I am sick a friggin tired of people saying this as an excuse for taking rights away. If the Constitution was actually followed (specifically the Second Amendment) it wouldn't be. Let us go armed and we can protect ourselves, disarm us and you can take away all our rights and we will just be unsafe slaves.

Sorry for the rant it just has been eating at me.

Believe me, We know how you feel.
But with all the liberals in America, I don't see much changing for the better.
Even after 9/11, they are calling for more restrictions on us gun owners.

It's from Tom Clancy's [u]Executive Orders[/u].  The phrase is used to justify shutting down interstate travel, public assembly, most businesses, and a few other things.  The president's justification for ignoring the Constitution is that it "is not a suicide pact."  In other words, the end justifies the means.  I've heard this term used a few times on CNN to justify illegal actions by law enforcement so I did some research to find-out what it meant.z

I have heard it on the radio and the news a couple of times. I heard it again today. I mostly listen to AM radio.

I think the liberals want the people to focus on thier desired ends(Control) by baiting them with Safty and thus securing the means(shredding the constitution).

Mind you when I say Liberal, I dont mean necesserily Democrat or Republican.  The NAZIs where liberals of thier day.

also remember that Hitler came to power by creating an National Emergency that was couched in Terrorism.  He then used the hysteria to get the people to grant him full power to make Germany secure and strong!!!!  And out went thier rights and the true terror began.

When the security of Oceania is threatened, rights must be attenuated in exchange for perceieved safety.

" The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

I believe that quote refers to a `20s or `30s Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled that individual rights were not so absolute that it precluded the ability of gov`t to enforce just laws or maintain the safety of the nation through the common defense.
It`s kind of like the decision in which Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes Jr. stated, "The right to swing your fist ends where the other person`s nose begins."
This part of the decision where you get the example of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

Basically our rights are not without limits.

U.S. Rep. J. D.
                                                             Hayworth (R-AZ) offered this
                                                             explanation: "The Constitution
                         is not a suicide pact. The American people don't want to see the
                         United States Constitution... used as an instrument of destruction
                         by enemies of our nation who are not citizens of our nation."

This is a good explanation of the issue IMO.  We have little obligation to non-citizens to extend the fullest protection of the Constitution in times of war.

That said, there are people that claim to be the loyal opposition that disagree on whether it is a war, and basically have decided to question the government rather than accept the premise that we have a deadly enemy.  These are the blame America first and we must alway expect them and tolerate them like a baby with a dirty diaper.

ADTECHARMS: I agree with your thoughts, but many of us have not done the easiest thing to defend our rights. All of these anti-gun laws and politicians didn't appear over night. How many of us are registered to vote? How many actually know what the issues are and voting informed, and how many people actually run for a local office, such as city council, shcool board? The 2002 mid-term elections are coming, how many people are making plans to campaign against an anti-gun or for a pro-gun candidate? Many of the anti-gunners in the Kalif. legislature started out as LAUSD board members. How many people avoid doing jury duty or served on a grand jury? How many of us are NRA members, politicos are not afraid of one lonely individual, but they are afraid of huge organized groups.

That's very important to remember.  Unfortunately, too much of the history of the era dwells on certain hysteria.  No matter how justified by the affected group, we need to look around that to learn the fundamental lessons.

The Nazis were elected in free, democratic elections, as fair as any before, then or since, and more honest than most.  Whip up enough hysteria - there was a lot of turmoil at the time, including street gangs, riots and more - the legacy of the ripoff after WWI, and you have fertile ground for the "I'll fix it all" line.  Add some cleverly staged incidents - the Reichstag fire, for example  -  and, it's "give me safety at any cost."  Now, look at your newspapers.  I can just imagine a German of 1935, seeing a copy of the "Voelkischer Beobachter" saying "It can't happen here."  How many of us have said the same?

Your reference is correct, although I'm not sure if it's the first time the phrase has been used. It was certainly the first time I had ever heard it, though.

You must remember, however, that Jack Ryan was facing an attack against America involving the airborne strain of the Ebola Zaire virus. Only a fool would believe that taking the actions he did would be worse than 2/3 of the population being wiped out.

That being said, vigilance would be required to ensure that a legitimate encroachment of rights did not become permanent. Note that when I say "legitimate", I mean it. Banning guns during a terrorism crisis would be the dumbest thing anyone could think of because a) it would be completely ineffective and b) it would eat up resources that could more effectively be used elsewhere.

I have yet to see the government propose anything postm 9/11 that alarms me. Hell, I think they haven't gone far enough. Racial profiling is one example where I think we should be looking at every single possible source of extremist muslims, and the hell with what people think.