I always find it hilarious when the "talking heads" on the other side of the question have ZERO answer. Nothing, nada, speechless. Complete idiocy.
Now, this is a slippery slope for sure but I think certain criteria can be put in place that can determine who is a legitimate threat. And personally, once the oversight has done the "due process" via "ex parte" (see, I read), well, they are on the list and some of their rights get suspended. Now, that should not be an indefinite suspension and they should know they are on it and should be able to appeal it. In other words, our wonderful government doesn't get to keep their own private "black list" while they infringe rights "willy nilly". BTW, we've been doing this in some form or fashion as long as we've been our own country, so, it's nothing new.
Now, I understand the argument against that, and I certainly have a suspicious eye on our government. But they aren't all bad there and some are actually trying to do us all justice (but most are not the career politicians). And again, like mentioned, if your not doing anything wrong, well, you've got nothing to worry about.
AND AS LONG AS CITIZENS CAN CONTNUE TO STAY ARMED, I BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE FORCED TO STAY IN CHECK. That doesn't mean every citizen gets to be armed though. On the list? No soup for you! Again, those rights have been and can continue to be taken away through due process.
By the way, it sure sounds like this last little gay bar incident happened because our government didn't want to step over the line and risk a political government racial accusation. So well done there.