Many gun owners are hidden criminals.

[DanTex]

A "hidden criminal" is a term used to describe a person who should not be allowed to own a gun, but is allowed to because they are able to pass a background check. For example, an abusive husband who has never been convicted of any crime and also doesn't have a restraining order against him, perhaps because his victim is too fearful to report the abuse.

The point, of course, is that the background check system does not in fact weed out all the "bad guys". In fact, the whole "good guys versus bad guys" worldview that makes up the basis of many NRA talking points is silly.

But y'all knew that. The question I have is, why would an OP making these points get locked?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117283946

[darkangel218]

1. -1

So are the NON gun owners, who could pick up a knife or a baseball bath and do the same damage.

Gah..

[geckosfeet]

2. The "bad guys" are not in the system. The "bad guys" obtain weapons from many sources.

Some of their sources are unknowing legitimate "good guys". Some are not. And there is a wide spectrum in between.

The fact that an abusive bully has not had a restraining order taken out on them is not the fault of the system. If you are abused go to the police. Go to the courts. Do something about it. If you don't you are risking more lives than your own.

[hack89]

3. As soon as you can quantify "many" then we can talk

until then it is merely another attempt to blur the line between legal and illegal gun owners so you can smear all gun owners in support of an anti-gun agenda.

How many is "many"?

[darkangel218]

4. Isnt it Meta where you go and complain about locked threads?

You just wanted to repost the whole thing again and start the same discussion.

....

Good luck

[DanTex]

5. I figured I'd keep it "in the family".

I get that you disagree with the OP, but do you really think it should be locked?

[darkangel218]

9. Im not the host of this group, i trust they know what theyre doing.

[glacierbay]

10. Yes it should be

your whole purpose here is to start shit, you're still whining about Hoyt being banned and this is your way of getting even.

Shadowrider, do us a favor and lock this obvious flamebait.

[Union Scribe]

73. I think they're tired of him, lol. nt

[glacierbay]

6. We all know why you're starting this thread

Hey shadowrider, do us a favor and lock this obvious flamebait, that's the only reason he started this.

[DanTex]

7. It's "you're".

I hope it doesn't get locked. It is a legitimate topic for the gungeon, I don't see any grounds for locking.

[glacierbay]

11. No it's not

it's your, look at the context it was used in. I certainly don't need a grammar lesson from you.

[DanTex]

12. LOL. Priceless! Definitely gonna bookmark this one!

Just in case you decide to go back and edit:

glacierbay (1,594 posts)
6. We all know why your starting this thread

DanTex (2,541 posts)
7. It's "you're".

glacierbay
11. No it's not

it's your, look at the context it was used in. I certainly don't need a grammer lesson from you.

[glacierbay]

15. My mistake

I thought you were referencing post 10.
already edited.

[DanTex]

18. LOL. So you thought my post #7 was referencing your post #10?

This keeps getting better.

[glacierbay]

23. Look right above post 6 genius.

It was an honest mistake, get over it.

[DanTex]

25. LOL. Look at your post #11 -- you spelled it "your" again.

Not sure why you keep digging here...

[Warren Stupidity]

27. Because the rules of engagement require no admission of error.

[glacierbay]

30. Ohhhhhhhhhhh

look, another one joins the thread.
Any GRAMMAR lessons you want to give?

[glacierbay]

29. I purposely left it like that so you would have

something to complain about. It obviously worked.
Any more spelling lessons you want to give?

[DanTex]

31. Ah, the good ol' "I did it on purpose"!!!

[glacierbay]

36. Yep. nt.

[darkangel218]

17. Is this the kick you were looking for this morning?

Happy now?

I'm glad we could help.

[DanTex]

13. PS. It's "grammar".

[glacierbay]

16. Wow

Now YOU'RE the GRAMMAR police.

[DanTex]

19. You gotta admit, "I certainly don't need a grammer lesson from you" is pretty funny...

[glacierbay]

24. Let me guess

You've never made a mistake, right?
Do me a favor? Don't do me any favors.

