4th vs 2nd. Public safety absurdities.
The Bill of Rights was not a crime prevention bill. That makes for amusing analysis of anti-gun rights rhetoric. For instance, the "right to feel safe." It's not really anywhere in the constitution. I guess that's fine since rights don't necessarily come from the constitution. But a right to feel safe is something that can never be achieved anyway. People saying they have a right to feel safe in regards to guns usually ignore that guns are a huge source of actual safety as well as the feeling of being safe for plenty of men and women. In fact, many people become first time gun owners immediately following a frightening situation where their safety was at risk. Another funny appeal to emotion I hear often is the allegation of "You'll have blood on your hands if you don't support X gun control." Never will we ever see people chanting such lines who take responsibility for the blood on their hands for blocking 22 year old women from the ability to take their firearm on campuses where they're easy targets for attackers. If blood on your hands means you need to forego rights for a utilitarian goal of possibly decreasing violence, why isn't it applied to other natural rights besides the right to self-preservation? I never hear people say we have blood on our hands for the murders that could have been prevented if we would just forego the 4th amendment and let police have unlimited electronic and phone surveillance of whoever they want. In this digital age, they'd be able to prevent or stop most crimes. But nobody cares about that blood on your hands. And that's okay. It's okay to not care when the options are group utility versus the rights of the individuals. The founding fathers knew that guns were used for murder. hey knew that people could band together and shoot massive amounts of people. They didn't care. In a certain respect, if you think about citizen led rebellions they thought could happen, that was kind of the point. The right to bear arms and it's inherent right to self-preservation were more important. I think it's absurd to think the founding fathers were worried about crime versus fundamental rights, and for whatever reason, some seem to think the 2nd Amendment is a nuisance to civilized society. But why don't they talk about the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th's impact in a civil society? In a civil, modern, society, there's just no place for crime, period. Why are we suffering gangs? Up to 80% of shooting assaults are done by people with known criminal histories. We could easily monitor and record their calls and internet activities with today's tech. If it were an option that we openly embraced, we could probably develop the tech where we could prevent 99% of all murders, far more than the amount of murders anti-gunners suppose we could prevent by getting rid of guns. China has such surveillance technology. It can be done. But they also rounded up 1 million+ muslims this year and an unknown but large chunk of Christians for re-education with the same tech. The founding fathers knew they could break up criminal gangs with warrantless searches. They knew people murdered others with guns. They didn't care. And neither should we. It's not an outdated concept. Just because we can think of a solution doesn't mean we have blood on our hands for not accepting it. Leave us alone, and let us protect ourselves.