Why It's Smart To Oppose Bans Based On The No-Fly List!

[Mr VJP]

For all the fools who support this "sound good" proposal, without any clue of what's in it, try to open your learning lobe and wake the hell up!

 

"[barack Obama] was demagogic on what he called, misleadingly, the 'no fly list,' suggesting that there is no argument for letting suspected terrorists buy guns. In truth, the terrorist-watch list that congressional Democrats want to use to restrict gun rights is much broader than the no-fly list; there is no due process for the people on it; and the people on it are in no serious sense 'suspected terrorists,' and the administration has no plans to treat them as such for purposes beyond restricting gun rights." —Ramesh Ponnuru

 

If you support any type of gun ban proposed by the Left, you are supporting the destruction of your own freedom and are too ignorant to know it!

 

Edited December 8, 2015 by Mr VJP

[BizCT]

Bands will make her dance

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[d-bone20917]

 

If you support any type of gun ban proposed by the Left, you are supporting the destruction of your own freedom and are too ignorant to know it!

 

So you don't believe there should be any restrictions on who can buy a gun in this country?  

[Curmudgeon]

While VJP and I don't agree on much, I do agree that the proposal lacks due process and adequate balance. Anyone can end up on a list, even you and me.

[ants]

You can be put on a no fly list for getting pissy with a TSA officer or flight attendant 

[Mr VJP]

So you don't believe there should be any restrictions on who can buy a gun in this country?  

 

No, I said any gun ban proposed by the LEFT!

 

Any ban they propose is not for the good of the country or individuals.  

 

I support only gun control laws that actually target criminals without infringing on responsible law abiding citizen's rights.  I also believe we have enough already, and they are not being enforced.

 

Leftists refuse to use the laws we already have, because they are most often used against the criminals they seem to cater to.  Meanwhile, they love supporting more laws to only be used against responsible gun owners they don't like, who pose no threat to anyone.

 

I hope that answers your facetious question clearly enough.

[d-bone20917]

Actually, I was genuinely interested based on your comment.  I keep hearing that we want to prevent potential terrorists and the mentally ill from getting guns, but I don’t hear any proposals on how to identify those people.  As long as they are law abiding citizens they have every right to own guns under the second amendment as the rest of us.  I guess we just need to accept that mass shootings are now part of normal everyday life?  

[Mr VJP]

No, we don't.  

 

We could do a lot to prevent terrorism if we did what Israel does, but none of that would ever be allowed in this bleeding heart filled land.  We could also make sure victims could SHOOT BACK!  But we go out of our way to make sure they can't!

 

As far as mental cases go, a doctor can ask any law enforcement agency to get a warrant for a mental evaluation, and if the person fails it, they cannot buy a gun until a doctor says they are well.  But the law gets murky with doctor/patient confidentiality.

 

The Democrats are trying to do it the easy way by banning ALL gun ownership.  They also see a great deal of advantage to their Leftist cause in doing so.

 

[Mr VJP]

This Leftist gun ownership ban seems to be even worse than it's critics say it is.

 

https://reason.com/blog/2015/12/08/which-watchlist-would-they-used-to-deny

 

Like ObamaCare, if they pass it, you'll find out what's really in it.  Only an idiot would support such a proposal.

 

[d-bone20917]

I don't see any real solution to this issue.  Unfortunately, people on the fence and non gun owners seem to be swinging towards more gun control as a solution.  These shootings are bad for gun owners, but seem to be good for gun sales. 

[Mr VJP]

Americans have to be made to understand, you don't fight crime and terrorism by taking the freedom to defend yourself away from the victims.

 

It's pretty obvious to me this desire to ban guns does not have the elimination of crime and terrorism at heart.

 

The shootings are not what's driving gun sales.  The talk about taking away your right to self defense is driving gun sales.

 

 

Edited December 9, 2015 by Mr VJP

[d-bone20917]

I agree.  I'm a little disappointed the right or the NRA haven't proposed anything other than saying we just need to arm more people or blaming mental illness.  Their lack of action isn't helping in my opinion.  

[Curmudgeon]

I agree with the need to keep guns out of the hands of some people, but what people?

 

While the Left is the focus of this discussion, when there is no transparency to such "lists" they are always subject to politicization. I was on such a list during the Reagan administration because I opposed the dirty wars in Central American. During the 60s, the bad guys were revolutionary leftists and blacks. Then it was peace activists while Reagan was in office. During the 90s - after Timothy McViegh - it was the right. After 9-11, Bush was using new laws against terrorism to harass environmentalists. The bad guys change according to who is in power.

[d-bone20917]

I agree with the need to keep guns out of the hands of some people, but what people?

 

 

Exactly.  That's why I don't see any reasonable solution to this problem.  In most of these cases the guns were purchased legally.  How are you supposed to anticipate what will make someone snap and shoot-up a place?  With over 300 million people in this country is it realistic to think we can prevent this from happening?  But no one is going to come out and say that because it would be very unpopular politically.  

[Curmudgeon]

Right now, a woman in my family is attempting to break up with her common law husband. He is extremely upset. He refuses to accept the change. She owns the house. He won't leave. He will be evicted. He is a gun owner. He has no history of violence. However, there are a bunch of us who are quite concerned about the woman's safety. What can you do?

 

In another thread - I'm paraphrasing at my own peril here - Papist suggested that families need to take responsibility for keeping guns out of the hands of unstable people. What if someone is stable and then is not?

[Mr VJP]

Nobody is responsible for your safety but you.  If you think the police or the government have any duty to protect you, the SCOTUS has ruled they do not.

 

If someone can be proven to be a real threat to people, by all means remove the threat.  but due process is a very big part of a free society and I'm not willing to lessen my freedom by letting the government side step due process.

 

I'm also not willing to give up my right to self defense to make others feel safer.  Your fears do not trump my rights.

 

From the PATRIOT POST:

 

"Under the guise of combatting terrorism, Obama declared, “To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? ... We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino." Then he mocked, "I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures.”

This is craven theatrics, but it will work on some Americans. All the public is going to hear is "no-fly list" and "guns," and then they're going to think, "Why do Republicans want to put guns in the hands of terrorists?" Mission accomplished for Obama.

But there are three glaring problems with Obama’s proposed “solutions” — one practical, one political, and the other constitutional.

The practical problem is that neither Syed Farook nor Tashfeen Malik (the San Bernardino terrorists) was on the no-fly list. In fact, none of the terrorists involved in Islamist terror attacks on U.S. soil have been on the no-fly list, so Obama's “solution” would not have prevented these terrorists from purchasing guns. Furthermore, legal purchases are not the only means of obtaining firearms. France has far more restrictive gun laws than the U.S., and yet the attacks in Paris still happened.

There is also the fact that the government terrorist watch lists, which include the no-fly list, are riddled with errors. There seems to be neither rhyme nor reason as to how someone ends up on the no-fly list. There are more than 280,000 Americans with no recognized ties to terrorism on the watch list, including some who are on the list for no other reason than making controversial statements on social media unrelated to terrorism, or refusing to be government informants, or simply due to clerical errors. Indeed, none other than deceased Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) was denied flying privileges five times because someone with a similar name was on the no-fly list. (In this case, however, at least TSA had the distinction of stopping a man responsible for the death of an innocent woman).

The constitutional issues with his “solution” are even more problematic.

Obama’s denial of gun purchases by law-abiding citizens would be a violation of our Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. American citizens have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and the Supreme Court has acknowledged in recent years that this is indeed an individual right. It would also violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause, and Fifth Amendment protections against being deprived of God-given liberties without due process. Arbitrarily placing someone on the no-fly list and denying access to firearms would constitute a presumption of guilt by government.

The placement of American citizens on these watch lists was so arbitrary and capricious that last year a federal court ruled that the federal government’s system for addressing objections by citizens placed on the no-fly list was unconstitutional, as the government would not tell those on the list why they were on it or how to get off the list.

