|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Yes, the 4th amendment is very much less important. The point isn't to
wait until the weapons are used and we're under a Taliban-like regime lead
by someone of Timothy McVeigh's stature. The point is to recognize a
conspiracy to commit terrorist acts and eliminate it.
There was no 4th amendment prior to the American Revolution, but those
heroes managed to overthrow an intolerable government without it. What
the NRA supporters forget is that the police and army are of necessity
recruited from the US population. If the overwhelming majority of the US
population opposes the government, it will not stand. The armed forces are
not going to fire on their own family members at the orders of some
deranged would-be US emperor.
That is one of the many strengths of the US system: The universal belief
in democratic values and the need to defend them.
At 9/14/2001 06:00 PM, jonasb wrote:
> What about the right to bear arms? Is the fourth amendment so much
> less important than the first? Now if they 'use' those weapons, and I
> don't mean target shooting, then I concede your point. Of course they
> would need the goading of a person or group who is exercising his/their
> freedom of speech to incite such an action.
>
>>Actually, it isn't that difficult to draw a sharp line - not between good
>>and bad, but between those who are exercising free speech and those who
>>are terrorists. The line is preparing or executing violent
>>actions. Those groups, like America's Taliban: Falwell, Roberson and the
>>700 club, which confine their activities to odious rhetoric should be
>>protected by the first amendment as always. Those like the various
>>militias, who accumulate arms and set up armed camps, should be
>>eliminated by any means necessary.
>>
>>At 9/14/2001 11:45 AM, you wrote:
>>>On Friday, September 14, 2001, 11:00:30 AM, Jim Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>JJ> In my opinion analogous groups ;exist in US--white supremecists,
>>>JJ> KKK, SDS, abortion clinic bombers, etc.
>>>
>>>Most thoughtful people do not like these groups, but allowing them to
>>>exist is the price we pay for having a truly free country. We practice
>>>what we preach.
>>>
>>>JJ> 1. route out the unseemly elements in their own countries, by
>>>JJ> whatever means they choose that works in a reasonable timeframe OR
>>>JJ> face severe reprisals from the US.
>>>
>>>So - do we decide who these 'unseemly elements' are, and then force
>>>these countries to eliminate them? If carried to the limit, this would
>>>be little different from what, say, Hitler did.
>>>
>>>If we truly want keep freedom, here and in other countries, we might
>>>want to think about this a bit. A truly free society must allow
>>>expression of unpopular opinions, but not to the point of randomly
>>>killing others. As always, though, it is difficult to draw a sharp,
>>>precise line between good and bad.
>>>
>>>ztrader
>>
|