fearful point of view that has been at play since the 18th century.

Of course it was a fear in 1776, why do you think this country was founded? The Constitution was written to keep that sort of thing from happening again...so far it has worked, but when you have certain "progressive" movements that are constantly trying to chip away at that sacred document to further their own agendas under the guise of "for the greater good", it's hard to intelligently argue mrsleeve's point. A typical less than 30 character response is nothing more than offensive.

[einhander]

Of course it was a fear in 1776, why do you think this country was founded? The Constitution was written to keep that sort of thing from happening again...so far it has worked, but when you have certain "progressive" movements that are constantly trying to chip away at that sacred document to further their own agendas under the guise of "for the greater good", it's hard to intelligently argue mrsleeve's point. A typical less than 30 character response is nothing more than offensive.

Does your screen name refer to the way you put thoughts together?

No one is talking about changing the Constitution.

[Dozyproductions]

Does your screen name refer to the way you put thoughts together?

No one is talking about changing the Constitution.

Your argument proves that it already has.

[einhander]

Your argument proves that it already has.

Where does it do that? We're talking about securing a school after a bomb threat - no one brought up anything regarding the 4th Amendment.

[Dozyproductions]

What's the very basis of this entire thread? Security vs personal rights. Answer me this, what is the constition?

[einhander]

What's the very basis of this entire thread? Security vs personal rights. Answer me this, what is the constition?

Actually, the thread was supposed to be about the kid thinking the cops coming in heavy was cool.

Anyway, constitutional rights were not violated. What am I'm missing?

[Dozyproductions]

No on both occasions.

Sleeve, I get it now.


Troll away

[einhander]

No on both occasions.

Sleeve, I get it now.


Troll away

You confuse trolling with actual discussion. Sleeve confuses platitudes with discussion.

Sorry you don't know how to explain your point.

[Hooffenstein HD]

I am more anti-government/police/armed forces than anybody I know but realistically, I don't see a problem with this situation.

If there actually was a bomb, you'd all be complaining they didn't do enough.

[ParsedOut]

Does your screen name refer to the way you put thoughts together?

No one is talking about changing the Constitution.

Infringing is just as bad as changing it. If the kids said "No, I don't want to be searched" do you think that constitutionally backed right would have been upheld? I think not... You say you're having a discussion and not just trolling/stirring up shit but your one line responses prove otherwise. If you want to make a point, do it.

[Thizzelle]

this whole thread is stupid, quit fucking bitching. There was a reason for it, it wasn't spur of the moment.

[anabolice30]

I'm pretty anti-gov/ police/ military, but seriously OP what should they have done? Nothing? And then when your kid brother comes home missing an eye and his pecker, you'd say they didn't do enough.

[einhander]

Infringing is just as bad as changing it. If the kids said "No, I don't want to be searched" do you think that constitutionally backed right would have been upheld? I think not... You say you're having a discussion and not just trolling/stirring up shit but your one line responses prove otherwise. If you want to make a point, do it.

I made my point in my first post. Being searched for weapons or bombs does not infringe upon any constitutionally given right.

My responses don't "prove" anything otherwise.

[ParsedOut]

I made my point in my first post. Being searched for weapons or bombs does not infringe upon any constitutionally given right.

My responses don't "prove" anything otherwise.

4th amendment, but obviously we're going around in a circle because you don't understand the basis of our constitution.

[einhander]

4th amendment, but obviously we're going around in a circle because you don't understand the basis of our constitution.

4th Amendment what? The search was not unreasonable.

What about the 4th Amendment was infringed upon? Where, in any case law, would what happened be considered a wanton infringement? Consent isn't the issue because the kids were on government property and, most likely, all minors, and, the teachers have authority over the children in those circumstances.

You're just saying things and not explaining anything.