A bunch of those 800,000 have been deemed dangerous for good reasons? How many is that? Let's say one tenth on the list are dangerous. Then that means 720,000 Americans are having their constitutional rights violated for no good reason. That is unacceptable to me.

 

The government should charge them and give these people due process. That way they can face their accusers and hear the charges and see the evidence so they can defend themselves. WHatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

 

 

 

Fair question. I am not sure how you stop a lone wolf radicalized terrorist. It would be helpful to know why the guy in Orlando, though investigated by the FBI, slipped through the cracks. I would say that is where to start looking for an answer. Why weren't they able to find enough evidence to take action against him before he could attack. I am not privy to that information.

 

I know I don't want to react to this and say well, I will give up part of my constitutional rights to hopefully prevent this in the future. That is an even greater danger, long-term, to Americans than what we have now.

 

Since radical Islam is a common denominator LE should build bridges to the Muslim community and work more closely with them and educate them about the importance of reporting those among them who appear to be on a path to radicalization. Ask community leaders to give messages encouraging cooperation in the fight against terror. Ask clerics to do the same.

 

How do you prevent a crazy, with conflicted sexuality, and a twisted need to justify himself before his father and his religious beliefs...? That is a hard one to call. Hold accountable those who knew. The wife very well may be complicit.

 

 

 

How did your friend find out that he was on the list?

 

How soon after he was placed on the list did he find out?

 

What did he have to do to get off the list? At what cost?

 

I didn't read your whole post because you are missing the part where everyone is suggesting that changes must be made to the No Fly list to make it more reasonable. That has to happen for it to work. No one is giving up any rights by making the No Fly list a better and more comprehensive list instead of just randomly helping people on there because of their name.

They'd have to create some form of legal process where someone could challenge the no fly list too. Unless there's some kind of court procedure where they could do that already.

 

They absolutely should do that. It shouldn't be accepted without that taking place. Hamnertime said that from the jump and I agreed with him and have been saying this exact same thing.

They absolutely should do that. It shouldn't be accepted without that taking place. Hamnertime said that from the jump and I agreed with him and have been saying this exact same thing.

 

We have said system now it's called the judicial system the feds just refuse to use it for the list.

 

The precedent this would set scares me more than any shooter.

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?

 

I compare this in a similar way with the ACA. Both need to be fixed, not done away with, the lawmakers need to get together on both issues and work out the kinks.

 

The ACA helps a lot of people, don't get rid of it, revamp it. Work on the kinks of the no-fly and terror lists, so where it's easy for some who is on there by mistake to be able to quickly get their name taken off, then there shouldn't be any issues to deny firearm sales those on the two lists.

I didn't read your whole post because you are missing the part where everyone is suggesting that changes must be made to the No Fly list to make it more reasonable. That has to happen for it to work. No one is giving up any rights by making the No Fly list a better and more comprehensive list instead of just randomly helping people on there because of their name.

 

You don't have to read the whole post, only the part where I quoted you and tried to supply an answer to your question about what my suggestions might be to address prevention of a shooter like the one in Orlando, which I thought was a fair question.

 

BTW, I would like to see a description of the changes to the "no fly list" that people hint at. It seems like a fundamentally flawed idea and so it would need extensive revision so that it isn't just a witch hunt. But that's just me.

 

I suggested a few things to at least address my objection that a person might get on the list and not know it.

We have said system now it's called the judicial system the feds just refuse to use it for the list.

 

The precedent this would set scares me more than any shooter.

 

It can be fixed and done properly if forced to do so. No one is truly challenging it now. That has to change.

You don't have to read the whole post, only the part where I quoted you and tried to supply an answer to your question about what my suggestions might be to address prevention of a shooter like the one in Orlando, which I thought was a fair question.

 

BTW, I would like to see a description of the changes to the "no fly list" that people hint at. It seems like a fundamentally flawed idea and so it would need extensive revision so that it isn't just a witch hunt. But that's just me.

 

I suggested a few things to at least address my objection that a person might get on the list and not know it.

 

It absolutely needs an extensive revision. No one is denying that.

 

All people put on the list should be notified immediately and given a certain time period to file an objection to being on the list. 90 days? 180 days?

 

The list should be made public. Potential witnesses should be allowed to speak for or against said person being on the list.

 

All people have the right to a speedy trial.

 

 

There are your starting points. Feel free to add to them.

It absolutely needs an extensive revision. No one is denying that.

 

All people put on the list should be notified immediately and given a certain time period to file an objection to being on the list. 90 days? 180 days?

