Here is an article I wrote about civil rights and crime.

http://guncontroldebate.quora.com/Th...angbanger-Of-c

The 2nd Amendment certainly inhibits the power of the state to protect us from the street thug and the gangbanger.

Of course, what we should all remember is that the 2nd Amendment is not alone in this.

Other constitutional provisions place limits on the state to keep us safe from the street thug and the gangbanger.

Consider the 4th Amendment. It restricts the ability of the police to find evidence of criminal wrongdoing. This means the street thug and the gangbanger may get away with their crimes, which enables murder. Not only that, the 4th Amendment is unique to the United States of America. Surely the police in Paris, Lagos, or Singapore do not worry about the 4th Amendment, probable cause, or the exclusionary rule. They just look for evidence.

Why not follow the example of other countries?

Or what about the 5th or 6th Amendments?

How many more street thugs and gangbangers could we catch if we could make them testify against themselves? Or why even bother with trials? Why not trust the police to judge who is and is not guilty? How much more difficult would it be to commit murder- let alone get away with murder- if we let the police judge whether or not a street thug or gangbanger is guilty?

Or what about the 14th amendment? What if there were certain racial demographics in the U.S. that commit murder at a significantly higher rate than the general population? Why should not the police focus on those demographics? Why should not lawmakers place extra restrictions on the liberties of people in those crime-prone demographics. Would it not be worth it if it prevented one murder?

Why do we need civil rights at all, given how they tie the hands of the state?