WNewImagehen a meaningful outcome is achieved through a bad or unlawful activity, does that make it good or bad? For example, if the police break the law in order to find and kill terrorists, does that make their enforcement activity good or bad? Equally important, if the police can violate one part of the constitution or bill of rights, what then prevents them from violating the others – like taking away your second amendment rights.

On Friday, April 19, 2013, during a manhunt for a bombing suspect, police and federal agents spent the day storming people’s homes and performing illegal searches. While it was unclear initially if the home searches were voluntary, it is now crystal clear that they were absolutely NOT voluntary. Police were filmed ripping people from their homes at gunpoint, without probable cause or a search warrent, marching the residents out with their hands raised in submission, and then storming the homes to perform their illegal searches. 

If there are no limits on militarized police ability to take you out of your home, then what makes one think the police couldn’t take your firearms under similar circumstance? Where in the constitution do they cite the right to forcefully remover people from their property with warrants or probable cause? Are we now at the mercy militarized police acting in the name of whatever the crisis of the day is? Yes, we want law enforcement to find and arrest/kill terrorists, but not at the sacrifice of our constitutional rights.


  1. Kind of makes one wonder, were all the gun shots from the bomber, or from the people constitutionally protecting their family and property… think about it.

Leave a Reply