Donald Trump just AGREED with the no fly/no buy gun control list in the debate.

[Cochise]

Listen, snowflake, I'm not going to give up my right to due process just so you can "feel safer".

 

[Cochise]

No one but you is talking about flying. Now run outside and play, the grownups are trying to talk.

 

[sloppy joe]

Stop & Frisk won't happen.

If you are on a no fly list or are a suspected terrorist, I'm all for you being temporarily banned from buying guns. Might help. Might not. Worth a shot though.

guilty until proven otherwise? why should they stop at suspected terrorist? all suspects for anything no buy guns! without trial! gun control!

i think you on the wrong website. or is this site bayou gun control now?

 

[981GT4]

Flying on a private airline is not a right. Regardless, the private airline is not making the decision, the government is doing it for them. That is a completely different argument and I have already clarified what I was talking about. I am talking about guns here.

Yes and the private airlines must adhere to the FAA Policy and regulations given. this has been done since 1958.

regardless if your on a watch list, most of the time you did something or said something to get the attention of the federal government. if that temporarily bars you from buy a gun , well so be it. im a law abiding citizen with many guns to include NFA weapons, i dont act criminally, nor say terrorist things to gain attention so im not worried about it.

if your on the list by mistake there is way to get off the list , doe sit take some time? yes but you will be removed, it happens.

 

[981GT4]

Listen, snowflake, I'm not going to give up my right to due process just so you can "feel safer".

No one but you is talking about flying. Now run outside and play, the grownups are trying to talk.

Good luck with that , last i checked you are not running for President, or even remotely in a position to change laws keyboard warrior.

thanks for the grownup comment. i guess 33 year old 2 combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a current Federal law enforcement agent makes me not grown up. appreciate the compliment.

 

[Whitebread]

Really?

Yeah I found it real interesting not so much that Trump thought it was ok, because he and I agree on little. But the fact that both Clinton and Lester Holts thought it had been ruled unconstitutional. Sorry guess I should have been clearer. And to clearify further I do see how Terry stops can be effective I just find "reasonable suspicion" thin and when we are talking people's rights thin shouldn't be good enough. I know that ain't the popular opinion here.

 

[UnseenUSPCompact]

Yes and the private airlines must adhere to the FAA Policy and regulations given. this has been done since 1958.

regardless if your on a watch list, most of the time you did something or said something to get the attention of the federal government. if that temporarily bars you from buy a gun , well so be it. im a law abiding citizen with many guns to include NFA weapons, i dont act criminally, nor say terrorist things to gain attention so im not worried about it.

if your on the list by mistake there is way to get off the list , doe sit take some time? yes but you will be removed, it happens.

The list is flawed and has already been proven to be flawed. Would you give up your other rights if you are on the list? How about if you are on a watch list you can't vote, attend town hall meetings, use the internet or other media sources that would help you spread your free speech around? There is no transparency to what gets you on the list and its highly subjective. Gun owners in general could start to flag the list, maybe members of firearm enthusiast forums start to make the list...People that went to a Private School, Catholic school girls, veterans then what? These are ridiculous examples but the government has never done ridiculous things in the past, right? Without a form of due process in the whole charade its a lost cause.

 

[Whitebread]

The cant, because the airways and fly zones in the united states are controled by the FAA. the airlines do what the FAA says , or they no longer operate in our airspace.

That's not earth shattering news and doesn't change the fact that it's done with no due process.

 

[Whitebread]

The list is flawed and has already been proven to be flawed. Would you give up your other rights if you are on the list? How about if you are on a watch list you can't vote, attend town hall meetings, use the internet or other media sources that would help you spread your free speech around? There is no transparency to what gets you on the list and its highly subjective. Gun owners in general could start to flag the list, maybe members of firearm enthusiast forums start to make the list...People that went to a Private School, Catholic school girls, veterans then what? These are ridiculous examples but the government has never done ridiculous things in the past, right? Without a form of due process in the whole charade its a lost cause.

Bingo

 

[sloppy joe]

Listen, snowflake, I'm not going to give up my right to due process just so you can "feel safer".

lol. right on!

 

[JoeLiberty]

so what about the mentally unstable persons on prohibition of firearms purchases? shall we put all mentally ill people on trial before we ban them from gun sales?

Look if your a Criminal, or on a terror watch list i really dont want you OWNING weapons, or buying them. this country cannot and will not spend money on lengthy trial process for something that frankly doesn't need to happen.

The mistaken No fly ban or terror watch-list errors are small in number. [Citation needed] if this was such a huge deal why has no one ever sued or even attempted to sue the U.S government over unconstitutionality? if they did and were shot down the appeals process would begin, and eventually it would have made it to the U.S Supreme court to decide if its constitutional or not. So far it hasn't.

if this list or provisions help stop bad people from doing bad things im all for it. god knows we have enought crazy idiots giving gun owners a bad name in this country.

