Blood is on the NRA's hands

[boater]

 

I know I could do my own research but too busy right not. What is required for someone to be put on a no-fly list?

They're pretty secretive about how people end up on the no-fly list--an understandable position from a security standpoint. If the secret sauce about how you "ended up" on the fly list came out, the bad guys would game-around it.

 

The secretiveness of the fly list process should be a red flag for it's use for other purposes. Who can say which pol (Dem, or Repub) won't change the secret rules to political advantage?

 

I said this in a different post, and I'll say it again: The fly list is maintained by bureaucrats, GS-9 intel analyst types, working in a sweat shop basement of some Federal building, eating sandwiches and coffee from vending machines at 3 AM. That is not how a civil right should be withheld. (Right to fly is less than a civil right.. so I'm OK with how the maintain the fly list).

Edited December 9, 2015 by boater

[GG]

I wonder why the left hasn't mentioned that the ACLU is dead set against the no fly list to be used for anything?

[Nanker]

How does my right to bear arms infringe on anyone else's rights? I'll wait.

You're impinging on the weak and hysterical people's need to feel safe. Knowing that guns are "out there" they can't sleep at night and get anxious at the thought that someone somewhere somehow is going to come up to them, whip out a gun, and relieve them of their wallet or purse and perhaps make a night deposit in their rear. That is it, it's common sense, now isn't it?

 

I wonder why the left hasn't mentioned that the ACLU is dead set against the no fly list to be used for anything?

Well, that just wouldn't be good for business, now would it?

[Bob in Mich]

How does my right to bear arms infringe on anyone else's rights? I'll wait.

I wouldn't really wait on my replies. I have a couple of other things I'm doing.

 

Well, as I said, it is very difficult to determine where that line would be but I would say it is easy to say that at the point you shoot me, You have infringed on my rights. True?

 

OK, is there anything short of that that would infringe on my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Threatening me with that weapon would also infringe on my rights. Many of us are just searching for some way to red flag those that want to harm innocents. That is it. That doesn't make us opponents or fools.

 

Ideally, I think that there should be less weapons available overall. Having said that, this country is awash in guns and I think anyone that wants one should be able to buy one, assuming they are not obviously a danger to the public by that purchase.

 

Just another thought, why not try limiting all the labels in these discussions. Very few of us have beliefs totally aligned with any party or group. Talk to the individual and not the group.

[DC Tom]

I wouldn't really wait on my replies. I have a couple of other things I'm doing.Well, as I said, it is very difficult to determine where that line would be but I would say it is easy to say that at the point you shoot me, You have infringed on my rights. True?OK, is there anything short of that that would infringe on my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Threatening me with that weapon would also infringe on my rights. Many of us are just searching for some way to red flag those that want to harm innocents. That is it. That doesn't make us opponents or fools.Ideally, I think that there should be less weapons available overall. Having said that, this country is awash in guns and I think anyone that wants one should be able to buy one, assuming they are not obviously a danger to the public by that purchase.Just another thought, why not try limiting all the labels in these discussions. Very few of us have beliefs totally aligned with any party or group. Talk to the individual and not the group.

When did the "right to bear arms" become the right to shoot you?

[FireChan]

I wouldn't really wait on my replies. I have a couple of other things I'm doing.

 

Well, as I said, it is very difficult to determine where that line would be but I would say it is easy to say that at the point you shoot me, You have infringed on my rights. True?

 

OK, is there anything short of that that would infringe on my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Threatening me with that weapon would also infringe on my rights. Many of us are just searching for some way to red flag those that want to harm innocents. That is it. That doesn't make us opponents or fools.

 

Ideally, I think that there should be less weapons available overall. Having said that, this country is awash in guns and I think anyone that wants one should be able to buy one, assuming they are not obviously a danger to the public by that purchase.

 

Just another thought, why not try limiting all the labels in these discussions. Very few of us have beliefs totally aligned with any party or group. Talk to the individual and not the group.

