Why Would The Left Rather Violate The Bill Of Rights Than A Muslim Ban?

by Daniel Greenfield: Call for a ban on Muslim migration to America and the media jumps in with lectures about how "Un-American" that is and what a violation of civil liberties that would represent.

But its response to the Orlando shootings is to vocally call for limitations on the Second Amendment. How can an immigration ban be "un-American" but violating the Bill of Rights be American is not?

If we aren't supposed to respond to terror attacks by violating civil liberties, why respond to the Orlando Muslim terror attack by proposing new violations of the Bill of Rights? And why are such violations of the rights of Americans preferred to limiting the entry of a particular group of foreigners into this country?

The left does want to respond to terror attacks by violating civil rights. A Muslim ban does not violate the Constitution. Attacks on the Second Amendment do.
--------------
Daniel Greenfield is Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. David Horowitz is a Contributing Author of the ARRA News Service

---

Tags: The Left, Bill of Rights, @nd Amendment, Muslim Ban, Daniel Greenfield, FrontPage Mag To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Source