AchtungBono said:
My admiration for Bush and O'reilly doesn't contradict what I said.
No, but they contradict what you said.
AchtungBono said:
I stick to my conviction that the 2nd amendment must be changed in order to make it impossible for any ordinary citizen to purchase a gun.
I agree with you on gun control, I don't think there's any need for citizens to own handguns or assault rifles.
You say this, but then you say this:
AchtungBono said:
Besides BVS, you mentioned in a previous post that I have a problem with the U.S. constitution - I don't actually. I'm not denying the rights and freedoms of ordinary law-abiding citizens, but I would like to make it slightly harder for a 10 year old to shoot up a school yard using his father's gun that he has in the house - don't you agree?
Slightly harder, or impossible? You don't seem to be consistent.
When you say things like our "precious constitution" like in other threads, it sounds very mocking. Plus you have repeatedly said we have too much freedom of speech and that's a cornerstone of our constitution, so sometimes it sounds like you aren't a big fan.
AchtungBono said:
Also, I HATE the fact that criminals can get away with murder because of technicalities - such as evidence seized in a search without a warrant - that drives me CRAZY!
Well without law and due process we have anarchy.
AchtungBono said:
For example, the police can get a search warrant for specific areas in a suspected criminal's apartment. The criminal swears up and down that he's innocent but if by chance the police happen to discover a dead body, a smoking gun and the criminal's fingerprints in an area NOT covered by the warrant then they can't use any of that as evidence because it was obtained "illegally" and using them would violate the criminal's constitutional rights - what the hell is that??
Not quite. Yes there are times when technicalites will get in the way, but your example is far too vague.
Usually a search warrant is for a person's home, not just parts of the home. But if you have a warrant for a person's home and you continue to search the detached garage and find something, then you better be aware of what your warrant entails, write the warrant correctly.
Basically it just keeps searches in check, everything needs a checks and balance system.
AchtungBono said:
I also have no problem at all with the laws limiting the privacy of citizens...why should I mind if the government taps my phone or watches me if I'm not doing anything wrong? I'm a law-abiding citizen and the government can't go after me just on a whim.
Not sure what this has to do with anything but where do you draw the line? You want the government listening to your private phone calls to your lover, do you want them watching you as you have sex with your husband?
You are missing the big picture. It's not a case of "if I'm not doing anything wrong". What if the government was taping all your calls and they happen to have a conversation of you complaining to a friend that you can't believe the president did such and such... Something happens down the line and you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and you are on trial for attacking a governmental official. Well that "innocent" taped phone call is now evidence of motive.
Now this is a highly unlikely example, but this is why we do not allow this slippery slope.