Would you support the No Fly No Buy List if they added Due Process?

Red Wind said:

I am getting sick to death of all these so called compromises.

Ben Franklin sounds wiser with every passing day.

Click to expand...

For me it is Jefferson writing about the Tree of Liberty to William Smith in 1787.

For me it is Jefferson writing about the Tree of Liberty to William Smith in 1787.

Click to expand...

Tom will serve as well.

1. Steve Hayes, a fairly well known writer for the Weekly Standard wound up on the no fly list. With all his money and resources, it was difficult for him to get off it. Think about how difficult it would be for an average person without those resources to do so.

2. I'm only in my early 50's, but I don't remember a more dishonest and vindictive administration. To think they would not load the this list with everyone they could is a little naive. As others have mentioned, look what they did to Tea Party members for the "crime" of being political opponents. I have absolutely no trust in the anti's and Dems and won't compromise at all with them.

“I have here in my hand a list of 205 [State Department employees] that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.”

Never fails to bring 'em in.

TCB

*Just because he was completely and totally right, doesn't make his grandstanding & blackmailing any less disgraceful for a congressman (well, except by comparison, to the ones we have today, who are both shameless AND wrong)

I have read the responses to this question and I personally think some of us are living in a dream world. It doesn’t matter how far we stick our heads in the sand, we ARE still seeing an ever increasing number of mass shootings. Despite constitutional rights and the arguments used, are we naive enough to think that the country is going to let this continue, we have as many deaths from firearms as many smaller countries have being in a war zone.
Personally I don’t want to give up any rights, but sanity has to prevail. Digging in our heels and saying we are not going to give an inch isn’t going to protect our right to keep and bear arms in the long run.
I was glad to see the NRA supporting the No Fly ban being extended to firearm purchases PROVIDED Due Process is used. Being proactive and helping provide, and being involved in finding solutions to the problem is the only way that our LONG TERM rights to keep and bear arms will survive.
Why don’t we come up with a list of things we think would help prevent the crazies or radicals getting firearms and causing problems for legitimate gun owners.
I have monitored the news in my area for some time and get mad when I see the sentences handed down for crimes committed with a firearm. In over 70% of the cases, federal charges are never filed. I want to see this changed and see the “Commission of a crime while in possession of a firearm” thrown at every offender. I have talked to my Federal officials and let them know how I feel. Surprisingly they agree!
I suspect this response will result in “Flaming” replies, I don’t care, I WANT TO SEE US BECOME PART OF A SOLUTION AND NOT BE SEEN AS SINGLE ISSUE OBSTRUCTIONISTS.
I am not a kid, I have been involved in the shooting sports for over 45 years and have had a continuous concealed carry permit since 1971. Yes I also have several military style firearms. I won’t give them up but I sure will try to help reach equitable solutions to stop the madness. :banghead:

Remember - Ted Kennedy found himself on the No Fly list.

Click to expand...

But that's only the first chapter in this rhetoric. He also had the 'MEANS' to get himself off that list. He knew the right people, he knew their phone numbers, he knew who to reach in order to get himself off the list.

Now, what about us???

Same hypocrisy that the Democrats and their media lap dogs have been saying for eight years now, "Guns don't make you safer" and while saying it they're surrounded by security agents armed with guns. Guns make me safer, not you.

Denying basic civil rights based upon being on a secret government list, which is difficult to get off of, that is riddled with errors, and could easily be exploited for political reason? Gee, what could go wrong ...

Um, no. I could see is some kind of crosslink between an NICS and said list that would result in an FBI agent being alerted to the transaction so that they can follow up as necessary. But an outright denial without due process is absurd.

Barnbwt is on the beam here--we would not need the list if all the players played by the rules.
Tje allegef people on "our" side claim they can't play by the rules because the bad people don't play by the rules.
Yet, the rules-following snuffies seem to have managed to collect up a quantity of bad people all while following the rules. Go figure.

On the orange gherkin--his pollsters have clearly told him that triangulating on the no fly=no buy gets cross-over votes from formerly HRC voters.
I'd bet money that the political team thinks that an NICS "deny" results in an arrest, rather than the "no sale" it actually causes.

Like all of these would be panacea, the no fly list only damages (hurts/limits/shackles) the law-abiding; the guilty, the evil are unaffected. Instead of paying $500 at the pawn shop, the bad guy will just go find an ex Sandiista and spend $150 on an ex FARC AK-74

no trust in lists

The "No Fly List" stories I have read are that
(a) Sen. "Ted" Edward Moore Kennedy got blocked from flying five times because an IRA terrorist used the nom de guerre of "T. Kennedy" and
(b) another politician who complained about being blocked and persisted in an explanation was finally advised to get around the block by booking flights using his middle and last names because they passed when his first and last name did not.

