- Thread Author
- #1
Gulo Blue
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2013
- Messages
- 13,502
There are slippery slope arguments behind most gun control laws that could keep guns out of the hands of terrorists. An extreme example would be "what if the government put everyone on the list and took away everyone's gun?" But what if you put a cap on it? What if the government could take away gun rights of suspected probable terrorists, but the suspected potential terrorist had a cap of 0.1% of the population. And if you try to get a gun and find you are on the list, there should be a legal procedure for trying to get off of it. We might give it a different name, I don't know.
And the idea could go beyond gun restriction. If you're not on the list, you can't have your phone calls monitored either. All these rights we've surrendered or are talking about surrendering should have some kind of hard cap, because we know they interpret rules over broadly if there's any wiggle room.
I don't love this idea, it's just a different approach I'm thinking about. It wouldn't replace the argument over what rights the government can go after in the name of security, but a limit you could place on them.
And the idea could go beyond gun restriction. If you're not on the list, you can't have your phone calls monitored either. All these rights we've surrendered or are talking about surrendering should have some kind of hard cap, because we know they interpret rules over broadly if there's any wiggle room.
I don't love this idea, it's just a different approach I'm thinking about. It wouldn't replace the argument over what rights the government can go after in the name of security, but a limit you could place on them.