Track Guns with GPS?

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Correct, sorta. I think every sane law-abiding adult in the US should have the right to carry a gun. However, that right does not extend to airports, schools, courthouses or other sensitive areas.

How is a school any more sensitive than a shopping mall? Kids can be in either one, by the hundreds.

Quote

>Me, I'd rather they simply not even have the ability to ever track me by
>my phone . . .

So don't carry a phone.

That's hardly a fair choice to be forced into. If I want to do something quite ordinary, I have to agree to cede certain rights in order to do it?

You want to buy food and other necessities? Get a number tattoo on your forehead, issued by the government. Don't want to have to have one? Don't buy food and necessities.

Of course a phone is not a "necessity." But even if it were just a "want," why should I have to accept unpleasant intrusions in order to have one, even as a luxury?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[shropshire 0]

<>

Yes, in the case of a phone (mobile or otherwise) you do, it's the nature of the technology to make a point-2-point connection, the system needs to know the location of those points.

The real issue, is who should have access to that information.

.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 3,116]

>How is a school any more sensitive than a shopping mall?

Cause a school is almost all kids, who are there all day, and who generally can't leave whenever they feel like it, and who are not under a parent's watchful eye. That's why you're generally not allowed to just wander around in one as if it were a shopping mall.

>That's hardly a fair choice to be forced into. If I want to do something
>quite ordinary, I have to agree to cede certain rights in order to do it?

No, that's the point. You don't have to cede ANY rights to carry a cellphone, because the fourth amendment protects those rights even if the technology in your pocket is capable of tracking you. Hence, the biggest threat to your privacy is not the phone but the people who would violate the fourth amendment to make you 'safer.'

>Of course a phone is not a "necessity." But even if it were just a "want,"
>why should I have to accept unpleasant intrusions in order to have one,
>even as a luxury?

You don't - as long as the constitution remains intact. It's been under some pretty heavy attack lately, unfortunately.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

>How is a school any more sensitive than a shopping mall?

Cause a school is almost all kids, who are there all day, and who generally can't leave whenever they feel like it, and who are not under a parent's watchful eye. That's why you're generally not allowed to just wander around in one as if it were a shopping mall.

Uh, yeah, but I was asking in reference to not being allowed to carry a gun there IF you are authorized to be there. Like a teacher. Or a parent picking up their kid.

Just because parents are not present keeping a watchful eye on their kids at the school, and just because the kids are not at liberty to just leave the school, does not mean that there is any more danger to the kids in the school if someone brings a gun there and is not a criminal intent on shooting people. (Of course, criminals intent on shooting people will bring their guns into the school regardless of a rule prohibiting it, and far from the majority of schools have metal detectors and armed security to keep such people out, anyway.)

Besides, if someone goes on a shooting spree in a mall, can a supervising parent really do all that much to save a kid from a flying bullet that he can't do because he's not there at the school? (*Well, maybe, if the parent is carrying a gun of his own in the mall...) And I don't think that kids would get into trouble for leaving the school "without permission or authorization" if a shooting started and they fled to escape it.

You are not making a case of any substance for why schools need to be kept free of law-abiding adults carrying guns they are licensed to carry.

Quote

No, that's the point. You don't have to cede ANY rights to carry a cellphone, because the fourth amendment protects those rights even if the technology in your pocket is capable of tracking you.

If the fourth amendment were any good at actually ACTIVELY PREVENTING invasive, unwarranted searches, there would never be cases of people bringing suit for such searches and winning; or of evidence being thrown out of court as illegally obtained; and there would be no complaining about what the president has done recently regarding wiretaps. Seems, Bill, that the Fourth Amendment really is only a RECOURSE, ONCE someone has illegally searched you.

If your logic made any sense, no one would have any cause to oppose civilians stockpiling explosives; the law against them misusing them would protect all of us, even though the explosives have the potential to be used dangerously against us.

Quote

Hence, the biggest threat to your privacy is not the phone but the people who would violate the fourth amendment to make you 'safer.'

Hence, the biggest threat to your physical intactness is not the explosives, but the people who would use them to make bombs to blow you up.

Surely a paper law between them and doing so is all the protection you need to rest easy. Right?


-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"