[1]Why don't they take guns away from everybody because everybody is potentially the person [2]who murdered OJ's wife? Because there's no evidence to support that theory. If they get any kind of reasonable evidence (can be circumstantial), and take it to a judge, they could probably get a wiretap warrant or a search warrant. Then they can legally do what they're doing.
I don't want to ruin your post, so I'll just point out a few things.
First of all: I, too, feel it's completely wrong to look in and watch like the U.S. is doing.
[1] -- "The right to bear arms"; they would have to place annother amendment to nul that one. Also, take away our guns and we're a bunch on ignorant, insestual peices of capitalist shit. Also, violence is necessary, it prooves we're free. How many Dictators allow violence? The chance to take arms up in what you belive? I understand the idea that removing wepons will be good for getting rid of terrorists, but if some one is desperiate, anything's possible.
Also, if you where to remove wepons, that could just be one step closer to a totalitarian police state. There would be no way to fight back and prevent the facist regime from taking over.
[2] -- O.J.'s wife was stabbed, I belive. That's proof that if some one feels it's necessary enough, they can make due. You can't expect every one to give up everything that's potentially deadly, too.
Both of those were examples, I'm not actually suggesting either.
You can also be free without violence. Violence doesn't prove that you're free.
Here's the problem: the terrorists you seek to "get rid of" are also, in some cases, US citizens. They are taking up arms for what they believe. Do you support the terrorists? How can you support giving people the ability to take up arms against an unjust government, but not support the terrorists?
ok, fine, 1993, WTC.
I believe a combination of security plus terroist searching has made the US safer from terrorism, yes.
I have a rock that keeps lions away.
But seriously, I think that, if anything, the increased surveillance and decreased freedom will, if anything, make the problem worse.
Let's look at it this way: what is the ultimate of terrorists? I propose that their goals are, in no particular order,
a) Cause widespread fear in a country
b) Disrupt the country's way of life
c) Cause the government of a country to fail
I think we can all agree that they are quite successful, especially with the help of the government and media, in completing (a).
People have to act differently now. Citizens are being spied on, and people are afraid that there is a terrorist lurking behind every rock. The fear relates back to (a), but I think it would be naive to think that there are no elements of (b) present here as well.
Finally, because the government is probing more into the lives of ordinary people, the basic rights and freedoms of your country are being trodden on. The government is overstepping the bounds that it was instated to uphold, which was to uphold the rights and freedoms of the citizens. As a result, I think that (c) is nearer than ever before, thanks to the terrorists.
The terrorists, with very limited causualties on both sides (not a lot of people died during 9/11, compared to a war), are nicely achieving their goal, to undermine your country. As a result of the precautions that you celebrate, I suspect that the terrorists are being encouraged.
Additionally, if you think that monitoring communications will stop them, you're being naive. At least one of the terrorists caught in Canada was a computer science major, and another was a doctor. These aren't stupid people you're dealing with, which is one of your biggest mistakes. They are thinking, and they are intelligent. If they don't want to get caught, they'll use encryption. There will always be some that slip through, and for every one that's caught there are many more to fill his place.
I believe that the increased security and "terroist" searching have made the country no safer, and possibly less safer.
