Alphecca

I can't say I accept the conflagration of the second and fourth amendments.

The Second does not say "...the right of the people to be secure in their arms from unreasonable search and seizure." and the Fourth does not say "...The right of the people to privacy shall not be infringed".

The second is an absolute right, the fourth is a qualified right.

Antigunners sowed the seeds and are reaping the whirlwind.

(Those) who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right (are) courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.

-- Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School

The PATRIOT Act also doesn't do what Sue Ortiz says it does (at very least what she wants you to think, which is that it "lets the government search your house without a warrant" in general, or at any time, or without court oversight).

Perhaps she's confusing the "delayed notice" language with "no warrant required" language because she's never read the text of the Act? Certainly that's the only excuse I can think of for most similar misrepresentations of the Act's contents.

If there's any text in the PATRIOT Act that allows warrantless searches of a house, not only can I not find it, but neither can the ACLU (as near as I can tell via their atrociously designed website that seems more a tool for spewing press releases than telling me actual positions or giving me farkin' ANALYSIS, but that's another rant) or EFF.

And, heck, there has never, as far as I know, been anything like a prohibition on the State listening in on foreign communication, or noting who you called domestically, without a warrant.

But there's always been a prohibition on it taking your guns.

The 9th and 10th Amendments also come ito play. Just because the Constitution does not have a "right to privacy" spelled out, does not mean it does not exist. The "Bill of Rights" does not spell out what rights have on only those rights, but spcifically lists some thing the government may not do. Those rights not spelled out, are still ours. Warrantless wiretaps are based on what ? I really don't know? Is it a twisting of the Commerce clause because the phone companies cross state lines? Is is because they are virtual monopolies ? Cell phone are regulated by the FCC. WHat is an unreasonable search?

Well, I would say that searching domestic phone records for the purposes of criminal prosecution of US citizens is unreasonable, but that doing the same to locate and kill foriegn terrorist/enemies is perfectly reasonable.