In response to shenanigan's comment:
I assume you're against all the anti-terrorist laws too, which chip away at 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendment rights?
The idea that "freedom" is greater when there is no law is silly. Lawlessness just means your freedom is at the mercy of those more powerful than you who can exert their will. Sane societies make rules that maintain important freedoms, but limit the ability of people to do things that have negligible benefits but cause significant risk to others. This is just mature, sensible policy-making that creates a society that is safe and ordered enough for people to exercise meaningful freedom. Chaos and lawlessness may be "freedom" in some theoretical way, but in practice you are less free when in constant danger from the lawless than you are when lawlessness is limited.
Laws just mean your freedom is at the mercy of those more powerful than you as well. Do you think Nazi Germany was free since they were free from crime with a police state.
There's a big difference between laws passed through a democratic process and those imposed by a dictator. Yes, laws limit some freedom. But absolute freedom never truly exists. You're always restricted in some way. If there are no laws and you live in a society with other people, then your freedom will be restricted by the choices those other people make that affect your life. If they choose in their freedom to drive drunk, then your ability to drive will be limited by the risk their actions create for you.
Frankly I'm surprised that you seem taken aback by the concept that laws are the opposite of freedom. This is a fairly well understood concept. Anarchy would be complete freedom.
This is a fairly simplistic view. The lack of law (and the resulting anarchy) doesn't actually make you more free--it makes you more subject to the arbitrary and unregulated actions of others who are free to do whatever they want. If they are free to kill you and they do so, how are you more free? You're just dead.
It's all about how much freedom we are willing to concede in the name of safety. You could be free from taxes but then there will be no military or roads etc. It's about drawing a line, and I like mine in a different place than you.
It's about balance. What freedoms are truly important and meaningful and beneficial. And which have little benefit, but create significant risk and danger to others or interfere in significant ways with others' freedoms?
The terrorist acts you are referring to do not effect US citizens. Foriegn terrorist do not have rights under the US constitution.
Many of them do affect citizens. For instance, the National Defense Authorization Act, which Obama signed last year, allows the government to detain citizens indefinitely without trial on the suspicion of terrorism. Also, you seem willing to accept lose interpretations of the amendments like the Fifth and Sixth that never state that the rights described are restricted only to citizens. Most use generic terms like "people."
You keep saying reasonable gun laws, but you advocated that the second ammendment meant the National Guard last week which is not a reasonable gun law by anyones definition but yours. I suggest that if Canada provides you the safety you desire than go there.
I didn't say anything about the National Guard. That was someone else.
And I do live in Canada now. Still pay taxes (considerable ones) in the US though (as well as in Canada).