This is a deep question to consider and I’m not sure if I understand how to critique or properly answer it. Emerging laws were and are imperative to keeping the homeland and our population safe from all forms of attacks, including the 2007 Gang Abatement and Prevention Act. I believe that this is crucial in combatting the dangers of domestic violence and crimes that plague our US communities. I do also believe that all amendment rights should be innately adopted by all US citizens even if they are accused of crimes. For instance, everyone has the right to the speedy trial even if they are accused of murder.

However, restrictions on movement for accused gang members like MS-13, who are notorious for gruesome attacks, I feel, more so, protects the community- at this point you are being held for potential violence acts. Protesting and group or organizational membership can be productive but when it violates the safety of others and includes dangerous activities it should be properly assessed and quarantined. The same goes for people who are promoting radical views through social media platforms. There is a huge difference between seeking peaceful protest or policy change due to feeling restricted because of your color or gender (Black Lives Matter or Planned Parenthood) and igniting hate (KKK groups who gather to promote hate against all colored folk).- HUGE difference. Everyone should be evaluated and held to the same standards.

Reply to Thread