Those on no fly list shouldn't be able to own guns?

[POP]

I mean, that sound perfectly logical, does it not?

If you have enough red flags about you to not be able to get on a plane, then you certainly should not be able to own a gun. It just makes sense, right?

Here is why that is BS.

The highest law of the land is the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The 2nd amd. clearly states that the people have the right to bear arms, period. It shall not be infringed. Pretty clear language.

The "no fly" list is not something that the govt. has to prove their case. For all we know they are throwing darts while blindfolded to determine who is on that list.

They don't have to ever make a case for who is put on it. And you never have the ability to defend yourself in front of a jury of your peers.

If they don't allow people on that list their Constitutional rights, that absolutely infringes on the 2nd amd. The govt. should have to prove why you make that list and you
should have the ability to defend yourself from their allegations BEFORE you are put on any list that stomps on your Constitutional rights.

But they won't stop their goals of disarming the American people, and will continue to use False Flag events to sell their gun grabbing.

Be very afraid of a govt. that wants to disarm you.

Guess who else disarmed their people? Nazi Germany. Stalin's Russia. Look at the history of countries who disarmed their people and what happened right after.

http://www.teapartytribune.com/2013/01/05/what-happens-when-governments-disarm-their-citizens/

NEVER agree to let the govt. take your guns.

Anyone for gun grabbing is a ******* traitor to America.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

They're working on finding away to do that while letting the Muslims keep their guns and stay off the no-fly list.

 

[Superman]

i'd be ok with it as long as this was focused on Radical Islamic Terrorists.
and the government wasnt involved.

 

[deljzc]

From what I understand, the problem is that the "terror watch list" and "no fly list" are under the complete control of the executive branch of government and they are not willing to share any details about how people get on the list and how they get off. As far as I know the judicial branch isn't even involved.

That works fine for not allowing someone to fly. That's not in the constitution.

The ability to own a firearm is. So once a law is made like this, it opens the floodgates to sue and subpoena and pull back the curtain on how the terror watch list is created and opens up all sorts of judicial branch oversight. Not sure that's what is safest for our country. There is something to be said/debated for a "secret" watch list of citizens that are suspected (not proved) to be potential terrorists.

The gun debate is all over the place now, talking about a million different nuances and parts of the issue. Like abortion, it's a very complex issue with very strong emotional feelings associated with it. I don't agree, but there is a minority in this country that value the 2nd amendment over all other powers granted by the Constitution Bill of Rights (I think that's nuts, but whatever)....

I'm convinced some people on both the abortion issue and the gun rights issue would literally be willing to die to preserve their rights. Those are tough issues to "resolve" without some degree of moderation and middle ground and no matter WHAT the current law, thousands (maybe millions) will feel they are being wronged.

For good or bad, when issues like this arise in our 3-branch government as established, the judicial branch ends up deciding. No law congress enacts, no media campaign by a president, no filibustering or sit-in by minority congress will really matter. Every law will be challenged in court and a judge (or judges) will end up deciding the constitutional balance of the 2nd amendment.

I'm actually okay with that. And I'm hopeful that no matter who gets elected this fall, that moderate judges are hopefully something coming down the pike because the gerrymandering done will almost guarantee a Republican congress while liberal ideology in population centers will almost guarantee a democrat in the presidency. Hopefully those two things will produce moderate judges, which I am for.

I'm fine with Merrick Garland. I know he's for allowing more gun control that some here like, but I'm fine with it. And I think he's pretty moderate on other issues and will actually be a "judge", not a "wing" (right or left). It has shocked me how many supreme court justices have been elected by similarly ideological Presidents + Congress and their efforts to politicize the court has really led to problems for this country.

The judicial system should hopefully represent "the middle" and we've allowed our thinking of politics in general to accept strongly right and left wing judiciary practices to shape our country.

 

[Buster]

Convicted felons cannot legal own a firearm. The question then becomes, how is this different?

