jet

Washingtonpost.com:

While campaigning, Clinton focused in part on barring people on the government’s no-fly list from being able to purchase weapons, as they can now.

“If you are too dangerous to fly in America, you are too dangerous to buy a gun in America,” she said.

But House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) cast it as a Second Amendment issue.

“People are saying, you know, this no-fly list,” he said on MSNBC Thursday morning. “ ‘Don’t let a person who’s on a no-fly list get a gun.’ Well, there are people who arbitrarily placed on those things. Sometimes people are put on there by a mistake. And we would deprive of them of their constitutionally protected due-process rights.”

Ryan declined to speculate on the motivation behind Wednesday’s attack but said, “What we are working on right now, because there’s a common theme you see with many of these mass shootings, and that is the theme of mental illness. We have not updated our mental illness laws in decades. This is a problem because mentally ill people are getting guns and committing mass atrocities.”

Holy batsh!t!  You have to be kidding me.  I think its a pretty serious thing to be placed on a no fly list.  If you are wrongly placed there, how do you correct the mistake?  Is it a forever thing?

So let me get this straight…if you are on a terrorist no-fly list, you can still buy a gun in this country?  That’s just totally effed up.  Sorry, if you are a danger to a plane, think what you are to a shopping center or a mall.  Let’s worry about the “rights” later.  Where are the priorities?  Paul Ryan is really a tool if this is what he truly thinks.

Yes, mistakes are made.  Fix those mistakes.  I expect most of the no-fly list is pretty accurate.   There needs to be some due process for those mistakes.  Otherwise, if no-fly and then  no-gun.    The 2nd amendment isn’t holy, at least not to many of us who don’t want to get blown away by terrorist.

There are two groups of people who might just have to have their rights put on hold:  mentally ill people and terrorists.  I can’t think of a single reason why members of either of those groups need to own a gun.

This is surely an area where we can find some common ground.

 

48 thoughts on “If you are too dangerous to fly….you are too dangerous to buy a gun

  1. punchak

    Totally agree with your headline, Moon!
    Even that awful Chris Plante agrees with you. 🙂

  2. Pat.Herve

    There are those people that do not want to do anything.

    But I have to agree that the No Fly List is flawed in some ways as one does not know the ‘get on it’ criteria and the ‘get off it’ process. I have no problem with those on the list being denied a gun purchase IF there is a process to get off the list if you are on it wrongly.

  3. Censored bybvbl

    I’d agree as long as a person has some easy recourse if their name is the same as someone’s on the list. My sister flew to Indiana for a funeral several years back. She had no problem getting there but on the way back she was detained and questioned because of her name – probably the same as some IRA member’s.

  4. Starryflights

    Ryan is taking the National Rifle Assiciation’s stance on the issue. The NRA supports Islamic terrorists’ right to own firearms. It is treasonous.

  5. blue

    And just what is the procedure for confirming that you are on or for getting off the classified no-fly list – which BTW does not require you to be deemed a terrorist? When it is agreed that the procedure is fully vetted and has all appropriate due process, I will agree with you. Until then not so much.

    1. There need to be ways to get off no fly lists if you are innocent. Due process. meanwhile, if you are on a do not fly list, no guns sale.

      Saying one thing is unfair is not reason not to do it. Fix the unfair.

  6. blue

    @Moon-howler
    I guess if it is acceptable to deny someone who is innocent (until proven guilty) of any crime, a firearm and the ability to fly just because it satisfies some innocuous federal bureaucrat’s sense of a greater good, I suspect we should also deny that individual the right to appeal their placement on the no fly list and a whole range of other federal benefits. Would you agree? Given that thinking , why would we pay college tuitions, welfare benefits or allow somebody to drive on our highways who is currently on the no fly list. Most liberals object to the death penalty because we may execute one innocent person. So here lets be safer than sorry and deny citizens the right to fly now until they are proven innocent. Right? The death row folks at least had due process. Now we can deny a whole lot of things to a whole lot of people based on what they might do?

    I am not sure that the deprivation of one person’s rights, and to have someone be suspected by their government of ill intent against their fellow countrymen, and to be thought of as untrustworthy without having been adjudicated as such and with no court oversight is were we should go on this.

    1. I wouldn’t know. I am not opposed to the death penalty. Am I supposed to be?

      You want to fly with someone on the “no-fly” list? I sure don’t. Are we worried that someone who has perhaps given officials the wrong idea has their wittle feelings hurt? I say touch crap. Put up a system of due process and be done with it. Seriously, if you can’t fly, you shouldn’t be able to buy a gun.

