So the government can be expected to watch you very closely, but only if you pose a threat to the government, which even a well-organized band of terrorists do not. Think about it. In a worst-case scenario, terrorists or hostile foreign agents plant a nuke in lower Manhattan, and detonate it during the week. The U.S. economy is crippled, and the death toll is into six figures, but from the point of view of Washington, so what? Government regulation will be expanded, taxes will certainly rise, and fundamental freedoms will be abridged, for the public welfare of course."The surveillance state is part of the state. Where surveillance is apriority — say, when political enemies are concerned — it’ll beruthlessly efficient. The rest of the time, like when it involvesprotecting Americans from terrorists, it’s just another governmentjob."- Glenn Reynolds
Interestingly, people are recognizing this.
“Which worries you more,” the Post asked, “that the government will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights, or that it will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism?”Perhaps unsurprisingly, Dems were more inclined to give up liberties for a promise of security than Republicans. Independents were the least willing to give the government more power.
The poll found 48 percent of respondents worry the government will go too far, compared to 41 percent who worry it won’t go far enough.
To carry this over into the gun debates, and given that the country divides itself approximately equally between the three groups, it would suggest that 2/3 of the population is inherently skeptical that anything the government proposes regarding "gun violence" will actually accomplish anything beyond curbing the rights of the citizens.