[rrneck]

61. Host cant lock it if it's on topic. nt

Last edited Sat Nov 3, 2012, 09:47 PM - Edit history (1)

[Clames]

8. Well before this one gets locked too...

...because reading the SOP is a little too much to ask for of some people, I'll simply state that there is a reason due process exists and ignorant, irrational fear is not sufficient to trump it.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. There is no way the original post (not this op) was not in the sop.

It was a ridiculous lock. The first rule of hosting is "do not lock any posts". The host violates that rule only because it is unquestionably clear to all participants in the forum that the post is inappropriate.

Meanwhile a well known exploitive gun nut, abusing du to push his ridiculous legal case, has his op untouched by hosting hands. Why would anyone think there is bias here?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

40. well, well--look who makes the rare appearence to GC&RKBA

Welcome, Mr.Stupidity.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. You all have nothing but personal attacks.

Discuss the issue. Either one. Keep the personal bullshit out of it.

[darkangel218]

46. How did he attack you? He even called you Mr :)

[Warren Stupidity]

48. He?

[darkangel218]

50. She then?

Point is, there was no personal attack.

[DanTex]

20. It shouldn't have been locked. He expresses his opinion, you express yours.

What's with all the locking? There's a jury system to deal with over-the-top posts and insults and bigotry and that sort of thing.

[Clames]

35. It got locked for good reason(s).

The thread served absolutely no purpose than to be another opportunity to deride gun owners under one of the more spurious and uncivil themes the anti-gun crowd has come up with. This one serves even less purpose. It's hilarious you support a thread created by a so called "hidden criminal" (I guess the irony of someone who has admitted to owning firearms illegally calling out criminals that don't exist is lost on you) but I know it helps to be morally flexible as an anti-gunner.

[DanTex]

42. The gungeon is not a safe haven for pro-gun people.

Despite the fact that many pro-gun people really would like to turn the gungeon into THR (or FR), in fact liberal and pro-gun-control opinions are allowed here also. We have a jury system to deal with incivility.

[Clames]

52. It's not a safe haven for wannabe troll hunters...

...and those who can't make a thread without overstepping the bounds of civility. Hidden criminals....what a crock.

[glacierbay]

21. I expect that's what he's gonna do

That's his M.O. after all.

[darkangel218]

22. LMAO!!!!

[texasmomof3]

26. it's the indian not the arrows

A gun, knife, rope, bat, pillow, wrench or any thing else has never ever committed murder by itself. By the way, what do you do about kitchen knives or box cutters or scissors? All possible weapons. I have a lamp too that might work. I would think anyone "unsafe" to own a gun probably needs all of these other things taken out of their homes as well. Who decides and on what scale who is safe and unsafe? Who determines "bad guy" behavior. There are some people that feel that spanking children is abuse. If I spank my children should I be restricted from owning anything that could be a weapon because those who determine such things are against spanking? Because my family enjoys hunting that is seen by some as anger or abuse of animals therefore I might be a hidden criminal? Better yet, what if I enjoy target practice or shooting clay as a sport. Does that make me more likely to hurt someone with a gun because I love hitting the target and find it relaxing? Maybe the fact that I have 3 cups of coffee every morning and am "jacked up on caffeine" makes me unstable. Seriously who determines the "bad guy" behavior and based on what?

Maybe let's even go for people who drink because alcohol makes you very unstable and can bring out anger that might be simmering under the surface. Lot's of crimes are committed when alcohol is present. How do you want to determine that one? Should every body only be allowed 1 drink a night particularly in their own homes because that is where many crimes with guns occur? There are lots of bar fights too so let's limit that as well. How do you want to enforce that? Cameras maybe or a breath test before you go to bed every night? Maybe surprise door to door visits by the "hidden criminal" task force would help monitor potentially dangerous situations. Aww, hell lets just go ahead and be watched 24/7 for any and all behavior that could lead to any kind of harm. The catch is YOU have to do it too. I know, I know you consider yourself a good guy but in fairness to all of your fellow citizens and so as not to appear racist everyone needs to be monitored equally. We don't want any profiling based on gender, education, economics, race, sexual orientation now do we?

