"No Fly, No Buy"

[Philly]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/us/po ... .html?_r=0

House Dems are currently staging a sit-in until Paul Ryan allows a vote on some gun control bills.

The one I want to focus on here is the so-called "No Fly, No Buy" bill, which would prevent people on the terrorist watch "No Fly List" from purchasing guns. The Democrats are framing this issue as Republicans refusing to stop "potential terrorists" from getting guns. But this is the same No Fly List which has, for over a decade, been wildly unaccountable and secretive, while banning people from boarding airplanes with no due process whatsoever. There isn't even a consensus as to how many people are on the list, but there are at least tens of thousands. The vast majority have not been convicted, or even accused, of any crime.

I don't know how any liberal can support the mere existence of this list, let alone broadening its function. This is unconstitutional. I want more gun regulation. I want universal background checks. But I do not want some secret list, which almost assuredly targets people of certain ethnicities and religions, being used to deny people their constitutional rights without any due process. Caught up in the hysteria about the gun debate, Democrats are re-opening this door with the No Fly List, inviting it to be used to take more rights from people. If they can force a vote on this gun issue, imagine what other rights it sets the precedent to take away with this unaccountable list, particularly with the current rise in Islamophobia around the country(If I wasn't clear enough before, I am 100% certain that it's pretty easy to get on this list for no particular reason if you're Muslim or Arab, especially if you're an immigrant).

How has the left done such an about face on this tyrannical watch list which I can distinctly remember being a major point of contention not too long ago?

[John Galt]

at least some liberals are not completely off the deep end, screaming and flipping the board

i mean why not just put these people in jail. shit, probably shouldn't give them ideas

https://twitter.com/billclinton/status/ ... 0668026880

[Saz]

I'm cool with this. You don't have an individual right to a firearm, that's just a lunatic interpretation of the constitution. If you get put on this list for whatever reason, you shouldn't be able to buy a f**k gun. If you can't get on a plane, you shouldn't be able to purchase a firearm. Period. If you don't like it then sue and let the court determine it's constitutionality. Until then, the fewer people, potential terrorists or not, who have a gun, the better off the country is.

Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet you do nothing liberal pussies.

[fstarcstar]

Saz, blocking someone from a no fly list still allows multiple means of travel and flying is not a constitutional right. The second amendment and every founding father basically disagrees with you about the second amendment interpretation so lets take their word instead of yours. You don't get to deem someone a terrorist and ban them from their constitutional rights because you feel like it.

Amazing liberals and democrats were fundamentally against the patriot act in the name of liberty and fundamental rights, but are perfectly ok now with taking that away from Americans on a list with basically no oversight. Yeah, smart plan.

Take your Hitler shit and gtfo.

[John Galt]

i must assume that the people on the list were less before because the numbers i see show over a doubling every year: 2011 had 10K, 2012, 21K, and 2014, 47K. This means by 2026 if we keep doing what the democrats are doing now that the population of america will be on the no fly, no buy list. by 2030, the world

[exploited]

[ToddStarnes]

[IndependentProfessor]

Yeah, I'm with Philly and Ex, here. You cannot deprive someone of a constitutional right without due process. It violates at least 2 constitutional rights!

I don't mind (and actually support) a few more restrictions on guns. Mandatory background checks at gun shows are good. I'd love to have background checks everywhere, but lets face it - if someone wants to sell a shady guy a gun, he ain't gonna do a check anyway.

I usually bring up "mental health" at this point, stating how this is the real problem - not the guns themselves. However, I have a conundrum. Let's say someone has a mental issue. They go to the doc to get checked out, and he diagnoses them with schizophrenia, or some other disorder which is of the type that we would say, "Yeah, that person shouldn't have a gun anywhere near them."

What now? Does the state take away their gun rights based upon a diagnosis? I'm not sure I like that, either.

[ToddStarnes]

A medical professional diagnosing someone with a psychiatric condition that suggests they have a tenuous grip on reality is absolutely sufficient to remove one's rights to own weapons that can kill dozens of people in one sitting.

[exploited]