Home » Blogs » Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Removing Rights from Suspected Terrorists Would Make America A Dangerous Place to Live

Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Removing Rights from Suspected Terrorists Would Make America A Dangerous Place to Live

Dan Zimmerman - comments No comments

f_fh_german_whitegroups_150623

“[Coming] under investigation just means that somebody made an accusation. It doesn’t mean that there was any justification for that accusation. The idea that people would lose one of their rights . . . because somebody because had made the accusation against them would make the United States a very dangerous place to live.” – Former FBI agent Michael German in Current law couldn’t stop gun sales to Orlando shooter, experts say [at usatoday.com]

BFG-Long-Logo-Blue-JPG-220x39

0 thoughts on “<span style="color:#0489B1">Blue Force Gear </span style="color:#0489B1"> Quote of the Day: Removing Rights from Suspected Terrorists Would Make America A Dangerous Place to Live”

  1. Every public official, law enforcement agent, and college administrator should have to repeat that last line when they sit down at their desks in the morning.

    Reply
  2. The college campus Facebook Feminist crowd often asks “when a girl says she was raped, why do you automatically assume the guy is innocent?”, and it’s like… “’cause Democracy?”
    I don’t think leftists know how statist they truly are, they have lost all perspective and no longer understand the importance of individual liberty.

    Reply
    • Agree completely. I think they no longer appreciate the importance of individualism, let alone individual liberties. They pendulum has swung towards collectivist ideals and group think. You don’t need to defend yourself or your liberties when you have the safety of numbers as part of the like-minded herd. The only danger is in expressing an unsanctioned thought or opinion.

      Reply
      • But it is definitely swinging back.

        Thanks, Milo, for your part in kicking the pendulum back. Also, can’t go without a mention to Desouza…he’s been in the trenches of that fight for a VERY long time (long before ‘social media’ was a thing).

        Reply
      • After the BBS groups came Six Degrees, then Friendster, and things were still fine. Computers were used by a (relative) select few, the Kardashian viewers didn’t even know what they were. By the time of MySpace, the smart phone was about to be a possession that anyone could have in their hand, and I could see the writing on the wall – things were starting to get very group-think. Tribal, Balkanized, but group think. As always, it isn’t the smart and thoughtful folks leading the mobs. But it is smart folks who use them to their own ends.

        I was on Twitter in the very early days, and it was a useful tool for my business. Until human nature took over, and even my employees started “sharing” when they were taking a dump.

        The real evil won’t come from the NSA, CIA, or FBI. They’ll just carry it out. The insidious part is Facebook, how it filters what the masses see, pushes it’s own agenda, herds the sheep as they eagerly dance to the tune the piper calls. Tumblr and Reddit are the PC terrorists, and if one thing kills this country faster than anything else, it will be social media.

        Reply
      • What you left out is that pendulums occilate between two points. It reached the maximum point of group think some years ago. Can’t you see the trend back towards the center in daily life around you? Don’t you notice all the people now confronting the liberals, feminazis, and antis, like very few dared to do twenty years ago?
        Perhaps I’m just sensitive to this, having been fighting this battle since the peanut farmer lived in the White House…

        Reply
  3. We need more people like Mr. German in law enforcement and elected offices. He understands and respects the principles set forth in the Constitution.

    Reply
  4. Freedom doesn’t come without inconvenience and danger…

    So, stay armed up. These savages are looking for soft targets – don’t be one.

    Reply
  5. On top of the 2nd Amendment, what other rights would a person lose if they were a “suspected terrorist?” If this ever became a thing, it is a slippery slope to losing all a person’s rights simply for being accused.

    Instead of taking away suspected terrorists rights, how about enforcing immigration law, creating strong borders, and stopping the dissemination of radical Islamic propaganda? If Facebook and Reddit can delete posts referencing that the shooter in Orlando was Muslim, then they can just as easily shut down ISIS accounts.

    Reply
  6. The First Amendment will be repealed shortly after the Second is.
    Only liberal-progressive ideas will be tolerated. All other speech will be considered hate crime and bigotry.

    Reply
  7. The title of this article Removing Rights from Suspected Terrorists Would Make America A Dangerous Place to Live is a FACT. To the gun grabber, however, facts are irrelevant. In their minds FEELINGS are supreme. So, if it feels good to remove rights from “suspected terrorists”, they will be on board.

    Look at it this way: gun grabbers willfully reject the benefit of responsibly storing a firearm in their home to protect their families from home invaders or civil unrest. Why? If you store a firearm in a responsible manner, it represents absolutely no risk to your family.* And, statistically, responsible homeowners who have a firearm in hand during a home invasion will always fare better than unarmed homeowners. Thus, the FACTS are clear that responsibly storing a firearm in your home decreases your overall risk of serious injury or death to your family. Nevertheless, having a firearm in the home feels icky to gun-grabbers so they refuse to keep a firearm and knowingly subject themselves and their family to increased risk of serious injury or death to the family. As I stated, they choose feelings over facts.

    * Some gun-grabbers will claim that even responsible adults who securely store their firearms could willfully use those firearms to commit suicide and thus claim that firearms represent a significant risk (of suicide) to the homeowners. This claim is complete rubbish since responsible adults in the home can just as easily kill themselves with alternate methods … such as driving their car into a concrete pillar (of a highway overpass) at 100 mph. Therefore, the mental health of the adults in the home are the risk factor, not the presence nor absence of firearms.

    Reply
    • Isn’t suicide the ultimate “My Body, my choice” argument? And, another example of the “right to privacy” that libs always tout regarding abortion? No hypocrisy there……

      Reply
      • N64456,

        There is obvious hypocrisy … which does not matter to a gun-grabber because the only thing they care about is whether they FEEL GOOD about their positions.