 

[ark steel]

Convicted felons cannot legal own a firearm. The question then becomes, how is this different?

The focus should be on "convicted", i.e. having followed due process and judged by a jury of your peers, versus "put on a list by some bureaucrat" with no due process.

 

[Coach]

Convicted felons cannot legal own a firearm. The question then becomes, how is this different?

Good point. But they ( Fellons ) can get the weapon easily. I'm perfectly fine with anyone communicating with terrorists or using social media to promote terrorism being denied the right to purchase an assault rifle. If they try, they get a warning. The next time they are arrested. I'd also like so see the same people induced reported to a list that the general public can see.

If both happened, this jihad like adults on citizens be less frequent and when they happened fewer lives would be taken.

Even though liberal types would love to dent the 2nd amendment, I feel such a law with a deadline that expires and needs to be reissued ever year would make sense as the attacks and damage sustain are on the rise.

 

[Spike]

Scotland disarming their people - of air guns!


More than 11,000 air weapons handed in during Police Scotland amnesty

More than 11,000 air weapons were handed to Police Scotland during a three week amnesty held by the force.

Crossbows, rifles and pistols dating back to the Second World War were also surrendered.

Police Scotland will continue to accept them until 31 December, when new laws make it a criminal offence to have an air weapon without a licence or permit.

Under the new law, anyone found guilty of the new offence could be fined or face up to two years in prison.

https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/more-11000-air-weapons-handed-during-police-scotland-amnesty

 

[POP]

Convicted felons cannot legal own a firearm. The question then becomes, how is this different?

The focus should be on "convicted", i.e. having followed due process and judged by a jury of your peers, versus "put on a list by some bureaucrat" with no due process.

Buster, there is a massive difference, as Ark has commented. The "no fly" or "watch lists" are just created, by who knows who, based on who knows what. There is no due process, no transparency and no opportunity for the said person to defend whatever it was that caused them to be put on a list.

It is crucial, in the American system, that one has the opportunity to be judged by a jury of his PEERS, not just some govt. hack.

The Constitution outlines our guaranteed rights, which the govt. cannot erase. A convicted felon losses some rights, but before so doing, is CONVICTED of his crimes by a jury of his PEERS. The lists offer no such element. We have to just "trust" the govt. that it is legit.

Well, the USC saying the people have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and that such should not be infringed. End of story. The Founders put the 2nd amd. for a reason: to be able to fight offer a corrupt and tyrannical govt. Even over 200 years ago, the founders witnessed that govts tended to slide into tyranny, and an unarmed people couldn't do anything about it.

As far as the concept of they only want to take away "weapons of war" that is exactly how they started to disarm Aussies, and now they are without any weapons to defend themselves, why it did nothing to stop violent crime.

 

[Spike]

Drum circles in Congress!

Democrats disrupt House, stage protest over guns

Rebellious Democrats shut down the House’s legislative work on Wednesday, staging a sit-in on the House floor and refusing to leave until they secured a vote on gun control measures before lawmakers’ weeklong break.

Exasperated Republicans were forced to recess while cutting off cameras that showed the protest. But in an unprecedented step, C-SPAN used live video feeds from one lawmaker’s Periscope account and another’s Facebook page to transmit words and images from the House.

Nearly 100 Democrats led by Georgia Rep. John Lewis demanded a vote on measures to expand background checks and block gun purchases by some suspected terrorists in the aftermath of last week’s massacre in Orlando, Florida

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-06-22-17-08-54

--------------------------------------

 

[Spike]

From what I understand, the problem is that the "terror watch list" and "no fly list" are under the complete control of the executive branch of government and they are not willing to share any details about how people get on the list and how they get off. As far as I know the judicial branch isn't even involved.

That works fine for not allowing someone to fly. That's not in the constitution.

The ability to own a firearm is. So once a law is made like this, it opens the floodgates to sue and subpoena and pull back the curtain on how the terror watch list is created and opens up all sorts of judicial branch oversight. Not sure that's what is safest for our country. There is something to be said/debated for a "secret" watch list of citizens that are suspected (not proved) to be potential terrorists..

