This is actually a scary thing that some people could go along with this. But this is what Democrats tried to push and lost in the Senate. Now they are cynically claiming Republicans want terrorists to be able to buy guns.

Yes, we all have reason to be fearful of terrorists. And that’s why we should look carefully at anyone who may have terror ties before we let them into the country or at what they are doing when they are already here.

But here’s where I’m actually with the ACLU who has questions about this list and the fuzzy nature of how one gets on it. Imagine if all you needed to remove someone’s rights was to put their name on a list? Not only no conviction, not even charges, and people like Hillary Clinton would take your rights away. Indeed as the ACLU notes, what actually will get you on the list is kind of sketchy. Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard was somehow put on the list. Apart from writing for Bill Kristol, what has he ever done? And once on that list, which has no due process about it, how do you get off of it? Hayes was able to get off of it because of people he knew. But not everyone has that luxury.

As Charles Cooke of the National Review notes, there are 1 million names on this list, 300,000 of which have no link to any terror groups at all. So what is that about? Maybe instead of having a huge unmanageable list that would dragnet people like Stephen Hayes, how about a smaller focused effort that actually catches people like Tashfeen Malik because of her findable connections to a radical Pakistan mosque and lying on her application for a K1 visa about her address?

Let’s flip the script for a moment and I’ll talk to liberals who might be reading this with their world view. Imagine your view of Donald Trump. Suppose he were President and directed that your name be put on the list because you were an illegal alien. Would this be a problem for you?

Here’s the thing that really shows that this is a game on the part of Democrats. The FBI is already informed if you are on the list and you attempt to buy guns. So the people who should be looking at the question, the FBI, are already looking at it.

Charles Cooke again:

If there’s not enough evidence to put out a warrant for somebody’s arrest, there’s not enough evidence to take away his unalienable rights. Simply put, the question of whether the government has “good cause,” as Jonah [Goldberg] puts it, simply cannot be decided by the government. It has to be decided by an impartial body. That’s why we have courts. I’d like to hold onto them, if possible. Ultimately, this is a cynical ploy — an attempt for Democrats who are seen as soft on both terror and guns to score political points in the wake of an attack. In my view, it should be treated as such.

Tweet
Share39
39 Shares