Amazing that some people believe that the Constitution has not been interpreted by SCOTUS case law in the last couple of hundred years even though the Constitution says that is one of their functions. Those searches were perfectly legal under exigent circumstances and public safety exceptions as noted in numerous cases. They were not searching for someones pot stash or even a murder weapon. They were looking for a serious live threat to public safety.
This. "Unconstitutional" is not a synonym for "things I disagree with." When police are looking for an active mass murderer, they don't have to get a warrant to search every single place the murderer could be. Naturally, there are reasonable limitations to this doctrine. Would anyone honestly want it any other way? I value my right to privacy, but that right has some limits--if it needs to be temporarily restricted in the interest of preventing more bombings, I don't think that's unreasonable. We all should question the government, but we should try to be sophisticated enough to not see the world in black and white. Very few rules are logical if they have zero exceptions. Much like "no plan survives contact with the enemy," no law (or constitutional provision) survives contact with real life. That's why we have courts.
I won't say "only a Sith speaks in absolutes," because that statement itself is an absolute. I will say that "generally
people who speak/think in absolutes are either dangerous or naïve, and sometimes both."
ManInBlack316 wrote: Depending on the locale, certain local government agencies will always assist federal operations, a certain local sheriff I know would probably be okay with an interment camp if it came with federal money/resources.
There are so many of US (regular people) compared to THEM (combined military, reserve, NG, federal cops, state, local, etc). None of those groups like to play nicely together. We had a fuck ton of soldiers/marines/spies/mercenaries in Iraq during the surge and it's not like that place was really under control.
I've expressed my opinion about this issue elsewhere, but as a former soldier, this offends me. From my way of thinking, there is no "us" or "them" when we're talking about the U.S. military. The military is made of American citizens. Citizens who tend to be pretty decent human beings. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
As for American law enforcement putting American citizens in internment camps. . .well, I'm not going to ask what your hat is made of.
Meanwhile, when this thread gets locked and buried, it will be because of shit like this:
It was probably just your typical fed overreaction.
ManInBlack316 wrote:A domestic takeover in the US would probably be pretty easy to do actually. Not by our military, at least not mostly, but by the DHS, any one remember Boston after the marathon bombing?
I really, really, really, don't like my current President.
BigDaddyTX wrote:I'd probably go with the cache weapons/gear option, and just lay low. This doesn't sound like it is much worse than it is now, and potentially better depending on who is doing what to whom. Lots of things depend on different aspects of the lockdown too. Most of my family live in Texas, can I get a permit to visit them? Can I leave the county? City? How about my brother in China? Can I get easy access to medical care for my kiddo? Are groceries showing up at the store?