We've been fooled

[pax]

John Ross,

Good stuff.

I take issue with only one of your comments:

WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that's not important. What IS important is our freedom. If saving lives is more important than anything else, why don't we throw out the Fifth Amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We'd catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound?"

The problem with that is that in these post 9/11, Chicken Little is not going to see the problem here. He's going to look at you and go, "Yeah, you're right, we should do that. Anything to fight terrorism!"

No, I don't have a solution. But the problem appears to be getting worse.

pax

Because the state can no longer protect us from crime, it wants to take away from us the means of protecting ourselves. This is the logic of gun control. -- Joseph Sobran

 

[Treylis]

THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have Atomic bombs."

WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh..."

WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue--it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns carried by soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 each had muskets, but not the large field pieces with exploding shells. In 1996, soldiers are issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not howitzers and atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and used fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV and satellite transmission."

Actually, this is where I say: "Why, yes, I do think that 'governments should not possess instruments of coercion and violence denied to their citizens'." ;-)