I think the idea of labeling "hidden criminals" is a dangerous one. The presumption of guilt or future guilt goes against everything our justice system stands for. This is the real issue with your line of thinking, the presumption of future guilt. You are basically convicting people before they do anything. Would putting them on a watch list make you feel better? What do you want to base that on? Who and how will you enforce it? Would "hidden criminals" be turned away at Home Depot when they try to buy a shovel for yard work? How do you know that everything in your life is considered good and not dangerous in any way by whoever makes these decisions? You are foolish to think that given the ability to restrict people based on possible future crimes won't bite you right in the ass one day too! Welcome to the soviet union, comrade.

[glacierbay]

34. Outstanding post!!!!!!!!!

That's what is never understood by those that would wish to severly restrict or ban firearms.
Welcome to DU and the gungeon.

[DanTex]

37. The Soviet Union? LOL. You're going to fit right in with the extremists in here!

How about, say, Canada?

The point is not that we should be profiling future criminals. The point is that the background check system alone does not do an adequate job of keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

It is true that you can commit murder with a rope or a pillow, but obviously, it is much easier to do with a gun. Which is way, as demonstrated by every other developed nation except for the US, when you restrict access to guns, you end up with less homicides.

[texasmomof3]

49. Google Switzerland and gun laws

Every adult male is required to own a gun yet they have the lowest gun crime rate in the world. I think Switzerland is considered a developed nation.

[DanTex]

54. Switzerland does not have the lowest gun crime rate in the world.

Also, every adult male in Switzerland is not required to own a gun.

So that's two false statements. Off to a good start! I think you are going to get along just fine with the NRA bots in here!

[Clames]

51. And the answer is?

NICS will never be absolutely foolproof no matter how comprehensive the database is. So all that's left is a big "so what" with this thread. What are you doing besides whining and harassing gun owners? Is the Brady Campaign or the VPC getting a check from you this year?

[Clames]

38. Posts like this should be rec'd on their own.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

44. Welcome!

We don't ask for your papers here but there are some who would like to.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. The real point...

...is that "control" is a myth. People will do what people are going to do.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

33. Minority Report At Your Service. Locking.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

41. The Precogs are never wrong. But, occasionally... they do disagree. n/t

[krispos42]

39. I assume it was locked because...

...it wasn't discussing gun-control laws, or the 2nd amendment, armed self-defense, or use f firearms to commit crimes and violence.

While mike is certainly correct that some gun owners are "hidden criminals", #5 is simply ageist, and #2 and #3 apply to, well, everybody. I'm sure we can throw in something about immigration status if one was so inclined.


There is no proposal to change the laws or pass new ones in his post, and the very nature of his topic means that there's nothing really to be done about it.


If you've never been arrested for a crime, then you'll pass a background check. Making the laws stricter will not change somebody's record if they're never arrested for breaking that law in the first place.

[DanTex]

45. You're kidding. You are actually supporting the locking?

The post clearly had to do with gun-control laws (their inadequacy), and the use of firearms to commit crimes and violence (by people who didn't have any previous offenses that would prohibit them from owning a gun). Obviously.

Do we really want a system where every OP needs to add a few sentences at the end to explicitly draw the obvious connections with the SOP of the group?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

47. Then I suggest we review all locked OPs because I think I have had several that

would be defined in that manner. Also, apologies should be allowed.

[krispos42]

59. No, it doesn't deal with gun control laws.

It is about people that haven't been arrested for violating any laws because nobody knows they've broken the law. This has nothing to do with the strength or weakness of the body of law or any law in particular, or necessarily even enforcement. I've downloaded $10,000 worth of music and movies illegally. I'm an unknown felon, a "hidden criminal" that police (and the RIAA) are unaware exists. I own guns. I shouldn't... right?

