For example, the business you work at may give drug tests since the government has decreed it is okay. And, never mind that many people who use drugs for recreation lead full, useful lives and are not like those burned-out or violent druggers depicted in movies. One estimate many years ago stated that 90 percent of doctors were users of heroine and still performed their duties but few patients knew anything about it.

A drug test is an invasion of privacy. But, government doesn�t care since any ruling to the contrary doesn�t affect them. Perhaps we should change this.

Elected officials are our employees. They are elected to do a job. They are elected to fulfill a service to the people, to meet their duty in defending and upholding the Constitution for the United States of America.

It is the writer�s contention that many in all levels of government use drugs, at least in the same proportion as the rest of society. It is also his contention that anyone who believes otherwise must live cut-off from the rest of the world. Anyway, the plausible action to take is to require that each submit to random drug testing at any time citizens demands it. The demand in the writer�s opinion should be made on 100 percent of the elected body of all levels of government once a month, on a day and time not known in advance by any elected official.

Since arms are far too dangerous for we law-abiding citizens to keep and bear, then they must also be too dangerous for people hired by politicians to keep and bear. Afterall, those hired often have less training and experience than many citizens with past military and war experience. Thus, they should not be permitted to carry firearms to any greater extent than the general public they are hired from.

Certainly no gun-toting protector hired by people such as that O�Donnell woman should be allowed to do so. Let entertainment persons defend themselves as best they can and not be able to hire persons with the intent of using deadly force. Afterall, isn�t that what the gun is for?

Those who are anti-gun feel certain that armed police can protect them. This is in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, evidence that outweighs the allegation of police being able to do so by a hundred fold or more. Since police seldom get to a 911 call in time to stop a criminal act against a law-abiding citizen, then why should they be armed? The time to be armed is before the act gets into full swing, not after the fact.

Police are just people who have been hired (theoretically and by statute) to maintain the peace. How often in your town has it taken armed police to maintain the peace? For the moment, discount drugs and crime as those are discussed below.

It seems as if the only real need for the police to be armed is when confronting violent drug dealers. Why should they have the authority to be armed when confronting drug dealers or drug related criminal activities when citizens do not? Do they have more of a right to defend themselves than you or the writer? The writer thinks not. His life to him is just as important as any law enforcement person�s is to them.

As far as that goes, do loud mouth entertainers who spout all kinds of crap without facts and lacking any semblance of reason concerning arms have any need for armed protection far beyond that of any other citizen? Aren�t these idiots really just trading tit for tat?

Why should IRS personnel be armed? My gosh, any controversy is just over whether a citizen who can read the laws has to succumb to fraudulent liability or if he thinks he has to pay, that he might not have sent in enough. There isn�t any threat to the agents who investigate. But, somehow, it seems to take 20 or more armed agents acting in the manner of terrorists to check papers and the like, searches and seizures that are unconstitutional and illegal to begin with. Disarm these people who should be nothing more than accountants or reviewers of the laws as written.

And, for safety�s sake, make them announce their arrival so that citizens can properly protect their property with court orders against seizure and the like. Forewarning especially includes a situation in which the IRS is armed. Citizens facing an armed confrontation should be given time to get the services of the armed forces or a local militia to protect them against the armed invasion by the foreign power known as the IRS.

How often have you heard or read, �If it saves just one life, it will be worth it.� Well, Folks, if we disarm the IRS, the DEA, the FBI, and other enforcement agencies, including the NSA, and then legalize drug use as it should be, the only purpose of the IRS, the DEA and others will be to assure the proper excise tax is placed on imported drugs. No need for being armed then, is there? And the writer can assure more than just one life will be saved.

You see, any person who is not surrounded by a protective force is vulnerable at some time to being apprehended without any danger of harm to those doing the apprehending (other than maybe a few bruises and a black eye). There is absolutely no reason for a raid in which the probability of an injury and harm to innocents increases tremendously.

As for drugs being flushed down the toilet, who cares � as long as that one life is saved, especially if that life is one of a law-abiding citizen. Besides, if the Constitution were obeyed, the need for a drug raid has been erased.

And, never, ever, is there a need for the IRS or FBI to conduct a raid. There actually is never a reason for any raid by local law enforcement either. It is the most potentially hazardous means of apprehending a potential suspect there is. And, sadly, which the records show, raids are not effective in reducing crime.

Or if there is a minor effect, isn�t it offset by the number of injuries to or lives of innocents taken by overzealous, ready-to-beat-or-shoot law enforcement people. They have even been known to blast away at their own. If that poor with firearms, isn�t it even more reason to disarm them before they kill others who have not committed any crime worthy of the death penalty?

Once off-duty, if firearms in the hands of citizens are so dangerous, all law enforcement should be required to turn in their firearms until their next shift. Afterall, once off duty, a law enforcement officer is just a citizen who should rely on the same defense as his neighbors, which, according to anti-gun people, can be done with a telephone and his own physical prowess.

But, of course, law enforcement considers their lives important. Well, the writer�s is, too, so the writer should have the same rights of being armed as they do. The writer does have the right according to the Constitution - but not to politicians surrounded by armed guards. And the writer dares to say he has had far more experience with firearms than many in law enforcement.

Understandably, the military should be armed but only in defense of the people of this nation. It should not be armed in order to conduct raids on the people of this nation, or to ultimately enforce firearms confiscation. In fact, if there isn�t an immediate threat of invasion by another nation, this country is not supposed to have a standing army but only the militia (the people fully armed and bearing arms at all times) and the Navy to protect its shores. Only if the threat of invasion is imminent or underway is an army to be activated. But, that is by the Constitution.

What the writer is trying to convey is this. If it is important for defense of lives that law enforcement be armed because of threats from the criminal element, isn�t it just as important that all citizens be armed because of the same criminal element? Afterall, who are the majority harmed, injured or killed by criminals � regular citizens who are victimized or law enforcement people?

And, lastly, any law applied to the citizenry, the sovereign, should be applied equally to each and every government official. This includes all forms of electronic surveillance, reading of private papers, bank accounts and all entries and withdrawals, what money is spent for and where it is spent, multiple addresses (and the reason for so many), medical records, Internet sites surfed, email content, and all other tracking systems of citizens by government. ALL files and items in the past held as private by government and its officials should be open to the public.

After all, if they in government haven�t done anything wrong, why should they worry about their privacy and other rights being violated? And, as for the government as an entity, it hasn�t any rights to violate or authority to hide any action from the sovereign.

In all fairness, since they snoop on all facets of our lives, shouldn't we equally have the ability and means to snoop on theirs? How else are we do know what they are doing? Or, is it okay for them to have privacy while we have none?

Think about it.