        There is no honor, no timeless/objective standards, no consistency, nor rationale standards involved in what gun-grabbers say. Their words are their attempt to gain your support for their FEELINGS. They will say anything — no matter how silly, irrational, or untrue — to get your support.

        Reply
  8. It’s a civil rights issue. anti gun people side with the likes of the klan when it comes to civil rights. I’ll keep my rights and my guns, thank you.

    Reply
  9. One of the trainers, he’s a Crook county corrections officers, for the CCW class I took complained about gang bangers could be arrested so many times, I forget the exact number, before they were unable to get a CCW license. He seemed genuinely disgusted that police couldn’t just decide who could have their rights and who couldn’t.

    Reply
    • I looked it up on Wikipedia. The round exists, but they certainly mean a .223 because the .221 was used in experimental bolt action rifles, and sig doesn’t make anything chambered in it that I am aware of.

      Reply
  10. Did they say .221? I had Never heard of the round so i looked it up. It was used in experimental bolt action rifles according to wimipedia. sig doesn’t make anything chambered in .221. I have a suspicion that they may not know what they are talking about.

    Reply
  11. “but that exit was then blocked by a fleeing patron. He feared the shooter would come out and shoot people who were blocked by exiting the alley by a fence”

    Did anyone catch this guy Luis Burbano on Megyn Kelly yesterday? Very strange the way he talked with headphones in his ears and looking at his cellphone off camera, as if he was being told what to say. He was holding the door shut because he was afraid? What? So run away.

    This doesn’t all add up at the very least. Why would this guy be holding the door? Why could not people escape over the course of three hours?

    It think it’s clear we aren’t getting the whole story here, I don’t know what to make of it, but this story is loaded up with BS.

    Reply
  12. One point that goes unnoticed, outside of the fact that people should never lose rights without due process, is that frequently it is preferable for the target of an investigation to be unaware of the investigation. Taking away the person’s 2A rights requires either taking away his guns or preventing him from purchasing any. Clearly he will immediately be aware that the investigation is in progress.

    Reply
  13. Yeah define terrorist please.
    Climate change skeptics would be on their list. Along with many Christian faiths. Don’t give Her that power or most of the country would be banned from flying.

    Reply
  14. “The idea that people would lose one of their rights . . . because somebody because had made the accusation against them would make the United States a very dangerous place to live.”

    On the other hand, it would have made the White House a safer place from 1993 to 2001.

    Reply
  15. wouldn’t it be a simple thing to have an FBI “Under observation” list? No one is banned from doing anything. Its just that the FBI and local police are notified.

    it would allow them to take what action they deem appropriate based on the nature of the investigation.

    As long as none are denied their actually rights, would that be acceptable?

    Reply
  16. That is ls probably not true, but it is unconstitutional. There are many unconstitutional actions we could take to reduce crime like preventive detention of gangbangers but I wouldn’t want to live a country that does that.

    A better option would be simply require the government to notify people that they are on the list and give them easy recourse to have their names removed if they are on there by mistake. That would be fairly effective in neutralizing terrorists and their supporters because people who operate covertly don’t usually work with compromised assets. Those suspects who are under active surveillance don’t need to be on list because you want them to go about their business so you can track their activities.

    Reply
  17. Another modest proposal:

    “Any person interviewed, questioned, accused, deemed suspicious by an authoritative agent, agency or court, is considered ‘a potentially dangerous person.’ Agencies and courts will establish written and published, or otherwise made accessible to the public, procedures for assessing a person as ‘potentially dangeous’. Persons designated “potentially dangerous” shall have all constitutional rights suspended, pending final adjudication by an authoritative agent, agency, or court. There shall be no opportunity offered for appeal between the time a person is designated ‘potentially dangerous’, and final resolution consisting of agent, agency, court determination that such designation (‘potentially dangerous’) is considered inappropriate. Any agent, agency, court initially designating a person ‘potentially dangerous’ is responsible for informing the formerly designated person of renewed status as ‘not considered potentially dangerous’, within ten (10) days of final determination. A person once designated ‘potentially dangerous’ and subsequently determined ‘ not potentially dangerous’ shall have no legal recourse for compensation of suspended rights. ”

    Let’s end all the sturm and drang. Get right to the point that people are inherently unreliable, unpredictable and incapable of trustworthy interaction with other persons, without severe government (all levels) oversight of all personal and public conduct. That should shut-up all the whining adult children.

    Reply
    • “Does that make me a bad person?”

      Not at all, Ralph.

      (Well, as long as I inherit one of your Mosins, that is. 🙂 )

      Reply
  18. This has been a topic of converstation in my house for the past few days for obvious reasons.

    My wife who is very conservative is buying into the ” No one hunts with and AR” and “No one needs an AR” because of this horrible event. She made the comment that people should not live and die on the 2nd amendment. I responded that for the gun control that is often pushed (including baning/ conficating classes of firearms) would not only be an violation of the 2nd amendment, it would artuablly require the violation of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 14th, and maybe even the 8th ( ie give us your guns or pay fine x) .

    We both agree this its going to be a painful fear years. We have to find a way to stand with other good people against the evil that is behind this terroism. We will all have to stand shoulder to should with some who have fought against beliefs have held for years. We will have to stand with some whose beliefs we would dedicate years of our lives fighting against. Good people can disagree and continue to live. What good people can not doo is allow evil to thrive, becuase evil wants all good people dead.

    Reply

Leave a Comment