Posted on 09/01/2007 8:08:48 AM PDT by theothercheek
A Washington Post editorial includes this epiphany: "In the aftermath of such a devastating tragedy, it's easy to say, but nonetheless true, that public safety must trump privacy rights…"
1. The tragedy referred to is in the editorial is:
(A) The destruction of the World Trade Center in New York by Islamofascist terrorists.
(B) The execution-style murders of three promising students in Newark by a gang that included two illegal aliens.
(C) The murderous rampage at Virginia Tech by a deranged student whose mental health woes were well documented before he fatally shot 32 people and himself.
(D) None of the above.
2. The solution – public safety must trump privacy rights – applies to:
(A) Eavesdropping on cell phone conversations between Islamofascist terrorists, even when those calls are routed through or originate from the U.S.
(B) Ascertaining the citizenship status of every person taken into police custody for a misdemeanor or criminal offense, and turning undocumented aliens over to ICE.
(C) Implementing "legal and administrative means to redress not only a failure of laws but of a cultural attitude that walls off mental illness and the information that is vital to dealing with it" at Virginia Tech.
(D) All of the above.
1. Correct Answer: C. 2. Correct Answer: D. The MSM, ACLU, Dems and liberals will never get this right.
Note: The Stiletto writes about politics and other stuff at The Stiletto Blog.
There is no inalienable right of safety.
We are witnessing the MSM slip over the line between activism and madness.
“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are the “unalienable rights” enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. The Bill of Rights, included amendments that fleshed these out, including the Fourth Amendment (Protection from unreasonable search and seizure), from which privacy rights emanate.
In many ways, “life” depends upon the federal government protecting its citizenry from external threat (Islamofasctic terrorists and unchecked illegal immigration are but two examples), so one could make the case that public safety is an unalienable right.
The inconsistencies are staggering. Whatever the MSM’s purpose is at the moment, editorial writers will argue one way. Then, when it suits their purpose, they will take the opposite stance.
the lefties are spitting acid.”
And venom.
“The inconsistencies are staggering. Whatever the MSM’s purpose is at the moment, editorial writers will argue one way. Then, when it suits their purpose, they will take the opposite stance.”
The Left is willing to toss the Constitution in the trash if the subject is right-to-life or the right to keep and bear arms. The only rationale one can make of their disjointed ravings is that the Constitution only protects drug dealers, abortionists, illegals and America-hating college professors.
"But as the report made clear, by the time Cho started firing, there was probably nothing that could have prevented him from inflicting great harm."
Other than allowing students and staff permits to carry concealed handguns on campus. One armed student other than Cho is all it would have taken to stop him.
There is a reason psychos never start shooting people at gun stores, gun shows or target ranges.
Yup. That’s why the weasel word “probably” was used. The sentence should have read: Becasue the Virginia Tech campus was “a gun free zone” there was nothing and no one that could have prevented him from inflicting great harm”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