There's over a million people on the no-fly "list"

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/20/obamas-cia-director/

 

[Spike]

...and where there's a will, there's a way

Because, only guns kill?


Chinese authorities say two WOMEN were part of knife-wielding terror gang which left at least 33 dead and 143 wounded after attacking a train station in China

'Terrorist' rampage at was at Kunming station in Yunnan province. Local sources say there were at least 10 attackers. Authorities say it was an 'organised, premeditated, violent terrorist attack.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-wielding-men-attack-train-station-China.html

 

[Buster]

I was not suggesting there was not a difference. I was just asking how you interpret the difference and where you draw the line. I agree that the conviction is the difference. While many who are suspected of being a danger to society should not have weapons, taking that right away give the gubmint the power to make anyone they want a "suspect".

You had pointed out that ones second amendment right could not be taken away. I was just pointing out that it could.

 

[deljzc]

Being a felon also gives up your right to vote, which is granted by the Constitution.

The high courts have sided on the ability of governments to take away Constitutional rights AFTER a conviction of your peers (or a signed plea). As much as I am not an NRA supporter, I am with the Republicans on this. Until someone explains to me how people get on this "so-called" terror no-fly list and how people get off, the ability of that list alone (created by one branch of government) should never be able to take away a Constitutional right of an American. That is just too slippery a slope for me to agree with and most certainly would not hold up under legal action.

I find if frustrating that Republicans can't counter the left-wing media spin that this is just Republicans backing whatever the NRA says narrative. Or the narrative that Republicans are against any gun control effort no matter what. This is clearly a Constitutional overreach by the executive branch of government to prohibit people on a "list" from purchasing a legal firearm in the United States.

This is NOT the law to try and push gun control measures over.

If you want to tax guns, register guns, tax ammo, prohibit certain size magazines, even go after the "assault style rifles" that are really just big hand guns, that's fine. Make a law and vote on it. But these "fringe laws" that just put burdens and roadblocks up against legal gun ownership are just bullshit, just like the "fringe laws" the Religious Right are trying to create to make abortions so hard to attain or administer it (in essence) acts as a ban.

These same tactics are being done by both sides on these same political hotbed issues and I can't stand it.

 

[MTC]

Being a felon also gives up your right to vote, which is granted by the Constitution.

The high courts have sided on the ability of governments to take away Constitutional rights AFTER a conviction of your peers (or a signed plea). As much as I am not an NRA supporter, I am with the Republicans on this. Until someone explains to me how people get on this "so-called" terror no-fly list and how people get off, the ability of that list alone (created by one branch of government) should never be able to take away a Constitutional right of an American. That is just too slippery a slope for me to agree with and most certainly would not hold up under legal action.

I find if frustrating that Republicans can't counter the left-wing media spin that this is just Republicans backing whatever the NRA says narrative. Or the narrative that Republicans are against any gun control effort no matter what. This is clearly a Constitutional overreach by the executive branch of government to prohibit people on a "list" from purchasing a legal firearm in the United States.

This is NOT the law to try and push gun control measures over.

If you want to tax guns, register guns, tax ammo, prohibit certain size magazines, even go after the "assault style rifles" that are really just big hand guns, that's fine. Make a law and vote on it. But these "fringe laws" that just put burdens and roadblocks up against legal gun ownership are just bullshit, just like the "fringe laws" the Religious Right are trying to create to make abortions so hard to attain or administer it (in essence) acts as a ban.

These same tactics are being done by both sides on these same political hotbed issues and I can't stand it.

^^^yep

 

[madinsomniac]

Suspending rights without actions to warrant it or a trial is a violation of due process and that is a slippery slope that leads to the peasent serfdom principles we fought hard to escape...

Terrorist acts should NEVER lead to potentially innocent citizens losing rights, even the scary ones...

