GOP on Suspected terrorists: They have no rights, EXCEPT to bear arms

It worked this time.

 

It certainly makes it a lot harder, particularly when they are traveling across the country.

 

I think that stems from your opinion of guns rather than your opinion on the constitutionality of banning people who have not been charged with crimes from their right to bear arms. The two should be separate issues.

Personally, I'm not a gun person. But I recognize that some people love them have the right to buy them, under some restrictions. I don't see any reason why people who have not been charged with a crime should be unable to buy them, if they wish.

And for the record, I also think that anyone accused of a crime, including alleged terrorist, should be given due process of the law. Due process should be given to anyone accused of a crime, not just people accused of less heinous crimes.

So I think the Republicans screwed up with the first decision to not give due process to people accused of terrorism. And I think they got it right this time -- people who have not been charged with any crimes should not be singled out and have their constitutional rights restricted. There have been severely restrictions to the 2nd amendment, but they applied to all people equally (unless charged with a crime). It doesn't make sense to start having special restrictions for people who have not been charged with any wrongdoing.

 

You can have a mile long history of mental illness if you are deemed OK in the present.

 

I would suggest that you are mistaken. I own three guns and enjoy shooting at the range. I am certainly not anti-gun.

 

Please, someone explain the difference between a terrorist and a mass murder to me. I really don't get it.

If a mass murderer has rights, shouldn't a terrorist too?