This ones for Steve

Now this may not be an original idea. I really don't know as I haven't been hanging out at law blogs; so if it isn't don't the two of you who find this post yell at me. Here it is: My itty bitty light bulb...
All these wing nuts that are so willing to suspend our 4th Amendment rights during wartime should be asked to look at the surrendering of constitutional freedoms from the perspective of losing a different right: The Right to Bear Arms. Now, if their beloved Bushwacker told them that for their own protection he needed them to unload their guns, and deliver them to the nearest federal law enforcement agency. What do you think their answer would be? How would they react?

I am betting that we just might have a revolution on our hands, because their President, be he the beloved Bushwacked or not, was messing with their Constitutionally Guaranteed Freedom to shoot at things. That is how I have begun to fight the: We must give up freedoms argument, and the President is just trying to protect us argument. Put it that context the next time someone says that we are at war and the President is just trying to protect us. I just point out that he could just as well try to protect us by restricting private gun ownership too. Where do you draw the line? Which Amendment is more important to you?