I’m sad to see a couple of things that are happening right now.
People who call themselves “liberal” are embracing the no-fly list, because it’s politically convenient. It allows them to grandstand on gun control, and apparently that’s enough for them to betray their core values.
People who call themselves “conservatives” acknowledge that depriving people of their gun rights without due process is wrong, but don’t go on to acknowledge that depriving people of their right to fly without due process is also wrong. They should be calling for a repeal (at least a drastic pairing-down) of the no-fly list, not dictating when due process does and does not apply. (“Dictating when due process does and doesn’t apply”…hmm. Isn’t there a word for that?)
If anyone thinks that citizens should be deprived of their rights without due process, they should say so explicitly and explain why. But they probably shouldn’t be calling themselves “liberal”, which connotes a principled belief in liberty (individual rights, due process, etc.). And they probably shouldn’t be calling themselves “conservative”, which connotes respect for the constitution. Isn’t a “no fly list” technically a bill of attainder, which is explicitly forbidden in the constitution?
Maybe you think the government should be constrained by certain principles (due process, enumerated powers, prohibitions on laws against speech and religion, etc.). Say so plainly, but you have to stick with those principles when they’re inconvenient, not just when they help you. Maybe you think the government should be able to do whatever seems like a good idea at the time. Once again, say so plainly, but don’t ever appeal to “principle” when government does something you don’t like. Appealing to a principle you don’t really believe in is deeply insincere.
Maybe I’m overthinking this. Maybe every policy opinion is chosen ad hoc, and almost nobody feels constrained by any principle whatsoever. And I guess that’s the part that makes me sad.