What about your rights? Will you let them take your guns?

Question

I think the majority missed a portion of my question that I feel was quite critical:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtXJLcW4U48afrwIwvJLc9Psy6IX?qid=20060929100018AAqEvku

The question will be better stated here, I hope: Why are so many so willing to fight for their right to bear arms (2nd Amendment) yet so willing to hand over other rights (4th Amendment)?

The biggest supporters of the woretapping bill say they have nothing to hide, take the right to privacy away and have at your warrantless search and seizures!

Wouldn't it be just as easy to say (since you trust your government not to warrantless do things) "I trust you won't become a police state and I know that you will have my best interest in mind with whatever you do...take my guns"?

Honestly, help me understand that reasoning or word it better for me. And for those who answered my question before, the quote is not a quote. I made that up as a possible reason the gov't might issue regarding confiscation of guns

Doesn't it really boil down to trust of the government? If you trust them enough not detain and suspend the rights of SUSPECTED terrorists, and not misuse the power in the wiretapping bill, you should also trust them enough not to need your guns, right?

FYI - I am NOT for the abolition of ANY of my rights. Beit 2nd or 4th or ANY!

OKAY - the vast majority is MISSING THE POINT AGAIN!! GUN OWNERSHIP IS AN EXAMPLE, NOT THE CAUSE!!!

this is why the yahoo answer board is full of rambling a retardation. Those who randomly put out anti-gun rhetoric obviously did not see the fact that I also included the Fourth Amendment.

GET
A
CLUE

Wmcritter - You know nothing of the wiretapping bill, obviously. I suggest you pull it up.

Answer 1

If you wanted to know about how we feel about the 4th amendment, why did you ask about guns?

Answer 2

First of all, one of your assumptions is wrong. The 4th amendment has not been violated. The amendment states that we are protected from "...unreasonable search and seizure...". "Unreasonable" being the key word. Monitoring the communications of known terrorists is not unreasonable. Monitoring the communications of regular citizens would be, but that is not happening.

The Declaration of Independence states that citizens have the right to disband and reinstate a government whenever it becomes tyrannical. This is only possible if we have guns. If the government is the only ones with guns, how could the citizens disband it and fix it?

This makes the 2nd amendment the most important amendment. Without it, we could not prevent the government from infringing the others.

So, to tie it all together: rights have been violated in the past, often in times of war (internment camps in WWII). As unpleasant as it it, it may be justified on a temporary basis, for special circumstances. I think this applies to all rights except the right to own guns. That is the one and only right that will ensure that any other rights violations are temporary and correctable. It is the one right we must protect above all others, because it allows us to protect the others.

Answer 3

4th amendment rights need the government to enforce their existence, while 2nd amendment (arms) you can just buy and keep in your gun closet.

That the gun is tangible and can be used to possibly fight against the government, while the 4th amendment is only tangible as a few lines in a book and some supreme court decisions. None of which will ever help you if a crazy person took control and REALLY started stripping away rights, ala Hitler.

Answer 4

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you own a gun, are you part of the militia? Probably not. NRA keeps that out of the spotlight, don't they?

While I have no problem with gun owners, quit quoting an amendment that you do not really understand. Stop using it as your excuse. You are wrong. Gun ownership is fine, when registered.

Answer 5

You're conflating the right to bear arms with the possibility that an arm of the gov't. might violate your right to privacy by suggesting that trust in gov't. is the common denominator.

I think that's false in that not owning a firearm doesn't necessarily mean that you can trust the gov't. to protect you against all threats to your life and property. As a practical matter, that's simply unrealistic.

Trust in gov't. to NOT abuse the great powers it wields is baked into everyday life from encounters with local police and officials to the activities of the national organs of power. There already IS an implicit trust in gov't. in this country - variable as it might be from person to person.

That trust, however, does not extend to believing that the country's police forces can be everywhere all the time and thereby obviate the need (or desire) to carry firearms for self-defense.

Answer 6

Well since the second admendment only gives members of a "well regulated militia being necessary for the defense of a free state" the right to have guns, what does it really matter. The 2nd admendment does not have anything to do with average people just those in the military. The admendment has been expanded through interpretation, which conservatives claim to hate.

Answer 7

No one should mess with the Bill of Rights, least of all, the government. The Founding Fathers set up those rights because they knew (having come from a monarchy) the key rights no government should be allowed to take away as it would have too much power. Many of them were in favor of as little government intervention into the daily lives of its citizens as possible. Check out quotes for Jefferson.

Answer 8

I'm a proud liberal Democrat and I'm against giving up ANY rights, whether gun ownership, privacy or any other.

The single worst thing ever to happen to the United States and our Constitution was the appointment of George W. Bush as "President" by the Supreme Court.

Answer 9

I don't support either government's interference on civil rights but as a realist I understand that wiretapping has been going on for years (The ECHELON system was enabled under Clinton).

The truth is both parties are hypocritical, both only support those rights that support their agenda.

.

Answer 10

If everyone would support the wisdom of the founders, and work towards protecting the rights of all people, not just the ones you personally agree or disagree with, this country could go on being the great nation all of us know it is. That was the genius of the founders.