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

[averageJOE]

The "no-fly" list is currently an arbitrary list of names whose existence is to give a false sense of protection to the ignorant masses.

IF the "no-fly" list ever gets to a point where there is legitimatcy to it, then maybe we can have a serious discussion about extending the removal of other rights and privileges from those on the list.

Before, or even IF, anyone on the No-Fly list isn't allowed to buy a gun an overhaul will obviously be made to it. How one gets on, how one gets off. Work to legitimize it needs to be done, I'm not arguing anyone on that. Call me overly optimistic, but I think the No-Fly list will eventually become a useful tool to tracking potentially dangerous people.

 

[freethinker44]

But how does letting people who should not board an aircraft run loose buying weapons and whatever else make sense?
Tom

Revoking someone's rights should be a little more difficult than simply adding their name to a list.

 

[freethinker44]

Before, or even IF, anyone on the No-Fly list isn't allowed to buy a gun an overhaul will obviously be made to it.

It's not obvious at all. The problems with the no-fly list have been argued since its inception, the government has shown little interest in changing its implementation.

 

[columbus]

Revoking someone's rights should be a little more difficult than simply adding their name to a list.

I could hardly agree more!
My question is "In what way are the people on the list more dangerous than the government deciding which rights can be eliminated without any process or the victims knowledge?"
I am coming to see the no fly list as far more of a threat than the people on it.
What is it's actual purpose?
Tom

 

[McBell]

I'm with you 100%. I'm not against the idea of a no-fly list, but the current implementation is garbage.

I am not agianst the idea either.
I just find the current application of the idea to be so flawed as to be nothing more than an arbitrary list of names whose existence is to give a false sense of protection to the ignorant masses.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am coming to see the no fly list as far more of a threat than the people on it.
What is it's actual purpose?

It's simple.....
There are people identifiable as so dangerous that to let them travel at all is too dangerous.
So we won't let them on commercial planes.
But they can travel by charter plane, car, bus, bike, truck, hitchhiking, ship, &......
.....uh.....
I guess they can still go wherever they want without our knowing where they go, whom they see or what they do.

OK, but they might take over or blow up the plane.
It's clear that no bomb is ever found by searching anyone.
So anyone who might blow up the plane should be prevented from getting on.
According to the TSA, people who might blow up the plane look like school kids, infants, pasty faced grandmothers, & especially old white guys in Hawaiian shirts.

The finest government minds come up with this list of dangerous terrorist Arabic sounding names like Ted Kennedy & Bob Johnson.
Fox News explains.....
http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2015/09/09/8-ways-can-end-up-on-no-fly-list/
It's a kind of "jail lite", ie, you're not arrested, just inconvenienced at TSA's whim.
And the TSA is a cracker jack organization, unlike the Secret Service.
Some of them aren't even pedophile high school drop-out terrorist felon johns.

 

[Wirey]

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.

So a known terrorist, if a valid holder of American citizenship, should be allowed to buy a gun and ammo provided he or she has not yet started shooting?

 

[Wirey]

Revoking someone's rights should be a little more difficult than simply adding their name to a list.

Who said revoke? I have to show my passport to travel. Asking me for it isn't restrictive, it's administrative.

 

[Revoltingest]

So a known terrorist, if a valid holder of American citizenship, should be allowed to buy a gun and ammo provided he or she has not yet started shooting?

Tricky question......if one is a known terrorist, shouldn't one lose more than the right to commercial flights & gun purchases?
I'd say arrest, try, presumably convict & imprison the accused.
But the no-fly list includes not just dangerous perps like Ted Kennedy
(& every other "T Kennedy), but also every innocent gent named "Bob Johnson".

Security is a wonderful thing.
But if we grant too much power to the thugs & bozos in government,
then security itself becomes the problem. Then we need the Second
Amendment, & it all goes to Hell in a plastic laundry basket.

 

[columbus]

So a known terrorist, if a valid holder of American citizenship, should be allowed to buy a gun and ammo provided he or she has not yet started shooting?

