[Derius_T]

I have read through nearly all of the current pages of this thread. This subject, and the subject of rights in general interests me greatly, as I fought for them, and do not enjoy seeing them given away so freely for promises of compromise that either doesn't come, or isn't really compromise to begin with. As I have read this thread, and others it seems to me that there are two basic sides to this argument that keep popping up over and over.

One side feels that it is okay if a few "good" people are occasionally hindered, or restricted, or outright denied in some way, from exercising their Constitutional rights, as long as some "bad" people are stopped somewhere along the line.

The other side feels that it is never okay to hinder, restrict, or otherwise deny a Constitutional right from a person who is lawfully exercising that right, on the presumption that it "might" hinder a few bad guys along the way.

That about it?

Seems a very smart man once said: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

And this by another: "Let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the constitution be reprehended. If defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence."