The Washington Post seems to believe so:
Although some blame the NRA members for the possible failure (this is my shocked face). Then again, maybe it is probably because it does not solve the problem she was claiming to fix?
Or perhaps it is because is such an overreach of our rights that even some Liberal publications are warning about it?
If the government can revoke your right to access firearms simply because it has decided to place you on a secret, notoriously inaccurate list, it could presumably restrict your other rights in a similar manner. You could be forbidden from advocating for causes you believe in, or associating with like-minded activists; your right against intrusive, unreasonable searches could be suspended. And you would have no recourse: The government could simply declare that, as a name on a covert list, you are owed no due process at all.
Source: Hillary Clinton is wrong about the terror watch list – Slate.
When Reid and his accomplices argue that nobody on the “terror watch list” should be permitted to buy a gun, they are saying in effect that the government should have the power to deprive you of your enumerated constitutional rights purely by entering your name into a database. This is unacceptable. Even if the “terror watch list” were transparent and well-regulated, there would be serious philosophical problems with such an arrangement. But for the government to propose using a system that is as opaque, as messy, and as downright bloated as is this one . . . frankly, it beggars belief.
Source: Guns and the no-fly list: Whatever happened to due process? – LA Times
We shouldn’t revoke ANY constitutional right based on “predictive judgments” of the government—that includes the Second Amendment. What’s at stake here isn’t just national security; it’s the bedrock of our liberty. If we’re going to treat American citizens like criminals before they’re even charged with a crime, we’ve stepped into dangerous territory. We’ll continue to debate gun issues, but we must not throw out constitutional safeguards in the name of election year political expediency.
Source: The ACLU rightly rejects the No Fly List for gun control | AL.com
And I would add another warning of my own to our Liberal/Progressive Brethren:
Do you really want to give that much power to the Executive Branch? You do? What if Donald Trump becomes president? Are you comfortable with that?
That should do it.
Every senator that votes for either of these “measures” should be impeached for violating their oath of office:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
“What if Donald Trump becomes president?” And he will.
Even Hillary’s ads start with “Imagine Donald Trump as president,” forcing their viewers to actively visualize it, and when you start visualizing something, you get that much closer to actually making it happen.
Hillary is running a better pro-Trump campaign than Trump himself is.
This is the perfect example of why I am of the “yield no ground” camp when it comes to any restrictive laws. When the “no fly” list was first enacted, the media rightly called into question the Constitutionality of that government program; but now that it can be held up as reasoning to support their views on firearms, it’s totally okay to revoke rights by bureaucratic dictate.
The proper counter to this crazy line of thinking is “Why aren’t we condemning the use of the no fly list anymore?”
See if they can answer that question without defection or letting their authoritarian masks drop to the ground.