Toggle sidebar

Dems no fly list stupidity

O

op2

Active member
Mar 16, 2014
10,853
139
53
WVPATX said:
Even the LA Times and the Wash Post admit the obvious. Why is Obama pushing such a stupid and very unconstitutional policy?

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-terrorist-watch-list-20151207-story.html
Click to expand...

That's not much of an answer. Here's what it says:

"One problem is that the people on the no-fly list (as well as the broader terror watch list from which it is drawn) have not been convicted of doing anything wrong. They are merely suspected of having terror connections. And the United States doesn't generally punish or penalize people unless and until they have been charged and convicted of a crime. In this case, the government would be infringing on a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution — and yes, like it or not, the right to buy a gun is a constitutional right according to the U.S. Supreme Court."

Okay then, by that same reason they should be able to...FLY ON AIRPLANES!!!

Whether we ought to be able to prevent them from flying on airplanes can be debated and what criteria we use can be debated, but given that we prevent certain people from flying on airplanes because we think they might kill people while on the plane, simply damn common sense says we shouldn't let them have guns either.

Hey, why not just let people have guns on the plane while we're at it? We wouldn't want to prevent that and block peoples rights would we?

For that matter, why can't prisoners in jail have guns? Who are we to infringe on the rights of these people? And fans at sporting events too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: countryroads89_rivals
W

WVPATX

Member
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Op2 said:
That's not much of an answer. Here's what it says:

"One problem is that the people on the no-fly list (as well as the broader terror watch list from which it is drawn) have not been convicted of doing anything wrong. They are merely suspected of having terror connections. And the United States doesn't generally punish or penalize people unless and until they have been charged and convicted of a crime. In this case, the government would be infringing on a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution — and yes, like it or not, the right to buy a gun is a constitutional right according to the U.S. Supreme Court."

Okay then, by that same reason they should be able to...FLY ON AIRPLANES!!!

Whether we ought to be able to prevent them from flying on airplanes can be debated and what criteria we use can be debated, but given that we prevent certain people from flying on airplanes because we think they might kill people while on the plane, simply damn common sense says we shouldn't let them have guns either.

Hey, why not just let people have guns on the plane while we're at it? We wouldn't want to prevent that and block peoples rights would we?

For that matter, why can't prisoners in jail have guns? Who are we to infringe on the rights of these people? And fans at sporting events too.
Click to expand...

Even for you this is stupid. We have a second amendment. You can't deny anyone that right without due process. Ted Kennedy was on the list. Steve Hayes of Fox News was on the list. It's blatantly unconstitutional to violate their second amendment rights. Hell, the ACLU is against this and they are as liberal as it comes.

Who decides which names go on the list? What is the due process to ensure rights are not being violated? Are any judges vetting the list to ensure innocent Americans' rights are not being violated? Who controls the list?

Let me add another really stupid part of this idea. Let's say the FBI is tracking a potential terrorist. They don't want them to know we are on to them. They try and buy a gun but are denied. They now know we are on to them. Stupid.
 
Last edited:
O

op2

Active member
Mar 16, 2014
10,853
139
53
WVPATX said:
Even for you this is stupid. We have a second amendment. You can't deny anyone that right without due process. Ted Kennedy was on the list. Steve Hayes of Fox News was on the list. It's blatantly unconstitutional to violate their second amendment rights. Hell, the ACLU is against this and they are as liberal as it comes.

Who decides which names go on the list? What is the due process to ensure rights are not being violated? Are any judges vetting the list to ensure innocent Americans' rights are not being violated? Who controls the list?

Let me add another really stupid part of this idea. Let's say the FBI is tracking a potential terrorist. They don't want them to know we are on to them. They try and buy a gun but are denied. They now know we are on to them. Stupid.
Click to expand...

Ba-loney! You're just going to contort yourself into any shape imaginable to avoid agreeing with ANYTHING Obama says. If Obama wanted to do something 1% as dangerous in any other context as letting no-fly terrorists get guns you'd be all over him for endangering our safety.
 
W

WVPATX

Member
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Op2 said:
Ba-loney! You're just going to contort yourself into any shape imaginable to avoid agreeing with ANYTHING Obama says. If Obama wanted to do something 1% as dangerous in any other context as letting no-fly terrorists get guns you'd be all over him for endangering our safety.
Click to expand...

Please explain what part of my post was baloney. BTW, below is a lib at the Wash Post pointing out the flaws:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ontrol-in-part-because-it-is-a-terrible-tool/
 
O

op2

Active member
Mar 16, 2014
10,853
139
53
WVPATX said:
Please explain what part of my post was baloney. BTW, below is a lib at the Wash Post pointing out the flaws:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ontrol-in-part-because-it-is-a-terrible-tool/
Click to expand...