      Maybe it is *I* who is sporting the good old tried and true American values. It sounds to me like you are being a bleeding heart over people’s “feelings.”

  7. Wolve

    Moon-howler :
    There need to be ways to get off no fly lists if you are innocent. Due process. meanwhile, if you are on a do not fly list, no guns sale.
    Saying one thing is unfair is not reason not to do it. Fix the unfair.

    You are asking this government to fix the unfair?!! Uh………………..

    1. Then why have rules and laws at all? why have a no fly list?

      The bottom line is, life isn’t always fair. Obviously if we don’t want you on a plane, we don’t want you to buy a gun. Does Ryan realize how stupid he sounded?

  8. Pat.Herve

    blue :
    @Moon-howler
    I guess if it is acceptable to deny someone who is innocent (until proven guilty) of any crime, .

    blue – how do you feel about Guantanamo? There are people there that have not been charged with a crime, we have no evidence that they are harmful and they have not even gotten a day in court for nearly 14 years.

  9. blue

    Moon, liberal democrat progressive socialism/facism must be stopped. I am surprised by your lack of support for American due process for citizens. Good luck when it happens to you. It is not who we are. i would have hoped that you too would be concerned over the Government’s ability to unilaterally void SCOTUS established constitutional rights.

    Pat, POWs have never been afforded “Due Process.” Entirely different situation. Unless you have a very high and compartmentalized national security clearance, you do not have evidence that they are not harmful, how and why they were detained. And yes, as you know, there are review procedures; you may not like them but they exist.

    1. I believe I made mention of due process in my original post. Sorry, did I not shout it loudly enough for you to see?

      Those people in Gitmo are not POWs. That has been what the issue is. They have been classified as enemy combatants or something. Perhaps you should be more concerned about those people than you are about some abstract people who you want to let on airplanes and sell guns to.

  10. Pat.Herve

    @blue
    Oh, so our Constitution says only Citizens are granted due process…….

    I do not have a problem holding them. I have a problem with them being held with no charges and no trial. Charge them, give them their trial and hang them.

    The current review procedure is this – “Congress says spend no money other than to detain them.”

  11. Snooping behind the scenes, it seems that there is more to this massacre than terrorism. It seems it was workplace rage that was executed as terrorism.

    Calling it here….in the end, it will be determined that it really isn’t terrorism, or at least that was not the motivation.

  12. Kelly_3406

    @Pat.Herve

    I do not agree with giving them trials. ISIS, Al Qaeda, Islamists et al claim that they are making war against us. The US should take them at their word and treat them as POWs when we manage to capture them. Because they choose to fight us with terrorism, there are no clearly delineated battle fields. So that means that POWs will be captured in places that do not resemble a traditional battlefield.

    We can certainly try them for terrorism and crimes against humanity. Regardless of whether they are convicted or not, they should be regarded as POWs and held until hostilities come to an end. POWs are not kept as punishment–they are kept in order to remove them from the battlefield.

    Remember that Americans are not held as POWs by these groups– they are beheaded. Much of international law has been traditionally based on quid pro quo. We do not behead prisoners, but it is not unreasonable to treat them as POWs.

    1. They aren’t POWs because they don’t belong to the army of any specific country. Who do you negotiate with for their release? No one wants them.

      Its a sticky wicket. We are dealing with new issues that are 21st century. The questions and problems are new. We can’t go by old rules.

  13. Wolve

    Moon-howler :
    Then why have rules and laws at all? why have a no fly list?
    The bottom line is, life isn’t always fair. Obviously if we don’t want you on a plane, we don’t want you to buy a gun. Does Ryan realize how stupid he sounded?

    A lot of things in the USA 2015 are downright stupid. We have the TSA at airports to protect our air travel, yet we often hear reports that the TSA agents on duty missed almost all of the tests run against them to ascertain whether guns and other prohibited items could be smuggled aboard. The female terrorist at San Bernardino was visa vetted by State, DHS, and the FBI and still made it into the US. And I believe I saw a recent Congressional report that a number of employees of the DHS itself had found themselves on the no-fly list, hopefully erroneously. Now we are seeing Syrians and other Middle Easterners with false passports testing the notorious weaknesses of our southern border. Some were caught. How many were not? Down in Georgia we just broke up part of a huge drug ring run by the so-called Mexican Mafia at a time when heroin is pouring into the country; and other reports out there now are that MS-13 has launched into a new, intensive recruitment campaign, especially among the “unaccompanied children” we have let into the US.

