people on the no fly list should not be able to have a gun

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 72
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
If you can't do something without being debarred the use of arms, like freely associating with unpopular people, then that thing isn't a right in the eyes of the people working for government.

TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
You can't take guns onto planes so being on the no fly list is irrelevant to the 2a 
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
if you aren't willing to state in words a clear standard for depriving someone a gun, we can't have a meaningful discussion. of course you are right that people on the no fly list deserve a chance to state their case, but the point remains that, generally, if you are too dangerous to fly, you should be too dangerous to have a gun. conservatives say "reasonable suspicion" someone may commit a crime or violence isn't enough, but why not?  what if someone says "on christmas day i'm gonna kill some bitches". ? that's not an immediate threat like your standard, but it's enough to probably get them on the list and should be enough to prevent a gun sale. there is a spectrum of examples ranging from obvious to deny a gun to obvious not to deny... but if you are too gung ho about gun rights, people start getting guns and murdering people when they should never have been let have a gun to begin with. 
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
The point of no fly is to keep people from flying which is irrelevant to what they do on the ground.  If what is said is considered a crime then that is one thing, if it protected free speech then there is no reason to violate someone's rights.  I think it's pretty clear but negates what you want and the argument that you are trying to make.  You are trying to find a way around or a loophole in the constitution as many try and fail to do.  Unless you understand the constitution and bill of rights your desires aren't possible.   So any meaningful discussion has to keep the constitution and bill of rights as a major focus. 

DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
This is an interesting topic even though Dr Franklin almost ruined it.  There is no constitutional right to fly that I am aware of, but why would it be any different from walking around? You can’t just be stopped from going from one place to another for no reason, why is flying any different? We are making exceptions.  If that is the case, there can be an exception to any law.
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@n8nrgmi
Another member has figuratively stated that Alabama should be bombed. Ted Nugent as a political ploy said we ought to "chop off their heads" in November.  At some point he has been contacted by members of the FBI for his political remarks if I am not mistaken.






disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@DBlaze
Yeah why can't you walk on a plane with an AK47 and a belt full of grenades? What's so special about flying?
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Where does 2a make allowances for planes. 2a says you have a right to go armed. If no restrictions are stated then it applies to anywhere, including planes, courthouses, schools, congress just anywhere.
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@disgusted
Yeah why can't you walk on a plane with an AK47 and a belt full of grenades? What's so special about flying?

Maybe he's in a wheel chair
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@disgusted
I'm not sure what you are saying.  All I'm saying is I see no connection or constitutional way to take someone's guns if they are placed on the no fly list, which is arbitrary in many ways.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Snoopy
There is that.
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@n8nrgmi
The 2nd amendment would make it legally impossible for any restrictions to be put on gun ownership.  You can modify the 2nd amendment to say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall have minimum restrictions" or something like that.  We need defense against tyranny.  Any peaceful person should be allowed to get any gun they want for hunting, and protection against criminals and a tyrannical government.  Homicide, while tragic is extremely rare and a tyrannical government is more of a threat to America then some crazy shooter.