 

[jitter77]

I think if you are on a no fly list and denied a gun you should be able to appeal and go from there.
People with mental problems should also not be able to buy guns.
I would rather wait a few more days than have to worry about crazies having guns.
As for peoples rights I think the whole constitution needs updated. Back when it was created there was not much variety in weapons. How far do you want to take bearing arms? Do you want people to own tanks, stealth bombers, etc etc. Also the whole world was much simpler back then. I am not saying to rip up the constitution, but at some point people need to use some common sense to modern times.

 

[21STEELERS21]

I thinking anyone receiving a new tourist visa, should be required to attend a gun show and buy a gun if they choose too,
before doing anything else in the US.

 

[ark steel]

I think if you are on a no fly list and denied a gun you should be able to appeal and go from there.
People with mental problems should also not be able to buy guns.
I would rather wait a few more days than have to worry about crazies having guns.
As for peoples rights I think the whole constitution needs updated. Back when it was created there was not much variety in weapons. How far do you want to take bearing arms? Do you want people to own tanks, stealth bombers, etc etc. Also the whole world was much simpler back then. I am not saying to rip up the constitution, but at some point people need to use some common sense to modern times.

Is it just the 2nd amendment we can shred? There weren't PC's then either. Now, anyone can be a "journalist". There were some in Congress that tried to define what a "Journalist" is. Thank God, that didn't get anywhere because they weren't doing it to protect journalism.

 

[ark steel]

How about a law that every traveler who has goes to one of several countries has to have a soldier assigned to them 24-7 for the next 2 years. That person will be responsible for putting the soldiers up in their house and feeding them for the entire period. That person may not go into any room, including the bathroom without the soldier although they may have a curtain for privacy after being thoroughly searched by the soldier.

Sounds good right?!

 

[Superman]

I thinking ...

you're wrong. again.

 

[Superman]

I think if you are on a no fly list and denied a gun you should be able to appeal and go from there.
People with mental problems should also not be able to buy guns.
I would rather wait a few more days than have to worry about crazies having guns.
As for peoples rights I think the whole constitution needs updated. Back when it was created there was not much variety in weapons. How far do you want to take bearing arms? Do you want people to own tanks, stealth bombers, etc etc. Also the whole world was much simpler back then. I am not saying to rip up the constitution, but at some point people need to use some common sense to modern times.

back then the people had the same exact weaponry as ... wait for it ... the government.

 

[Troglodyte]

back then the people had the same exact weaponry as ... wait for it ... the government.

Yes, but none that could hold multiple rounds or kill many people quickly.

 

[POP]

I was not suggesting there was not a difference. I was just asking how you interpret the difference and where you draw the line. I agree that the conviction is the difference. While many who are suspected of being a danger to society should not have weapons, taking that right away give the gubmint the power to make anyone they want a "suspect".

You had pointed out that ones second amendment right could not be taken away. I was just pointing out that it could.

It "could" with due process and being allowed to present to a jury of your peers. Huge difference than the govt. just being able to take Constitutional rights without having to explain why. **** that noise. I don't care if there is a shooting every day, I will never accept that bull ****.

 

[POP]

Drum circles in Congress!

Democrats disrupt House, stage protest over guns

Rebellious Democrats shut down the House’s legislative work on Wednesday, staging a sit-in on the House floor and refusing to leave until they secured a vote on gun control measures before lawmakers’ weeklong break.

Exasperated Republicans were forced to recess while cutting off cameras that showed the protest. But in an unprecedented step, C-SPAN used live video feeds from one lawmaker’s Periscope account and another’s Facebook page to transmit words and images from the House.

Nearly 100 Democrats led by Georgia Rep. John Lewis demanded a vote on measures to expand background checks and block gun purchases by some suspected terrorists in the aftermath of last week’s massacre in Orlando, Florida

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-06-22-17-08-54

--------------------------------------

I hope they sit there until they die of back pain.