"I come from another state where 'open carry' is legal, but no one does it, so the police don't really know about it and they harass people, arrest people falsely…I think that people need to get out and do it more so that they get kind of conditioned to it." Such were the words of wisdom expressed to CNN affiliate KNVX (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html)by an unidentified man who protested outside Barack Obama's speech last week in Phoenix with an assault rifle.

The man’s decision to show up at the event with a loaded weapon was legal, but far from controversial. Is an unrestricted freedom to carry any type of gun to any place at any time truly what the founders had in mind? Do we really want to become "conditioned" to the sight of vigilante citizens walking down the sidewalks with loaded rifles? Strangely and disturbingly, the increasingly expansive interpretation of gun rights has been matched by the whittling away of other critical freedoms. Particularly since the Bush era, the protection from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom of speech, the right to a fair and speedy jury trial, and the right to due process seem to have become passé.

Several chilling examples immediately come to mind. Bush-era wiretaps on our fellow citizens still remain on the books due to the Obama administration’s approval - (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/obama-sides-wit/) despite objections that such spying violates that Constitution and widespread acknowledgment that the program has yielded little of value in the so-called War on Terror. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/12/bush.wiretap/index.html).

Lap-tops and other digital devices can be seized (or impounded, in Homeland Security lingo) at airports without explanation (http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/06/24/seizing-laptops-and-cameras-without-cause.html, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020604763.html). Government observation of my personal life and seizure of my personal effects are serious threats to both our democracy and individual liberty, yet such concerns seem to be perpetually under the radar.

“Free Speech Zones” have popped up at controversial events such as political conventions and WTO conferences. The idea is that by corralling protesters into caged areas away from the media and delegates, citizens can vocalize their opinions without all of that messiness that general, non-caged free-speech can cause. Under the Bush administration, the secret service would select the “zones” in advance – perhaps this is one reason that relatively little real protest was ever recorded at his public engagements. Yet the Democrats have been no better: at the 2008 Convention last November, protesters were again restricted to a caged zone far from earshot of the participants. While the First Amendment doesn’t specifically allow you access to powerful people, I doubt the spirit of this particular right was merely legal permission to mutter your ideas from an isolated, off-site cage.

Certainly not last but equally troubling is the marked lack of transparency and due process accorded the detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere in this never-ending War. The emotional response that “terrorists didn’t show the victims of September 11, 2001 any due process” strikes a chord, it is still no way to run a country if we intend to be a rational, law-abiding, democratic nation. There is also a startling and frighteningly pervasive belief that if these alleged criminals are granted a normal trial – the kind that we use for psychopaths, murderers, the mafia, and the like- that they will somehow “get off easy.” While they are not protected under our Bill of Rights, we should ask what defects our system has that render it incapable of dealing with these prisoners, and correct them, rather than simply operating outside the law. How can Americans sleep at night knowing that shadowy tribunals with laws unto themselves are taking place in our name – with evidence withheld and defense attorneys hamstrung all in the name of national security?

But then, it seems that Americans have already acquiesced and have grown accustomed to all manner of indignations. Maybe the 2nd Amendment is just the last one that we’re clinging to, because it is tangible and emotionally compelling. Yet it still doesn’t make a lot of sense. As one woman wrote in her letter to the editor of the Arizona Republic, it is truly bizarre that we are forced to limit the size of our hand lotion and other liquids to less than 4 oz for carry-on luggage on an airplane, but a man can carry a loaded weapon to a presidential appearance. American society must be fascinating to observe from the outside. From the inside, it can be positively frightening.