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

[Revoltingest]

Wow, that is a bold and ludicrous statement.

This is the response I'd hoped to provoke.

As it stands we have established that the president thinks those on the no fly list shouldn't be able to buy firearms. Like me, he isn't arguing constitutionality or feasibility, how is that irrational? I know a great many people who agree that suspicious people should not be able to buy guns.

For Obama to seek to deny a constitutional civil liberty by fiat & without due process is indeed irrational.
Why?
Because if he can do this with one right, then it can be done with all.
Go NRA!

I mean if some pissed off lunatic runs into my gun shop and wants to buy a gun right now, while mumbling under his breath about his '***** wife', I don't think I would stand on principle and sell him the gun and bullets. This is the same thing. Is that constitutional? Personally I don't care. That is for the courts to decide.

The courts have weighed in already, & found the no-fly-list to violate the Constitution.
But there is always the risk that public opinion might overwhelm the law & courts,
resulting in government over-stepping its limited authority over us. I prefer to avoid that.
Why?
The next thing you know, we might have a prez who wants to ban Muslims.
That could become legal in a post-constitutional Americastan.

 

[Underhill]

This is the response I'd hoped to provoke.

For Obama to seek to deny a constitutional civil liberty by fiat & without due process is indeed irrational.
Why?
Because if he can do this with one right, then it can be done with all.
Go NRA!

The courts have weighed in already, & found the no-fly-list to violate the Constitution.

Actually they didn't. They found the list unconstitutional as it was implemented at that time. It is still up in the air whether they will find the new list unconstitutional.

But there is always the risk that public opinion might overwhelm the law & courts,
resulting in government over-stepping its limited authority over us. I prefer to avoid that.
Why?
The next thing you know, we might have a prez who wants to ban Muslims.
That could become legal in a post-constitutional Americastan.

Yeah, not even close to the same thing. Banning all guns would be the same thing.

If you want to compare it to banning those on terrorist watch list from entering the US, it would be a fitting comparison.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually they didn't. They found the list unconstitutional as it was implemented at that time. It is still up in the air whether they will find the new list unconstitutional.

With due process applied, I'm OK with a no-fly list.

Yeah, not even close to the same thing. Banning all guns would be the same thing.
If you want to compare it to banning those on terrorist watch list from entering the US, it would be a fitting comparison.

I see them as the same in principal, if not in severity.

 

[Underhill]

With due process applied, I'm OK with a no-fly list.

I see them as the same in principal, if not in severity.

Maybe, but severity matters. Taking away someones ability to buy a gun, which has no affect on their well being whatsoever, because they may be a threat, is not the same as barring them from entering the country for no reason whatsoever. But I would have no problem with saying new immigrants entering the country should not be allowed a gun for the first 2 or 5 years.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe, but severity matters. Taking away someones ability to buy a gun, which has no affect on their well being whatsoever, because they may be a threat, is not the same as barring them from entering the country for no reason whatsoever. But I would have no problem with saying new immigrants entering the country should not be allowed a gun for the first 2 or 5 years.

One great thing going on here.....
We know exactly what we disagree about.
This is so much better than posters who argue past each other, eh.

 

[Underhill]

One great thing going on here.....
We know exactly what we disagree about.
This is so much better than posters who argue past each other, eh.

Indubitably.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Very simple question, with a simple answer, but with complex legality issues.
What is the justification for your answer.

I absolutely do not. Anyone can be put no the no-fly list and be rejected for non-given reasons when asked why one is put on the no fly list. Often times you have absolutely zero appeal and can be based on secret evidence and determined by undisclosed people. I don't agree with the way the no-fly list is even done.

 

[sun rise]

Right now, people on the No-Fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun. That is insane. If you're too dangerous to board a plane, you're too dangerous, by definition, to buy a gun,"

I voted yes for exactly that reason. Whether the no fly list is a good idea or set up correctly is a different question. I think it's at least badly set up and administered even assuming we should have one in the first place.

 

[averageJOE]

I would just like to know if there is anyone here who thinks the No-Fly list a useless tool used by Homeland Security for tracking possible threats and should be discarded? Just completely get rid of it?

 

[esmith]

I would just like to know if there is anyone here who thinks the No-Fly list a useless tool used by Homeland Security for tracking possible threats and should be discarded? Just completely get rid of it?

Do you think the government has the right to collect meta data on Americans, scan social networks for possible terrorist threats, profile certain religious or ethnic persons for possible lawless actions, or any other actions that may revile terrorist or lawless actions without due process.

So, to answer your question. Yes I agree with the No-Fly list as long as a person is notified as soon as their name goes on the list, the reason they are on the list, and a means of challenging the action. Do you know why Ted Kennedy was told he could not fly? Answer a T. Kennedy was on the list. The list is a bureaucratic cluster-f**k. Babies are rejected from flying because their name is on the list.