    Personally, I think this country is being royally screwed by a lack of true leadership in the White House and on both sides of the Congressional aisle. It looks like ISIS considers the San Bernardino attack to have been a highly successful martyrdom by radicalized in-country supporters (pending the ultimate investigation results on the Pakistani female terrorist). That can mean only more to come unless we get our act together.

    1. Did you feel better under George Bush?

      I think you need to take a much closer look at San Bernadino. I think it might have been a workplace dispute with terrorist solutions. It makes a huge difference.

  14. Starryflights

    Then why do you oppose efforts to ensure that terrorists don’t have access to AK 47s and AR 15s? Do you know what those weapons were designed for? They were designed for war. They were designed for soldiers to fight other soldiers armed with similar weapons. They have no purpose belonging to the likes of Mr Farook or Mr Dear. @Wolve

  15. Wolve

    Moon-howler :
    Did you feel better under George Bush?
    I think you need to take a much closer look at San Bernadino. I think it might have been a workplace dispute with terrorist solutions. It makes a huge difference.

    I HAVE taken a close look at San Bernardino using my own background experience….Well, as close as I can from here through the media. The advance planning evident thus far indicates to me that the pair was on the way to a terrorist attack of some kind at some future time. Maybe the fellow had a temper problem and blew his whole future project by losing the handle over some workplace argument; but the whole thing has the smell of terrorist planning. Curious that the media has dropped the thread about a neighbor who recalled seeing a number of Middle Eastern types working at night in the garage where the large cache of ammo and pipe bombs was found but who failed to report it for fear of being called racist.

    I am not a Bush fan. His failures on immigration and the border caused me to spend five years on Neighborhood Watch patrol against gang bangers. I call that the Kussing Karl (Rove) period of my life.

    What I have heard is that all the guns in the hands of these two terrorists were legal as purchased under California law. The pistols most certainly since they were bought at a local gun shop under CA background check. The long guns reportedly were purchased several years ago by a “friend” of the terrorists and given or sold or whatever to the perps. The FBI knows who it is and has stated that the individual is not (at least for now) a suspect in the attack. The illegality, from what I have seen, is that someone modified the guns by making them automatic and adding larger magazines — both contrary to law. That brings to mind once again what might have been going on in that garage in Riverside.

    1. The bread crumbs I have been following involve what was happening at the work place with a certain employee harassing the living hell out of this guy. He could very well have been planning for months to put an end to this guy also.

      I have read what the employee has said in social media. Unacceptable.

      It’s a real toss up between 1st amendment and just plain rudeness.

      Just justifying killing over work place disputes that go too far but it certainly helps fill in the missing pieces.

      I have been disturbed all day by what I have read.

  16. Kelly_3406

    Moon-howler :
    They aren’t POWs because they don’t belong to the army of any specific country. Who do you negotiate with for their release? No one wants them.

    It is not quite correct to state that ISIS fighters cannot be POWs because they are not in the army of a specific country. There are provisions to hold POWs from irregular armies that are fighting to overthrow a government or country, which can be applied to ISIS since they seek to establish a caliphate.

    The real 21st century issue is the reluctance to acknowledge that we are at war with ISIS/Al Qaeda. The current administration stated that the US is NOT at war, which has prevented the full use of wartime powers and capabilities that can be brought to bear. Several wise commenters on your blog noted at the time that war is not over until both parties recognize the end of hostilities. Obama is now being forced to confront that fact.

    Who cares whether there is a party available to negotiate the exchange of POWs? Let’s defeat ISIS and then arrange prisoner return thereafter.

    1. I don’t believe anyone was put in Gitmo under the Obama administration. I am only going by the reasoning stated by George Bush as to why Gitmo was established.

      I don’t think we have declared war. Hell, we haven’t declared war since WWII, have we?

      Both Bush and Obama were clear that we weren’t at war with Muslims. The current inmates at Gitmo had nothing to do with ISIS. Why don’t we try them and either imprison them or turn them lose? Some have been held for 14 years without a trial.

  17. Cargosquid

    Getting back to the no fly list……

    It is a secret list.
    No one outside of the people making the list knows the criteria for appearing on the list.
    Thus, it is a secret enemy list. Anyone could end up on it.

    Citizens that appear on the list, that are not felons in their own right, have all the rights due them. NO rights should be abridged because of a secret enemy list.

