[IP] more on Salon article describing how the 2nd Amendment trumps the War of Terror
------ Forwarded Message
From: joe mcguckin <joe@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:38:40 -0800
To: <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ip <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] Salon article describing how the 2nd Amendment trumps the
War of Terror
(For IP)
Dave,
This article seems to be a bunch of alarmist propaganda from the Brady
folks.
1) As much as I disagree with the current ID requirements and no-fly lists,
I would point out that the government is imposing roughly the same
restrictions on commercial travel that are currently imposed on gun
purchases. Buying a gun is a constitutionally protected activity that
already requires one to identify oneself and submit to a background
check. (I don't recall having to identify myself and pass a background
check in order to exercise any other constitutional right.) The
government's theory is that using commercial transportation is
not a constitutional right and therefore that activity may be restricted
based upon a mere suspicion.
2) The Brady report plays fast and loose with the definition of a
'terrorist'. In the Brady report, those on the watch lists are routinely
referred to as 'terrorists'. John Ashcroft would be proud.
3) If one really believes this article has something valid to say, then the
answer is what - to circumscribe or eliminate even more constitutional
rights? Where do we draw the line? Do we preserve just the popular
constitutional liberties? I like them all, but it's quite obvious that
many people in the government don't like the 5th amendment, law
enforcement isn't fond of the 4'th amendment. Shall we simply eliminate
the unpopular ones?
------ End of Forwarded Message
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/