 

[averageJOE]

Do you think the government has the right to collect meta data on Americans, scan social networks for possible terrorist threats, profile certain religious or ethnic persons for possible lawless actions, or any other actions that may revile terrorist or lawless actions without due process.

So, to answer your question. Yes I agree with the No-Fly list as long as a person is notified as soon as their name goes on the list, the reason they are on the list, and a means of challenging the action. Do you know why Ted Kennedy was told he could not fly? Answer a T. Kennedy was on the list. The list is a bureaucratic cluster-f**k. Babies are rejected from flying because their name is on the list.

Got it. Just for the sake of argument lets say the government starts doing everything you mention (although I think telling a potential terrorist that he is going to start being watched is a dumb idea, but I will give it to you anyways). The people who are on it for legitimate reasons, like today, do you think they should be able to buy any kind of gun they want on the same day they are denied boarding a plane? Remember, they are on the No-Fly list for being a potentially dangerous person.

 

[esmith]

Got it. Just for the sake of argument lets say the government starts doing everything you mention (although I think telling a potential terrorist that he is going to start being watched is a dumb idea, but I will give it to you anyways). The people who are on it for legitimate reasons, like today, do you think they should be able to buy any kind of gun they want on the same day they are denied boarding a plane? Remember, they are on the No-Fly list for being a potentially dangerous person.

Today the list is basically a joke. Again I am somewhat worried about due-process and the No-Fly list and firearms.

 

[Wirey]

It's the first step in taking them away. First, they get you used to the idea. Then they expand it. Then, BAM, no guns. In France in WW@, first the Germans asked for the Jews who escaped Germany and were German citizens. Then, foreign Jews. Next thing, BAM, French Jews are on the train!

If you agreed with this, I was mocking. What possible harm can there be in asking a suspected terrorist to not buy a gun until they prove they're not dangerous?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's the first step in taking them away. First, they get you used to the idea. Then they expand it. Then, BAM, no guns. In France in WW@, first the Germans asked for the Jews who escaped Germany and were German citizens. Then, foreign Jews. Next thing, BAM, French Jews are on the train!

If you agreed with this, I was mocking. What possible harm can there be in asking a suspected terrorist to not buy a gun until they prove they're not dangerous?

The harm is that we'd have to ignore constitutional law.
We're entitled to due process before losing a liberty.
The no-fly list doesn't have that.
I'm all for keeping guns away from bad guys.
But the how of doing matters.

 

[freethinker44]

I would just like to know if there is anyone here who thinks the No-Fly list a useless tool used by Homeland Security for tracking possible threats and should be discarded? Just completely get rid of it?

I think it's a useful tool that absolutely should be discarded. At least in its current form. There needs to be more transparency, accountability, and due process for those added. It's not the possible threats that it catches that bother me, it's the non-threats that it catches that are the problem. These are innocent men, women, and even children arbitrarily placed on the list that revokes basic rights without notification or due process and with an inadequate system to challenge it.

Just because a tool works, doesn't mean we should use it.

 

[freethinker44]

What possible harm can there be in asking a suspected terrorist to not buy a gun until they prove they're not dangerous?

That's not how we do things 'round these parts.

 

[averageJOE]

Today the list is basically a joke. Again I am somewhat worried about due-process and the No-Fly list and firearms.

Should someone who is on that list for a legitimate reason be able to buy any kind of gun they want?

 

[averageJOE]

I think it's a useful tool that absolutely should be discarded. At least in its current form. There needs to be more transparency, accountability, and due process for those added. It's not the possible threats that it catches that bother me, it's the non-threats that it catches that are the problem. These are innocent men, women, and even children arbitrarily placed on the list that revokes basic rights without notification or due process and with an inadequate system to challenge it.

Just because a tool works, doesn't mean we should use it.

I respect your opinion.

What rights does being placed on a No-Fly list are being denied? (Today, one can still buy any kind of gun they want, and still travel, just not by air.)

You would be comfortable flying on the same plane as someone who was on the list?

 

[McBell]

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

Except it is not the Constitutional Amendment that is putting lives at risk.
It is the severe lack of politicians taking the issue seriously enough to actually do something that will work.
They talk a big game, but all they are really doing is proposing "solutions" that have already been proven to not do a damn thing in reducing gun crime.

Ever stop and wonder why politicians calling for arbitrary and worthless gun bans do not seem to understand what makes a criminal a criminal?
It is because they are merely propagandizing "support" based upon the ignorance of the population.

 

[McBell]

Should someone who is on that list for a legitimate reason be able to buy any kind of gun they want?

What exactly was the "no-fly" list supposed to be, based upon what it is now?