Flying isn’t a right. Owning a gun is.
It’s still a punishment, Mr Mover of Goalposts.
Well, we’re going to use the list now to take away voting rights, since apparently this is now allowed. You don’t support suspected terrorists voting, do you?
Come to think of it, they should also be denied ACA subsidies and/or Medicaid.
I’m in agreement that wholesale change is what is required to have a true impact, but with our system of checks and balances, incremental is often the best we can do. The alternative is to do nothing, which is unacceptable. Ultimately, the most practical aim for gun rights is to come up with a few incremental changes that can provide bang for the buck.
What’s particularly frustrating about the gun lobby isn’t that they are asserting the right to keep and bear arms – I would expect them to exercise their right of speech to protect that right. But it’s the notion that any proposal is an attempt to repeal gun rights.
In the long run, their stubbornness is going to cost them. Different generations have different attitudes about guns, and with increased urbanization, I suspect that future generations will have less room for NRA propaganda in the wake of senseless tragedies. The gun rights lobbyists risk skipping opportunities for mutually-agreed up changes that accommodate both parties and dealing with the consequences of future legislation based on emotional outrage.
Those have nothing to do with public safety. Guns and airplanes do.
Not that I necessarily support the no fly list, but that’s the justification, not punishment.
Through refusal of responsibility (a recent development btw), they have already gone far to establishing themselves as the enemy who must be opposed. Continuing recalcitrance, and ideological insistence that their own reading of the Second is absolute and all else must give way to it, could cost them *everything *they claim to be a natural right.
Fine. Bank accounts and travel of suspected terrorists should be closely monitored then. Library records too. Internet tracking and wiretaps can’t hurt either.
Gretchen Carlson calls for reinstating the assault weapons ban. That makes her a stupid liberal. Right?
Race activist disrupts vigil for Orlando victims.
“I was really nervous to get up here because there’s a lot of white people in the crowd, and that wasn’t a joke".
What a genius.
I was all set to agree with this but…
“Disrupts”? She was standing on stage addressing the crowd. Not only did you cite a sneering, dismissive piece, you just had to skew it further. So while it’s entirely possible that woman is a flake, you’ve managed to obscure her idiocy with your own.
Here’s a more objective article. She still comes across as a flake, but without all the OMG RACE ACTIVIST bullshit.
Weak sauce.
Don’t even allow them to open bank accounts, or to use libraries. Wiretap their phones, put trojans on their computers to send every keystroke to the NSA. Don’t allow them to fly, or drive a car. Or use public transport. ***But whatever you do, you mustn’t take away their God-given right to carry a GUN.
“Race Activist”. Now there’s a term that’s just screaming out for an acronym. Like S.J.W., or L.S.M., or Hussein.
Exactly. I’m not a fan of the “No-Fly List” (its members can be added far too arbitrarily) but if the government feels that the people on this list are so dangerous we can’t trust them with an economy-class plane ticket and a spork to eat their chicken-in-red-sauce with, *then *I don’t understand why it’s perfectly fine to them to walk into Walmart and buy a gun. Either they’re dangerous or they’re not.
I imagine the problem of denying someone buying a gun becomes a due process issue due to the 2nd amendment. If the no-fly list required a hearing or trial that would resolve that issue. I think.
The no-fly list should be subject to challenge by the person in question. But, of course. Seems to be that if someone comes forward to challenge their classification, their value as a covert operative is severely diminished. And, of course, those not guilty of anything or erroneously included simply must have some legal recourse. Très duh, mais non?
But the point of the exercise is not validating such things as a “no-fly” list, but as a challenge. If the NRA won’t permit even such persons as are identified as being some sort of risk from purchasing weapons… well, who, then?
The obvious solution to the list of potentially dangerous persons is appeal. The list is secret, yes, perhaps justifiably so perhaps not so very much, but then you try to do a proscribed thing and its content becomes ever so slightly less secret: you find out that you are on it.
So once you find that datum out, and the kitten is out of the bag, why should that settle the question? One of your sacred/natural rights is being summarily or arbitrarily being withheld, and you have no recourse?
In a truly free and fair society, there would be a route to appeal. In fact, I should think that an advocate for the NSA or DHS should be required to stand before a judge and/or jury and bear the burden of proof that this particular right genuinely ought to be denied to you.
Which does not fix the spying problem, but we have to start somewhere.
By the way, I am not allowed to fly. Not because I am suspicious or apparently potentially dangerous, but my state has not met the ID standard, and I failed to obtain the enhanced version (missed the deadline that day).
El Rushbo this morning says it’s because of the Obama administration coddling Muslim extremists.
Nothing to do with NRA-backed Republican opposition to tightening background check legislation, naturally. Nope, it’s entirely Barack Hussein Obama being too huggy with the evil Mooslims who want us all dead.
CBS News thinks it’s a travesty that their law abiding correspondent was able to buy a gun after passing a background check:
And then liberals wonder why conservatives accuse them of wanting to take away our guns.