You’re not automatically a terrorist because you’re on the No Fly List. You might have heard that somewhere before, and forgotten. 
Of the mass shootings in the last 2 years, how many of the shooters were on the No Fly List?
Good question. The 4th Amendment is raped and pillaged every time someone boards an airplane, so it seems to be just more of the some government attitude of Fuck The Public.
I have not forgotten but perhaps you have forgotten I provided a cite that suggested I am right and you are wrong on this.
A Wiki post about abuses and mistakes in the program doesn’t mean I am wrong. On what other basis do you think the government can say you can’t fly?
If you want to make the point that the ACLU is a crap source go for it. I’ll repost it till you debunk them.
And for the record I want to be perfectly clear I think the no-fly list is bullshit without a due process mechanism to challenge it.
I also maintain it is flat out retarded to allow people to buy guns who law enforcement thinks is a terror threat sufficient to not be allowed on a plane. That said I 100% get there needs to be a legal mechanism to challenge any ruling that would remove the right to own a gun (because despite my dislike for guns I get it is currently a right).
So? The government can’t take privileges away arbitrarily either. A no-drive list that banned suspected terrorists from renewing their licenses would be very suspect too. Or a no-breeze list that banned them from buying ceiling fans. Or any other list that banned them from doing something everyone else is allowed to do (yes, including guns).
Sorry, but no. You provided a cite that said people on the list are terrorists or suspected terrorists. As long as you keep insisting that everyone on that list is a terrorist, the rest of us are going to correct you.
Since we don’t want terrorists voting, being on the list should also nullify your voting rights.
That is arse-backwards. Fix the no-fly list, then give it an ounce of legal weight. Doing it the other way around doesn’t force the government to make themselves accountable, it proves that they don’t need to and they can get what they want anyway.
Precisely.
Great post.
Something I don’t understand:
There are probably 6000 or more U.S. residents named Daniel Brown. Are all of them “on the No Fly list”? With all the other common names on the list (Patrick Martin, etc.) surely this would be making headlines. Or are there other, secret, tells for the bad Daniel Brown?
Who decides the composition of the list, and by what criteria - is it one of those they can’t tell us about because its super secret for our own good, etc.
I have a feeling it might be. And beyond the reach of the law of the land, etc, etc.
We destroyed your freedoms to save them - seriously, get the Human Rights Act, this is bullshit.
Even if there is other information, it may be getting ignored: if the list includes a Joe Bob Brown, Joe Brown will find himself having to explain that he has not, ever, been a Joe Bob. He may eventually be able to do it before losing his patience, but getting someone to listen can take a while.
I would much rather not be able to buy a gun than not be able to buy fly. I would be very annoyed if denied a flight because of a common name. Amusing that this defective No Fly List (Real Americans don’t care — who would travel to a country if they can’t bring their best girl, Sally SixShot, along?) didn’t become a hot issue until there was talk of Guns!!
Should also nullify the right to speech, counsel, trial by jury, and unreasonable search.
I am guessing the people who support the no fly / no buy proposals do not hold that view as a principled position.
Congressman Trey Gowdy made this very same point. He covered 6th amendment concerning right to counsel and the 8th concerning cruel and unusual punishment. The video is only two minute long but it could have easily been an amusing hour long rant.
Ummm … US airlines are private companies … all these Constitutional rights belong to them, not the customers. There’s a few things the airlines can’t do, but otherwise they have the right to refuse service.
Go ahead and try to exercise your 1st Amendment rights here, see how quickly the Chicago Reader exercises theirs …
If people who support gun rights think it should be legal to shoot threatening criminals, do they also support making it legal to shoot nuns, infants, and zoo animals?
I’m just asking questions.
I’m pretty sure no fly list is a government list. I’m even more sure TSA is a government agency. It’s not like the airlines all colluded to see who could board a plane and who couldn’t.
Are the nuns, infants, and zoo animals also threatening criminals? I’ve seen that Whoopi Goldberg movie, and the sequel, and there were some bad dudes in that movie.
No, but as long as we’re throwing out red herrings and slippery slope arguments, I couldn’t exempt gun rights advocates from the fun.
We can extend this same line of fallacious reasoning to other issues as well. Do people who support the ability of police to conduct Terry stops also think that police should be able to enter houses without warrants, seize any and all property for their own personal use, and be able to beat peaceful protesters with impunity?
Maybe people who think that auto drivers need to be licensed also think that little boys and girls should get bureaucratic permission before learning how to ride bikes?
To the extent that people rely on red herrings, non sequitur, and slippery slope fallacies to discuss a controversial proposal relating to the no fly list, as opposed to talking about the merits, then the fallacious reasoning should be called out for what it is by applying it to other ridiculous arguments.