Do You Support Obama's Call To Deny Purchasing A Firearm To Someone On The No-Fly List

[columbus]

1. So why not formulate a process.
2. If a Constitutionary Amendment is putting lives at risk, I think lives should take precedence.

While we are waving magic wands to change cultural beliefs, let's talk about "settlements".
Tom

 

[Tumah]

While we are waving magic wands to change cultural beliefs, let's talk about "settlements".
Tom

Changing cultural beliefs... ?
Settlements...?

 

[leibowde84]

1. So why not formulate a process.
2. If a Constitutionary Amendment is putting lives at risk, I think lives should take precedence.

Think about this ... currently there are roughly 300 million guns in the United States. So, even if gun sales were stopped today, there would be enough for pretty much every single US citizen to have one.

I agree, but the "process" for holding a constitutional convention to change the 2nd Amendment would not only take years to achieve ... with the current political environment, it would be damn near impossible. I am in no way a "gun person", but I do see where they are coming from. Here in the US, trust for cops is falling dramatically, extremists on both sides are taking violent action, terrorism is hitting us here at home, and nobody feels safe in their own homes. In Europe, the presence of guns is tiny in comparison, but that's the problem. Guns are already everywhere here on the street. It's pretty freaking easy to buy a gun on the black market, and that is not going to change any time soon. They have been legal here for so long that they are everywhere. Thus, an attempt to stop people from buying/owning them legally would not effect the illegal purchase of guns, and the criminals would know this. They would know that the chances of their victims having a gun for protection would be diminished, thus, people are afraid it would have disasterous effects. Remember, there are already 300 million guns in the US already on the streets.

 

[columbus]

Changing cultural beliefs... ?
Settlements...?

Here in the USA the right to own a weapon is a deep seated cultural norm. That is not going away any faster than the Zionist belief that building settlements is a right as well.

I disagree with both, but I am in the minority.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

Changing cultural beliefs... ?
Settlements...?

People in the US love their right to bear arms. That would be a hard thing to change.

I worked in Virginia for quite some time. Every single girl I worked with carried a gun in their purse ... TO WORK everyday. The crazy thing is, in VA that is common practice. You can't fix the problem without change the cultural attitude first. And ridicule from Europeans only makes these gun people more confident in their stance.

 

[Tumah]

People in the US love their right to bear arms. That would be a hard thing to change.

I worked in Virginia for quite some time. Every single girl I worked with carried a gun in their purse ... TO WORK everyday. The crazy thing is, in VA that is common practice. You can't fix the problem without change the cultural attitude first. And ridicule from Europeans only makes these gun people more confident in their stance.

I'm not saying to remove the Second Amendment. I'm saying something along the lines of losing the ability to retain its benefit under reasonable suspicion.

 

[Tumah]

Here in the USA the right to own a weapon is a deep seated cultural norm. That is not going away any faster than the Zionist belief that building settlements is a right as well.

I disagree with both, but I am in the minority.
Tom

Again, I'm not talking about removing the Second Amendment. I'm saying amending it to include the ability to lose that right under reasonable suspicion.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I'm opposed to laws that are not enforceable, but only intended to "send a message".
The gun rights advocates need to understand that, along with drug dealers, despondent teens, and psychopaths, terrorists also are going to have easy access to weapons.
Tom

So for that reason you want to make it even easier.
Strange logic....

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not saying to remove the Second Amendment. I'm saying something along the lines of losing the ability to retain its benefit under reasonable suspicion.

That would, effectively, be removing the 2nd Amendment. No citizen can be denied a constitutional right without due process. Now, I think there is some merit to your "reasonable suspicion" idea, but there would be a great deal of needed work convincing the SCOTUS that "reasonable suspicion" fulfilled "due process".

 

[esmith]

Again, I'm not talking about removing the Second Amendment. I'm saying amending it to include the ability to lose that right under reasonable suspicion.

So for that reason you want to make it even easier.
Strange logic....

Not sure what you are attempting to put forward. I always assumed that those that want more laws on firearms wanted to make it harder?

 

[columbus]

I'm not saying to remove the Second Amendment. I'm saying something along the lines of losing the ability to retain its benefit under reasonable suspicion.

That would require a change in the Constitution, in a way that a majority of USonians would oppose.

