A court can ban you from saying or writing certain things, take your property, take your liberty, ban you from owning firearms, and many other things. In the most extreme cases it can order your execution.
Of course we have a constitution and the Bill of Rights which limits the causes that the government can use to bring someone to trial, and limits the actions of the Courts.
If the government wants to prevent certain people from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights then they need to use the same process that the government would have to follow to abridge their other rights. Namely get the approval of a Court, and guarantee the defendant all the rights every other defendant has.
We're already got a system in place for that. If the government wants to prevent someone from owning a firearm they need to create a law which justifies that loss of rights, and then indict and convict those people that the government wants to take their rights from.
Of course that law needs to pass constitutional tests, and it certainly can't be based on some secret list. At trial the government would need to show all the elements necessary for a removal of a fundamental right.
Any other scheme is unconstitutional and should be rejected.
Very good points, but what would be an example of such a law?
Radical Islam is responsible for ‘incubating and hatching’ Islamic terrorists, yet they are untouchable unless it can be shown directly they gave orders in a crime.
Radical Islamicists are like viral pathogens that hide out in healthy cells making them impossible to eliminate without damaging the health of the host. Our Constitution does now allow for damaging healthy segments of society unless Martial Law is imposed and rights are suspended. Radical Islam knows this and they know it leads to a decline in the influence of the West, which is their goal.
Perhaps a RICO type of law can be crafted that will take down the hierarchy of Radical Islam and at the same time pass Constitutional reviews.
As for cultural transformation and pacification of Muslims, it has been shown to be possible in history. Mustafa Ataturk succeeded in the first half of the 20th Century in imposing a secular society among a Muslim population making the radical parts of the doctrine of Islam become an internal battle within one’s ‘soul’, so that for example notions of killing the ‘infidels’ were to be interpreted as killing the infidel inside one’s own personal spirit and never to be directed outward. To implement such a transformation, Ataturk had to be a brutal dictator, but he was successful.
To adapt an Ataturk type policy under the US Constitution, first a RICO-like statute crafted to take down Radical Islam could be followed by a mandated reform of Muslim communities, under a basis that their religious sects have histories of organized violence. Such a mandate could be crafted after the 1965 Voting Rights Act with one major difference, that there would be provisions for the States in addition to the federal government to retain the right to execute the reform mandate themselves to assure the safety and security of all their communities. Because we have clearly seen how the Left or the GOP Establishment will intentionally and deliberately fail to enforce laws they don’t like, thus leaving states without recourse. This may require a Constitutional Amendment that gives states the power to check the federal government by convening a 30-state majority to quash any law, ruling, policy of the federal government by voiding and repealing specific federal statutes or provisions therein. Such an amendment could respect the supremacy of laws of Congress by stating that a failure to quash indicates supremacy and to draw a clear distinction that such an amendment, when exercised allows for Congress to rewrite its laws in agreement with 41% (21 states) of state legislatures.