Definitely. When you argue with many people about issues like this, they imagine the program is perfectly implemented, the government database is totally secure and free from errors, and nobody ever gets into a bureaucratic snafu where they can't get to their money for some stupid reason.

It's fine to imagine such a system if you want to argue strictly about some of the principles involved. But don't pretend that your arguments have much relevance to how actual systems really work in the world.

For example, consider these two questions:

1. Should America prohibit people on the no fly list from buying guns?
2. If the Federal government had a well-curated list of people the government had good reasons to think posed a threat of violence (even though they had committed no crime) and provided people with fair opportunities to hear the evidence that placed them on the list and challenge their inclusion on that list through reasonable administrative processes and ultimately in a court of law, would it be reasonable to prohibit people on that list from buying guns?

Both questions are interesting, but they are two *very* different questions.