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

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

  • Yes

    Votes: 144 41.0%

  • No

    Votes: 207 59.0%
  • Total voters
    351
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bye by general discussion forum

As I expected, I got flamed pretty darn well and of all the respondents, only Bill_Rights understood what I was trying to say.
As I stated in the original post, I have been an avid shooter/firearms owner since before many of the respondents were born. I have supported our second amendment rights continuously. If you read what I wrote, it’s to try and find a solution and retain our full second amendment rights. Whether you like it or not, there have been an ever increasing number of mass shootings. Each getting more and more press coverage and portraying us all as NUTS! My suggestion was to try and help find solutions to what is a real and ongoing problem for all firearm owners.
It is evident that my point of view is in a minority. So be it! I am old enough to finish my days reloading and shooting pretty much as I have always done. Some of the younger members of the forum are going to gradually lose some of their second amendment rights whether they like it or not. No I am not a defeatist, I am a realist.
Only one reply and that is to barnbwt post 36. I am surprised (not really), I can’t believe that you intimate that I have paraphrased what others are saying. Way out of line and totally untrue!!!! What I wrote were my own words and were from the heart. Pretty much of what I said has been interpreted way out of context. A slash and burn response if ever I saw one. If that’s your idea of good discussion, so be it.
So I am a "concern troll" ? No, I am just a gun loving firearm nut that wants to protect the rights for successive generations. I am also smart enough to know that ongoing Mass Shootings are going to impact our constitutional right. To think otherwise is sticking your head in the sand.
And yes the political associations I mentioned have been with ranking politicians and some of the discussions have been at the firing range!!
Anyway, I will continue to enjoy my trips to the range and enjoy my almost 50 year hobby, and spend more time reloading and my other hobbies. If the views in the responses were as heartfelt as my initial posting, then I guess I don’t belong on this forum. I was trying to get a meaningful discussion. It didn’t happen.
I will still visit THR but only the reloading and revolver section.
 
exbrit49 said:
If you read what I wrote, it’s to try and find a solution and retain our full second amendment rights. Whether you like it or not, there have been an ever increasing number of mass shootings. Each getting more and more press coverage and portraying us all as NUTS! My suggestion was to try and help find solutions to what is a real and ongoing problem for all firearm owners.
Click to expand...

exbrit, if your goal is to find a solution, I suggest you rethink your position. The no-buy list has precisely the same problem as the so-called-universal-but-in-reality-nothing-but-universal background checks, to wit: Setting aside all the potential mischief through incompetence or bad faith, even if the list was perfect, and contained only Real Terrorists (whatever that means), it can not stop bad actors from obtaining firearms through the black market. The Charlie Hebdo and Paris nightclub attackers had full-auto rifles purchased/imported into a country where such weapons are entirely prohibited for civilian ownership.

It appears that you want to seem reasonable to those who wish to ban all civilian gun ownership, in an attempt to forestall additional abridgments of the 2A. We've tried that for over 80 years, and I for one say NO MORE.
 
Just like how the IRS harassed Tea Party groups, I guarantee you people will be put on the "no fly list" for no good reason at all.

We are suckers if we do not resist this latest gun control trick.

And we are so close to getting Obama out of office!!!
 
there have been an ever increasing number of mass shootings.
Click to expand...

exbri49,

I know that's the common perception, but it isn't actually correct. Studies have shown there is clustering of mass shootings (and how the FBI, or you or I define what is a mass shooting matters as to what is counted) with gaps. When clusters of incidents occur close together it captures the attention of the press and the minds of uncritical citizens, but it reflects a mixture of copycatting and coincidence. It has been shown that those clusters come and go with what turns out to be some regularity, but they don't constitute an overall increase in mass shootings.

When you combine fundamentally different tragedies like Columbine, Sands Hook, Colorado, Charleston and Oregon, with terrorist attacks like Orlando, San Bernardino and Ft. Hood you end up with conflated numbers.

Some solid reasoning here -

http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/16/in-defense-of-self-defense

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/15/has-homeland-security-secretary-jeh-john

http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/15/dont-disarm-suspected-terrorists
 
Last edited:
Maybe.

But if you can prove that someone is a "terrorist" and unsafe to fly or own a gun, why can't you prosecute him for a terrorism-related crime and imprison him?

What are we really doing here? Is anyone really foolish enough to think an actual terrorist couldn't be dangerous or get where he needs to go if he can't fly or legally purchase a gun?

We have 300 million guns in this country. Right or wrong, legal or not, good or bad - if someone wants a gun, they're going to get one. Even if you made them all evaporate today, we have two huge sea borders and two huge (hard to police) land borders. We can't stop people from crossing our borders, so we're not going to stop crates of AK's from crossing. Just not happening.

So instead of all this goofing around with "No-something-lists", we should relentlessly investigate, prosecute, and punish these people.


G.E. Lee said:
If a person is so dangerous that he just cannot be allowed to board a plane, then he is too dangerous to be allowed to board a bus or to ride Amtrack or to rent a U-Haul and on and on...

And if he is that dangerous then he should be on a no-walk-around list. That is, he should be picked up and isolated from the general public. He should be regarded as a saboteur, a spy bent on an act of war. FDR executed some German spies who were put ashore on Long Island during WW2. They They had plans to wreak havoc, they were charged with crimes, found guilty, and punished.

The whole idea of a secret no-fly list that allows dangerous people to ride buses, trains, rent trucks, hang out at malls, go to the movies, etc. is stupid and pernicious.
Click to expand...

Yep.
Something along the lines of what this guy is saying.
 
powrguy said:
IMHO, if you are a NON-CITIZEN, you are NOT entitled to:


7) NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS WHATSOEVER, which is strictly available for U.S. CITIZENS
Click to expand...

Why?

Why should non-citizens...let's say legal aliens (be they resident, work visa, students, whatever)...not be afforded these basic Rights? Why should they suffer cruel and unusual punishment without due process after an unreasonable search and seizure?

Have you ever or would you like to ever travel outside of the US?
 
We've tried that for over 80 years, and I for one say NO MORE.
Click to expand...
If exbrit has been in the game for four decades, I'm surprised you don't have the perspective required to see that the old "bow, genuflect, and slink away" approach to retaining our rights didn't work, and that this new hard-edged approach of refusal has been working wonders --as it has for ALL civil rights movements. The NRA of pre-1980's mostly sought to hide the existence of the shooting sports from politicians, trying to adapt away from areas --like machine guns and defensive carry-- that they felt were most exposed to public discourse.

I have a news flash; there are fewer hunters by population than ever. In many if not most states at this point, it is something of rich man's or devotee's game. For sure it is in Texas. Defensive carry now exists in some theoretical fashion in all fifty states, and is spreading rapidly through our territories. People of every background and description are filing in for defensive firearms.

The only change was the final realization in '94 that this is not, and never has been about crime or violence control, and is about nothing less than the banning of firearms in general. Therefore;

-No more running
-No more hiding
-No more dodging
-No more sacrificing our flank for the center
-No more burning our bridges whilst in retreat

And lo, and behold, this newfound diligence and focus has consistently been reaping rewards. It wasn't until UBC's became in vogue that anything seemed to slow us down, or until high ranking Dem's and Republican's began cooperating out of the blue in response to this latest opportunity that anything looked seriously plausible at the federal level. There is still zero reason why holding fast to our position will result in more harm befalling us.

If the Dem's had the majorities, and bans were coming regardless, your point of view might have some merit. I understand the way of thinking, since that's how it's been since at least 1968 through 1996. We have nothing to fear stopping them cold now, however. They'll still be back later with the next round of demands at the first opportunity, the only difference is we'll not have given an inch the last time they came knocking. It's not like us stopping them successfully dams up a river of anti-gun 'energy' for later use; on the contrary, it evaporates it and makes future efforts seem ever more pointless. It's a game of momentum, not grudges.

Sorry if I offended you; but you totally write like a concern troll. Keywords, rhetorical devices, phrasing patterns; I'm as surprised as anyone even Bing is able to pick up on it. Perhaps if you broadened your media exposure beyond mainstream network programming (which would certainly explain your perception of inevitable defeat on our side despite two decades of solid progress) you wouldn't come off as a poseur or talking head, and you might even modify your viewpoints to something more consistent with reality.

TCB
 
Last edited:
Warp said:
Why?

Why should non-citizens...let's say legal aliens (be they resident, work visa, students, whatever)...not be afforded these basic Rights? Why should they suffer cruel and unusual punishment without due process after an unreasonable search and seizure?

Have you ever or would you like to ever travel outside of the US?
Click to expand...

Along with that, any of his suggestions wouldn't have made the slightest difference in the Orlando case. The shooter was an American citizen since his birth in the mid-80's.
Tough talk and harsh-sounding buzzwords aren't going to solve the problem. It's going to require actual hard work, thought, and reason - which we sadly lack both in government and among the general public.
 
goon said:
Along with that, any of his suggestions wouldn't have made the slightest difference in the Orlando case. The shooter was an American citizen since his birth in the mid-80's.
Tough talk and harsh-sounding buzzwords aren't going to solve the problem. It's going to require actual hard work, thought, and reason - which we sadly lack both in government and among the general public.
Click to expand...
Yes, the shooter was born here. But give Trump credit for pointing out that WE LET HIS PARENTS COME HERE FROM AFGHANISTAN, and THE FATHER HAS MADE STATEMENTS SUPPORTING THE TALIBAN.
 
exbrit49 vs barnbwt

Is it my imagination, or are all the written responses to the OP's poll from members in the "No" camp? All except exbrit49, I think.

All you who voted "Yes", please come back in and post an explanation of your vote!

I believe exbrit49 is who he claims to be and not any kind of troll. His idea to start a substantive discussion in THR beyond the poll question is bold. I think exbrit49's question is, What can we as firearm enthusiasts do to ward off the general public's drift toward opposing gun rights?

barnbwt rightly pointed out that we gun lovers are having some success is a) attracting self-defense gun owners and b) defeating our political elites' gun-grabbing legislation. That's good. And it is a different question than exbrit49's question.

In support of exbrit49's observation, on the radio station I listen to (WMAL in Washington, DC), which is a conservative talk station, they have ABC news at the top of the hour (which is mainstream media). The ABC radio news is constantly quoting politicians using the term N-R-A as a curse word, practically, and reporting it with a straight face. If you didn't know better, you'd think the NRA was more culpable than ISIS. [old timers will tell us that this is nothing new, probably]

My answer to exbrit 49's question is: Since we can't stop leftist politicians from libeling us, since we can't stiffen the spine of centrist/rightist politicians to actually verbally stand up for us, and since we can't win over or silence the left-biased mainstream media, we have no choice but to work at the grass roots level. Get more people, young and old, into shooting and shooting-based activities. Write and get others to write legislators and newspapers to oppose gun control measures. And, more positively, as exbrit49 wants, write legislators, newspapers and web sites to proclaim the great fun and utility of firearms in a positive 'tone of voice'. What else? Any ideas?

As I said in a post in this thread yesterday, I still don't think the left will be able to stir up enough mass popular votes and uproar to let them go whole-hog on gun grabbing. But I might be wrong. Am I willing to risk my 2A rights on that? Can I do something?
 
Bill_Rights said:
All you who voted "Yes", please come back in and post an explanation of your vote!
Click to expand...

I could see "yes" as a possibility after someone is convicted.

In its current form, the no-fly list and any no-buy list derived from it are violations of due process. The government shouldn't have the power to strip any citizen of his or her rights without a trial. That's one of the most basic cornerstones of our system of government, and I think we can all agree on something along those lines. But if you convicted someone of terrorist related activities and he served his sentence and was released, you may want to put him on a no-fly list for the remainder of his days. I could at least see the argument there.

Then again, if you can't trust him, why are you letting him out of prison in the first place?

The no-fly list generates more questions than answers, but it seems that we are the only ones interested in asking those questions.

FWIW - my politics run somewhere in the left-libertarian arena. I'm not conservative on many issues, but that doesn't meant I don't like a government that makes a general attempt to follow the Constitution occasionally. You'd be surprised at the number of people on the left who get the argument against a no-fly/no-buy list when you explain it in terms of due process. And you'd also be surprised the number of gun owners who lean left. But that's another discussion.

Another thing at work here is the media. The mainstream media thrive on controversial topics because that gets people anxious, then those anxious people tune in, then the advertisers who pay for time on that channel reach more viewers. In this country, it doesn't get much more controversial than gun control + terrorism + no-fly list all at once. But in perspective, mass shootings and acts of terrorism account for a very low number of deaths in the US. Any policy changes we make shouldn't be based on that type of an outlier.
 
Bill_Rights said:
Is it my imagination, or are all the written responses to the OP's poll from members in the "No" camp? All except exbrit49, I think.

All you who voted "Yes", please come back in and post an explanation of your vote!

I believe exbrit49 is who he claims to be and not any kind of troll. His idea to start a substantive discussion in THR beyond the poll question is bold. I think exbrit49's question is, What can we as firearm enthusiasts do to ward off the general public's drift toward opposing gun rights?

barnbwt rightly pointed out that we gun lovers are having some success is a) attracting self-defense gun owners and b) defeating our political elites' gun-grabbing legislation. That's good. And it is a different question than exbrit49's question.

In support of exbrit49's observation, on the radio station I listen to (WMAL in Washington, DC), which is a conservative talk station, they have ABC news at the top of the hour (which is mainstream media). The ABC radio news is constantly quoting politicians using the term N-R-A as a curse word, practically, and reporting it with a straight face. If you didn't know better, you'd think the NRA was more culpable than ISIS. [old timers will tell us that this is nothing new, probably]

My answer to exbrit 49's question is: Since we can't stop leftist politicians from libeling us, since we can't stiffen the spine of centrist/rightist politicians to actually verbally stand up for us, and since we can't win over or silence the left-biased mainstream media, we have no choice but to work at the grass roots level. Get more people, young and old, into shooting and shooting-based activities. Write and get others to write legislators and newspapers to oppose gun control measures. And, more positively, as exbrit49 wants, write legislators, newspapers and web sites to proclaim the great fun and utility of firearms in a positive 'tone of voice'. What else? Any ideas?

As I said in a post in this thread yesterday, I still don't think the left will be able to stir up enough mass popular votes and uproar to let them go whole-hog on gun grabbing. But I might be wrong. Am I willing to risk my 2A rights on that? Can I do something?
Click to expand...


This is one reason I always make my polls public. I believe that, on many forums, people have multiple accounts and/or certain types of people make accounts in hopes of being able to make it appear as though the forum's population/base sees things differently than it really does...seeing who voted for what can flush that out to an extent
 
I support zero laws with no due process. Secretly lists are with secret criteria and no way to get off them are an absolute travesty of justice. If you have someone being investigated you don't just get to throw them on a list and your rights dissappear because the government feels like it. Charge them!
 
It's interesting that the poll has consistently broken 60/40 even as more people vote.
Click to expand...
As the creator of the poll I have made that same observation along with the observation that the majority of the commenters voted No. So we are seeing a vocal 60% No and a less vocal 40% Yes. I find all of this very interesting.
 
To Bill_Rights' newest post, although it's horrible that it takes something like the San Bernardino or Orlando attack to motivate people to buy their first gun, one upside is that groups who were not previously thought of as pro-2A come into the fold. The biggest increase in new gun owners last year was among women, now after Orlando gays and lesbians are getting on board. Fox News Denver reports that membership in the Pink Pistols soared from 1500 on Saturday to 3500 on Monday, see http://kdvr.com/2016/06/14/gun-sales-surge-after-orlando-shooting/.
 
2 of the concerns expressed by myself and others who voted no are a lack of trust of our current crop of Washington politicians, as lying to us is the norm and concerns of abuse of any type of list, given this administration's track record of using it's power to attack it's political rivals, such as Tea Party members. The question I have for those who voted yes, and I'm genuinely curious, is why do you believe anything anyone from Washington tells us and why do you trust this administration to not abuse any type of list?
 
Do you support laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

Of course, but the entire concept is a fantasy.



Do you support No Fly No Buy if they add due process?

Of course, but due process does not exist, and has never been proposed, and nobody trusts that due process will be due process.


Would you support funding a cure for cancer that can be extracted from a unicorn's horn without injuring the animal?

Sure, but.......
 
Possibly politically astute

First, I voted no.

BUT

Due process, as has been pointed out repeatedly, is an up-front process. What if NRA-backed legislation required a grand jury to get added to the list?

First, it would never pass. If you have a grand jury and the right to face your accuser, it's not secret, so the tyrants would never agree to that. If you can get a grand jury to agree you should be on the watch list, you probably should get a real indictment and press charges.

So a 2A-respecting congresscritter proposes no-fly=no-buy legislation that respects the constitutional rights of the accused, and the Democrats kill it. That's all win to me.

Do I trust anyone in D.C. besides maybe Mike Lee, Rand Paul, or Ted Cruz to actually do it correctly? No.

So, NO.
 
I wonder how many people voting "No" missed the "if Due Process was added" qualifier to the original question.
 
goldpelican said:
I wonder how many people voting "No" missed the "if Due Process was added" qualifier to the original question.
Click to expand...

I haven't read anything to suggest anyone misunderstood the question. TimSr's post sums up pretty well that "adding due process" to such a list is meaningless.
 
goldpelican said:
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 people who voted "no" are ignorant enough to trust the federal government to do this Right.

Probably not many
 
Originally posted by old lady new shooter:
To Bill_Rights' newest post, although it's horrible that it takes something like the San Bernardino or Orlando attack to motivate people to buy their first gun, one upside is that groups who were not previously thought of as pro-2A come into the fold. The biggest increase in new gun owners last year was among women, now after Orlando gays and lesbians are getting on board. Fox News Denver reports that membership in the Pink Pistols soared from 1500 on Saturday to 3500 on Monday, see http://kdvr.com/2016/06/14/gun-sales...ando-shooting/.
Click to expand...
Yes, those trends are positive, along the lines exbrit49 hopes for. But it seems 'accidental', as barnbwt noted --> something that just happened (to gun enthusiasts' benefit) rather than something we gun enthusiasts did. Rather, these trends were caused by the "Gun Salesman of the Year" 8 years running now.

I am of the mentality that God works in mysterious and wonderous ways, his will to accomplish. You got a better explanation? (That the 'conservative' leftists who do not trust common people to own and bear arms are the ones causing the gun ownership boom. By the way, "conservative" in this sense means those who believe that people are not able to manage their own lives and must be dominated by kings, bishops, aristocrats, technocrats, experts, party nomenclatura, dictators, etc. In that sense, there are conservatives on both the left and the right. The left-right battle then boils down to who gets to rule us peasants, surfs, plebes, poor people and bourgois.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

<*(((><
  • Locked
Trump: Take Guns Before Due Process
2 3 4 5
Replies
122
Views
7K
JohnKSa
JohnKSa
E
  • Locked
Donald trump now supports no fly list gun ban
Replies
8
Views
1K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
P
  • Locked
Silence On A ‘Terror Gap’
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
LKB3rd
L
L
  • Locked
Are you on the secret terrorist watch list? McCarthy introduces "no fly. no buy" bill
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
runrabbitrun
R
M
  • Locked
Mayor Endorses Another Gun-Control Measure
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Robert Hairless
R
Back
Top