...if you simply remove the means that people use to be bad, they'll stop being bad.
Of course. And there are SO many tools to use to be bad. I'm using one of them now, as Ace reminds us:
The legacy media hasn't quite called for legislation banning bloggers yet, although CBSNews (who else?) has fretted about that "blogs are providing a new and unregulated medium for politically motivated attacks" -- the implication being, of course, that perhaps this whole First Amendment thing is a bit overrated, at least as applies to non-credentialed reporters
Jay Tea again:
Got a problem with people shooting each other? Presume that everyone who has a gun is just one bad day from going postal, and toss up all the roadblocks you can to keep the guns out of everyone's hands.
Aw shucks. So much for the 1st (a nice-sized chunk of it anyway) and 2nd Amendment. I'm not too worried about the 3rd... yet.
Jay Tea's jumping off point is a quote from a radio talk show about airport security screenings and profiling passengers: "They're looking for bombs. I want them looking for bombers." He lands squarely on:
He was dead right, and he summed up one of the biggest problems liberals have today. They believe that if you simply remove the means that people use to be bad, they'll stop being bad.
I would substitute "we" or "the U.S.A." for "liberals" and in all fairness, he does go on to say that conservatives are just as bad, except on different subjects. It's a problem of logic and practicality, not one of political ideology. Whether the nominal topic is guns, airport security, terrorism, drug laws, child molesters, the issue behind all of them is the balancing of risk and security with the Constitution.
Though I griped about airline security measures before 9/11, they didn't bother me quite as much because the people doing the searches weren't employees of the federal government. I figure the airlines have just as much right to try to control what is carried on their planes as I do to try to control what is brought into my house. (And I decided to ignore the public ownership of airspace...) For the most part, the searches weren't based on sex, race, creed... except for that one little old (and I do mean old) lady who never failed to have men remove some item of clothing at our local airport.
But now, the security personnel work for the federal government and there's that pesky 4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Personally, I think that's a major problem for security searches mandated by federal law and performed by federal personnel. Fitting a profile is not enough, there must also be a warrant and it needs to be specific. I've heard that excuse that no one has a right to fly, so it doesn't infringe on anything... but frankly, that excuse has a bit of problem lifting off the runway. Now I'm not so willing to ignore that the airspace is publicly owned, or the public funding of airports and the FAA.
What we don't have a right to is perfect and complete safety. We have the right to strive for it until our efforts butt heads with other rights. All the enumerated rights are subject to this limitation. For example, the clause in the 1st Amendment that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the source of a lot of bickering on the part of the ACLU and its opponents. But I have never heard of anyone suggesting that any religion has a 1st Amendment right to encourage or compel its followers to openly and actively seek the death of those of another faith.
Yet... I keep reading that certain Islamic sects do just that. So my suggestion is that we simply issue arrest warrants for followers of those sects. Sure, all they've got to do is lie and say "I'm a Catholic" or something... and sure, it sounds like an old-fashioned inquisition, but it is not. The arrest warrant is for people who have threatened the death of others, it's for people who threaten to prohibit the free exercise of every other religion but theirs.
No, I don't think that's going to happen, but somewhere, somehow we are going to have to do something about those who spout hate in the name of religion. We don't fall for it when the KKK does it, why do we fall for it when those with the same mindset within Islam do it? I also keep hearing that most followers of Islam are peaceful and follow a religion of peace. It is up to those peaceful people to shout down the KKK-type loonies in their midst.
