I don’t usually agree with awc, but I’ve gotta side with him on the no-fly list. We shouldn’t even have a no-fly list that anyone can get on with no notice. We shouldn’t use it for gun purchases, or for flying either, until it becomes more fair.
There is no constitutional right to fly. That is the difference.
There were no planes when the bill of rights was written. There were also no assault rifles. Maybe people should have a right to own the kinds of pistols, muskets or rifles that were available back in those days of a militia.
And Cat Stevens was on the no fly list because he is Muslim. I feel like it’s time for another Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. I kind of loved that Peace Train vs Crazy Train bit.
Cat Stevens was on the no fly list because his name was the same spelling ( Yusuf Islam ) as someone that was on the terror watch list , not because he was a Muslim
My brother in law also shares a name with someone on a terror watch list and a flight he was on was delayed as well
As I explained upthread, we were erroneously placed on the no fly list because someone’s name was similar to my DH’s. So I can speak from first hand experience. It was a PITA, but I was finally able to get us off the list. So if I 'd wanted to buy a gun and I found out I was on the list, I’d do what I did before to get the error corrected. The hassles at the airport were more of a PITA, but then again, I have no interest in owning a weapon.
But I can’t take a hoverboard on many airlines and we may not be able to use those laser Xmas decorations. So we can be concerned about safety in some areas but not others. I see.
correction noted - my bad
No-fly list is too broad, some innocent people get caught up in it?
There are constitutional problems?
It’s telling that there are many voices out there objecting to the no-fly, no-guns proposal, but are also baying for all Muslims to be barred from entry to the United States.
Overbroad? Yep.
Constitutional problems? Yep
(And TatinG, I don’t mean to say you agree with Trump’s proposal…just generalizing that those voices are out there.)
Yes, there’s no Constitutional right to fly. There’s also no constitutional right to buy guns if you commit a criminal…so as jym says, if you show up on the list, your rights are suspended until you clear it up. Clear your name and you get your gun. The idea that we should let everyone on the no-fly list buy a gun because it might inconvenience someone on the list who shouldn’t be there is ludicrous.
I wish the right to vote was given the same no-holds-barred worship as the right to buy a gun.
France cannot, and it has real borders, unlike the US open southern border and thousands of square miles of open coastline. Guns will just enter using the established successful drug pipelines.
I guess ineffective for some is considered a success, even if the results directly puts people in harm’s way.
Given that 80% of illegal drugs smuggled into the US are never caught and hit the streets. What this poster is asking people to accept is that millions of military grade guns will still got successfully smuggled and delivered to criminals and if we get a few that is fine, no matter if criminals still get their guns and wreak havoc on people. Maybe we should to ask people if they want to be victims of criminals with such guns or would they like the opportunity to fire back with parity if necessary?
The major problem with this outlawing is no one has shown that criminals, such as the CA terrorists, would not be able to get these weapons. They got such weapons in France with no problem, and France has tightly controlled borders. Therefore, the entire focus of outlawing is not criminals, but to take these guns out of the hands of law abiding people. And there is the problem, nothing being suggested affects criminals, only people who have done nothing.
I suggest if outlawing certain guns is really wanted then find a way to ensure that the outlawing will affect the criminals and people might go with. However, people will not go with any outlawing if the only effect is to ban them, but still allow criminals to acquire.
I’m sorry to see this thread has devolved into politics and gun control. I thought that was against TOS.
Huh? Criminals aren’t “allowed” to acquire them. They don’t do so legally.
It means that across the spectrum more people agree that gun laws are fine the way they are, as compared to the number of people who want more gun control, and the number of people who want even less gun control.
Thus, when policymakers and congressmen talk directly with their constituents, they get the message to leave things as they are, with the big exception of ensuring that mentally-ill people cannot purchase guns - but there are real civil rights issues there that people know will not be that easy to solve, i.e, HIPAA laws and who gets access to medical records and who gets to officially report the mentally-ill person.
How effective is the federal ban on fully automatic weapons? These guns are not showing up in the news as the guns terrorists and nuts use to mow people down as rapidly as possible.
There was a funny but informative double segment with Jordan Klepper on the Daily Show tonight re the “good guy with a gun” idea. Ended with an active shooter drill at a currently unused elementary school.
Your BIL’s experience is something some would wish for. A delayed flight is nothing, not to belittle his experience. There are people who would love to have the issue of just a delayed flight.
My opinion regarding the statement that getting off the list is just an issue of knowing how the system works: Some people get off easily, but for others, it is absolutely a nightmare, and the government is nothing short of unhelpful.
And when the liberal ACLU is on the case, you know something is really, really wrong:
(Emphases mine)
I WAS able to successfully get my entire family off the no fly list. No one said it was a piece of cake, but I did it. Telling readers to “ignore me” because it doesn’t help your argument is beyond rude. Lets hope readers instead wisely ignore the constant officious lectures and diatribes. Insulting posters, readers, research, and everyone else you disagree with does not help your case. Reminds me of the wizard of Oz “Ignore the little man behind the curtain…” Maybe there is a reason you don’t know about that caused some of your employees to not be easily removed from the no-fly list. Maybe they aren’t squeaky clean.
So real life examples are ok only when you present them. I see.
jym is allowed to talk about their family’s experience and the fact that it doesn’t fit into your personal narrative, aw, doesn’t invalidate that fact.
Furthermore, aw, you are flat out either ignoring facts or lying with regards to the public’s views on gun restrictions. Here’s, you know, actual statistics (I know, you seem to be allergic to those but nonetheless…):
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
55% (for those of you keeping track, that is a MAJORITY not even a plurality) believe that gun laws should be more strict. 33% think they should be kept as they are (that is a MINORITY).
I’m sure that jym626 is telling the truth about her experience getting her family off the no fly list, but that doesn’t imply that anyone who is erroneously on the list will be able to get off it.
Of course I am telling the truth ( see post 453 for the story). Readers now may be a bit confused as part of my response is to something offensive that is gone.
We are 3 days away from the 3 year anniversary of the shootings at Sandy Hook. What does it take to make some changes in this country happen? Condolences to the families of the Sandy Hook victims on this sad anniversary.
The ACLU is generally on the right side of issues that threaten individual rights, so I will concede that the no-fly list needs to be reformed before we adopt no-fly, no gun. I want to point out, though, that the concern about violating constitutional rights in the name of public safety has been selectively applied by some.
Remember “stop and frisk?”
Seems there’s a parallel there. The argument for stop and frisk being that adopting policies that violate the Fourth Amendment rights of many innocent people is necessary because the practice does deter some potential criminals. The prevention of crime serves the public good even if some people are blameless and find themselves inconvenienced and harassed.
At least the ACLU is consistent: