By Robert Lobitz
One of the most challenging parts about living in the United States right now is the fact that we are gradually loosing what little liberty we have left. Although it is not often a popular view, this is something that has been going on through each consecutive presidency since before living memory. The unfortunately reality is that presidents take new and more frightening powers and the next in line vows to remove these. Instead, not only do they fail to stop them from going forward once they are elected, they go on to enhance them. This is seen time and time again.
Imagine for a moment that you were to go to one of your gun safes to remove a fire arm to protect yourself. Imagine that in doing this action you could be thrown in jail? Seems too ridiculous or far fetched to ever happen? All though this is not currently taking place, we are headed in dangerous directions already and this is something that we are not only failing to see real change, we are also not seeing any candidate talk about it.
A perfect example of this is the liberty that we are supposed to have in regards to information. We have a right to free speech, a right to have freedom in the press, and a right to be free from unwarranted search and seizures. This writing is in no way implying that searching any property or data is wrong under the right circumstances, but it should always be done with an accountable authority, such as the constitution was specifically set up to have.
There is a great example of this with a reporter who worked for the Mogollon Connection Newspaper in Arizona. He was attempting to contact a former New Mexico citizen who had close ties to Al Qaeda and was currently on an U.S. assassination list. The individual’s email address was well accessible and the reporter wanted to do an email interview if at all possible. Although there was never a response to the queries, the anti-terrorism task force contacted him and there are even reports that they may have been sending and receiving information from his blackberry phone.
The reporter contacted legal officials to see if there was any way he could legally protect himself in the situation, but was told to back away. Essentially it was explained that because of the Patriot Act the government could tap his phone and even hold the reporter indefinitely without trial should he be under investigation for being involved in terrorism. The definition of this is still very vague and up for continuous governmental interpretation.
The implications of this are huge. Not only is the government watching what you are doing, but also the fourth estate and because of actions such as these stories are going unreported out of fear. What is next, your firearms? Your gun safes? Talk to your representatives about seeing that this does not get any further. As far as your weapons, click here for the best selection of gun safes online!