I've seen these line of false reasoning arguments before.
Assert there is no way to REALLY tell who stands for what to argue everyone is the same. A reverse form of herd protection, but for radicals among sheep.
Pretend there is no existing law or reasonable way to distinguish between an organized threat and an espousing of political opinion.
Pretend there are no existing standards of law and jurisprudence established as a system that respect the boundary between constitutional protection and valid prosecution.
Just because you male all these assertions, doesn't mean they convince otherwise reasonable people. Your hand wringing is either incredibly naive, or tactically disingenuous for a desired outcome. We can protect the Constitution without violating it.
I've seen these line of false reasoning arguments before.
Assert there is no way to REALLY tell who stands for what to argue everyone is the same. A reverse form of herd protection, but for radicals among sheep.
Pretend there is no existing law or reasonable way to distinguish between an organized threat and an espousing of political opinion.
Pretend there are no existing standards of law and jurisprudence established as a system that respect the boundary between constitutional protection and valid prosecution.
Just because you male all these assertions, doesn't mean they convince otherwise reasonable people. Your hand wringing is either incredibly naive, or tactically disingenuous for a desired outcome. We can protect the Constitution without violating it.