    If you are too dangerous to fly, then you are too dangerous to be in public. If you want to remove an inalienable right because a name is on a list, then the right to travel, vote, speech, and search/seizure are no less vulnerable.

    The list itself should be made public or should be destroyed before rights are abridged.

    Starry, based on your statements…. the only thing that is saving you from an appropriate response is my respect for Moon. The nicest thing that one can say about your statements is that they are the most idiotic, bigoted, stupid, and vile statements that we’ve seen come from you.

    When you decide to join the adults in the conversation, let us know.

    1. Then it seems like the No Fly list needs to be addressed. Perhaps it is something as simple as a registered letter than you have been placed on that list would cover the bases, with a due process panel to hear you out if a mistake has been made.

    2. I thought Starry was being respectful Now if you want to see some vile statements, locate some of the statements that were made, prior to his death, by one of the victims of the San Bernadino shooting. Shudder!!!!!
      (The fake Jew)

  18. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    “The NRA supports Islamic terrorists’ right to own firearms. It is treasonous.”
    Since I’m a member, and I agree with the position that the NRA espouses, that a secret list should not be a way to infringe on rights….and then he calls it treasonous……. He can kiss my butt.

    1. You disagree. he feels it is treason out to allow Islamist terrorist to own firearms.

      Do you think that there should be a no fly list at all? Should just anyone be able to get on a plane?

  19. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    No…he stated that people like me support terrorists and want them to buy guns.

    There should be no secret list at all. In fact, it has been declared unconstitutional in an Oregon federal court.

    If the gov’t doesn’t want those people to fly, arrest them. Right now, citizens cannot know their status nor get off the list. And now, the fascists in DC want to use a secret list merely to set the precedent that one can restrict rights without due process. If you can restrict the 2nd amendment, you can restrict ALL rights. The precedent is set.

    1. Do something about the secret list. Hold Congress’s feet to the fire.

      I really think you are way off the rails on the fly list. There are people I don’t want on planes. Let them get here another way. I also really don’t want them with guns.

      when you throw out extreme positions, basically, you lose your credibility.

      Suggestion: a little less labeling of people with who you disagree. In your eyes, we are all fascists.

  20. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    The extreme position is allowing the government to use a secret, unconstitutional list to declare whose rights will be restricted.

    You don’t want them on the plane? Arrest them. Or not. Make the list public, and set up a way to contest it. Due process. Everyone has a right to face their accuser.

    As for a gun, if they have not committed a crime or been declared mentally incompetent…they have a RIGHT to the gun.

    I don’t think that you are a fascist. YOU are not stating that men with guns should come to my home who will demand that I give up my rights or be shot. The editorial writer is doing that…as is anyone who is agreeing with him.

    1. So I guess you want those at Gitmo turned loose? They haven’t been convicted of anything.

      I might be just as inclined to get up on my high horse over someone who has been convicted of a felony, lets say a non-violent felony. Felony or misdemeanor is a very arbitrary destinction, often decided at the street level. Kids can be arrested for something like felony breaking and entering as adults in some states. It could be over something stupid, like being in the wrong place at the wrong time. So a kid can never vote or have a gun from age 16 on just because he broke into a house on a construction sight in North Carolina to drink a few beers taken from his parents refrigerator. Sounds harsh to me.

      I believe I already stated that there should be a way off a no fly list for wrongful identity.

      I don’t believe the editor is saying someone should be able to come to your home for your guns. I would have to reread it.

      I do think at some point we are going to have to find a way to limit military quality guns to those who qualify. I just don’t think that the general public should be able to buy those willy nilly.

      We aren’t talking about boy toys here. We are speaking of tools that if they get in the wrong hands, become weapons of mass destruction.

      You might want the right to own cool stuff. I want the right not to fear for my life every time I go out of the house. That’s a balancing act. It can’t always tilt just one direction.

  21. Emma

    @Starryflights Since the San Bernardino terrorists as well as Robert Dear were not on the no-fly list, how would this have made any difference in outcome?

    1. It wouldn’t have but people are concerned over people coming here in the future. They are also concerned over the visa waiver program. Currently, you can be on the no fly list and buy a gun.

  22. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    “So I guess you want those at Gitmo turned loose? They haven’t been convicted of anything.”

    If the people on the list are illegal combatants, put them in Gitmo. The people in Gitmo are terrorists. Straw argument.

    “I don’t believe the editor is saying someone should be able to come to your home for your guns. I would have to reread it.”

    “I do think at some point we are going to have to find a way to limit military quality guns to those who qualify.”

