[Oberon]

I hate to be a stick in the mud, but is there any Freeper here who is willing to see this ruling in terms of civil liberties, rather than just a security issue?

I'm just asking is all. If the NSA wanted to confiscate the firearms of anybody they wanted to using the same sort of process, there'd be any number of Freepers claiming the Second Amendment as an absolute right, and its abridgement prima facie tyranny.

The thing to remember is this: If they can do it to anyone, they can do it to you.

Now, fellas, proceed to shoot that argument down without calling me names. I posted it specifically for you to refute.

[Thebaddog]

Privacy is a false argument and has been for some time. Your insurance company and the credit bureaus have more on you than the feds do and you can do nothing about it. I would rather be secure knowing that the feds were looking over my shoulder and keeping me safe. I have nothing to hide, and in times of war, these steps are necessary.

[Tspud1]

If your aunt had balls , she'd be your uncle. Why argue the if's when life and death are at stake. I don't think the government has the time to waste on everyday conversations of law abiding citizens. What a boring job.

[TeleStraightShooter]

I hate to be a stick in the mud,
OK, stickInTheMud ;^>

If the NSA wanted to confiscate the firearms of anybody they wanted to using the same sort of process,

Depends on what you mean by "anybody they wanted"; I refer you to the 4th Admn:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"

If the NSA was snatching arms from citizens running guns to Hezbollah....
... I and certainly the courts would consider that a "unreasonable" seizure.