I have never shot or threatened someone with my weapon. I have fired a fun at a range. That's it. How am I infringing on someone's rights?

 

Threatening with a weapon and murder are both illegal. Those are both things already noted as using your right to infringe on someone else's and are not allowed.

When did the "right to bear arms" become the right to shoot you?

Get your own.

[boater]

When did the "right to bear arms" become the right to shoot you?

Sarcasm, I hope. Because Bob in Mich very clearly states no one has the right to shoot anyone.

[Chef Jim]

Sarcasm, I hope. Because Bob in Mich very clearly states no one has the right to shoot anyone.

 

Following Bob's replies to FireChan that was how it came across. But then again Bob's a stoner so I understand why things he says don't make sense.

[MarkAF43]

They're pretty secretive about how people end up on the no-fly list--an understandable position from a security standpoint. If the secret sauce about how you "ended up" on the fly list came out, the bad guys would game-around it.

 

The secretiveness of the fly list process should be a red flag for it's use for other purposes. Who can say which pol (Dem, or Repub) won't change the secret rules to political advantage?

 

I said this in a different post, and I'll say it again: The fly list is maintained by bureaucrats, GS-9 intel analyst types, working in a sweat shop basement of some Federal building, eating sandwiches and coffee from vending machines at 3 AM. That is not how a civil right should be withheld. (Right to fly is less than a civil right.. so I'm OK with how the maintain the fly list).

 

 

I think I take offense. I'm a GS-09 with DOD and I don't work in a sweat shop basement of a Federal building and I'm not eating sandwiches and coffee from vending machines, and I'm sure as hell not working at 3 AM.

[Bob in Mich]

I have never shot or threatened someone with my weapon. I have fired a fun at a range. That's it. How am I infringing on someone's rights?

 

Threatening with a weapon and murder are both illegal. Those are both things already noted as using your right to infringe on someone else's and are not allowed.

 

Get your own.

You are right.

 

What I am saying is that there is a spectrum of danger to others that is related to gun sales to the public, imo. Shooting me is at the end of the spectrum but was used to make the point that there is this spectrum.

 

The reason I decided to post in this thread was to try to discuss and listen to some ideas. Where exactly on that danger spectrum any limits could be looked at, is wide open for discussion, and is the point of the discussion.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

You are right.

 

What I am saying is that there is a spectrum of danger to others that is related to gun sales to the public, imo. Shooting me is at the end of the spectrum but was used to make the point that there is this spectrum.

 

The reason I decided to post in this thread was to try to discuss and listen to some ideas. Where exactly on that danger spectrum any limits could be looked at, is wide open for discussion, and is the point of the discussion.

 

 

Again, someone having a gun in no way shape or form infringes on any of your rights. Period. It has no effect.

 

Now if they want to be criminals and use the gun as a tool to either threaten, harass, harm you... then they are criminals and breaking the law and will have their freedoms taken away via prison.

 

Just because someone has a gun doesn't mean anything for your rights. If someone with a gun is harassing you, at the very least they will probably be charged and arrested with menacing. etc... its a moot point. If someone threatens you with a knife, threatens to blow you up etc... they will be dealt with by the authorities just like if someone threatens you with a gun.

 

A gun is a tool.

 

The act of a bad guy being a criminal is what infringes upon your rights.

[Azalin]

I disagree with most of this, though it is well stated. Why can't the no fly list be used as a starting point to create a weapons sale restriction list.

 

The same reason that the no fly list can't be used to restrict your speech or your ability to own property.

I wonder why the left hasn't mentioned that the ACLU is dead set against the no fly list to be used for anything?

 

Indeed.

 

 

I think I take offense. I'm a GS-09 with DOD and I don't work in a sweat shop basement of a Federal building and I'm not eating sandwiches and coffee from vending machines, and I'm sure as hell not working at 3 AM.

 

[Nanker]

The left is all about freedom of choice, unless you want to choose to do something they don't want you to.

