Last week America was rocked by the cold-blooded murder of 49 people at
the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Unlike the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, the Orlando shooter appears to be a lone gunman who,
while claiming allegiance to ISIS, was not actually working with a terrorist
group. About the only thing Orlando has in common with 9/11 is the way
power-hungry politicians and federal officials wasted no time using it to
justify expanding government and restricting liberty.
Immediately following the shooting, we began to hear renewed calls for
increased government surveillance of Muslims, including spying on Muslim
religious services. Although the Orlando shooter was born in the US, some are
using the shooting to renew the debate over Muslim immigration. While the
government certainly should prevent terrorists from entering the country,
singling out individuals for government surveillance and other violations of
their rights because of religious faith violates the First Amendment and
establishes a dangerous precedent that will be used against other groups. In
addition, scapegoating all Muslims because of the act of one deranged
individual strengthens groups like ISIS by making it appear that the US
government is at war with Islam.
The Orlando shooting is being used to justify mass surveillance and
warrantless wiretapping. For the past three years, the House of
Representatives passed an amendment to the Defense Department appropriations
bill limiting mass surveillance. But, last week, the same amendment was voted
down. The only difference between this year's debate and previous debates was
that this year defenders of the surveillance state were able to claim that
the Orlando shooting justifies shredding the Fourth Amendment.
The fact that the Orlando shooter had twice been investigated by the FBI
shows that increased surveillance and wiretapping would not have prevented
the shooting. Mass surveillance also creates a "needle in a
haystack" problem that can make it difficult, or impossible, for law
enforcement to identify real threats. Unfortunately, evidence that giving up
liberty does not increase security has never deterred those who spread fear
to gain support for increased government power.
The Orlando shooter successfully passed several background checks and was
a licensed security guard. But, just like those who used Orlando to defend
unconstitutional surveillance, authoritarian supporters of gun control are
not allowing facts to stand in the way of using the Orlando shooting to
advance their agenda. Second Amendment opponents are using Orlando to give
the federal government new powers to violate individuals' rights without due
process. One pro-gun control senator actually said that "due process is
what's killing us."
Ironically, if not surprisingly, one of those calling for new gun control
laws is Hillary Clinton. When she was sectary of state, Clinton supported
interventions in the Middle East that resulted in ISIS obtaining firearms
paid for by US taxpayers!
Mass surveillance, gun control, and other restrictions on our liberty will
not prevent future Orlandos. In fact, by preventing law-abiding Americans
from defending themselves, gun control laws make us less safe from criminals.
Similarly, mass surveillance and warrantless wiretapping erode our rights
while making it more difficult for law enforcement to identify real threats.
If Congress really cared about our security and liberty, it would repeal
all federal gun laws, end all unconstitutional surveillance, and end the
hyper-interventionist foreign policy that causes many around the world to
resent the US.