While Obama is eager to use any means to deny Second Amendment rights to American citizens, one wonders whether he would be willing to immediately fire the 72 Homeland Security employees who are currently on the no-fly list.

Our illustrious federal paladins missed the fact that the San Bernardino terrorists had been wedded to their radical Islamist ideology for “some time,” and had beenplanning such an attack for a long time, even going to a local firing range just days before the attack to practice shooting.

Maybe Obama’s minions missed these jihadis because they were more focused on punishing Obama’s political adversaries. After all, it was Obama’s own IRS that targeted conservatives for scrutiny, harassment and audits. And it was Obama’s Department of Homeland Security in 2009, just months after he took office, that published an internal report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” which warned that potential domestic terrorists included veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, those who oppose gun control, so-called racists (as we all know, all opposition to Obama is solely because he is black), those who believe in limited government, those who oppose illegal immigration and those who revere the Constitution.

But surely Obama would never use that no-fly list as a back-door method to disarm his political opponents and deny them their rights, would he? Let's ask Stephen Hayes, a writer for the conservative Weekly Standard and a Fox News contributor, who found himself on the no-fly list. Hayes notes, “The way I got off of it was, Bret Baier on 'Special Report' was hosting Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson for an interview that was to be largely about immigration. And at the end of the interview, Bret raised my case and said, ‘Mr. Secretary do you think Steve Hayes is a terrorist?'” Soon thereafter, Hayes was removed. But most Americans don't have those connections.

Patrick Henry, speaking at the Virginia Ratifying Convention of the Constitution, warned us to "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.” Thomas Jefferson concurred, declaring, “In questions of power, let us hear no more of trust in men, but rather bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution."

No president has ever proven more untrustworthy than Barack Obama, and we’d be fools to trust his promises of security in exchange for us giving up our constitutional rights. So thanks but no thanks. We’ll cling to our guns and religion."

 

Anyone who believes we should allow the government to deal with this problem by limiting the freedom and rights of responsible citizens, is either a traitor, an idiot, or is extremely naive.

[d-bone20917]

Has anyone on this thread proposed limiting rights of others?  I agree with you that we are responsible for our own safety, and I haven’t said otherwise, but it’s not my safety I’m concerned with.  Should I expect my 6 and 9 year olds to be packing encase someone decides to shoot up the school or movie theater they are in?  It’s clear you think we should take the do nothing approach and screw those that can’t defend themselves.   I’m just trying to have a discussion on what others may see as options.  This is a tough one.  

[philoshop]

The hue and cry from the public is that "SOMETHING must be done!"

 

The current gun-control proposals are an attempt to appease the masses, without any thought or care about what might actually be the immediate result of such legislation.

They're looking for the votes, and consequences be damned.

 

It's absolutely the worst kind of politics, and people like Obama, Hillary, Feinstein, Schumer, etal are very good at it.

[d-bone20917]

That's why I think the right should come out with what they think should be done.  Their lack of action is letting the left drive the narrative that guns are the problem.  

[The_Field_Ager]

150 Foreigners Allowed To Skip Customs At JFK Airport

 

[The_Field_Ager]

The hue and cry from the public is that "SOMETHING must be done!"

 

The current gun-control proposals are an attempt to appease the masses, without any thought or care about what might actually be the immediate result of such legislation.

They're looking for the votes, and consequences be damned.

 

It's absolutely the worst kind of politics, and people like Obama, Hillary, Feinstein, Schumer, etal are very good at it.

 

 

Actually gun sales indicate the masses want more guns. It is a small cohort of leftists in government and the media that are pushing a narrative most folks don't subscribe to.

 

This is why the left is currently all at sea with regards Trump's popularity. They are deluded and out of touch with most folk.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Papist

[Mr VJP]

Has anyone on this thread proposed limiting rights of others?  I agree with you that we are responsible for our own safety, and I haven’t said otherwise, but it’s not my safety I’m concerned with.  Should I expect my 6 and 9 year olds to be packing encase someone decides to shoot up the school or movie theater they are in?  It’s clear you think we should take the do nothing approach and screw those that can’t defend themselves.   I’m just trying to have a discussion on what others may see as options.  This is a tough one.  

