Why is it in America many will rally behind their 2nd amendment rights..?

Question

however little opposition is given when legislation is passed that infringes upon ones 4th amendment rights?

Answer 1

The Bush admin and their supporters believe the 4th amendment applies little when it comes to fighting terrorism. America's belief in their right to be secure in their belongings is changing because of this influence.

So to the answer to your question: The current political influence has more desire with stepping over the fourth amendment for the so-called "War on Terrorism" so Americans accept this non-sense even more than the 2nd amendment.

The government need only find a reason to step over the 2nd amendment like they find with the 4th when they used 9/11 and the war on terrorism.

Answer 2

WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS.
If we give up our guns, then the president with backing from the military can suspend the Constitution and declare martial law. The Constitution is only a piece of paper and nearly everyone agrees to abide by it. It's all voluntary. Try suspending the Constitution with the guns in the hands of the public and we would be instantly in a civil war.
Notice in some emergency situations, your civil rights are suspended and the police take over.
This doesn't last long over over a wide enough area for a civil war to develop but maybe someday in the future , who knows.

Answer 3

that's an easy question, Americans hold their fire arms in high regards, so any attack on legislation restricting or banning it's purchase or use will meet with the strictest opposition. However, the 4th amendment they feel dosen't directly effect the masses because they don't think law enforcement would never break into their homes to perform illegal searches.

Answer 4

Because to a lot of Americans, the 2nd amendment precedes all the other amendments in importance. By that, I mean that guaranteeing the right to bear arms allows for the defense of all the other rights. If you can't fight for your rights, you don't have any.

Not saying I entirely agree with their opinion, but it's a lot easier to ask someone to quit snooping around your privacy when you have a weapon to back it up.

Answer 5

because the 4th amendment, moreso than the 2nd amendment, has unergone radical change. The Warren Court changed the reading of the 4th amendment from a first clause dominate amendment to a second clause dominate amendment.

Answer 6

The 4th amendment breech was slipped in b/c of 9/11. To the person who mentioned 'probable' terrorist take a look at Guantanamo. There are innocent people there getting tortured while real criminals pay off.
Also this 'retake' of our original right leaves too much up for interpretation and with this adm, who knows what might happen.

Answer 7

Anti-collectivist is sturdy approximately what the twenty first replace potential. The twenty first does not *assure* a *top* to drink alcohol, it basically repealed the 18th replace. The twenty first grew to become into not designed to assure which you would be able to drink everywhere and each time you pick. It grew to become into designed to make useful basically that the 18th's ban may well be repealed and permit federal and state governments to alter sale and intake of alcohol.

Answer 8

"Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

Yet you support searching my house and seizing my firearms, NONE of which has EVER been used with criminal intent.

Nice hypocrisy, good job.

Answer 9

There is a national feeling that they have to protect themselves from all domestic and international threats. They are obsessed with the fanatical belief that if they have one or several guns that they are safe. They think they can stop a terrorist like at VT or in Baghdad. Obviously it's a flawed notion but like their President they persist in the belief. More guns in Iraq seems to equate to more violence. And obviously more guns in America seems to equate to more Violence. Why they think possession of people killer guns should be the inalienable right of any crazy citizen is beyond comprehension. But maybe their are a lot of crazy citizens.

Answer 10

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Probable cause. That's the key word.
But to the left wing nuts. They think that terrorist suspect is not a probable cause.