We are close to becoming like East Germany which put its faith in the secret police STASI files on citizens to preserve the state: on the ash heap of history. It used to be a proud boast "Ich bin ein Berliner". Now we are supposed to be proud to say "Ich bin nicht eine NICS 4473 verbotene Person."

PS: wanna bet the IRA terrorist could change his nom de guerre pseudonym and fly?

Betting on an unreliable list is, like, stuck on stupid. Again.

we ARE still seeing an ever increasing number of mass shootings

Click to expand...

I'm 'a need a cite for that before surrendering my God-given liberties (and won't be holding my breath)

I don’t want to give up any rights, but...

Click to expand...

Digging in our heels and saying we are not going to give an inch isn’t going to protect our right to keep and bear arms in the long run.

Click to expand...

Do you not remember 2013, or were you simply not paying attention (or part of the action against the AWB/UBC)?*

I was glad to see the NRA supporting the No Fly ban being extended to firearm purchases PROVIDED Due Process is used

Click to expand...

It is literally the same as favoring gun control, so long as it only applies to the bad guys. Exactly. The. Same. It's an oxymoronic statement.

being involved in finding solutions to the problem

Click to expand...

IIRC, the last jihadi in San Bernadino wasn't on the list either. Exactly how is this a solution, that's being pitched, and not just anti-gun/anti-immigrant synergy between Trump and Feinstein?

Why don’t we come up with a list of things we think would help prevent the crazies or radicals getting firearms and causing problems for legitimate gun owners.

Click to expand...

Our nation has tried, literally thousands of strategies to anticipate and neuter criminal behavior over the last three centuries (and beyond). It cannot be done, without putting all of us in a prison (and even in North Korea, inmates escape from time to time when they aren't eating grass or each other to survive)

In over 70% of the cases, federal charges are never filed

Click to expand...

Well, then it certainly sounds like you've already realized MORE laws aren't really an answer, haven't you.

I have talked to my Federal officials and let them know how I feel. Surprisingly they agree!

Click to expand...

Yeah, they 'agreed' back when those laws they aren't enforcing were passed, too; yup, they took beau-coup credit for being "tough on crime" back then, I reckon.

I don’t care, I WANT TO SEE US BECOME PART OF A SOLUTION AND NOT BE SEEN AS SINGLE ISSUE OBSTRUCTIONISTS.

Click to expand...

Exactly what evidence has there been to date that the 'solution' --assuming there even is one-- is legislative? We pass the laws, they get broken by suicidal goons who we already would have had the legal authority to punish if taken alive...so what does passing more accomplish? Make you feel better? The Columbine shooting took place during an Assault Weapon Ban where scary guns weren't really available (they had like a Hi Point with low-capacity mags & a sawn off shotgun, IIRC), yet evil 'found a way' as it always does. However, everyone else was forbidden from availing themselves of drastically more effective defensive, sporting, and competition equipment --especially the defensive side, since handguns were relegated to a mere ten rounds, laughably inadequate by a great many experts' standards today, and as the market has shown, in complete opposition to the free will of informed gun owning Americans.

You know, when I copied this last quote, I accidentally hit the "search using Bing" button;
https://www.bing.com/search?q=I+don%E2%80%99t+care%2C+I+WANT+TO+SEE+US+BECOME+PART+OF+A+SOLUTION+AND+NOT+BE+SEEN+AS+SINGLE+ISSUE+OBSTRUCTIONISTS.&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN
EVERY RESULT IS FROM "DAILY KOS" AND #4 IS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT CONCERN TROLLING --these search algorithms are becoming self-aware, I think

You started out good, but...I'm gonna have to agree with Bing --you totally come off as a concern troll by the end, way too many buzzwords and phrases that are very specifically associated with the anti-gun set.

Hate to get kinda personal, but;
"Yep I am on the wrong side of 70 too and my tastes run to a beautiful Wood stock and a deep shiny blue such as Colt and S&W used to turn out. I still drool when I spot an older revolver and not too."
"If 6 wont do it I shouldn't carry"
*"I did as I threatened, and did not renew my membership (NRA)" --in May 2013, so I guess youwere in the game during the UBC/AWB debates and seeking 'solutions,' just not on our side
And, the rest of the posts I bothered to skim through were almost exclusively about revolvers. Wheel guns and bolt actions are classic, nothing is more elegant IMO, and I'd fight just as vigorously if they were working on laws to limit their bore size or muzzle energy...but it ain't your skin in the game here, so quit trying to convince me to peel mine for your peace of mind.