Of course, I generally have to be convicted before I have my right to own a gun formally removed, but whatever.

And the broadness of the brush also paint those that don't commit crimes and violence. If a pothead owns a gun, then he's technically a "hidden criminal". It does not logically follow that he's committing crimes and violence with the gun.

[DanTex]

60. Of course it does.

The point is that the background check system is not sufficient to keep the guns out of the hands of "bad guys". How you can fail to understand that is shocking to me.

You might disagree, and even find the "hidden criminal" thing inaccurate or offensive, but it is certainly not off-topic.

[krispos42]

64. YOUR post does

HIS post doesn't.


HIS is locked. YOURS isn't.


Clear?

[oneshooter]

65. So what law(s) would you propose to allow the background check

to catch these "unknown criminals".

[slackmaster]

74. The Astute Reader(TM) will note that DanTex put this thread up just so he could whine about it...

...in Meta. DanTex never had any intention of carrying on a serious discussion of the issues he raised.

[shadowrider]

55. You would be correct.

...it wasn't discussing gun-control laws, or the 2nd amendment, armed self-defense, or use f firearms to commit crimes and violence.

[rDigital]

53. Just a pile of flamebait in the RKBA group today. What's the deal? nt

[glacierbay]

56. That's exactly what it is. nt.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

57. OH THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS SIMPLE

The gun clutchers who participate AND monitor this board don't want to have a serious discussion about guns. One of their many strategies is to say it's off topic.

Here's what you do.

You always start a thread if you support gun control by stating the Statement of Purpose (SOP) for the board. Here it is (see about the board):

Discuss gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.

THEN, you follow up by starting your thread with

My statement that Many gun owners are hidden comments is about GUNS!

Sounds silly that that's the type of sh$t you have to do to survive on this board.

[shadowrider]

58. Locking

This is an attempt to rehash a locked thread that did not discuss gun-control laws, or the 2nd amendment, armed self-defense, or use f firearms to commit crimes and violence.

[Atypical Liberal]

62. A background check is NEVER GOING TO CATCH EVERYONE.

Look, no background check is going to catch EVERYONE who should not own a gun.

The background check has to be limited enough to be effective without making it unduly difficult for people to buy firearms.

Of course, many anti-gun people want to make it as difficult as possible to own firearms.

Today, this is the federal requirement for who cannot legally receive a firearm:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet

Federal Categories of Persons Prohibited From Receiving

A delay response from the NICS Section indicates the subject of the background check has been matched with either a state or federal potentially prohibiting record containing a similar name and/or similar descriptive features (name, sex, race, date of birth, state of residence, social security number, height, weight, or place of birth). The federally prohibiting criteria are as follows:

A person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or any state offense classified by the state as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years.
Persons who are fugitives of justice—for example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant.
An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.
A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.
A person who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
A person who, being an alien except as provided in subsection (y) (2), has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa.
A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.
A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship.
The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.
A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.
A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

Most, if not all, of these prohibitions involve the due process of law. Moreover, they require that people who have been disqualified be reported and recorded in the database.

It is well known that many states have been lax in their reporting, and I think everyone agrees that that needs to change. If it takes federal tax dollars to enable states to comply, so be it.

I think the NICS does a great job at weeding out ineligible criminals and people who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent - the biggest sources of problem people with firearms. And it's fast - you can usually get NICS approval in a matter of minutes.

Now, if you want to make the background check process more effective, you can certainly go to more extremes. You could require an in-depth, in-person background check, paying an interviewer (with tax dollars) to interview the applicant's friends and family. You could require an in-person psychological evaluation (at taxpayer expense).

This is much the same process as one endures when applying for a Secret or Top Secret clearance. It should be noted that a Secret clearance costs from $700-$3000 to execute, while a Top-Secret clearance costs between $3000 and $15,000. There were nearly 11 million firearm sold in 2011. That could mean a cost of between $7 BILLION and $165 BILLION a year.

