The problems with the so called "No Fly List"

[Saunders]

 

 

 

 

During his Oval Office speech Sunday night, President Obama said: “Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.”

 

Republicans reject that argument. “These are everyday Americans that have nothing to do with terrorism, they wind up on the no-fly list, there’s no due process or any way to get your name removed from it in a timely fashion, and now they’re having their Second Amendment rights being impeded upon,” Senator Marco Rubio, a top Republican presidential candidate, said on Sunday.

 

Last week, prior to the massacre in San Bernardino, House Republicans blocked debate on the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act. On Thursday, the measure failed in the Senate as well. While its sponsors say the bill would prevent those on terror lists from acquiring guns, the law doesn’t specify whether it would bar those on the no-fly list or on several other federal watchlists.

What’s striking about this debate is how closely it mirrors the argument during the George W. Bush administration, when Democrats warned against the excesses of the list and Republicans defended it. The current debate suggests the extent to which the leading voices in the parties are willing to rearrange their positions around hot-button issues like gun rights, and shows how civil liberties tend to be treated as a tactical tool, exalted when they’re politically useful and forgotten when that’s more expedient.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/no-fly-list-inverted-politics/419172/

 

 

Seems pretty black and white what the President & the Democrats (Hillary, Feinstein) want to do. I can't stand the current crop of Republicans, but they're right on this issue.

 

Over the late 2000s, pressure grew, and the no-fly list actually shrank significantly, to about 4,000. But after the failed Christmas Day “underwear bomber” attack in December 2009, the Obama administration reversed course and significantly ramped up the list. By 2013, according to documents obtained by The Intercept, there were 47,000 people on the no-fly list, topping the Bush administration’s high. Obama’s decision was driven in part by national-security hawks in his own party, including California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, who called for a more aggressive list after the failed attack.

 

 

We've allowed fear and the illusion of safety to strip away basic freedoms like due process. It's alarming.

 

The first 2 paragraphs are exactly what I just said. One side goes all in. The other side wants none of it.

 

But you also said both sides are fear mongering on the issue. If you are referring over the long term (like the R's supporting it a decade ago, and now switching, and the D's flip flopping as well) then yes. The political posturing is stupid.

 

Of course it is stupid. I am more upset about the conversations that aren't happening more so than these people standing up saying what they think their political base wants to hear to make them feel good.

 

Like I said in the gun control thread. There has to be a balance between acceptable risk, personal freedom, and public safety. But these politicians and the lobby groups that feed their machines want to deny there is any connection between them.

 

+1

[GBRedneck]

"There has to be a balance between acceptable risk, personal freedom, and public safety."

 

As long as it's understood that the balance has to be within the framework of the constitution.

[StPaulHusker]

"There has to be a balance between acceptable risk, personal freedom, and public safety."

 

As long as it's understood that the balance has to be within the framework of the constitution.

The framers left a lot of ambiguity, unfortunately.

[GBRedneck]

 

"There has to be a balance between acceptable risk, personal freedom, and public safety."

 

As long as it's understood that the balance has to be within the framework of the constitution.

The framers left a lot of ambiguity, unfortunately.

 

Not really. The constitution defines exactly how to resolve any questions about the law.

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

"There has to be a balance between acceptable risk, personal freedom, and public safety."

 

As long as it's understood that the balance has to be within the framework of the constitution.

The framers left a lot of ambiguity, unfortunately.

 

Not really. The constitution defines exactly how to resolve any questions about the law.

 

In the 1700's.

[GBRedneck]

 

 

 

"There has to be a balance between acceptable risk, personal freedom, and public safety."

 

As long as it's understood that the balance has to be within the framework of the constitution.

The framers left a lot of ambiguity, unfortunately.

 

Not really. The constitution defines exactly how to resolve any questions about the law.

 

In the 1700's.

 

And today. It even defines how to change it if needed.

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

 

 

"There has to be a balance between acceptable risk, personal freedom, and public safety."

 

As long as it's understood that the balance has to be within the framework of the constitution.

The framers left a lot of ambiguity, unfortunately.

 

Not really. The constitution defines exactly how to resolve any questions about the law.

 

In the 1700's.

 

And today. It even defines how to change it if needed.

 

For the 3rd time, we will not see eye to eye so let's drop it.