-->
@Snoopy
Pranked!
people on the no fly list should not be able to have a gun
Posts
Total:
72
-->
@Snoopy
Pranked!
-->
@Snoopy
Pranked!
-->
@Snoopy
Pranked!
-->
@Snoopy
Pranked!
-->
@Snoopy
Pranked!
-->
@Snoopy
Pranked!
-->
@Snoopy
Pranked!
-->
@Snoopy
Pranked!
-->
@Snoopy
LOL, I'm now 14 on the forum ranking
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
actually people have a constitutional right to travel. the way gun nuts get touchy about every gun they can like assualt rifles, there's no reason they couldn't get touchy about every mode of transportation too, like flying.
-->
@n8nrgmi
That's a fair point. You don't need a fully automatic machine gun with a 30 round mag for self defense. Sure, you can waste ammo faster, but a slow and steady six shot revolver would probably still render good service to the people on such a list.
-->
@n8nrgmi
actually people have a constitutional right to travel. the way gun nuts get touchy about every gun they can like assualt rifles, there's no reason they couldn't get touchy about every mode of transportation too, like flying.
yeah? can you point me to where in the constitution it says you have a right to fly on a privately owned aircraft/airline? so if there is a right to travel as you claim and they deny that right without due process they are willfully and openly violating people's constitutional right to travel (your claim of a right to travel not mine) and if that is true you think people are being "touchy" by thinking the government will violate their actual 2nd right with confiscation and infringements. You aren't being very consistent, I urge you to re-evaluate your thought processes on these issues.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Freedom of Travel is indeed an unenumerated right. Even if a right is enumerated as a reminder, and protected fundamentally, that doesn't mean the right is considered absolute.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
the point is that you're making too much out of the right to a gun, and people who fly could get just as touchy but that's not how we act. if people want a formal way to verify everything in court, that's fine, but it's just a formality. the underlying standard should be the same in court as in the list outside of court,,... reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is enough to deprive them of a gun. not probable cause that they already committed a violent crime. courts use 'strict scrutiny' in depriving constutituional rights, so it's debateable in that framework.
-->
@n8nrgmi
I suppose reasonable suspicion would have Ted Nugent waging war.
-->
@Snoopy
The US is paranoid enough to classify Cat Stevens as a terrorist. how absurd. US foreign policy is based entirely on paranoia.
-->
@Snoopy
the point is that you're making too much out of the right to a gun, and people who fly could get just as touchy but that's not how we act. if people want a formal way to verify everything in court, that's fine, but it's just a formality. the underlying standard should be the same in court as in the list outside of court,,... reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is enough to deprive them of a gun. not probable cause that they already committed a violent crime. courts use 'strict scrutiny' in depriving constutituional rights, so it's debateable in that framework.
you do know even Democrats in the government were put on the list by accident right?
the constitution disagrees with you as to when someone can be deprived of a right. 4a etc, you don't understand much about the constitution which is why your opinions are so fallacious. You should just make threads about voiding the constitution which is the only way you could get what your propose.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You can still buy airplane and fly without harassment if you are on the "No Fly List"
-->
@n8nrgmi
the point is that you're making too much out of the right to a gun, and people who fly could get just as touchy but that's not how we act. if people want a formal way to verify everything in court, that's fine, but it's just a formality. the underlying standard should be the same in court as in the list outside of court,,... reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is enough to deprive them of a gun. not probable cause that they already committed a violent crime. courts use 'strict scrutiny' in depriving constutituional rights, so it's debateable in that framework.
You can still buy a private plane and fly without harassment if you are on the "No Fly List". A solid analogy would probably have to do with passing check points.
-->
@Snoopy
you need a licence and follow a bunch of regulations which can/could be revoked if you were on a no fly list so I don't believe that to be true.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The No Fly list was implemented to regulate boarding on commercial aircraft. There are licenses for flying of course. There are no prerequisites to buying an airplane. I'm unsure of international flight policy.
-->
@Snoopy
There are no prerequisites to buying an airplane.
but there could be is the point, if you have a freedom to travel it would only be under your own power/feet. I still haven't seen anything that would give you a right to fly. IF it was a right it couldn't be taken away w/o due process as per the constitution. The ban would be unconstitutional would it not?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
what do you think should be the standard for depriving someone a gun?
-->
@n8nrgmi
Generally, being in custody, temporary basis on restraining order type stuff, explicit severe threats, like you literally aren't in the right. I believe spouses have rights, and a lower threshold needs to be available than something that would have consequences for their family.
Taking stuff away and covering the world in protective foam isn't the only option. Lots of bad things happen that could have been avoided in a multitude of ways by reaching out to people with risk factors and their loved ones.
-->
@n8nrgmi
Innocent until proven guilty is the general standard or if someone is an immediate threat though that would have to be strict ,rare and obvious since it can be subjective and in cases of protection orders people lie.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
so in words what is your standard? beyond a reasonable doubt that theyve murdered someone? that they were violent, how violent? probable cause, or reasonable suspicion that they will commit a crime?
that sort of thing
-->
@n8nrgmi
I don't have time to look up the standards but someone being under investigation generally does not meet the requirements. If there isn't enough evidence to arrest then there isn't enough to take someone's constitutional right away, with certain rare exceptions.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
also don't you suppose that many or most of the people on the do not fly list are 'immediate threats' of some kind or other? so if a court verifies the intelligence, they shouldn't have guns either.