 

The list should be made public. Potential witnesses should be allowed to speak for or against said person being on the list.

 

All people have the right to a speedy trial.

 

 

There are your starting points. Feel free to add to them.

 

Trials are for those accused of crimes. Are you suggesting we have trials for those placed on no fly lists, or terror watch lists?

It can be fixed and done properly if forced to do so. No one is truly challenging it now. That has to change.

 

Unless you are taken to court and found guilty the government has no right to stop someone from participating in a civil right. No list put together by the government replaces that.

 

You guys keep saying fix the process. Ignoring the fact the process already exists and the FBI failed twice with this shooter to find anything wrong.

 

You cannot suspend someone's rights on suspicion and it's not up to an American citizen to prove they are innocent it's up to the government to prove they are guilty.

It absolutely needs an extensive revision. No one is denying that.

 

All people put on the list should be notified immediately and given a certain time period to file an objection to being on the list. 90 days? 180 days?

 

The list should be made public. Potential witnesses should be allowed to speak for or against said person being on the list.

 

All people have the right to a speedy trial.

 

 

There are your starting points. Feel free to add to them.

 

That isn't how due process works. It's up to the government to come up with the burden of proof to go to trial it's not up to the individual to prove they are innocent.

 

Do we really want to set this precedent ? After all the posts on this site about racial injustice and racist cops the suggestion here is to set a precedent without due process to remove someones rights.

For those that are against the "No-Fly, No-Buy" idea, are there any instances/red flags in the background check process that you would support a person being disqualified from purchasing a weapon?

For those that are against the "No-Fly, No-Buy" idea, are there any instances/red flags in the background check process that you would support a person being disqualified from purchasing a weapon?

 

What currently exists? We already have background checks. I've submitted to several. Tell me what criteria are currently used to deny someone the right to purchase a firearm and I will be happy to tell you whether I agree with those criteria.

 

We need to know exactly what we are talking about before we go making changes and adding other lists that also disqualify someone.

What currently exists? We already have background checks. I've submitted to several. Tell me what criteria are currently used to deny someone the right to purchase a firearm and I will be happy to tell you whether I agree with those criteria.

 

We need to know exactly what we are talking about before we go making changes and adding other lists that also disqualify someone.

 

I'm asking you, is there anything (whether it's currently on the books or not) that you feel should disqualify someone from being able to purchase a firearm? It's a very simple straight-forward question.

Unless you are taken to court and found guilty the government has no right to stop someone from participating in a civil right. No list put together by the government replaces that.

 

You guys keep saying fix the process. Ignoring the fact the process already exists and the FBI failed twice with this shooter to find anything wrong.

 

You cannot suspend someone's rights on suspicion and it's not up to an American citizen to prove they are innocent it's up to the government to prove they are guilty.

 

That isn't how due process works. It's up to the government to come up with the burden of proof to go to trial it's not up to the individual to prove they are innocent.

 

Do we really want to set this precedent ? After all the posts on this site about racial injustice and racist cops the suggestion here is to set a precedent without due process to remove someones rights.

 

As far as I am concerned, Lipton Bash has said everything that needs to be said regarding why no fly-no buy is a bad idea. It turns us into a police state where the innocent must prove themselves innocent or the government can deny them their constitutional rights.

 

Well-said, LB.

I'm asking you, is there anything (whether it's currently on the books or not) that you feel should disqualify someone from being able to purchase a firearm? It's a very simple straight-forward question.

 

Sure, being a convicted felon should disqualify someone. Having been arrested and found guilty of a crime and determined to be mentally ill to the point that one is a danger to oneself or others ought to disqualify one ffrom purchasing a firearm.

 

If I knew of other things that are currently flagged in the background check I may also agree that those are legitimate reasons as well. Suspicion of nefarious things does not rise to the level of sufficient reason to take away a CITIZEN'S rights.

 

So far, we only get a witch hunt from the side that wants to add no fly list to the criteria.

 

You ask a very good question, "What criteria must be present before the government can take away the constitutionally protected right to purchase a firearm?"

 

Those who want to change the current practice are the ones that must answer this question and defend their reasons for changing the current system.

 

We haven't got that from anyone. We only get ambiguous statements that we must improve the system.

 

PurplePride did take a shot, but his suggestion has things backward about who should prove what. The government should prove their case, providing opportunity for the accused to defend themselves, before putting the name on the list. It is wrong-headed to put a name on the list and then require the person to prove they are innocent to get their name removed.