Why not, a No Fly List Compromise?

[PredFan]

Why not, a No Fly List Compromise?

Because you can't compromise with lying filth gun control advocates. Their strategy is death of the 2nd amendment by 1,000 cuts, you give those filth an inch and they will be back for more, much more.

Also, it isn't just lefties who are against nfls, I have always been against them.

 

[BluesLegend]

Why not, a No Fly List Compromise?

Because you can't compromise with lying filth gun control advocates. Their strategy is death of the 2nd amendment by 1,000 cuts, you give those filth an inch and they will be back for more, much more.

You are correct, but I personally wouldn't want a terrorist buying a gun. I'm FOR no fly lists in general IF we could figure out how to work it out constitutionally. And not just fly or buy a gun, but track their purchases, their contacts, and where they go.

Neither do I. You want to know why this country is screwed up and we can't get anything done, because the left are lying scum. There's no compromising with those people they lie through their teeth. They will pretend to compromise, they will pretend to find common ground, all the while scheming to welsh on the deal and just keep hacking away until they get everything they want. Look at Obama the LIAR in chief. First he admits, repeatedly that he has no authority to grant illegals amnesty via executive order. He's a trained lawyer in constitutional law. Then he goes right ahead and issues amnesty illegally knowing full well he's breaking the law. THAT is the left, lie, cheat, break the law, ignore the law, that is the low character of who we are dealing with.

 

[dblack]

Because the basic idea of a no-fly list is an attempt to avoid due process.

".... no one here who wants a terrorist buying a gun or getting on a plane."

This gets right to the core of the problem. How do we know who's a terrorist, and who isn't? And if we know someone is a terrorist, why are we dicking around with petty travel restrictions? We should just kill them.

The problem is that the no-fly list isn't a list of people who are terrorists. It's a list of people that our government thinks might be terrorists.

We do that for search warrants already. Why can we not do it for no-fly lists? We have reasonable suspicion that there will be evidence of a crime in a person's residence, we prove it to a judge we get that warrant. I'm not trying to argue, you seem to know, I'm just asking because I don't understand.

A request by government to infringe on someone's right to privacy may be granted by a judge if they determine that there is sufficient reason to warrant such an exception. But it's a temporary exception and a necessary one to allow police investigators to do their jobs. Once the investigation is complete, the suspects aren't deprived of their rights in perpetuity unless they are found guilty by due process - they get their day in court.

The no-fly list isn't an investigation. It's a judgement that strips its victims of the right to air travel without due process. This is exactly the kind of thing the Constitution's due process provisions were designed to prevent. We should not tolerate a government that maintains secret lists of 'enemies' who are deprived of their rights on mere suspicion.

You just told me the difference between the two. I am full aware of that. What I am asking is if we can use the same protections and limitations we use for warrants for the no-fly list? I'm talking about scrapping the old list and starting it over within the confines of the constitution.

I think I understand what you want to do here, but it would be a mistake. What you're talking about is short circuitting the justice system - allowing government to strip the rights of suspects without first proving that they are guilty. That's a very, very bad precedent to set.

Why would the procedure for getting a warrant and using it, be OK, but using the same procedure to place someone on a NFL not be?

What you're suggesting is using the criteria for granting an investigation warrant to determine guilt. I don't see how that makes any sense. We should thoroughly investigate anyone who we reasonably suspect of being a terrorist, but until we've proven they actually are, via our justice system, or there's a clear and present danger, we can't simply strip people of their rights based on suspicion.

Previously, the only right being curbed in this way (by the no-fly list) is the right to air travel. But now we're talking about using it to strip second amendment rights. If we allow that, how long before they're going after the First, to silence potentially 'radical' elements of society?

There are intelligent ways to guard ourselves against terrorism. But giving up on the presumption of innocence as the bedrock of our justice system isn't one of them.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why not introduce a bill that designs a no fly list and a set of rules for it that make sure due process rights aren't lost?

I'm no legal expert, and I don't even know if it could be done, but there likely is no one here who wants a terrorist buying a gun or getting on a plane. We would also want their purchases and occasionally their travel looked at. But we can't trust our government, republican or democrat, to be able to list whatever person they despise that day.

If anyone knows why this can't be done, I'd like to hear it, or failing that, why it hasn't been done?

Because the basic idea of a no-fly list is an attempt to avoid due process.

".... no one here who wants a terrorist buying a gun or getting on a plane."

This gets right to the core of the problem. How do we know who's a terrorist, and who isn't? And if we know someone is a terrorist, why are we dicking around with petty travel restrictions? We should just kill them.

The problem is that the no-fly list isn't a list of people who are terrorists. It's a list of people that our government thinks might be terrorists.

I'd rather know ahead of time, thanks. I trust our FBI. If you don't, why not?

If the government were trustworthy we wouldn't have or need the Bill of Rights would we?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why not introduce a bill that designs a no fly list and a set of rules for it that make sure due process rights aren't lost?

I'm no legal expert, and I don't even know if it could be done, but there likely is no one here who wants a terrorist buying a gun or getting on a plane. We would also want their purchases and occasionally their travel looked at. But we can't trust our government, republican or democrat, to be able to list whatever person they despise that day.

If anyone knows why this can't be done, I'd like to hear it, or failing that, why it hasn't been done?

The government likes operating in secrecy

Secrecy is necessary; shall we tell the bad guys we're watching them so they can go underground? Think about what you're advocating for.

So I guess the cops shouldn't get search warrants ahead of time either right?