Quote:The world is full of people with grievances.  Whether it's militia in Montana, or fundamentalist Muslims in the Middle East, or this nut in Dallas, it seems like more and more people have powerful grievances and are willing to take out weapons and do something illegal, immoral, and stupid.  

 

To me, the question is, if people want to preserve the 2nd Amendment, and the 1st Amendment, how do we stop this without heavy surveillance of everyone?   It seems like we're going to have to make a choice between the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment and the 4th Amendment.   If everyone has a right to own guns, and everyone has the right to free speech, then we will have to do away with the 4th Amendment and closely watch everyone all the time.  Because the 2nd Amendment gives everyone the ability to kill a lot of people before the police can react to it, and the 1st Amendment gives everyone the right to incite these crazy people.  

 

Really, bottom line, the 1st Amendment says you can say whatever you want, the 2nd Amendment says you can own guns, and the 4th Amendment protects you from warrantless searches, seizures, and wiretapping.  So the BIG question is, can the Constitution survive with all these weapons and crazy people?   It seems like it's going to be very difficult if not impossible to deal with this stuff and still adhere to the Constitution.

Pretty sqewed point of view. The common denominator when talking about the Bill of Rights is people. People have the cognetive ability to calculate, process, and adjust. Whether words were written over 200 years ago or now, people will calculate, process, and adjust. You may be missing the overriding intent of the setup of a Republic under these words. Giving up the freedom to be people is never the answer. It would be interesting to hear how you believe strict surveillance will prevent crime.

---