June 23, 2016
By GOAL Executive Director Jim Wallace
Just two weeks following the most brutal terrorist attack since 9/11, our nation has spiraled into a shameless debate on reducing our civil rights. We citizens are quickly recognizing a pattern for how our national “leaders” deal with terrorist attacks on U.S. soil – deny and redirect.
When America woke up to the horrible news that we had been attacked at an Orlando night club and that many innocent people had lost their lives, lawful gun owners were already being set up to take the blame. Before the victims’ families were officially notified, the narrative from many politicians and media outlets was about guns.
During the media blitz to follow, we have witnessed thousands of lawful citizens battle for the truth. Whether it was social media arguments over the type of gun actually used, twitter fights over the fact that the terrorist was able to pass background checks, or emails clearly outlining how he was checked out and released by the FBI several times, one thing is terribly clear. The facts do not matter once the civil rights shredding machine gains momentum.
With the latest embarrassing antics of our congressional “leaders”, it appears that the deny and redirect tactics have successfully narrowed the focus to the “no-fly” and terror watch list being used to deny Second Amendment and other civil rights. For nearly ten years, we have been asking anyone who would listen how these lists operate. To date we have never received any direct answers. How does one get put on these lists? Who makes those decisions? What is the due process system? How do you get off these lists if you are innocent? Are you notified immediately upon being considered for placement? The questions could continue until we fill this page…
Lets say, for the sake of argument that we as a nation go down this path and somehow come up with a system with due process that protects our civil liberties. We identify a fair and just system that identifies people as being a true terrorist threat – then what? The media and certain members of congress, who act like spoiled children rather than national leaders, only want to focus on restrictions on the Second Amendment. The serious question that no one in possession of a microphone wants to address is, why are we stopping there?
Seriously, if we can actually establish a path to a terrorist list that passes the civil liberties test, would we not want to greatly expand on what a proven terrorist can and can’t do? Here are a few things we should be asking the same leaders that want to go down this road:
- Should a terrorist be allowed to vote?
- Should a terrorist have the right to assemble?
- Should a terrorist be allowed to obtain a driver’s license?
- Should a terrorist be immediately deported if he/she is not a United States citizen?
- Should a terrorist be eligible for any subsidies, welfare, retirement, health benefits, or any other type of benefit from any level of government within the United States?
- Should a terrorist be eligible for employment by any government entity or agency at any level of government within the United States?
- Should a terrorist be eligible for employment by any corporation, company, organization or other entity that does business with or accepts any funding or subsidies from any level of government within the United States?
- Should a terrorist be eligible for employment by any corporation, company, organization or other entity where contact with minors may be possible?
This list could probably be 100 pages long, but the point is that if we are going to seriously consider going down this road, then all of these restrictions must be included or none of them should. Either people on these lists are a threat or they are not. The weakness in the armor of the “No Fly – No Buy” cheerleaders is that they would most likely never vote to prohibit a person on one of the terror watch lists from voting!
Would a bill that included no fly – no buy – no vote – no drive – no welfare – no job ever be supported by the same people whose real agenda is to cut the throat of the Second Amendment?
Chances are – not in a million years.