He is clearly talking about gun rights, not airplane rights. No-fly, no buy would not have made it to the Supreme Court as it's not a law yet. You do not have a right to fly on an airplane, and that is not the issue. The issue is using a list to remove a fundamental right. There is no Supreme Court case, but we know that it is bad enough that even the ACLU has come down on the side of gun owners.

The ability to purchase is inherent to the right to keep.

^^^This. Clearly. If Congress says OK, we have enough guns, you cannot buy anymore, but you can keep and bear the ones you already have so the 2A still stands... would that pass muster for you?
OTOH, the Donald is with the NRA on this issue, whose version of this law heaps extra burden onto the feds. If someone is on the list, the feds have 3 days to go before a judge and explain why this person should have their purchase denied. To the people delayed and not denied, it will seem like any other background check hold. It is not great, but it is FAR less egregious than being able to chill someone's rights based on a list that seems to have little barrier to entry and little to no oversight.

 

[MOTOR51]

Good luck with that , last i checked you are not running for President, or even remotely in a position to change laws keyboard warrior.

thanks for the grownup comment. i guess 33 year old 2 combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a current Federal law enforcement agent makes me not grown up. appreciate the compliment.

Uh oh, you said federal agent. Half the people that was on this site just put their hard drives in the microwave. Guess this discussion is over.

 

[Whitebread]

Uh oh, you said federal agent. Half the people that was on this site just put their hard drives in the microwave. Guess this discussion is over.

Whoops I missed my que to send my phone through the wood chipper. Oh crap they are outside my house. This may be my last post before being shoved in some hole.

Sorry it was just the neighbors cat.

 

[UnseenUSPCompact]

Good luck with that , last i checked you are not running for President, or even remotely in a position to change laws keyboard warrior.

thanks for the grownup comment. i guess 33 year old 2 combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a current Federal law enforcement agent makes me not grown up. appreciate the compliment.

The beauty of serving in the military and being in government is that it doesn't always make you right.

 

[981GT4]

Uh oh, you said federal agent. Half the people that was on this site just put their hard drives in the microwave. Guess this discussion is over.

lol probably for the best.

 

[981GT4]

He is clearly talking about gun rights, not airplane rights. No-fly, no buy would not have made it to the Supreme Court as it's not a law yet. You do not have a right to fly on an airplane, and that is not the issue. The issue is using a list to remove a fundamental right. There is no Supreme Court case, but we know that it is bad enough that even the ACLU has come down on the side of gun owners.

^^^This. Clearly. If Congress says OK, we have enough guns, you cannot buy anymore, but you can keep and bear the ones you already have so the 2A still stands... would that pass muster for you?
OTOH, the Donald is with the NRA on this issue, whose version of this law heaps extra burden onto the feds. If someone is on the list, the feds have 3 days to go before a judge and explain why this person should have their purchase denied. To the people delayed and not denied, it will seem like any other background check hold. It is not great, but it is FAR less egregious than being able to chill someone's rights based on a list that seems to have little barrier to entry and little to no oversight.

A person can file a suite against the U. S Government for infringement of their Constitutional rights under the Bivens act. by a Federal law enforcement agency. the No fly no buy policy does not have to be a law for a court to decide if it is constitutional or not. If the lower courts deem the suit to be no contest the person can file a appeal to which ever circuit they reside in, and it could make it to the supreme court. Which deals with constitutional issues. not sure how hard this is for you to understand.

 

[Whitebread]

A person can file a suite against the U. S Government for infringement of their Constitutional rights under the Bivens act. by a Federal law enforcement agency. the No fly no buy policy does not have to be a law for a court to decide if it is constitutional or not. If the lower courts deem the suit to be no contest the person can file a appeal to which ever circuit they reside in, and it could make it to the supreme court. Which deals with constitutional issues. not sure how hard this is for you to understand.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ly-impossible-to-get-off-the-no-fly-list.html

A decade. 10 years 120 months and she is the first an only person to accomplish getting off the list not even Ted Kennedy got of the list. His corps is probably still on the list. Seriously how the hell do you people trust these incomplete boobs with a bic lighter much less your freedoms.

 

[UnseenUSPCompact]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ly-impossible-to-get-off-the-no-fly-list.html

A decade. 10 years 120 months and she is the first an only person to accomplish getting off the list not even Ted Kennedy got of the list. His corps is probably still on the list. Seriously how the hell do you people trust these incomplete boobs with a bic lighter much less your freedoms.

You are wasting your finger energy, its too late for him.

 

[JoeLiberty]

the No fly no buy policy does not have to be a law for a court to decide if it is constitutional or not...

LOL, wut? P sure your rights have to be violated first to bring such a suit. Let's see...

To state a claim under Bivens,
a plaintiff must allege that he
• was deprived of a
constitutional right
• by a federal agent
• acting under color of federal
authority.2

You see that? 'was' deprived. WAS. Past tense. Not 'might be' deprived in the future. Keep up the internet lawyering, but don't quit your day job.

 

[JoeLiberty]

The better question is... how do you be stupid enough to get put on the list?

That's a very good question, Dave. It could be as simple as making snarky comments on the internet. Oh, wait. ****.