There’s talk these days about stripping away particular rights of American citizens, all in the name of “safety” and “saving lives” or what have you.
It’s curious tho why only one particular right is discussed as worthy of stripping away.
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.
Indeed. The Founding Fathers never envisioned “assault rifles”, nor did they envision the Internet – or Pokémon Go (and the intensive technology that enables it). And if the Internet can be used as a gateway for pedophiles, to enable child pornography, sex trafficking, terrorist plotting, and all manner of other atrocities well… why aren’t those rights being stripped?
Why just this particular one? Why is this particular one acceptable?
If some person is so potentially dangerous, why aren’t we locking them up? Why aren’t we just executing them on the spot?
I know I’m going to an extreme, but it’s the direction this thinking points towards.
Tell me folks… where does it end?
When it is enough?
And why isn’t it already too much?
Stuff From Hsoi 
It’s not acceptable. The notion of no-fly, no-buy flies directly in the face of Due Process.
These fools pushing this are the same crowd that will happily take away many of your rights just because an issue makes them “feel” good.
The short answer is these grabbers cannot ever get a wholesale revocation of our gun rights. So they do what they always do. Chip away at the periphery. Demand compromise. Say this is “common sense” and other BS slogans that might sound reasonable to the gullible and the sheeple.
I found it interesting how Rep. Charlie Rangel — who made it clear that we plebes shouldn’t have guns, but he’s different and deserves armed protection around the clock — is all to happy to do away with due process when it serves his ends. But then when he gets found guilty of 11 ethics violations, rants about being deprived of due process.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/22/rangel-no-guns-for-americans-but-i-need-police-protection-audio/
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/129407-house-ethics-panel-convicts-rangel-on-multiple-counts
For me, not thee.
It goes back to a posting a made a couplel weeks ago about 10 questions:
https://blog.hsoi.com/2016/07/06/10-questions-that-need-to-always-be-asked/
So due process is important — but I guess, only important when you’re on the receiving end of it? Granted it is, and as such we need to leave it in place, even when it may benefit our enemies for if we eliminate it, some day we’re going to wish we (still) had it. We have to consider what we truly value most and strive to uphold that (even if sometimes it may be distasteful).
Or Leland Yee from California. Vocal anti gunner. Doing Federal time for… wait for it… dealing in weapons trafficking.
Voice = Yoda. “The dissonance is strong in this one!”
The more I look at this sort of thing the conclusion I draw is that of Lord Acton’s quote. “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
It’s never been about what is good for the people. It’s about power and the means to get, keep and increase that power.
That it is. That it is.