Oh brother. You're right. THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING! Let's all act like menopausal women, or, even better, the crazy conspiracy theorists our political opponents claim us to be!
Tell me the difference between your arguemments and those that they use against the 2nd? You use the justifications Security.
You look at that picture and tell me who are those people at that moment more affraid of the terrorist or the police?
You seem to think that if the government isn't marching us to camps as we speak, then there is no danger to the Constitution. I agree some posters have taken dramatic license with the Boston searches, mostly in the form of photo mosaics (guilty) and videos. I equate these to modern day political cartoons (do we really believe our government is represented by a person named "Uncle Sam", or that a talking elephant is the spokesperson of the Republican Party?) which by necessity dramatize the situation. A little.
The majority of the discussion I have seen and taken part in on these threads has been lucid and rational on the part of those critical of the police searches. Either the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment is broad and nearly limitless, or it is narrow and specific.
I join my fellow FReepers in stating I believe the case law carving out the exigency exception defines the exception to be narrow and specific - that an officer may enter and search a particular place for a particular person or items without a warrant - when there exists an emergency situation, subject to judicial scrutiny.
I do not believe that the Boston searches were conducted in this way. To mock this position as a "sky is falling" cry is to ignore that many of us opposing the police actions in Boston have legal and criminal justice backgrounds.