That article doesn't have a problem with denying people guns that are on the no fly list per se, rather it's saying that that won't be effective because the no fly list itself isn't effective.

If someone is against no fly lists because it's intrusive then I can understand them also being against preventing those on the no fly list from buying a gun. You are not such a person. Are you? Are you saying that the no fly list shouldn't exist and anybody should be able to fly? I doubt it, but if so, why can everybody not fly with a gun too? Who are you to prevent people from taking guns on a plane?

It's absurd. If we're going to have a no fly list...IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A NO FLY LIST...then common sense says those people shouldn't have guns either.
 
W

WVPATX

Member
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Op2 said:
That article doesn't have a problem with denying people guns that are on the no fly list per se, rather it's saying that that won't be effective because the no fly list itself isn't effective.

If someone is against no fly lists because it's intrusive then I can understand them also being against preventing those on the no fly list from buying a gun. You are not such a person. Are you? Are you saying that the no fly list shouldn't exist and anybody should be able to fly? I doubt it, but if so, why can everybody not fly with a gun too? Who are you to prevent people from taking guns on a plane?

It's absurd. If we're going to have a no fly list...IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A NO FLY LIST...then common sense says those people shouldn't have guns either.
Click to expand...

You do know that we have due process rights, right? You can't violate a constitutional right without due process. Obama wants no due process and neither do you. That is blatantly unconstitutional and just as dumb as Trump's no muslim traveling to the U.S. policy.

For God's sake, even the LA Times and Wash Post understand the problems with this approach. The Constitution matters even during times of war.
 
DvlDog4WVU

DvlDog4WVU

Well-known member
Feb 2, 2008
46,605
1,485
113
Op2 said:
That's not much of an answer. Here's what it says:

"One problem is that the people on the no-fly list (as well as the broader terror watch list from which it is drawn) have not been convicted of doing anything wrong. They are merely suspected of having terror connections. And the United States doesn't generally punish or penalize people unless and until they have been charged and convicted of a crime. In this case, the government would be infringing on a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution — and yes, like it or not, the right to buy a gun is a constitutional right according to the U.S. Supreme Court."

Okay then, by that same reason they should be able to...FLY ON AIRPLANES!!!

Whether we ought to be able to prevent them from flying on airplanes can be debated and what criteria we use can be debated, but given that we prevent certain people from flying on airplanes because we think they might kill people while on the plane, simply damn common sense says we shouldn't let them have guns either.

Hey, why not just let people have guns on the plane while we're at it? We wouldn't want to prevent that and block peoples rights would we?

For that matter, why can't prisoners in jail have guns? Who are we to infringe on the rights of these people? And fans at sporting events too.
Click to expand...
Couple of points, and this is interesting for debate.

Flying on an airplane is not a constitutionally protected right.

People in jail by and large are felons and felons lose their right to vote and own firearms.

It does pass the common sense test but we are a nation of laws that we must uphold our standards to.
 
W

WVPATX

Member
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
DvlDog4WVU said:
Couple of points, and this is interesting for debate.

Flying on an airplane is not a constitutionally protected right.

People in jail by and large are felons and felons lose their right to vote and own firearms.

It does pass the common sense test but we are a nation of laws that we must uphold our standards to.
Click to expand...

Libs blast Trump (rightfully so) for his stance on Muslims (which violates constitutional rights) but ignores this blatantly obvious Constitutional violation. I don't understand that thinking.
 
O

op2

Active member
Mar 16, 2014
10,853
139
53
DvlDog4WVU said:
Couple of points, and this is interesting for debate.

Flying on an airplane is not a constitutionally protected right.

People in jail by and large are felons and felons lose their right to vote and own firearms.

It does pass the common sense test but we are a nation of laws that we must uphold our standards to.
Click to expand...

Okay then, by that reasoning if the SCOTUS ruled tomorrow that guns weren't allowed, by anyone anywhere, you'd be find with it. Right?

You're just semantic-ing because you want no restrictions on who can get guns, including those that you know would blow up airplanes if they could.
 
C

countryroads89_rivals

New member
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
WVPATX said:
You do know that we have due process rights, right? You can't violate a constitutional right without due process.
Click to expand...

And what about phone records under the Patriot Act?

DvlDog4WVU said:
Couple of points, and this is interesting for debate.

Flying on an airplane is not a constitutionally protected right.

