LOL. Maybe so.
My take on it is that if you're more afraid of something, be it drugs, pornography, terrorism, guns, or anything else, than you are of losing your freedom people who think you have too much freedom will play on that fear and try to use it to trick you into giving up your freedom willingly. In order to do what is appropriate and proper we must examine their arguments and proposed means carefully and not get caught up in a lot of emotional hype or we will not be able to maintain the Republic that has been left in our trust.
I don't really understand your point. Could you be a bit more concrete? If you could, the above might sink in a bit better. Thanks.
The article maintains that there are no Constitutional issues involved, that the issues has the full support of the President, both houses of Congress, a supermajority of the state legislatures, and the vast majority of the general population. If that's the case, why isn't it already done? It doesn't quite add up. The declaration of "moral imperative" seems to be more a means of avoiding questions than answering them.