    You keep using the term “military quality.” Military weaponry is ALREADY controlled. Furthermore, the right protects “Military weaponry.”
    Want to have more trained people?
    Teach gun safety and handling in school and organize the militia.

    “We aren’t talking about boy toys here. We are speaking of tools that if they get in the wrong hands, become weapons of mass destruction.”

    No weapon is a “boy toy.” Your hyperbole is part of the problem. You denigrate a right. This is not a hobby. You have human right to be armed.

    Other people in editorials have recommended that.

    1. No, they aren’t necessarily terrorists. Some are, some aren’t. They haven’t been tried or convicted. I don’t know what an illegal combatant is. I have never heard the expression. I have heard enemy combatant before. I believe that is how they are classified.

      You have a civil right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd amendment does not specify which arms. You also do not have the right to be armed just anywhere you choose.

      You are trying to convince people of things that you want to be true, not that really are true.

      I do have a tendency towards hyperbole. I will accept that.

  23. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    The people in Gitmo are “unlawful combatants” under the Geneva conventions. One doesn’t actually “try” such people. The fact that we do….is both good and problematic. They are a type of POW. POW’s do not get tried. However, being that they were not in uniform, etc…as unlawful combatants, they also lose many rights of POWs. In some cases, they can be shot out of hand.

    I am not trying to convince people things that are untrue.

    You have the inalienable civil liberty to keep and bear arms.
    According to Miller and confirmed by Heller, the arms that are protected under the Constitution are all arms suitable for a militia, in common lawful use. That includes ALL semi-auto weapons and their accessories and ammo. The McDonald case incorporated the right to the states.

    I have the right to carry arms. This has been confirmed by federal courts in CA and IL Either concealed or open carry MUST be allowed.

    Currently, private property has the right to forbid carry on their property.
    States have different rules for carry. Virginia allows open and concealed carry in state and city property. Federal property falls under the restrictive federal rules. Courts, schools, and the legislative chambers are also forbidden. McAulliffe has just attempted to circumvent the law by declaring that open carry is illegal at DMV or other agencies. He is ignoring that there is actually written law authorizing places at which carry is allowed.

    The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable, inherent civil liberty, pre-existing the Constitution and does not derive from it. It is protected by the Bill of Rights. It is a human right, related to the human right of self defense and defense of freedom.

    1. I do not believe that guns are a human right. That’s a real stretch.

      I know that George Bush declared those at Gitmo as enemy combatants. All I can do is call in Moe to address the issue. It isn’t my field of expertise. I was sort of relying on the former president.

  24. Cargosquid

    To be clear….. I use the term “civil liberty” specifically, for a reason.

    Civil rights from Barron’s Legal Dictionary

    CIVIL RIGHTS
    the nonpolitical rights of all citizens, especially those rights relating to personal liberty. Civil rights differ from LIBERTIES in that civil rights are positive in nature, and civil liberties, negative; that is, civil liberties are immunities from governmental interference or limitations on governmental action (as in the First Amendment) that have the effect of reserving rights to individuals.

    In other words….. civil liberties cannot be “granted” by gov’t action. Civil rights are grants by gov’t action, like the right to vote. Civil liberties are inherent. You have them because you are born.

  25. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    The right to be armed is a human right. Guns are merely the best tools for self defense and defense of freedom.

    Thus the 2nd addresses “arms,” which includes guns.

    1. I would argue that the right to be armed is a civil right or liberty if you -prefer that. Human rights are involve food, shelter, clothing and the right not to have the snot beaten out of you.

  26. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    “the right not to have the snot beaten out of you.”

    Right…right…..and how does one prevent that…….?
    Thus, being armed is a human right.

    1. No, no. Human rights are rights all people are born with, regardless of government. Gun rights are bestowed on you civilly…ie…as in the Constitution.

      Human rights can cannot be given to you. You are born with them. They can certainly be violated, however.

  27. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    No.

    Gun rights are NOT bestowed upon you by the government.
    You have the right to be armed. Nowhere does the Constitution or the Bill of Rights grant a right to be armed. The 2nd protects the existing right.

    Please…point out to me where it is listed in the Constitution?
    Show me the authority that disarms you since you don’t have a natural right.

    If your life/freedom is in danger and there are weapons available, do you not have a natural right to use them to defend yourself.

    No man has the power or authority to deny arms to another man without due process and cause.

    1. Cargo, I am not going to blast semantics with you.

      It really is tiresome. I guess you have the right to do whatever you GD want to do. Have at it.

Comments are closed.