2nd amendment vs. 4th amendment. Why is one more important than the other ? once there is a precedent to bypass the 4th ? I just think it is something to think about. I get it that it is not a perfect analogy.
Most people aren't going to just come out and say that they think one amendment is more important than another. They will just interpret each amendment to be compatible with their beliefs. Someone who proposes stricter gun control will interpret the 2nd amendment as a reference only to militias, or they might argue that there is a gun death epidemic in the US that is worth a "small" violation of the 2nd amendment. Similarly, someone who approves of the government's ability to decrypt a phone might argue that the threat of terrorist is worth a "small" violation of the 4th amendment.
Yeah, I agree. I was only criticizing the analogy (which I fumbled), because privacy itself is a very complex topic without involving it with gun rights.
I personally do not hold this opinion, but many gun owners see gun ownership as an inalienable right and any attempt to limit or take it away as a violation of privacy and overreaching by the government.
I agree. To me the relationship is government over reach. I think it is too much to ask Apple to write a back door into their product. I can see getting a warrant to look at phone records etc. I am a gun owner but not fanatical, I am ok with some reasonable controls. The key in both cases, 2nd and 4th amendment restrictions is reasonableness. But that is always in the eye of the beholder, hence the controversy.