averageJOE
zombie
Then we are in agreement. A potentially dangerous person should not be given means to do mass harm to innocent people.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do You Support Obama's Call To Deny Purchasing A Firearm To Someone On The No-Fly List
- Thread starter esmith
- Start date
Underhill
Well-Known Member
Here is my reasoning. I want the president to push boundaries. Not because I think it will work, but because it won't. The American people need to be aware of the positions of those in congress. We are approaching a point where change is inevitable from a raw numbers point of view, but because the people aren't outraged, nothing is done.
I have no problem with the president attempting this, because when struck down the people may just wake up to the absurdity of the situation. One can only hope...
It blows my mind that the same people who believe it is okay to completely abandon refugees who are in desperate need, think it is wrong to take guns from potential terrorist.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Of course, but with the 2nd amendment it's not that simple.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
They are a silly bunch.
averageJOE
zombie
No, it's not simple. Life isn't simple. Nor should it be simple for someone on a No Fly list.
Why are people OK with a person being denied to purchase a plane ticket for being on a No Fly list to walk out of the airport and buy a gun, any gun and as many as they like, on the same day?
I'm with Underhill on this one. My mind is boggled.
In Kent v. Dulles, the Court held that international travel is a liberty interest that cannot be deprived without due process. The district court in Latif v. Holder reasoned that international travel is substantially burdened by prohibiting travel by air. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/..._list_ruling__-_latif_v._holder_-_6-24-14.pdf
esmith
Veteran Member
It has to do with "Due Process". By our Constitution you can not be denied the right to purchase a firearm without due process of the law. When you open pardon's box by violating a persons rights without due process of law you become a nation without laws. Do you want the President to be able, on his own determination, to deny you a right without conforming to the law? Think about it before you answer. All it would take for those of you who approve of an action like this is to have a President sign an Executive Order making say abortions illegal. Then where would you stand?
I haven't been able to find that the President has said about denying purchase of guns by citizens merely because they are on the no-fly list.
How does one determine who is a "potential terrorist"?
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
I vote no. Not really adding anything new to the conversation here, but people are added to the no fly list arbitrarily and without due process. If the government is allowed to restrict rights based on the no fly list, then they are basically restricting rights arbitrarily and without due process, and that's not OK with me. It's too arbitrary, and too much power for the government to wield without accountability.
I thought we covered this already?
Anyway, the no-fly list is riddled with errors, & has no appeal process.
To deny someone a constitutional liberty should only happen with due process.
Who thought of doing something so utterly unconstitutional?
So do you think the people on the "no-fly" should be allowed to fly?
Many of them should.
Some should not.
fair nuf.
Now just speaking of those you think should not be allowed to fly. Should those be allowed to buy guns?
Provided this civil liberty is revoked under due process,
it would be reasonable to deny them gun purchases.
We should expect more from government than we get.
again, fair nuf.
But that would also mean ...
Provided this civil liberty is revoked under due process,
it would be reasonable to deny them the right to fly.
I don't see that one necessarily goes with the other, but OK.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
If they are a member of white supremacy, hardcore anti abortion group, muslim extremist groups... put all the Syrian refugees on the list... I'm sure they have bigger concerns than arming themselves.
It's not going to stop everyone of course and a few innocent people will be caught up in it. But who cares. Personally I would find the stipulations on flying much more arduous than the gun restrictions.
averageJOE
zombie
The President does not put people on the No Fly list.
Do you think the No Fly list is useless? That it should just completely go away? Or do you agree with it?
esmith
Veteran Member
Look, stop trying to change the subject. No one has said that the President puts anyone on the no-fly-list. He just wants to make it illegal for a person to purchase a firearm if they are on the no-fly-list. So. answer the question....would you have a problem if a future president said that abortions are illegal? Same issue with that as with the no-fly-issue.
averageJOE
zombie
Change the subject? Your thread isn't about being on the No Fly list?
I think you changed the subject of your own thread. Now you are talking about abortions???
So, do you agree with the No Fly list? Or, do you think it should go away? Need a base first to see what you think of it.