The No Fly List And The 2nd Amendment: What Part Of Unconstitutional Do Liberals Not Understand?

Liberals, who are always looking for any reason to grab people’s guns, have come up with a new idea. Here’s Gail Collins at the New York Times making the pitch:

There seems to be a strong sentiment in Congress that the only constitutional right suspected terrorists have is the right to bear arms.

“I think you’re going too far here,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday. He was speaking in opposition to a bill that would keep people on the F.B.I. terrorist watch list from buying guns and explosives.

Say what?

Yes, if you are on the terrorist watch list, the authorities can keep you from getting on a plane but not from purchasing an AK-47. This makes sense to Congress because, as Graham accurately pointed out, “when the founders sat down and wrote the Constitution, they didn’t consider flying.”

In other words, what Gail Collins and other liberals want to do is arbitrarily strip people of their constitutional rights based on the government’s decision to put their name on a list. That standard may work for keeping people off of:  a:  plane — but of course, flying isn’t a constitutional right.

Liberals tend to think this is fine because,

1) They’re in charge.
2) They don’t like guns.
3) They don’t care about the Constitution.

But, if the government can simply create a list, put a name on it, and that person loses: :  his:  : constitutional rights, : then the Constitution is utterly meaningless. Honestly, this isn’t something that should have to be explained to intelligent people. After all, what part of unconstitutional do they not understand?

PS: If liberals were somehow allowed to get away with this nonsense, you could count on it being done over and over again in the future under every pretense imaginable.

PS #2: Here’s an idea: What if this concept were applied to people’s First Amendment rights? After all, if being on the no-fly list makes you too dangerous to fly on a plane, then by that same standard, doesn’t it make just as much sense to curtail your right to free speech to keep you from spreading propaganda for the enemy?

This is something people like Gail Collins or Keith Olbermann would never go for because it curtails a constitutional right that they like and use. They might be able to imagine themselves accidentally put on a no fly list and losing the right to use a gun. But, they don’t own guns, so what do they care? But, what if they were to lose their right to speak out? That could impact them, so they wouldn’t support it. But, from a constitutional standpoint, there’s absolutely no difference between curtailing someone’s First Amendment rights to speech and curtailing their 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!