No fly, no buy

[civilwarbuff]

What do you think? Would this be a good law or not? Would this prevent terrorist attacks or have little/no effect?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/democrats-stage-sit-in-on-house-floor-to-force-gun-vote-224656

 

[Arcangl86]

With the no-fly is as it is, linking the ability to buy a firearm to being on the list would be a bad law. Being added to the list does not require probable cause or any other form of due process. If you added due process protections to the list, then maybe.

 

[civilwarbuff]

With the no-fly is as it is, linking the ability to buy a firearm to being on the list would be a bad law. Being added to the list does not require probable cause or any other form of due process. If you added due process protections to the list, then maybe.

I too am disturbed by the lack of due process that the Democrat Party seems all to willing to toss in a closet and lock the door on.......

 

[Circle Christ]

What do you think? Would this be a good law or not? Would this prevent terrorist attacks or have little/no effect?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/democrats-stage-sit-in-on-house-floor-to-force-gun-vote-224656

The lengths to which liberals will go.

I knew someone who found out they were on a no-fly list when they arrived at the airport. The no-fly apparently just goes by the name entered. As if there can be only one.

He wasn't a terrorist or anything of the kind. But because his name was like that of someone who was on the list, save for a middle initial difference, he was stopped from flying that day.


This experience forewarns that it would be an end run around a citizens Inalienable Right. All that has to be done is put a name on a list. No fly, no buy.
And likely if you are put on that list and the gun registration rolls are checked to see if you already are registered as a firearms owner, ATF will show up to collect.

Dangerous idea.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

I too am disturbed by the lack of due process that the Democrat Party seems all to willing to toss in a closet and lock the door on.......

It's all emotional not based on common sense...

 

[GoldenBoy89]

There's always going to be a trade off between liberty and safety. We need to determine which one is more important to us overall. I would tend to lean towards liberty with reduced safety than the other way around.

 

[Nithavela]

While I am for some better gun control laws, this is not the way.

But wouldn't it be better if the terror watchlist was actually worth it's salt, instead of being a worthless thing based on name similarities? Maybe then a weapon ban would be sensible.

 

[The Cadet]

This experience forewarns that it would be an end run around a citizens Inalienable Right.

Here is the problem. Many people don't think that "being able to buy, own, carry, and brandish an AR-15" is an inaliable right. Indeed, I'd have virtually no problem with this law in a country like Germany, where the right to bear arms is not in any way codified in the country's constitution.

But, regrettably (and make no mistake, this is a really bad idea), the right to bear arms, up to and including large-clip semiautomatic rifles, is seen as a fundamental right. Barring a repeal of the second amendment, this law is a really bad idea. It sets a terrible precedent with regards to one's rights. In almost any other country in the world, this law would be common-sense and entirely reasonable - if we aren't going to let people fly because we're worried about them being terrorists, of course they shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. Thanks, second amendment.

 

[aieyiamfu]

Here is the problem. Many people don't think that "being able to buy, own, carry, and brandish an AR-15" is an inaliable right. Indeed, I'd have virtually no problem with this law in a country like Germany, where the right to bear arms is not in any way codified in the country's constitution.

But, regrettably (and make no mistake, this is a really bad idea), the right to bear arms, up to and including large-clip semiautomatic rifles, is seen as a fundamental right. Barring a repeal of the second amendment, this law is a really bad idea. It sets a terrible precedent with regards to one's rights. In almost any other country in the world, this law would be common-sense and entirely reasonable - if we aren't going to let people fly because we're worried about them being terrorists, of course they shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. Thanks, second amendment.

The issue here is how poorly the list is constructed and the fact that due process is left out of the mix. If this list were rock solid and no mistakes were made that would be an entirely different story.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

The issue here is how poorly the list is constructed and the fact that due process is left out of the mix. If this list were rock solid and no mistakes were made that would be an entirely different story.

When the current government promotes people for what most would call failure there isn't a chance in Hades of that list being accurate and politically unbiased...

And before others start talking about taking guns from those who have mental issues. Well that is even a bigger can of worms considering the state of the Mental Health system in this country, the inmates are currently running the asylum...

 

[ThatRobGuy]

if we aren't going to let people fly because we're worried about them being terrorists

The real issue is the concerns pertaining to the accuracy of the lists... If the only way a person could get on the list is through a valid criminal conviction (due process), or a qualified investigation (which, if the person actually was a threat, they should be arrested...not told "eh, we think you might be a terrorist...we're not going to remove you from society at all...you just have to take the train from now on")

There needs to be more credibility to the list other than just "you're name sounds Muslim-ish...sorry, you can't fly"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think the Media is stirring the pot a bit on this one as well based on the difference in the way they describe opposition to "No fly, no buy"

From one article:
*******************************
The main concern from progressive detractors of this move is that the no-fly list is not a very good indicator of who is dangerous and who is not. They worry that too many threatening people will go without being placed on the list while too many non-threatening people will be profiled and placed on it.
*********************************

...and then in another article:
***********************************
Senate Republicans rejected a bill that aims to stop suspected terrorists from legally buying guns, on Thursday.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the legislation, argued that former President George W. Bush initially proposed the legislation in 2007, and the Obama administration also supports it.

