We shouldn’t have to accept one or the other. Accepting the dem version because it delivers on the short term goal but denies citizens due process is a horrible idea. Why? Because once the government has an inch, they take a mile. Witness all the kids being charged for child porn trafficking for nude selfies, or regular joes having their bank accounts seized using a law written to combat drug lords. I’m obviously more libertarian than repug, but I don’t understand how anyone could support throwing out due process rights. You say they have some form of due process, but people who’s names end up on the terror watch lists never saw a courtroom, only learn they’re on the list when they attempt to fly, and there is NO provision to seek redress, even for ten year old kids. Lastly, were not talking about imported terrorists. Mass shooters are almost always citizens, most have well documented mental health issues, have clean criminal records, etc. The issue we’re struggling with is, what rights should our government have to limit the constitutional rights of law abiding US citizens. Logic says if the government wants to take away your rights, they should present their evidence in open court, allow your rebuttal, and the court makes a ruling. The feds don’t want to have to present their evidence in open court, and they don’t want citizens to have any right to redress. I strongly believe that’s a danger to a free society, regardless of the right being discussed. Yesterday the senate (I think it was the senate) came within one vote of allowing the FBI to get a copy of your browser history without a search warrant. I’m far more afraid of abuse under government authority than I am some random deranged killer.