Until they have been convicted of something, they are not "a known terrorist".
Here in decent places, we have values that include the right to own guns. Until someone demonstrates to a jury that you can't be trusted you can buy one at a yard sale.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Who said revoke? I have to show my passport to travel. Asking me for it isn't restrictive, it's administrative.

If someone nobody knows can revoke your passport, without telling you and you only find out as you are standing at the border, and then nobody will tell you when, why, or what you can do about it, do you have a right to a passport?
Or is having one a privilege?
Rights and privileges are very different.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's almost 100,000 people on the list, I'm betting at least one was a legitimate threat.

There are just over 100,000 people in Davenport, Iowa. If you rounded up every single person in Davenport, I'd bet you'd catch more than a few fugitive criminals. Would it be justified?

We could eliminate them by eliminating the no fly list. I see no way it improves security particularly. A "intense and thorough screening before boarding" list would make perfect sense. Deporting dangerous non citizens and thoroughly surveillance on the citizens would too.

They're kinda doing that already.

There are "trusted traveller" programs already for international travel (e.g. NEXUS) and domestic travel (e.g. TSA pre-check). You sign up and go through a review process, then you generally get through screening quicker and easier than everyone else.

They could just put in place a higher level of screening for non-trusted travellers.

But how does letting people who should not board an aircraft run loose buying weapons and whatever else make sense?
Tom

It doesn't. The law - particularly the Second Amendment - ought to be changed.

... but until the law has been changed, it's still the law and the government must abide by it.

Before suggesting that the government should ignore the laws that you don't think make sense, consider which laws you consider important that someone else might want the government to ignore.

 

[columbus]

Call me overly optimistic, but I think the No-Fly list will eventually become a useful tool to tracking potentially dangerous people.

Would someone explain to me in a few cogent sentences how the No Fly list improves security?

And how can it become a useful tool for tracking if that isn't part of the No Fly list and never has been?

Personally, I am seeing it as a way to get "land of the free and the home of the brave" accustomed to giving up rights without a fuss.
Tom

 

[columbus]

They're kinda doing that already.

"They" are kinda doing what already? Providing people with a process for petitioning the government for privileges?
Tom

 

[columbus]

Before suggesting that the government should ignore the laws that you don't think make sense, consider which laws you consider important that someone else might want the government to ignore.

How about you explain to me how the No Fly list improves security?
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

There are just over 100,000 people in Davenport, Iowa. If you rounded up every single person in Davenport, I'd bet you'd catch more than a few fugitive criminals. Would it be justified?


They're kinda doing that already.

There are "trusted traveller" programs already for international travel (e.g. NEXUS) and domestic travel (e.g. TSA pre-check). You sign up and go through a review process, then you generally get through screening quicker and easier than everyone else.

They could just put in place a higher level of screening for non-trusted travellers.


It doesn't. The law - particularly the Second Amendment - ought to be changed.

... but until the law has been changed, it's still the law and the government must abide by it.

Before suggesting that the government should ignore the laws that you don't think make sense, consider which laws you consider important that someone else might want the government to ignore.

The Trusted Traveler program is pretty lax though.
(I've been thru it.)
The most important aspect is paying the fee.
Then you get to wear your shoes when you go thru the special shorter line....when one exists.

I feel so much safer!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How about you explain to me how the No Fly list improves security?
Tom

That statement wasn't about the no-fly list.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"They" are kinda doing what already? Providing people with a process for petitioning the government for privileges?
Tom

Two-tiered screening for air travellers based on a measure of risk.

 

[columbus]

That statement wasn't about the no-fly list.

Does your lack of an answer mean you can not explain how the No Fly list improves security?
That is what I am seeing. People defending the No Fly list without ever explaining what it is good for.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does your lack of an answer mean you can not explain how the No Fly list improves security?

It would be hard for me to do that, since I don't think that the No Fly List improves security.

That is what I am seeing. People defending the No Fly list without ever explaining what it is good for.
Tom

What I'm seeing is someone who doesn't bother to read the posts he's replying to. I never defended the No Fly List.