“If you need proof that Congress is a hostage to the gun lobby, look no further than today’s vote blocking a bill to prevent known or suspected terrorists from buying guns and explosives,” she said. “Congress has been paralyzed by the gun lobby for years, while more and more Americans are killed in mass shootings. The carnage won’t stop until Congress finds the courage to stand up to the gun lobby and protect the nation.”
************************************

They describe progressive opposition to the measure as a noble effort to prevent profiling against demographics. Yet, they describe conservative opposition to is as "not wanting to stop terrorist from getting guns"

 

[Albion]

...and it's not all about the accuracy of the lists. Unless the legislation included really strict safeguards, the president could simply place every political opponent and sympathizer on the list.

 

[Crusader05]

I think the Media is stirring the pot a bit on this one as well based on the difference in the way they describe opposition to "No fly, no buy"

From one article:
*******************************
The main concern from progressive detractors of this move is that the no-fly list is not a very good indicator of who is dangerous and who is not. They worry that too many threatening people will go without being placed on the list while too many non-threatening people will be profiled and placed on it.
*********************************

...and then in another article:
***********************************
Senate Republicans rejected a bill that aims to stop suspected terrorists from legally buying guns, on Thursday.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the legislation, argued that former President George W. Bush initially proposed the legislation in 2007, and the Obama administration also supports it.

“If you need proof that Congress is a hostage to the gun lobby, look no further than today’s vote blocking a bill to prevent known or suspected terrorists from buying guns and explosives,” she said. “Congress has been paralyzed by the gun lobby for years, while more and more Americans are killed in mass shootings. The carnage won’t stop until Congress finds the courage to stand up to the gun lobby and protect the nation.”
************************************

They describe progressive opposition to the measure as a noble effort to prevent profiling against demographics. Yet, they describe conservative opposition to is as "not wanting to stop terrorist from getting guns"

Of course, the media is so completely in the bag with the left they will say or do anything to push their views and attempt to discredit the conservative side, even if they make completely illogical arguments.

I was thinking the other day, if a republican president wanted to deny people their constitutional rights based off a list made in secret with no due process the left and their media lap dogs would be howling in righteous indignation.

 

[dogs4thewin]

There's always going to be a trade off between liberty and safety. We need to determine which one is more important to us overall. I would tend to lean towards liberty with reduced safety than the other way around.

Yes, that is how this country was built. A few days ago on a thread about this topic someone said we live in the land of the free not the land of the safe. I would rather that cost a few lives than try to control everything for the MILLIONS that do NOT abuse the freedom.

The fact of the matter is if someone is that set on causing harm they will it is just life.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Here is the problem. Many people don't think that "being able to buy, own, carry, and brandish an AR-15" is an inaliable right. Indeed, I'd have virtually no problem with this law in a country like Germany, where the right to bear arms is not in any way codified in the country's constitution.

But, regrettably (and make no mistake, this is a really bad idea), the right to bear arms, up to and including large-clip semiautomatic rifles, is seen as a fundamental right. Barring a repeal of the second amendment, this law is a really bad idea. It sets a terrible precedent with regards to one's rights. In almost any other country in the world, this law would be common-sense and entirely reasonable - if we aren't going to let people fly because we're worried about them being terrorists, of course they shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. Thanks, second amendment.

That may make since IF the list was actually based on PC like arrests are supposed to be or better yet convictions for certain crimes. However, as there is no due process with the list people do NOT lose their rights until then.

 

[Albion]

I was thinking the other day, if a republican president wanted to deny people their constitutional rights based off a list made in secret with no due process the left and their media lap dogs would be howling in righteous indignation.

Good gracious, yes! It happened when President Nixon simply didn't include political enemies on his guest list for White House parties. Denying people their constitutional rights and denying them due process is light years away from that!

 

[dogs4thewin]

The issue here is how poorly the list is constructed and the fact that due process is left out of the mix. If this list were rock solid and no mistakes were made that would be an entirely different story.

Although, I will admit that due to human error mistakes will sometimes be made, but it should be made EASY to appeal and like any trial should be BEYOND ANY reasonable doubt IF it gets to appeal.

 

[dogs4thewin]

The real issue is the concerns pertaining to the accuracy of the lists... If the only way a person could get on the list is through a valid criminal conviction (due process), or a qualified investigation (which, if the person actually was a threat, they should be arrested...not told "eh, we think you might be a terrorist...we're not going to remove you from society at all...you just have to take the train from now on")

There needs to be more credibility to the list other than just "you're name sounds Muslim-ish...sorry, you can't fly"

Plus, there may well be Muslims that do not have names that imply that.

 

[RDKirk]

I too am disturbed by the lack of due process that the Democrat Party seems all to willing to toss in a closet and lock the door on.......

Not just Democrats. Republicans like the idea of using "spooklists" to curtail liberties, too...but on a different group of people.

Democratic politicians are afraid of guns; Republican politicians are afraid of Muslims. They are both trying to smother Liberty in her sleep with a pillow labeled "Safety."