TCB

triangulating on the no fly=no buy gets cross-over votes from formerly HRC voters.

Click to expand...

More importantly, it rhymes, which we all know is crucial for public policy

TCB

I say no.

due process is not enough

I voted "no", because while due process is absolutely needed in case I am accidentally or wrongly added to the no-fly list, that is not enough.

THE REAL PROBLEM is that the no-fly list, as it is now, is totally casual. Many different LEOs and garden variety bureacrats from several agencies can add a name to the no-fly list basically on a whim - no criteria exist except what each agency broadly sketches out, and each government employee can use his/her own judgment.

Another problem is misspelling of names, same names and other confusion of names.

It is not good enough to have access to due process to get your name OFF the list. That could take months. There needs to be due process to get ON the no-fly list, including advanc notification and right of appeal before being added. Otherwise, it's a case of guilty until proven innocent.

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2015/09/09/8-ways-can-end-up-on-no-fly-list.html
Something to think about.

barnbwt, Regarding your answer to exbrit49, I think one point exbrit49 made that you did not address runs something like this: (paraphrasing and reading between exbrit49's lines) Law-abiding gun owners will eventually lose their gun rights because the great mass of all other non-gun-owning citizens will turn against them, due to the law-abiding gun owners' single-minded, obsessive rejection of government action to protect the public against gun violence.

exbrit49, Did you actually mean to say that?

For myself, I do not believe that such a mass hysteria (in America) will happen.

I am dismayed that 40 per cent of High Road respondents have voted to go along with this suggestion. Dismayed and shocked...

My answer is NO. Sad to say but I can no longer trust our government to do the right thing. The powerful have an agenda and it robs me of the liberties I served to protect.

While I disagree w/ exbrit this is still The High Road and he posted respectfully and coherently. There's been name calling and political bias in this thread that aren't worthy of high minded debate. Remember that people (including myself) come here to help shape their views.

NO.

I am forced to look at the initiators of the proposal; I am forced to say, it's a trick!
--More will be in the proposal, then what you're being told!
--It will never ever go away, even if the problem that gave rise to the issue does!

It's just one more burdensome layer of gov't. , wasted valuable resources, time, efforts. Fed Officers are overworked , spread too thin to handle BACKGROUND CHECK REFUSALS as an example, now!!
If there were any .00001% thoughts towards this, it should be carefully looked at, not in time of crisis, and brought before We the People for complete review before voting. You know, kinda like 'He' promised to do, and didn't... secret meetings in special rooms to view 'the Bill' have already happened, recently.

Incidentally, my sig. line is refers to events some 3500yrs ago. Amazing how somethings never change, and some ppl never get it...

First of all I agree with those who posted that the whole idea of the no-fly list is wrong to begin with. If someone is so dangerous that s/he shouldn't be allowed to fly, why should s/he be allowed to walk around free?

Second, I also agree with those who posted that the proposal makes it way too convenient for those in power to disarm all the folks who challenge them, similar to the way the IRS persecuted the Tea Party groups.

There is not currently and will not be any transparency as to the definition of "terrorist", recall that it came out not long ago that VETERANS and "CONSTITUTION SUPPORTERS" are considered suspicious for terrorism by the current administration.

Bear in mind that one of the left's mottos is "Never let a good crisis go to waste", that is exactly what's happening, they are using the Orlando attack to promote their disarm-the-citizens agenda.

I like the idea of giving the FBI access to the NICS database, and if anyone applies to purchase a gun who is on the FBI terrorist list, during the 3-day waiting period they can recheck them to see what they're doing now and if it looks bad ARREST THEM, because if they don't get a gun legally they will either get one illegally or just use some other means of killing innocent people. Again, if the person is bad enough not to be allowed to fly or buy a gun, s/he is bad enough to lock up.

It's amazing how big a mess they manage to make. If they didn't have the "no profiling" rule, would they even need the no-fly list? And any determined terrorist can still fly -- first of all, every city with a significant population of illegal immigrants has known locations where a person can buy a fake social security card and driver license for a not gigantic amount of money; and secondly, many of the terrorists anyway use multiple names. Mrs. San Bernardino Terrorist did not come into the US under her real name -- Tafsheen Malik was the name of some Islamist-revered terrorist from a few centuries ago, she appropriated it. (BTW, why did our supposed vetting not even notice that? The original Tafsheen Malik was a male, for one thing...) They can use the same techniques to buy a gun.

