Posted on 07/03/2016 4:19:58 AM PDT by UpStateNY
I’ve heard a lot lately about restricting those on the “terror watch list” or “no-fly list” from purchasing a firearm. I get the appeal, because no logical person wants to enable a bad person to do bad things. But if we’re going to restrict the Second Amendment for these people without due process, why stop at just one amendment if it means saving lives? Should people on a terror watch list be allowed to attend a suspected radicalized house of worship? Why allow them to congregate at all? Why is a person suspected of planning terror allowed to have a Facebook or Twitter account to spew hate and network with other terrorists? If the pen is mightier than the sword, shouldn’t we go after Tweets instead of guns? “Like” or “share” if you agree. We should also allow the FBI to have unfettered access to their emails and tap their phones so we can ensure they aren’t planning the next massacre. Being on this secret list is reason enough; it shouldn’t require the lengthy process of obtaining a warrant from an obtuse judge. I say quarter a cop in their homes for extra security. And wouldn’t it be prudent to simply detain them until it’s determined whether or not they’re a legitimate threat? Our public safety demands suspension of habeas corpus for these blacklisted individuals. And since terror networks are often flush with cash, we can’t risk setting a low bail while they wait for their military tribunal. With the November elections approaching, why are people on these lists allowed to vote? If you can’t get on an airplane, you shouldn’t be voting for our next president. I know the shooters of Fort Hood, Chattanooga, Charleston, San Bernardino and Orlando weren’t on the terror watch list, but I would sleep...
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
Bump.
And why are Democrats like McAuliffe pushing to restore rights to proven dangers to society (felons)?
If you are on the list what the hell are you doing living next door?
If they can be stripped away, they are no longer rights.
“And why are Democrats like McAuliffe pushing to restore rights to proven dangers to society (felons)?”
Because when elections in some districts are decided by a few dozen votes he just got an extra 260,000 votes.
Obviously this writer does not appreciate the rights of Americans. Allow rights to be taken from a small class and soon the government will withdraw them from everyone. Big government, aka “Big Brother”, is never the answer!
No, they never were really rights, just a convenience to the .gov to let you think you had rights. When it becomes inconvenient...POOF...goodbye
“Rights”
Put on your sarcasm detector hat and read it again.
Ooooh. If a person exploited this they could have an entire clothing line with a nice emblem marking these people as nonpeople instead of some silly sewn on patch!/s
Writer is making a rhetorical argument.
Consult logicallyfallacious.com
Excellent point!
Thank you. You just made the whole point of the argument.
Why bother with watch lists why not just have the secret police come drag us away to the memory hole.
The writer, and the illustrator leave plenty of clues that his letter is actually against the removal of any rights without due cause. But he didn't feel the need for a /sarc tag given the picture showing the constitution with everything covered in black marker.
Allow rights to be taken from a small class and soon the government will withdraw them from everyone.
Read
No, we always have rights no matter who refuses to recognize them. It’s always been up to us to assert them.
The author doesn’t get there in the excerpt, but the trip down the road of secret no-fly lists ends at the concentration camp. If individuals are so dangerous they have to be proscribed from public transport, etc. — why should they be “allowed” to remain loose?
(That is an observation, not advocacy.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.