[Bob in Mich]

Again, someone having a gun in no way shape or form infringes on any of your rights. Period. It has no effect.

 

Now if they want to be criminals and use the gun as a tool to either threaten, harass, harm you... then they are criminals and breaking the law and will have their freedoms taken away via prison.

 

Just because someone has a gun doesn't mean anything for your rights. If someone with a gun is harassing you, at the very least they will probably be charged and arrested with menacing. etc... its a moot point. If someone threatens you with a knife, threatens to blow you up etc... they will be dealt with by the authorities just like if someone threatens you with a gun.

 

A gun is a tool.

 

The act of a bad guy being a criminal is what infringes upon your rights.

I disagree and let me take it to the extreme, just to try to make the point.

 

Hypothetically, say you are sold the first gun. Before that point, the public was in no danger of being harmed by guns. After, they are in some increased level of possible danger.

 

As you say, if never used against another person, the harm doesn't materialize. If your life takes a terrible turn in the future, you may menace us with that gun. Or, if you get careless, and let that weapon fall into the wrong hands, again the rest of us may be harmed by that gun purchase.

 

The point is to try to try to think of some way, that allows you to essentially keep your guns if you are a good citizen and not allow guns to the bad citizens. Limiting sales to obvious dangers is good, if it can be determined. Maybe periodic gun license reviews could help in some cases. Maybe anonymous gun danger tip lines might help in some cases. I am not claiming to have solutions. I was just looking for some possible interesting ideas.

[boater]

 

 

I think I take offense. I'm a GS-09 with DOD and I don't work in a sweat shop basement of a Federal building and I'm not eating sandwiches and coffee from vending machines, and I'm sure as hell not working at 3 AM.

LOL.. but there are GS's that do. I've witnessed The Jungle with me very own eyes.

 

But since you're offended I must respect that. Please file your claim with the NIOB (Natl I'm Offended Bureau), they're giving out $20 vouchers to Applebees.

Edited December 9, 2015 by boater

[Chef Jim]

 

 

I think I take offense. I'm a GS-09 with DOD and I don't work in a sweat shop basement of a Federal building and I'm not eating sandwiches and coffee from vending machines, and I'm sure as hell not working at 3 AM.

 

Ok we get that. The real question is can I fly next month?

[MarkAF43]

 

Ok we get that. The real question is can I fly next month?

 

 

I'm not sure, I'll need at least 20 hours of double time and a half OT to determine if you can fly next month.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

I disagree and let me take it to the extreme, just to try to make the point.

 

Hypothetically, say you are sold the first gun. Before that point, the public was in no danger of being harmed by guns. After, they are in some increased level of possible danger.

 

As you say, if never used against another person, the harm doesn't materialize. If your life takes a terrible turn in the future, you may menace us with that gun. Or, if you get careless, and let that weapon fall into the wrong hands, again the rest of us may be harmed by that gun purchase.

 

The point is to try to try to think of some way, that allows you to essentially keep your guns if you are a good citizen and not allow guns to the bad citizens. Limiting sales to obvious dangers is good, if it can be determined. Maybe periodic gun license reviews could help in some cases. Maybe anonymous gun danger tip lines might help in some cases. I am not claiming to have solutions. I was just looking for some possible interesting ideas.

 

I drive an SUV built on a truck frame with a brush guard. I could easily argue that I am more dangerous with that 5000lb vehicle than I am a gun, intentionally or unintentionally.

[Chef Jim]

 

 

I'm not sure, I'll need at least 20 hours of double time and a half OT to determine if you can fly next month.

 

Hmmmm. Let me refer you to here first.

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/182911-the-government-paid-how-much-for-what/

[Bob in Mich]

The same reason that the no fly list can't be used to restrict your speech or your ability to own property.

Exercising those rights have far less chance of killing people two hours later than allowing everyone to buy any weapon because you are apparently afraid of the slippery slope. I think claiming that there is no way to compile such a list is acting intellectually dishonest.