Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Meldread

(4,213 posts)
3. The First Amendment can prevent that from happening.
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 04:51 AM
Jun 2016

People have the right to free speech, including openly empathizing with ISIS and supporting its ideology. Just as people in the United States have the right to spread KKK and Neo-Nazi propaganda, support their ideology, and even join such groups. They are equally dangerous for the same reasons. However, we cannot imprison them if we do not have any evidence that they plan to engage in criminal activity. That does not mean, of course, that they are not dangerous individuals who SHOULD be monitored and COULD potentially engage in criminal activity--particularly violent criminal activity--based on previous actions from members of such groups.

I mean, literally, we could haul someone into court, they could stand there and say, "I hope ISIS gets nuclear weapons and kills every single American, and I also hope that members of ISIS get lots of guns and kill as many people as possible" and so long as they are not actively helping ISIS achieve such goals (i.e. helping / plotting an attack) they will be able to walk free. ...because they have the right to voice such an opinion.

Obviously, there are people on the lists who do not belong. We should want those people who don't belong removed, and everyone given due process. Not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it makes the list stronger and more efficient and doing what it is designed to do--keep potentially dangerous people from hurting innocent people.

I think you are right to be worried that a small incremental step could be taken, and then we'll pretend as if we have actually achieved something. I agree that it is by far not enough. However, we have to take an incremental step to move forward, to break the current narrative, and swing political momentum into our favor. Democrats are winning PR victories. They are motivating people and sending a strong message. Even getting this incremental legislation, that will do virtually nothing to stop gun violence in this country, feels like a steep mountain to climb. However, once we have a victory under our belt and prove that the NRA can be successfully challenged, it opens up the opportunity to do it again and again and again. Then slowly over time we chip away at the pro-gun lobby and their entrenched influence. Right now, people believe the NRA is undefeatable. Once it loses, people will no longer believe that. It is hard to get people mobilized behind a cause that many people feel is hopeless. Seizing control of the narrative is important.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

It's a necessary step in the right direction. Meldread Jun 2016 #1
If you are a risk to society, that should be something dealt with openly in a court of law. Kentonio Jun 2016 #2
The First Amendment can prevent that from happening. Meldread Jun 2016 #3
The only thing the NRA has is pipoman Jun 2016 #4
Fuck the second amendment and piss on guns. I can say that all day. hunter Jun 2016 #10
I fully agree with everything you just said in case I wasn't clear. Kentonio Jun 2016 #12
I whole hearty agee! Delmette Jun 2016 #15
"nutjob convert to Islam"? JustABozoOnThisBus Jun 2016 #5
Veganism? Glassunion Jun 2016 #16
Radical veganism, no doubt. nt JustABozoOnThisBus Jun 2016 #17
Actually evangelical Glassunion Jun 2016 #18
Chris Cuomo on CNN interviewed a GOP congressman a few minutes ago. Vinca Jun 2016 #6
The killer was not a 'convert' but practiced the religion into which he was born and raised. Bluenorthwest Jun 2016 #7
Does it matter? Kentonio Jun 2016 #8
He was not on the no fly list. FXSTD Jun 2016 #29
Even if it would have had an effect.. Kentonio Jun 2016 #30
Many gun control pushes have racist roots. Brickbat Jun 2016 #9
The second amendment itself has always been used in racist and regressive ways. hunter Jun 2016 #14
Actually, the attempts to control guns have been used in "racist and regressive ways." Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #31
So he was a Christian before converting to Islam... ileus Jun 2016 #11
His religion is only relevant here in terms of #NoFlyNoBuy being aimed at Muslims. Kentonio Jun 2016 #13
"Despite wishing that all guns could be removed from society.." NaturalHigh Jun 2016 #19
Why would that be a bad thing exactly? Kentonio Jun 2016 #20
Just one point is good enough for me. NaturalHigh Jun 2016 #21
If there weren't any guns, what would you need defending from? Kentonio Jun 2016 #22
Knives. Methheads. Any jackal that tries to break into my house. NaturalHigh Jun 2016 #23
If you have a gun, then the person breaking into your house will bring one too. Kentonio Jun 2016 #24
Again, you are being intentionally obtuse only seeing your own POV. NaturalHigh Jun 2016 #25
The statement you had an issue with was me saying I'd like all guns to disappear from society. Kentonio Jun 2016 #26
"Spare me your twisted morality." NaturalHigh Jun 2016 #27
"If there weren't any alcohol..." Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #32
Someone with access to smuggled illicit firearms One_Life_To_Give Jun 2016 #34
I think this was an impetus My Good Babushka Jun 2016 #28
The impetus is most reformers of any type see the 5th as the weakest link. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #33
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Despite wishing that all ...»Reply #3