 

Many people have said we should limit rights on other threads, as well as in the media.  It's the mantra of the Left, but they try to label it as "common sense".

 

Why you think I'm saying "do nothing" is puzzling.  I'm saying what we need to do isn't a quick and simple fix.  I'm sorry if you hope there is an easy way to resolve these issues, like ban all guns.  Try to imagine, with an open mind, how that will only make things much worse.  For example, your kids should be protected by armed security everywhere these days.  Schools, theaters, churches, parks, etc.  But the Left shouts that down as crazy and paranoid.  Why aren't you shouting back at them that it's not?

 

This situation has been coming for a long time.  The warnings have been there for years.  It's not about guns.  It's about a multitude of things like: people's lack of respect for human life, low values, lack of morals, crack pot child rearing, drugged up kids (both legal and illegal), crazy child psychologists, illegal immigration, big government, buying votes, political power struggles, allowing terrorists into this land, and on and on. 

 

I don't know why people think it's a surprise our society has devolved to where it is, when we have been encouraging it's demise for decades with unadulterated permissiveness in every regard.  Warnings have been preached for decades about the country winding up where it is, but those warnings were mocked and cast aside as delusional and paranoid.  Well, they weren't.

 

How do we fix it?  The same way we broke it.  One issue at a time.  And we decide on the right path based on where it takes us.  If it improves the country as a whole and enhances the safety and quality of life, we do it.  If it doesn't, we don't.  Political correctness needs to be the first thing done away with.  It's going to take as many decades to reverse the damage as it did to do the damage.

 

People always want instant solutions to problems that took decades to create.  I'm sorry to say it doesn't work that way.  Better buckle up and get ready for a long, difficult solution situation.  Even when we know where we went wrong, there will be plenty of people who resist the corrections needed and will continue to demand change continue on it's mentally deranged course.  The problems we are dealing with today, will get much worse before the idiots who supported them are finally silenced for good.  And that will only happen when people start to demand real common sense.

[philoshop]

I'll propose a first step toward this country's rehabilitation: Stop taking drugs as an easy way out of a medical condition. Chances are very good that there's a better and safer alternative for the more common problems.

 

More importantly: Stop feeding the children drugs as an easy way out of parenting. Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, wasn't just an isolated nut job. He was a kid who had been raised on pharmaceuticals. The same can be said for a number of recent domestic terrorists.

 

The guns have been in every household in this country for about five centuries. Think about why they're being misused today.

[The_Field_Ager]

The guns have been in every household in this country for about five centuries. Think about why they're being misused today.

 

 

I would include the spiritual malaise, perpetrated by the social engineers, as being a contributing factor. In abandoning the spiritual and ideological foundations of the west, is it any surprise we have lost our real identity and are all at sea? Never has the West felt so dislocated from itself and fractured. This is why other world ideologies are striking out our heels. They smell the blood of a dying civilization.

 

There have been a number of recent school board decisions in my area to allow boys to use girls bathrooms if they so desire. This of course is part of the recent obsession with all things sexual and related to sex.

 

Camille Paglia is a lesbian feminist, historian and social commentator. Even she discusses the rise in 'Transgender mania' as being historically symptomatic of the decline of a culture and civilization. The end appears to be nigh for us unless something significant happens to turn things about 180 degrees.

 

Paglia: ‘Transgender Mania’ is a Symptom of West's Cultural Collapse

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/sam-dorman/camille-paglia-transgender-mania-symptom-cultural-collapse

Edited December 9, 2015 by Papist

[d-bone20917]

 I'm sorry if you hope there is an easy way to resolve these issues, like ban all guns.  

 

Hey now, no reason to try and pretend I've said stuff I haven't to stir up conflict.  I don't support banning any guns and I realize there is no quick fix.  I believe I've even said a few times that this is an extremely difficult issue and I don't really see a solution.