People in jail by and large are felons and felons lose their right to vote and own firearms.

It does pass the common sense test but we are a nation of laws that we must uphold our standards to.
Click to expand...

One could argue the 14th Amendment gives one the right to fly.

People in jail, prior to being convicted, still have the right to own and possess firearms (and vote).
 
W

WVPATX

Member
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
countryroads89 said:
And what about phone records under the Patriot Act?



One could argue the 14th Amendment gives one the right to fly.

People in jail, prior to being convicted, still have the right to own and possess firearms (and vote).
Click to expand...

Please show me a SCOTUS ruling that affirms that flying is a Constitutional right? Absurd on its face. The Patriot Act just like any other bill has to pass Constitutional muster when challenged in court.
 
DvlDog4WVU

DvlDog4WVU

Well-known member
Feb 2, 2008
46,605
1,485
113
Op2 said:
Okay then, by that reasoning if the SCOTUS ruled tomorrow that guns weren't allowed, by anyone anywhere, you'd be find with it. Right?

You're just semantic-ing because you want no restrictions on who can get guns, including those that you know would blow up airplanes if they could.
Click to expand...
First, don't tell me what I want or believe.

If SCOTUS ruled as you said, I would comply as I am a law abiding gun owner and law abiding American. I would be in vehement disagreement with it but I would comply.

I don't play semantics when it comes to the Constitution. I'm not in favor of violating the Constitution without careful and considered debate. I do not act on emotion as is so common with many people today. As I said, on the surface it makes sense, but I will not under any circumstance sacrifice Liberty for safety.

I am in favor of removing "gun-free zones" and requiring every state to be "shall issue" as it pertains to CCW. I believe in requiring gun education in the schools similar to sex education.

I firmly believe I should have the option to defend myself if the situation dictated. I am not in favor of being a vigilante. I want to protect myself and my family 100% of the time with no restrictions except in situations where the discharge of a firearm would cause the same harm as the threat being posed. For instance, on an airplane where even if I were to hit my target, the bullet could still rupture the hull and cause a rapid de-pressurization.

Now with all of that said, I am in fact for gun control. I would like to see control that makes sense with careful consideration to third order effects. I am not for ramming something through just for appearance of action. The problem is everything I have seen on the left and the right as it pertains to gun control is wrought with third order effects that will limit an individual's right to personal security. Putting a bandaid on a sucking chest wound is pointless but it sure gives the rubes the appearance of action. That's what these proposals on gun control amount to. They will have zero measurable impact. The AWB is a classic example. We had it for 10 years and it did nothing.
 
O

op2

Active member
Mar 16, 2014
10,853
139
53
WVPATX said:
It almost goes without saying that conservatives are much more respectful of the Constitution than libs.
Click to expand...

Oh please! Yelling that you care about the Constitution doesn't mean you care about the Constitution, it just means you're good at yelling.
 
W

WVPATX

Member
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Op2 said:
Oh please! Yelling that you care about the Constitution doesn't mean you care about the Constitution, it just means you're good at yelling.
Click to expand...

You want to eliminate due process rights for American citizens and you claim that I lack fidelity to the Constitution? LMAO.

 
DvlDog4WVU

DvlDog4WVU

Well-known member
Feb 2, 2008
46,605
1,485
113
countryroads89 said:
And what about phone records under the Patriot Act?



One could argue the 14th Amendment gives one the right to fly.

People in jail, prior to being convicted, still have the right to own and possess firearms (and vote).
Click to expand...
I would love to see that argument put forth.

Obviously I was talking about convicted as I referenced felons. People awaiting trial are still presumed innocent.

Probably better for you to not throw your hat in the ring sometimes. You are trying to punch above your weight class.
 
W

WVPATX

Member
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
countryroads89 said:
Here's something interesting to ponder: If Trump had ran as a Democrat, would he still be in the race...and even leading the polls?
Click to expand...

Better question, why is a known liar and felon leading the Dem race closely followed by an avowed socialist?
 
DvlDog4WVU

DvlDog4WVU

Well-known member
Feb 2, 2008
46,605
1,485
113
countryroads89 said:
Here's something interesting to ponder: If Trump had ran as a Democrat, would he still be in the race...and even leading the polls?
Click to expand...
I would say that he would be absolutely. He is capturing the mouth breathers and by and in large, they are the same people on either side. They allow popularity to determine their line of thinking. Sheeple are not unique to either party, though they are uniquely dangerous to the rest of us.
 