Finally, neither the Boston bombers, the San Bernardino terrorists, nor the Orlando one, were on the no-fly list. The Orlando one even passed multiple security checks to be employed by a company that does a lot of work for DHS.

I feel like we are in a pincers -- the terrorists on one side and the "civilized" destroyers of our country on the other.

So, you get investigated by the FBI for being a potential national security risk due to potential future behaviors and are not allowed to fly on a commercial airliner nor purchase a firearm.
So, you are investigated by the FBI for exposing state secrets but you are still allowed,and in fact wildly encouraged to run for the office of President of the United States?
Does this sound like a level playing field to you? Does this sound like the masses and the elites are under the same set of rules?

exbrit49 said:

I have read the responses to this question and I personally think some of us are living in a dream world. It doesn’t matter how far we stick our heads in the sand, we ARE still seeing an ever increasing number of mass shootings. Despite constitutional rights and the arguments used, are we naive enough to think that the country is going to let this continue, we have as many deaths from firearms as many smaller countries have being in a war zone.
Personally I don’t want to give up any rights, but sanity has to prevail. Digging in our heels and saying we are not going to give an inch isn’t going to protect our right to keep and bear arms in the long run.
I was glad to see the NRA supporting the No Fly ban being extended to firearm purchases PROVIDED Due Process is used. Being proactive and helping provide, and being involved in finding solutions to the problem is the only way that our LONG TERM rights to keep and bear arms will survive.
Why don’t we come up with a list of things we think would help prevent the crazies or radicals getting firearms and causing problems for legitimate gun owners.
I have monitored the news in my area for some time and get mad when I see the sentences handed down for crimes committed with a firearm. In over 70% of the cases, federal charges are never filed. I want to see this changed and see the “Commission of a crime while in possession of a firearm” thrown at every offender. I have talked to my Federal officials and let them know how I feel. Surprisingly they agree!
I suspect this response will result in “Flaming” replies, I don’t care, I WANT TO SEE US BECOME PART OF A SOLUTION AND NOT BE SEEN AS SINGLE ISSUE OBSTRUCTIONISTS.
I am not a kid, I have been involved in the shooting sports for over 45 years and have had a continuous concealed carry permit since 1971. Yes I also have several military style firearms. I won’t give them up but I sure will try to help reach equitable solutions to stop the madness. :banghead:

Click to expand...

It's a matter of trust, or lack thereof. By their own admission (remember Jonathan Gruber?) this administration lied to get Obamacare pushed through, promising lower premiums and other benefits which they knew were never going to be realized. The examples of their deceit are many. If it were possible to work with them in good faith to come up with ways to take the guns out to terrorists hands but allow us to keep them, I'd support that. They will not, however, deal in good faith and will use this issue to erode our 2A rights. Never forget their stated goal of eliminating private gun ownership. Their policies in the war on terror and crime in general as well as their demonizing of police have made a bad situation worse. They refuse to protect us and then want to take away our ability to protect ourselves. I'll take a pass on "working" with them.

To people having the ability to think and accurately discern truth, it is generally recognized that the age-old lure of appeasement fosters neither liberty nor freedom. Conciliation to those who would destroy said liberties and freedoms encourages suppression.

It needs to be seen and said clearly: there are, amongst us, appeasers, apologists, and defeatists and they have to be fought intellectually and politically.

Well, it appears the antis have found their opening; not even back ground checks found this much approval among our ranks. Maybe SH was TOO big an event, and that's why nithing happened; the potential for gun control was so obvious, that we all were much more unified. This time, the nature of the event is more diffuse, encompassing national security and identity politics and of a (very slightly) less revolting nature since young children were not involved. I think more folks aren't taking this seriously, or seeing it as an opportunity for movement on those other issues, instead of the threat to gun rights it is becoming. We're not standing firm on this one.

"Law-abiding gun owners will eventually lose their gun rights because the great mass of all other non-gun-owning citizens will turn against them, due to the law-abiding gun owners' single-minded, obsessive rejection of government action to protect the public against gun violence."
I did. I remarked that we held off "inevitable" legislation after Sandy Hook by being stubborn, even while guys like exbrit were decrying our efforts to do so.

TCB