Suppose our central government, without due process, without a trial decided by a jury of his peers, deprives a citizen of his Second Amendment rights. How do you know the state won't next deprive him of the of his right of reasonable bail? Or his right to free speech? Or of his freedom to attend or not attend the church of his choice? Or his right not to incriminate himself?
I don't object to denying alien nationals firearms. I don't object to denying convicted terrorists or felons firearms. I object when a secret panel makes a secret ruling and deprives a citizen of any of his constitutional rights.
The left always like to define the vocabulary of the discussion. But the Republicans and I are not for selling terrorist guns, we are for preserving the Bill of Rights for citizens.
How about this Mike...
Suppose our law enforcement/police, without due process, without a trial decided by a jury of his peers, deprives a citizen of his life because while not brandishing a weapon, he resists arrest. How do you know the law enforcement/police won't next deprive the next guy of life because he refuses to ID himself or answer police questions?
I could go on, but you see the point. In your scenario that you seemed very alarmed about, you should recognize that the issues of due process could be worked out by the judiciary, and all that is lost is some people get denied an opportunity to by a firearm at a store.
Where my concern is that once law enforcement wrongly kills you. Its over. No Court, no amount of due process or checks and balances makes that right again. Yet you seem to be OK with that while concurrently upset some one might not get to buy a gun at a store.