DvlDog4WVU

DvlDog4WVU

Well-known member
Feb 2, 2008
46,605
1,485
113
countryroads89 said:
Let me know when they convict Hillary of a felony....in the meantime, you can tell us cute little stories about Benghazi.
Click to expand...
Do you truly think all of this is above board? I say all of it because there is a ton and it spans numerous topics.

Email stuff
Charity stuff
Outright policy failures

Just to name some of the high level stuff.
 
W

WVPATX

Member
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
countryroads89 said:
Let me know when they convict Hillary of a felony....in the meantime, you can tell us cute little stories about Benghazi.
Click to expand...

Hillary is already a felon and if her name were Smith or Jones, DOJ would have already indicted. And tell the 4 families about Hillary's cute little refusal to provided additional security that was requested by the Ambassador, all denied by Hillary's State Department.

Other examples of her criminality included turning a $1,000 investment on cattle futures into a $100,000 windfall by, lol, reading the Wall Street Journal, which didn't cover cattle futures at the time (her trades were illegally protected). Or suddenly finding subpoenaed records in the White House that only the Clinton family had access to.
 
M

mule_eer

Member
May 6, 2002
20,438
58
48
WVPATX said:
Libs blast Trump (rightfully so) for his stance on Muslims (which violates constitutional rights) but ignores this blatantly obvious Constitutional violation. I don't understand that thinking.
Click to expand...
Didn't you post in the last couple of days in favor of stop and frisk? If so, don't harp on me about "conservatives" and how they love the Constitution. Also, the ACLU, an organization that you have called liberal, defends those who believe that a policy infringes upon their constitutional rights. You can't have this both ways.
 
T

TarHeelEer

New member
Dec 15, 2002
89,280
37
0
Op2 said:
including those that you know would blow up airplanes if they could.
Click to expand...

That's not what the no-fly list is, though. It's a guess on our govenment's part that we think they want to. There is no legal recourse to get off the list, or how someone might have got there in the first place. Senator Kennedy, a FoxNews reporter, a nun, air marshalls, and an 18 month old were on the no-fly list previously. It wasn't adjudicated by a judge nor jury. There is no guilt or innocence. The government could put anyone they want to not have guns on the list, including the whole country, if they so desired.
 
C

countryroads89_rivals

New member
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
TarHeelEer said:
That's not what the no-fly list is, though. It's a guess on our govenment's part that we think they want to. There is no legal recourse to get off the list, or how someone might have got there in the first place. Senator Kennedy, a FoxNews reporter, a nun, air marshalls, and an 18 month old were on the no-fly list previously. It wasn't adjudicated by a judge nor jury. There is no guilt or innocence. The government could put anyone they want to not have guns on the list, including the whole country, if they so desired.
Click to expand...

You can get off the list. It's actually pretty simple. You have a face-to-face interview, provide a bunch of information and they verify that you are not who they thought you were.
 
W

WVPATX

Member
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
mule_eer said:
Didn't you post in the last couple of days in favor of stop and frisk? If so, don't harp on me about "conservatives" and how they love the Constitution. Also, the ACLU, an organization that you have called liberal, defends those who believe that a policy infringes upon their constitutional rights. You can't have this both ways.
Click to expand...

I did but stipulated that SCOTUS would have to weigh in before it being used. Nice try. And give me a flippin break on the ACLU. It long ago stopped being nonpartisan.
 
Last edited:
W

WVPATX

Member
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
countryroads89 said:
You can get off the list. It's actually pretty simple. You have a face-to-face interview, provide a bunch of information and they verify that you are not who they thought you were.
Click to expand...

BTW, which list are you talking about? The "Terrorist Watch List" or the "No Fly List." Which list do the Dems want to use? How many people are on the list you and the Dems want to use?
 
C

countryroads89_rivals

New member
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
WVPATX said:
BTW, which list are you talking about? The "Terrorist Watch List" or the "No Fly List." Which list do the Dems want to use? How many people are on the list you and the Dems want to use?
Click to expand...

The no fly list. In 2013, there were only about 47,000 on the list. That's about 1.5 hundredths of one percent of the US population.
 
M

mule_eer

Member
May 6, 2002
20,438
58
48
WVPATX said:
I did but stipulated that SCOTUS would have to weigh in before it being used. Nice try. And give me a flippin break on the ACLU. It long ago stopped being nonpartisan.
Click to expand...
I think if you look at the cases that the ACLU takes on, you'll find that they don't have a political bias there.
 
W

WVPATX

Member
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
mule_eer said:
I think if you look at the cases that the ACLU takes on, you'll find that they don't have a political bias there.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, I have looked at many of the ACLU positions. Unfortunately they have become an extremely partisan organization.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom