Trump - we need to stop people on no fly list from buying guns

Sorry if this has been discussed, but why not, instead of denying civil rights, if someone is dangerous enough we can't let them fly, assign FBI to tail them if they buy a gun. You might not only stop a violent crime, you might discover terror cells or networks.

I just don't get the idea if you think some guy is so dangerous you won't let him on an airplane, but no one is watching his activities.

- - - Updated - - -

new guy said:
Morons assume that being on a terror watch list means the person is middle eastern. People need to wake the F up and realize that our government classifies folks who believe in individual freedom and liberty as the greater terrorist threat.
Click to expand...

FIFY
 
Varmint said:
Sorry if this has been discussed, but why not, instead of denying civil rights, if someone is dangerous enough we can't let them fly, assign FBI to tail them if they buy a gun. You might not only stop a violent crime, you might discover terror cells or networks.

I just don't get the idea if you think some guy is so dangerous you won't let him on an airplane, but no one is watching his activities.

- - - Updated - - -



FIFY
Click to expand...

So you are OK with the government following people that are on a secret list and bought a gun? What if you are on the list erroneously? What if they bought the gun to protect themselves from an overbearing government...you know one that follows people around just because they bought a gun
 
Varmint said:
Sorry if this has been discussed, but why not, instead of denying civil rights, if someone is dangerous enough we can't let them fly, assign FBI to tail them if they buy a gun. You might not only stop a violent crime, you might discover terror cells or networks.

I just don't get the idea if you think some guy is so dangerous you won't let him on an airplane, but no one is watching his activities.

- - - Updated - - -



FIFY
Click to expand...


I think the Obama/Holder administration tried that before.

fast-001.jpg
 
Varmint said:
Sorry if this has been discussed, but why not, instead of denying civil rights, if someone is dangerous enough we can't let them fly, assign FBI to tail them if they buy a gun. You might not only stop a violent crime, you might discover terror cells or networks.

I just don't get the idea if you think some guy is so dangerous you won't let him on an airplane, but no one is watching his activities.
Click to expand...

Oh you know, that whole innocent until proven guilty thing.
 
gunofthrones said:
NBC says trump support democrats no fly no buy bill. It's going to happen guys.
Click to expand...

This has been my concern from the beginning about Trump. You don't just go through 65 years of life supporting gun control (including AWBs) and then all of sudden become some ardent defender of 2A conveniently at the same time as running for the Repub nomination for POTUS.

Worst part is that this whole thing is a GIANT distraction from the real issues. Why are terrorists here in the first place? How has ISIS become as powerful as they have? The answer is the failure of the Kenyan. Media and Dem pols can't have that come to light, though.
 
ThePreBanMan said:
Please provide a source that says the NRA supports no fly no buy without due process... Go on.... I'll wait....
Click to expand...

As I clearly said in post #122, they say they support it provided there's some sort of due process mechanism added to get off of it.

Since you appear to be defending them on the topic, is it safe to assume that you think no fly no buy - i.e. a secret government list that any of us can be put on without any sort of conviction, trial, etc. and that would be used to keep people from buying a gun - is cool as long as there's a way to get off of the list? You're alright with that?

How about a free speech list while we're at it. You lose your 1st amendment rights if the government deems you to be a threat of some kind because you identify as a libertarian, or because you own guns. Is that alright as long as you can file an appeal or apply to get off the list? How exactly does that appeal process go? How long does it take? Who gets the last word, given that we're already conceding that the list is legitimate in the first place and that people can be on it without a conviction?
 
Last edited:
ThePreBanMan said:
Please provide a source that says the NRA supports no fly no buy without due process... Go on.... I'll wait....
Click to expand...


Due process in this case is a mirage. Do you have due process on an LTC application? Do we even know who is on the list, how to get on it, how to get off it, and why people are on it?

Let me make this abundantly clear because people apparently can't grasp this concept:

Having "due process" to restrict a right based on a list without a semblance of due process is tyranny.

"requiring court approval within three days for a ban on an individual’s attempted purchase of a gun." is not due process if the list is secret and obscured by bureaucratic red tape.
 
bigblue said:
Due process in this case is a mirage. Do you have due process on an LTC application? Do we even know who is on the list, how to get on it, how to get off it, and why people are on it?

Let me make this abundantly clear because people apparently can't grasp this concept:

Having "due process" to restrict a right based on a list without a semblance of due process is tyranny. "requiring court approval within three days for a ban on an individual’s attempted purchase of a gun." is not due process if the list is secret and obscured by bureaucratic red tape.
Click to expand...


Also not publishing the criteria that puts someone on the list is absolute tyranny. Of course the DOJ will back this up by stating that the criteria is secret as well. [banghead] in order to keep potential terrorists from thwarting the list.
 
People keep saying "due process" as if there's some sort of established process that would be followed to get off of this secret list. What if due process gets defined as a secret FISA court giving a thumbs up or down? What if falling within one of DHS' categories of suspicious groups (i.e. constitutionalists, or people who believe in small government) is enough to reject the appeal?
 
new guy said:
People keep saying "due process" as if there's some sort of established process that would be followed to get off of this secret list. What if due process gets defined as a secret FISA court giving a thumbs up or down? What if falling within one of DHS' categories of suspicious groups (i.e. constitutionalists, or people who believe in small government) is enough to reject the appeal?
Click to expand...
The Zeldin/Cornym bill, HR 4237 includes a defined process for somebody who is delayed/denied to appeal, but no way to know in advance that you have been nominated, and no guarantee a selectee would ever find out why.

ThePreBanMan said:
Please provide a source that says the NRA supports no fly no buy without due process... Go on.... I'll wait....
Click to expand...
The NRA supports "no fly, no buy" without any due process to be added to the list -- all nominees are guilty until proven innocent, won't know they are listed until denied, then get to spend their own time and money to file an appeal.

gunofthrones said:
they can get the member list of this forum and NRA, and call it a day.
Click to expand...
Hillary would absolutely go for that, she preshadowed this move on CNN
Hillary Clinton said:
“I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation, we cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
As I clearly said in post #122, they say they support it provided there's some sort of due process mechanism added to get off of it.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they stop short of saying this so-called "due process" must include the right to examine all evidence used against you; exclude hearsay evidence; have the right to compel witnesses to testify and the right to cross examine witnesses against you.

It would seem that the "due process" model under discussion is akin to a university sexual assault tribunal in its procedures and protections of the rights of the accused.
 
Last edited:
MGnoob said:
This is being looked at the wrong way, Just because trump said it doesnt mean he means it..
Trump may be the best polition on the planet.. he's the only republican nominee who can get away with saying this..... convient that after he dessimated all his republican compitition hes back peddling on what he's said in the past ,isn't it?

He gets to have it both ways, some people support the supposedly offensive/dumb things he's said after orlando , and the others support the notion that taking somone rights away without due process is a good idea(mostly because they haven't though it out)

Now if the nra sets trump strait with out making him hit the twitterverse and they propose somthing that is in line with my interpretation of the 2nd, trump looks like a super star. If the nra goes along with anything, ill leave the group, not send money, and remove the NRA from my estate stuff for when i die.
Hopefully trump has thought this out or spoken with the NRA before he made the statement. Because with out a percieved success, he looks a fool more than usually and loses credibility with both sides.

I'd like to think trump is always underestimated, and actually has a masterplan....
The nra somehow making trump look good to both sides will bring trump some of Hillary votes and helps the NRA get a the supreme court nominee in the long game.
Click to expand...
Man do I hope it's all a smoke show and they don't push for any new legislation.
 
Supermoto said:
So you are OK with the government following people that are on a secret list and bought a gun? What if you are on the list erroneously? What if they bought the gun to protect themselves from an overbearing government...you know one that follows people around just because they bought a gun
Click to expand...

I'm ok with FBI Counter Terrorism following terror suspects. Whether they are putting innocent people or enemies of the police state on some list is a separate issue.

The no-fly list makes no sense, i guess that's my point - what kind of person is so dangerous they shouldn't go on an airplane, but not dangerous enough to keep an eye on?
 
edmorseiii said:
Oh you know, that whole innocent until proven guilty thing.
Click to expand...

No, if you wait until every terrorist commits a crime before you follow them, what's the point of having an FBI? Just have a clean-up crew.

Things like "no fly, no buy" is just the Feds being lazy. Make them follow anyone on "the list" around the clock, then they'll think twice about adding everyone to the list.
 
Varmint said:
No, if you wait until every terrorist commits a crime before you follow them, what's the point of having an FBI? Just have a clean-up crew.

Things like "no fly, no buy" is just the Feds being lazy. Make them follow anyone on "the list" around the clock, then they'll think twice about adding everyone to the list.
Click to expand...

I, ah...I got nothing. NES never ceases to amaze.
 
ccm75 said:
The guy wasn't even on the list.
So this helps how...?
Click to expand...

The have to do something (like no fly, no buy), so the next time it happens (there will be a next time), they can do something else.

The timing for this is impeccable, with Hildog and Trump both now in General election, and preparing for their positions. No-fly no buy and NICS private sales dig a new trench, it's nationwide SAFE ACT they are after now.

And these mass shootings/terrorist attacks are orchestrated by more than a lone gunman...if it's ISIS, they are winning.
 
Varmint said:
No, if you wait until every terrorist commits a crime before you follow them, what's the point of having an FBI? Just have a clean-up crew.

Things like "no fly, no buy" is just the Feds being lazy. Make them follow anyone on "the list" around the clock, then they'll think twice about adding everyone to the list.
Click to expand...

There in lies the problem with the lists.i hear that the suspected terrorist watch list has 800k names on it.
So figure at a mininium 3 agents 8 hour per shift 7 days a week no holidays or vacation or sick days...
Ok know we need 800k vehicles and 2.4 million agents..

This list is just full retard.. unless somehow me make a "for profit anti terrorism" like our for profit prison system it just aint going to happen... and even then whos going to pay for it?(retorical question)
 
Varmint said:
No, if you wait until every terrorist commits a crime before you follow them, what's the point of having an FBI? Just have a clean-up crew.
Click to expand...

That's kind of the entire point of LE, mopping up/limiting damage. Proactively preventing crimes is great but there are major limitations to what an agency can do with regards to civil liberties, etc. Look at what the feds have to do most of the time to catch domestic terrorists,
they practically have to manufacture them by finding some angry durka, giving them a truck with a fake bomb in it and then waiting until
the guy goes and presses the button. While those people are certainly dangerous they're probably the dumbest "wannabe terrorists" in existence... while the feds are out arresting the shittiest bad guys, the smarter ones will pretty much remain undetected until something
bad happens, absent some human intelligence source coming forward.

Things like "no fly, no buy" is just the Feds being lazy. Make them follow anyone on "the list" around the clock, then they'll think twice about adding everyone to the list.
Click to expand...

I strongly suspect that a lot of the people on "the list" get investigated, but even when the investigation finds nothing they never remove these people from the list unless they start marking noise about it....

I'm not a tinfoiler by any stretch, but I highly suspect a backroom deal on this douchebag that shot up the nightclub. Feds probably investigated him (based on good intel- hell, this guy tried to become a cop and the cop school was so skeeved out by him and his father that they ratted them out) and then some "phone calls got made" because of this guys connections to his father, and possibly Obama admin connections to that guy. Then obama admin (or possibly, even one of Obama's puppeteers/handlers) told FBI to "back off" and they stopped investigating him. Or someone at FBI pulled the plug because of the "muslim card".

It should be noted that I am not in favor of the feds grilling people (anyone) based on specious or vague information; but what really pisses me off about this whole thing is that the .gov runs around telling everyone "see something, say something, rat on your neighbors, to keep everyone safe" and then even within that framework, the time they DO see something say something; the government basically does
nothing. This just validates that the entire concept sucks... because the .gov will just pick and choose who it investigates, based on politics or some other nebulous criteria. Look at what happened with Harry Markopolos- he handed the feds Madoff on a silver platter YEARS before they busted him, and through a bunch of stacking incompetence, they basically ignored him.

-Mike
 
Instead of focusing just on guns, if people on the "no-fly" list are such a threat why not go all the way. Why not revoke the drivers licenses and vehicle registrations of " no-fly" list members since vehicles are commonly used as explosives delivery devices?

Terrorists need funding sources as well so how about no-fly, no work? We can use e-verify to prevent people on the list from getting jobs and we can also revoke or suspend the professional licenses of any list member who holds one. How about no-fly, no welfare?

We could also force social media companies to verify their account lists against the "no-fly" list. If you are on the list, no social media for you.

Of course, these measures would seem cruel and mean-spirited while the idea of suspending a fundamental constitutional right is good to go and a totally appropriate response. I won't hold my breath but I would love to see one Republican step up and introduce some of these measures as an amendment to any bill that arises.
 
They revoke drivers licenses for not paying child support, but not for being a suspected terrorist.

But once again the key word is suspected.

Sure hope the terrorist dont realize anyone can rent a box truck and fill it with anything and crash it into anyhing...no backroundcheck needed. Its the "uhaul loophole" / sarcasm
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

We need 200 people like this in congress. NH residents, you need this woman in congress.
Replies
14
Views
425
Broc
Broc
Correct way to get guns back from police?
Replies
16
Views
696
appraiser
appraiser
Pennsylvania Court Upholds Right of Young People to Carry Guns in Public
Replies
6
Views
215
Coyote33
Coyote33
Boston gang member who posed with guns on Snapchat goes to prison
2
Replies
31
Views
881
1sern
1
Democrat CA Gov. Newsom – ‘We Need To Pass Constitutional Amendment’ Against Guns
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
Picton
Picton
Back
Top Bottom