And there are some important issues to consider here:

Firstly, what about the inconvenience to all of the people who pass the background check? You'll probably find that the vast majority of people pass with flying colors, which means you just wasted a ton of money for nothing - money that could have been spent on social programs or other crime-prevention techniques. And these people will be delayed by weeks or months while complying with the checks.

Secondly, are you really going to weed out that many more people by very in-depth background checks vs. the relatively simple NICS check? There does come a point of diminishing returns where it starts to cost you a lot more money and effort to screen out fewer and fewer ineligible people.

The single-biggest problem group of people with firearms are criminals. It is well-known from studies of criminology that most people who commit murder, with a firearm or otherwise, almost universally have a long prior criminal history - a history that would prohibit them from buying a gun.

Thus it is likely that if you did nothing more than stop criminals from buying guns you would solve the majority of firearm crime problems.

The problem here is that nearly anyone can buy a gun with no background check. While there are exceptions in a few states, in most places anyone can open up their local classified ads and buy a gun from a private individual.

So the real question is how do you require background checks on private sales?

The way Illinois does this is they require every firearm owner to obtain a Firearm Owner ID license (FOID). When you sell a firearm to a private individual, you are required to make a record of the buyer's FOID information and keep it for 10 years. Failure to do so is a misdemeanor. There is an incentive to keep obey the law because if you sell to a person without a valid FOID that means they probably have a criminal record and are likely to use that firearm in a crime, which may result in it being recovered at a crime scene or from a criminal and being traced back to the last legitimate owner.

I like the Illinois system, except that it creates a firearm registry. The way to negate this is to make the FOID system opt-out rather than opt-in. Simply run a NICS check on every person who applies for a driver's license or state-issued ID, unless they choose to opt out. Because many people will end up getting FOIDs who do not actually own firearms, the state cannot use the list of FOID holders as a list of firearm owners.

Then, require, as Illinois already does, the recording of FOID info for all private sales, with penalties for failing to comply. I would go so far as to have stiffer penalties for sellers for whom their sold firearm ends up being used in a crime if they cannot demonstrate that they recorded the buyer's FOID information or if it can be shown that the criminal had such a lengthy criminal history they could never have bought it legally.

[russ1943]

67. Not exactly

U Posted "The single-biggest problem group of people with firearms are criminals. It is well-known from studies of criminology that most people who commit murder, with a firearm or otherwise, almost universally have a long prior criminal history - a history that would prohibit them from buying a gun".


Felony conviction is different from an arrest, and a “criminal record” is an almost meaningless term.

Among the gun enthusiasts variety of oft repeated mantras is the exceptionally high percentage of murderers who they state have the kind of criminal backgrounds that would prohibit them from legally purchasing or owning firearms.
This board has had posts claiming that murderers have prior felony convictions at rates as high as 90%, but almost always stating a majority of murderers would be prohibited because of their criminal background.
That’s true only if you believe………. Don Kates

I’ve occasionally posted and have received responses to my queries that they primarily are quoting Don Kates from a variety of sources.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html

The guncite site still displays the following;

Excerpted from, Kates, Don B., et. al, Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994):
"Looking only to official criminal records, data over the past thirty years consistently show that the mythology of murderers as ordinary citizens does not hold true. Studies have found that approximately 75% of murderers have adult criminal records, and that murderers average a prior adult criminal career of six years, including four major adult felony arrests. An article by Don Kates in the Firearms, Inc. segment of the Cardozo Law Review.
That number 14 is a footnote number referencing a book co-authored by (guess who?) Don Kates! The book “ARMED” (2001) does, on page 20 contain the sentence; “ Looking only to prior crime records, roughly 90% of adult murderers had adult records, with an average adult criminal career of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.” That sentence on page 20 however, is not footnoted in the book, and we cannot see any source except,…………….. Don Kates says so. http://www.amazon.com/Armed-New-Perspectives-Gun-Contro...

