<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft SafeHTML">
<style>
.hmmessage P
{margin:0px;padding:0px;}
body.hmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
</style>
What the panic mongers want to ignore is that the President does not have unlimited power. It is a mistake to think that the Senate is going to rubber-stamp everything Obama wants, even if this is a high-priority goal for him. Particularly in the rural West, Dems have won Senate seats by being pro gun rights. I doubt the Montana senators, for instance, will go along with curtailing gun rights.<br><br>As for other rights that have been winnowed down, I don't see outrage over the winnowing of the Fourth Amendment, for example. That helps the accused, so why should anyone care, until they or a family member are charged with something. Then its significance becomes clear, though it's a little late.<br><br>Here's something to think about. Like other states, Idaho has 'Implied consent.' That means if you drive on our roads, it's implied that you have already consented to providing a breath, alcohol, or urine sample if you are arrested for DUI. <br><br>Someone in Southern Idaho got picked up, and taken to the hospital after refusing to provide a blood sample. Officer gets a nurse to get a sample, while guy is lying handcuffed on a gurney. (Our courts have said it's okay to get this sample by force, if the driver won't willingly provide it.)<br><br>Officer asks for a urine sample, which the driver refuses to provide. Officer then orders the nurse to catheterize the driver for a sample, which is done.<br><br>I don't know what the courts are going to do with this, but I think this is crazy.<br><br>Sunil <br><br>> From: areaman@moscow.com<br>> To: kmmos1@verizon.net; vision2020@moscow.com<br>> Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 16:22:05 -0800<br>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] obama election / gun purchases<br>> <br>> Ken says:<br>> ". . . Second Amendment privileges . . ."<br>> <br>> I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment is part of the<br>> "Bill of Rights", not the "Bill of Privileges".<br>> <br>> And yes, there are some goobers out there who think something is going<br>> to keep them from owning or buying what they would like, for whatever<br>> reason they'd like, and it seems to have driven up prices not unlike oil<br>> speculation did over the summer. I'm not entirely confident that Obama<br>> is going to leave things as they are (and in my opinion, as they should<br>> be), and I don't think we should look forward to some sort of challenge<br>> to the 2nd Amendment as Scott Dredge thinks we should have.<br>> <br>> If you challenge one, which one is next? Why not the rest? Will they<br>> be stronger for it?<br>> <br>> DC<br>> <br>> =======================================================<br>> List services made available by First Step Internet, <br>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br>> http://www.fsr.net <br>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> =======================================================<br></body>
</html>