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

I wonder how many people voting "No" missed the "if Due Process was added" qualifier to the original question.

Click to expand...

I wonder how many who voted 'yes' actually could describe Due Process, and how it could possibly be satisfied when dealing with a secret list with consequences approaching that of a convicted felony? Hasn't been many takers so far, I notice. Just because they say they will add it, or won't pass a bill without it, doesn't mean it is actually possible to do so --believe it or not, there's actually a good chance your representatives are lying to you in order to distract from their beloved intelligence/enforcement agencies' colossal screw up (either that, or they're just as naive). I personally think it's stupid to even entertain debate, let alone a vote, on something that would be so dangerous if passed.

Case in point, the machine gun ban inserted into FOPA '86 at the last moment & passed under exceedingly questionable (let's just call it what it was; corrupt) circumstances. Now it's used as justification for banning semi-autos in the minds of anti-gunners. Oops, guess we shouldn't have given them the opportunity to pull a fast one

"Secret Enemies Lists, Star Chamber Warrants, and Extraordinary Renditions*! Now with Due Process --it's what Proles crave!"
"You see honey? The man says it'll have Due Process, so we've got nothing to worry about!"
*offer valid in all 57 states. waterboarding limited to 75 per customer per day, some house pets may be terminated.

TCB

goldpelican said:

I wonder how many people voting "No" missed the "if Due Process was added" qualifier to the original question.

Click to expand...

Nope, didn't miss it. Due process is a moot point when you have a bureaucrat deciding who is on the list. The whole thing is another feel good measure that is anything bet.

"According to CBS news,(6:30 est today) some in the FBI worry that if someone is denied their gun purchase that it would tip them off that they're being watched."

Typical shallow government thinking. Denying then a gun purchase will tip them off, but denying them to fly when they show up at the airport won't?

I have some reservations about the no fly list.




I would support dropping a nuke on Raqqa.

First have the No Fly List process repaired to the satisfaction of the ACLU.

Then it might be worth considering. But not the other way around.

Typical shallow government thinking. Denying then a gun purchase will tip them off, but denying them to fly when they show up at the airport won't?

Click to expand...

Or when they start having tons of enhanced interaction with police, or can't get a government job, or...

I read this question elsewhere on the web & question this was posted

who ....watches ........the watchers ?

myself

I know enough about "due process" to understand it can be corrupted too. In this day I dont trust any government official or the media & the courts are a joke.

I suggest the topic of gun (aka American) CONTROL be dropped from the national conversation to make room for the more on target issue of Jihad Control. I would not support any more oppression for Americans. Why do i need to hire an attorney to prove that i am not going to break the existing laws against murder. Would double jeopardy apply? Or could some clerk push the Don't Fly Don't Buy button again as soon as your previous check for court cost clears. They have openly moved the overton window from islamic terrorists to honest red blooded Americans and we just play defense.

"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."

— President Lyndon B. Johnson

never. in my former federal govt career, much of it overseas, i used various watchlists. the no-fly list is garbage in/garbage out. the feds already have the tools and lists they need, except being p.c. wont allow their use. secstate clinton and pres obama had years to get it right but failed, why would they do better now? for a useful overview see: https://theintercept.com/2016/06/15...rror-watchlist-in-fight-against-gun-violence/.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

...

newfalguy101 said:

Flying is a privilege subject to whatever rules they want to instigate, their room their rules.

Firearm ownership is a right protected by the constitution.

So far, in this country, a person must be convicted of a crime to lose their constitutionally protected rights.

Click to expand...

Member


Join Date: March 19, 2005
Location: Nacogodches, Texas
Posts: 618
The feds don't own the plane. Flying on a plane is not a "previlege". It is, rather, a business agreement between the passenger and the airline. The feds have no part of it except that they have managed to twist and lie and steal the interstate commerce clause like the twist everything else. Don't buy into that crap.

"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."

— President Lyndon B. Johnson

Click to expand...

Most ironic quote I've seen this morning. Between gun control, Vietnam, the defeat of Goldwater, and Great Scoiety, nearly everything he did had terrible long term consequences despite altruistic intentions.

TCB

Poll is still eerily steady at exactly 60-40 despite DOUBLING the sample size --stats people will tell you this is highly unlikely...

barnbwt said:

Poll is still eerily steady at exactly 60-40 despite DOUBLING the sample size --stats people will tell you this is highly unlikely...

Click to expand...

Once the numer of replicates reaches a certain point additional replicates won't improve the accuracy of the test. Perhaps this is an accurate representation of THR members' views

barnbwt said:

I wonder how many who voted 'yes' actually could describe Due Process, and how it could possibly be satisfied when dealing with a secret list with consequences approaching that of a convicted felony?

Click to expand...

It is fundamentally impossible to "add due process" to something that is designed to lower the bar for abridging an enumerated right to a bureaucratic whim. You can't lower the bar by adding something that raises it right back up again.

OldMac said:

I suggest the topic of gun (aka American) CONTROL be dropped from the national conversation to make room for the more on target issue of Jihad Control.

Click to expand...

The Orlando shooter was a native-born American citizen, and his Islamic jihadist credentials were iffy at best (it was reported that he alternately claimed membership in Hezbollah and support for Daesh, indicating he may have been as ignorant of the complexities of Islamic extremism as most Americans). Let's keep in mind that Jihadi/mentally-ill/victim-of-bullying/socioeconomically-disposessed etc. is all a smokescreen. The left will jump on any crisis to push a predefined agenda of disarmament, and that should be our focus.

Ellsnjel said:

Perhaps [the poll results are] an accurate representation of THR members' views

Click to expand...

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Simple compromise add "can't buy a gun, can't vote" to any bill restricting gun purchases.

That's an intriguing idea, Wally.

Of course, the Leftists would never buy it.

How about "If you're on the NO FLY list, you're not allowed to vote" ?

Then again, there's always the prospect of good people being put on the list with the flick of a bureaucrat's pen.....

I will admit I did not read every post on this subject so many of you might have come to the same conclusion that I have.

Two movies come to mind the first is the “Minority Report” as in we will find you guilty of a crime before you commit it. The second is V for Vendetta where the government tells you how to think and feel and you are watched all the time in the name of safety and security.

SO THE ANSWER IS NO, UNLESS YOU COMMIT A CRIME AND ARE CHARGED WITH A CRIME YOUR RIGHTS SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AWAY PERIOD THIS INCLUDES NOT BEING ABLE TO FLY EVEN IF YOU ARE A POS DIRTBAG.

What are rights if they are allowed to be taken away because we think you might be evil but have no proof?

Are rights are being taken away a little at a time in the name of safety and security but it is a false safety and security. This was proven in France even with all the gun bans and police security they still got hit by evil people with automatic weapons and explosives.

This guy that shot up the night club had background checks for his job, background checks to buy the guns and was on a watch list and investigated then removed because nothing was found so to ask me if I should give up some of my rights so other may feel good, no way.

So if the government down the road says all THR members should be on a watch list even if you are notified and have a way to fight the system do you have the money to prove you are a good guy.

Great my rights are taken away not because I have not committed a crime but because I am put on a list and I now have to spend a fortune on attorneys to prove I do not intend to do anything wrong.

Great I might get my rights back but now I lost my job, my savings and everything else by taking time off work to go to court just to get off a list.

Sorry for the rant but keep the government away from my rights.

Simple compromise add "can't buy a gun, can't vote" to any bill restricting gun purchases.

Click to expand...

I suppose, if you want to guarantee we never have the right to keep and bear arms ever again, this might make sense ('selective enforcement' is a B, man )

TCB

Perhaps [the poll results are] an accurate representation of THR members' views

Click to expand...

No, it's been within 2% since the inception, rapidly shifting back to 6/4 shortly after, I noticed the stability around a couple dozen votes --highly odd for it to remain so stable.

But, what really suggests some kind of oddity, is the posted discourse. Check any number of (no doubt, ultimately locked) threads on trading universal carry rights for background checks, the utility of background checks, whether machineguns should be legalized, etc. Any topic that is even a fraction as controversial as the poll suggests this one is, generates a heated back-and-forth between a number (as in, more than one ) of posters, and there is usually some sort of core justification running through them. I see startling unanimity here, considering the topic involves rather complex legal issues and an appealing emotional escape-hatch.

For instance; those opposed clearly state with regularity, that Due Process cannot be applicable at all to the Watch List, and therefore rights can not be removed through the same.

The only opposition point I've heard so far, is that we'll somehow get it worse from an out-of-power minority party by standing strong and rigidly rebuffing them, than by weakly agreeing to meet them halfway & put the argument behind us, for now.

Maybe all the "Yes" folks are too scared to explain WHY exactly they want Obama given the power to delay or deny anyone's future gun sales? That kind of blind, craven fear would certainly explain their support for this proposal in the first place, however.

TCB

The original question was:

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

Click to expand...

goldpelican asked:

I wonder how many people voting "No" missed the "if Due Process was added" qualifier to the original question.

Click to expand...

I voted "No" specifically because the addition of "Due Process" was mentioned but not specified. What "Due Process" did the OP have in mind? He/She certainly didn't specify it.

There are bills currently being marked up on Capitol Hill that would ban people
who are on the "No Fly" list (and in some cases other secret government lists) and provide for them to be removed from the "No Fly" list by suing the government in Federal District Court and proving they are not the person named on the list. As far as I am concerned, any law that would allow an administrative decision to deprive me of a Constitutionally guaranteed right without affording me a hearing and then require me to incur the substantial cost and delay of suing the government in court to prove a negative to get off that list is not meaningfully "Due Process".

So, yes, I saw the undefined "Due Process" exception and would not support it.

I never think trading liberty for protection is a good idea.

No, "due process" notwithstanding.

And I'm reasonably sure that membership in more than one gun forum puts one on various watch "lists" anyhow.

And probably the only way to find out for sure is to try to purchase a firearm.

All you Life Members of the NRA out there? Guess what?

I understand there are noises being made to make the NRA a terrorist organization. Probably come to nothing, but the concept is now out there.

Terry

barnbwt said:

Maybe all the "Yes" folks are too scared to explain WHY exactly they want Obama given the power to delay or deny anyone's future gun sales? That kind of blind, craven fear would certainly explain their support for this proposal in the first place, however.

Click to expand...

Maybe the ensuing discussion planted a seed and they're now contemplating whether they may be wrong about a long-held opinion. I'd call that a win.

Or maybe they just clicked "yes" and went on to the next thread. For a very long time I tried to avoid political posts (and mostly hung out in the Black Powder forum...because those guys over there don't take themselves so seriously.)