Frankly, the "no fly" list is unConstitutional. So is ORomney care and the ban on travel to Cuba. But those things are, or were, supported by a majority in the USA so the Constitution can be disregarded.
Tom

 

[Tumah]

Not sure what you are attempting to put forward. I always assumed that those that want more laws on firearms wanted to make it harder?

I see the benefits of both sides of the fence. My comment was limited to the OP, not a general comment.

 

[Tumah]

That would require a change in the Constitution, in a way that a majority of USonians would oppose.

Frankly, the "no fly" list is unConstitutional. So is ORomney care and the ban on travel to Cuba. But those things are, or were, supported by a majority in the USA so the Constitution can be disregarded.
Tom

Well that's the extent of my ideas. I can't help it if the majority of Americans want to bite their nose to spite their face.

 

[columbus]

So for that reason you want to make it even easier.
Strange logic....

Easier for who?
You must not be an "American" if you think it could be made easier to buy a gun. It's easy here. Anybody who wants one can get one.
Seriously, anybody who wants one can get one.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Well that's the extent of my ideas. I can't help it if the majority of Americans want to bite their nose to spite their face.

I can't help it either. Freedom is a b***h. You have to take the good with the bad.
Tom

 

[averageJOE]

Well for one, the person that was on the No-Fly list wouldn't be setting on a plane. Got a better example?

So you agree with not letting people who are on the No Fly list to board a plane then?

 

[Underhill]

I vote No for a very simple reason. It is not legal. To be denied the right to purchase a firearm one of the below conditions must be met.

• Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
• Is a fugitive from justice
• Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
• Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
• Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or who has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa
• Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
• Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
• Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
• Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
• Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year

It is easy to get onto the No-fly list and difficulty to get off, it can take up to years. One nationally known reporter was placed on it after he purchased a one-way ticket to Turkey. Additional individuals with problems with the list.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/no-fly-mistakes-cat-stevens-ted-kennedy-john-lewis/

One reporters personal story
http://www.npr.org/2014/09/28/352290026/how-a-journalist-ended-up-on-a-terror-watch-list

Yeah, see here is the problem with that.

It's insane.

This is what bothers me with constitutional arguments. The founders, or anyone in their right mind, would look at that scenario and say an exception should be made for potential terrorist. If there is a problem with the no fly list, fix it. But claiming a law written 200+ years ago prevents us from doing what is sane by virtually any measure.... It's absurd.

 

[averageJOE]

Yeah, see here is the problem with that.

It's insane.

This is what bothers me with constitutional arguments. The founders, or anyone in their right mind, would look at that scenario and say an exception should be made for potential terrorist. If there is a problem with the no fly list, fix it. But claiming a law written 200+ years ago prevents us from doing what is sane by virtually any measure.... It's absurd.

This^^^

 

[Tumah]

That would, effectively, be removing the 2nd Amendment. No citizen can be denied a constitutional right without due process. Now, I think there is some merit to your "reasonable suspicion" idea, but there would be a great deal of needed work convincing the SCOTUS that "reasonable suspicion" fulfilled "due process".

This is already approaching beyond my level of understanding of the American legal process.
Ultimately for me what it comes down to is that I wouldn't mind having my freedom curtailed in favor of remaining safe. When I go to the airport and I have to come three hours early (international flight) and then I have to wait on line for hours and be asked these personal questions, I'm ok with that, because ultimately I understand that these rules were not put in place to limit me, but to protect me and they are fulfilling that goal. A legal system that ensures my freedom at the expense of my safety is in my eyes a defective legal system. I understand Americans, the majority of who may not have had to deal with attacks on a daily basis, may have a different feeling on this. But we're not talking about water boarding suspects here, we're talking about just not letting them have a gun. They may argue that their personal safety is at risk without a gun, but the onus is on the person to not put themselves into a situation where they will be suspect. Also maybe the "no fly" laws needed tweaking (for both getting on and off). But this is all rant, and I do hear your point.

 

[Nous]

Yeah, see here is the problem with that.

It's insane.

This is what bothers me with constitutional arguments. The founders, or anyone in their right mind, would look at that scenario and say an exception should be made for potential terrorist.

I don't know which founders you are referring to. To the best of my knowledge, they were all fond of due process as the preferred method for depriving a person of an enumerated right.