But we should not allow our desire for strong protections to come at a cost of our freedoms as guaranteed by the constitution of the United States of America.

Police powers can be abused.  Our founders knew this. And their point with the 4th amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

But the sheeple have allowed this to "progress" incrementally.

I wrote in 2009:

"when I was a teenager, my brother would find a time when my other brothers and/or I were listening to the radio and strike up a conversation.  Then every now and again when we weren't looking he would ever so slightly turn the volume up, so that after about 20 minutes we would be yelling at each other, never even realizing the volume had gotten so high.  He was through incrementalism, able to change our environment without us even realizing it was happening.  Does it sound familiar?

Often, the true conservative is admonished by those [moderates] who claim it is a little absurd to object to minor changes in public policy, such as seat belt legislation, those seen in gun laws, or even in environmental mandates.  These are either "necessary issues," as some claim, or perhaps even those "which can't hurt to pass, as it doesn't take anything away." So, because it isn't TOO important, the conservative is sectioned off and separated from the herd to fall to the wolves.  But the conservative has always been right.

Consider seat belt laws. In 1985, under the Blanchard administration, insurance lobbyists acting in their own best interest, wrote legislation to be passed which applied a penalty if someone was pulled over and not wearing a seat-belt.  At that time, the brother I mentioned, wrote a letter to the editor in the Lansing State Journal. He argued how this new seat belt law, while hardly an oppressive measure by most standards, was a step forward in the gradual relieving us of our rights.  He had, as a teenager, a greater understanding of the growth of government through incrementalism than most of the legislature who was supposedly voting on our behalf.  He got it, understood it, and objected.

When the original law was passed, police could not pull someone over for the suspicion of or even witnessing someone not wearing the safety device.  Over the years, it has progressed bit by bit, to that place where police can not only use the excuse of a possible seat belt violation to pull over and detain an individual, but then to further put it in our face with commercial after commercial during your favorite Detroit sporting event, stating that they CAN and WILL violate your 4th amendment protections, and there ain't nothing you can do about it..  beep beep  beep.."

I can at the very least, start up a conversation that has real effect.