Note the words/terms ARRESTS, CRIMINAL RECORD, CRIME RECORD, CRIMINAL CAREER, CRIMINAL HISTORIES, FELONY ARRESTS. Words used and cleverly mixed in with felony convictions to imply that most murderers are ineligible to legally purchase or own firearms.
You can have/be any of those and not be disqualified from legally purchasing or owning a firearm.

So, is there any other source that could be helpful?

Since 1988 the Bureau of Justice Statistics has sponsored a biennial collection (Bulletins) of data on felony cases processed in state courts in the nation’s 75 largest counties This periodic report has been published biennially since 1990. SCPS collects data on the demographic characteristics, criminal history, pretrial processing, adjudication, and sentencing of felony defendants.
Criminal history of murderers is the point under discussion.

Murder defendants specifically;
42% of murder defendants had a prior felony conviction in the BOJ 2006 Bulletin 44% of murder defendants had a prior felony conviction in the BOJ 2004 Bulletin
42% of murder defendants had a prior felony conviction in the BOJ 2002 Bulletin
34% of murder defendants had a prior felony conviction in the BOJ 2000 Bulletin

Criminal records, arrests even non felony convictions are terms used and cleverly mixed in with felony convictions and employed to imply that most murderers are ineligible to legally purchase or own firearms. From these reports, since the percentage of murder defendants in the four most recent reports who have a prior felony conviction is less than 50% then it can be said that the majority do NOT have the FELONY CONVICTION which would disqualify them.


http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=27

[Atypical Liberal]

68. That is really not the point of Kates' work.

Whether or not murders have committed serious enough crimes to disqualify themselves from owning firearms or not is not really the point, though it would appear from your data that a considerable percentage, 30%-40%, do have prior felony convictions.

The point of Kates' study is that people who have committed murder almost universally have an extensive prior criminal record, which means that people who commit murder almost certainly work their way up to a callous disregard for human life over the span of many lesser crimes against others.

The point of Kates' and others work is not that murderers would not have access to guns because of their record. The point is that very seldom do law abiding people just snap and commit murder.

[russ1943]

69. It was exactly my point in posting.

I quoted your sentence and commented on that concluding phrase;

...” most people who commit murder have a history that would prohibit them from buying a gun”….

Had you not made that statement as if it were a known fact, I wouldn’t have posted.
IMO now, to say a considerable percentage, 30-40%, do have prior felony convictions is quite different, almost the opposite from "most would be prohibited".

[gejohnston]

70. under federal law

how many of those would be prohibited under a local law like DC, Chicago, or NYC? No, you can't go to another state and legally buy a gun.

[russ1943]

71. Are you drunk or high?

That you somehow seem to find it appropriate to direct your inane post to me is mystifying. You have demonstrated a bizarre inability to understand anything while making irrelevant and immaterial inquiries which you then feebly attempt to answer.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=78467
Sit down, give your mind a rest - it obviously needs it.
Quit bothering me

[gejohnston]

72. Not at all,

your point was, I guess, most murderers could have legally bought a gun. I am simply pointing out that in many cases, regardless of criminal record, that would not be the case using those localities as examples. You may not think it is relevant but in the larger scheme of things but it certainly is. If anyone needs to take a chill, it seems to be you.

[Atypical Liberal]

75. You are right.

You are right.

[slackmaster]

63. Dan, are you suggesting using something other than purely objective criteria to determine...

...who can and who cannot buy a firearm?

A person who hasn't been convicted of a serious crime, been subjected to a restraining order, been discharged dishonorably from the military, etc. would pass the background check even if the data feeds that go into the database were 100% reliable, complete, and accurate.

I agree that there are people out in the world who I would call criminals who haven't been caught by the justice system, but going to a system where an individual who is merely suspected of being some kind of bad person can be denied the exercise of a civil right constitutes a slope that is, at least to me, obviously very slippery. What would come next, not letting people board airplanes because they are on some kind of secret suspect list with no legal recourse? (Oh yeah, we already have that thanks to the George W. Bush administration.)

What exactly are you suggesting here?

[Straw Man]

66. Guilty until proven innocent?

How progressive.