No issues here. However, as a society, we are treating actions of domestic terrorism as a matter of law enforcement, when it should be treated as a matter of war.

There is a huge legal issue with this. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right that all people have. To deny these people a right because they are on a government watchlist is a violation of their rights. To deny someone the ability to fly is not constitutional right. This is why the ACLU is on the same side as the NRA.

 

Agreed. It sounds good and it certainly caught my attention when I first heard it. Upon reflection, it's a dangerous precedent. If one is consistent then it's hard to get behind this despite it sounding rational.

 

If there's no crime then how can we deny someone what is their right?

 

This is like saying Muslims should be deported or their mosques should be investigated despite no evidence that there is a problem.

I agree with this Science.

 

 

Now if we could talk some sense into some of our leaders. Obviously, there are those on both sides of the isle on here that agree to this. Surely, it's possible something sensible like this can move forward. If BGP'ers can agree, why can't Congress?

Improve the list and criteria for being on the list. I don't care about someones constitutional right to buy a gun if they have done enough to land themself on the no fly list. Given the proper steps have been taken to put them on that list.

 

So if the government decides Hammertime just searched Jihad on his computer (but you were researching a paper) and they put you on the no fly list/watch list, you're ok with it? They didn't tell you and you can't defend yourself?

If they can't fly, how do we ship them back to where they belong?

So if the government decides Hammertime just searched Jihad on his computer (but you were researching a paper) and they put you on the no fly list/watch list, you're ok with it? They didn't tell you and you can't defend yourself?

Certainly there should be a process to defend yourself being on the list. The process needs to change as well.

Certainly there should be a process to defend yourself being on the list. The process needs to change as well.

 

It is sounding less and less like the no brainer you labeled it. :lol:

Certainly there should be a process to defend yourself being on the list. The process needs to change as well.

 

I agree. But this is the cart before the horse. Until they fix this, they can't say no fly-no buy.

 

I don't agree with the ACLU much, but I agree with them on this issue.

It is sounding less and less like the no brainer you labeled it. :lol:

 

Yeah let's just do nothing. Seems to be working well.

I agree. But this is the cart before the horse. Until they fix this, they can't say no fly-no buy.

 

I don't agree with the ACLU much, but I agree with them on this issue.

Ok let's fix it. Everyone just comes up with an excuse as to why we can't or don't have the money. Need to start holding elected officials accountable and make change happen. These seem like pretty reasonable request. There are a ton of other issues that are more important as well. I'm not trying to act like this is a huge ordeal that must be fixed right this second.

So if the government decides Hammertime just searched Jihad on his computer (but you were researching a paper) and they put you on the no fly list/watch list, you're ok with it? They didn't tell you and you can't defend yourself?

 

I honestly have no idea how easy/hard it is to get on "the list". If that simple google search would do it as you say I'd guess a lot more than 800,000 people are on it.

Senator Ted Kennedy was put on the list, about 30% of all people on it shouldn't be.

Senator Ted Kennedy was put on the list, about 30% of all people on it shouldn't be.

 

He should have been, no drive list too.

This

There is a huge legal issue with this. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right that all people have. To deny these people a right because they are on a government watchlist is a violation of their rights. To deny someone the ability to fly is not constitutional right. This is why the ACLU is on the same side as the NRA.

 

This

The problem is the people on this list were not given due process. Many, many people on this list are on there that shouldn't be. If you have a name spelled close to a terrorist, you may be on the list. I would like them to clean the list up.

 

If they are truly a terror suspect, they should not be able to buy a gun. And if they are truly a suspect, why aren't they being charged?

 

And this!

Agreed. It sounds good and it certainly caught my attention when I first heard it. Upon reflection, it's a dangerous precedent. If one is consistent then it's hard to get behind this despite it sounding rational.

 

If there's no crime then how can we deny someone what is their right?

 

This is like saying Muslims should be deported or their mosques should be investigated despite no evidence that there is a problem.

 

This isn't as simple as many think it is, as noted in these quotes there are some legal protections we all enjoy that would have to be vacated to enact this.

There is another reason to be wary of this. Who is to say that the people "putting the list together" are honorable. We have seen the IRS target conservative groups. What is to stop the people in charge of the list from putting people on it just to spite them? I agree with the ACLU on almost nothing but I am with them on this one.