Now that Connecticut is going to bar persons on the Federal terrorism watch list from buying guns, the question is: What’s next? The move by the governor of the Nutmeg State, Dannel Malloy, strips persons on the terrorism list of their rights under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms. But could that be all the governor has in mind?

Another step would be also to strip persons on the Watch List of their First Amendment Rights. “What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon?” President Obama in respect of the Second Amendment. A good question. But what could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to go into a church or mosque?

It is true that going to a church or mosque is protected under the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment. It’s also true that the First Amendment is part of the same Bill of Rights as the Second Amendment. Then again, religion is a personal thing. Maybe anyone on the terrorism list ought to be allowed to go to mosque — but lose the protection of the Third Amendment.

The Third is the amendment that prohibits the quartering of soldiers in private homes in times of peace. And why in Sam Hill should persons on the Terrorism Watch List enjoy protection of the Third Amendment. If they’re not going to be able to buy guns, why shouldn’t they also be forced to have soldiers quartered in their homes? Why do they deserve the privacy right?

Or, for that matter, the protection of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth is one of the great peaks in the Himalayas of the Bill of Rights. If the First is Everest, we like to say, the Fourth is K-2. It protects against searches and seizures that are unreasonable. But what is unreasonable about abandoning the warranting process for searching members of the Terrorism Watch list?

Look at the Fifth Amendment, too. The Fifth is the amendment that prohibits the government from forcing a person to testify against himself. It’s the amendment to which people refer when they “plead the Fifth.” Why should members of the Terrorism Watch List enjoy the right to plead the Fifth in a United States of America courtroom?

No doubt some will protest that the Second Amendment is different — that it’s more dangerous for a person on the Terrorism List to be able to buy a gun than to be able to hide behind the Fifth Amendment or the Fourth or Third. But why? What’s the difference between the protections of the Second and the protections of the rest?

Take your Sixth Amendment. Surely Mr. Obama and Governor Malloy are not going to permit persons on the Terrorism Watch List to enjoy the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. What are we going to do, impanel a jury of members of the Terrorism Watch List every time a member of the list lands in the dock?

It gets even graver in respect of the Seventh Amendment. That gives persons involved in civil suits for more than $20 the right to have the facts decided by a jury. How could President Obama or Governor Malloy extend this kind of invitation to trouble to persons who are already on the Terrorism Watch List?

The next thing one knows, they’ll be asking for bail, which is the right vouchsafed in the Eighth Amendment. Surely Messrs. Obama and Malloy are not going to assert that it’s safe to allow persons on the Terrorism Watch List access to the Eighth Amendment. Why do they deserve bail bail? Why shouldn’t they be subject to cruel and unusual punishment?

Fie on the Eighth Amendment. Fie on the Ninth and Tenth. Fie on the whole idea of the Bill of Rights. What good is it if the government can stick a person on a Watch List without a trial and then suspend their rights? If the President wants to suspend the Second Amendment, the logic is to suspend them all. The only other option would be to send an army to defeat our enemies so we wouldn’t need a watch list at all.