This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Why Liberals Oppose a Gun Ban for People On Terror Watchlist

George Washington's picture




 

Everyone agrees – other than ISIS and a handful of crazies – that we have to stop the epidemic of mass shootings  (mass shootings have skyrocketed under Obama; 5 of the 12 deadliest mass shootings in history took place during Obama’s first term alone).

President Obama plans to introduce – through executive action – a gun ban on those on no-fly lists.   So does the governor of Connecticut.

Sound like a no-brainer … stopping terrorists from having guns?

But as Daily Beast points out, in an article called “My Fellow LIBERALS, DON’T Support Obama’s Terror Watch List Gun Ban“:

As Americans we understand well how important due process is. No one, for instance, should be thrown in jail just on the say-so of some government official who declares they deserve it. Such is the behavior of tyrants, the Founding Fathers understood, and so we enshrined in our Constitution the right to counsel, the right against being compelled to testify against oneself, the right to trial by jury, etc.All of these rights are checks to ensure the government can’t simply pluck innocent people out of their lives and strip them of their life, liberty, or property. Only after fairly testing the charges against them can the government punish people with such deprivation.

 

But none of these hurdles must be overcome for the government to put someone on a list, especially not a list like this, which is a watch list. It is a list of people that for whatever reason (a reason that no one outside the government knows) the government has decided deserve closer scrutiny of their actions.

 

Is the government right to be concerned about these people? Maybe yes, but maybe not, and there is no way for ordinary citizens to know. Which means there is also no way for ordinary citizens to know whether any of them, even people who in no way intend to commit acts of terrorism, are also on that list.

 

In other words, there is no way to know whether you are on that list. Nor is there any way to know how to get off it.

 

That there is any list at all should give us all pause. It has not historically been the hallmark of a healthy democracy when governments have kept lists of people they didn’t like. It is hard to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people when the government keeps track of the people, including those dissidents who would challenge it (which is something that in a democracy they are allowed, and even supposed, to do).

 

***

 

What this proposal calls for is the government using the list as a basis to deny the people on it a right to which they were otherwise entitled.

 

***

 

Based on the plain text of the Second Amendment and subsequent jurisprudence it is clear that some right is in there somewhere, and what this proposal calls for is for the government to arbitrarily and un-transparently deny this right to certain people without any sort of the due process ordinarily required. And that’s a problem.

 

***

 

With this proposal we would be authorizing the government to act capriciously and unaccountably for any reason, including—and this point cannot be emphasized enough—bad reasons or no reasons at all, and against anyone, including—and this point cannot be emphasized enough, either—people just like you. There would also be no reason why, if the government could take away this right this way today, it couldn’t take away other rights you depend on having tomorrow the same way.

Liberal journalists Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux document:

The Obama administration has quietly approved a substantial expansion of the terrorist watchlist system, authorizing a secret process that requires neither “concrete facts” nor “irrefutable evidence” to designate an American or foreigner as a terrorist, according to a key government document obtained by The Intercept.

 

The “March 2013 Watchlisting Guidance,” a 166-page document issued last year by the National Counterterrorism Center, spells out the government’s secret rules for putting individuals on its main terrorist database, as well as the no fly list and the selectee list, which triggers enhanced screening at airports and border crossings. The new guidelines allow individuals to be designated as representatives of terror organizations without any evidence they are actually connected to such organizations, and it gives a single White House official the unilateral authority to place entire “categories” of people the government is tracking onto the no fly and selectee lists. It broadens the authority of government officials to “nominate” people to the watchlists based on what is vaguely described as “fragmentary information.”

 

***

 

The document’s definition of “terrorist” activity includes actions that fall far short of bombing or hijacking. In addition to expected crimes, such as assassination or hostage-taking, the guidelines also define destruction of government property and damaging computers used by financial institutions as activities meriting placement on a list. They also define as terrorism any act that is “dangerous” to property and intended to influence government policy through intimidation.

 

This combination—a broad definition of what constitutes terrorism and a low threshold for designating someone a terrorist—opens the way to ensnaring innocent people in secret government dragnets. It can also be counterproductive. When resources are devoted to tracking people who are not genuine risks to national security, the actual threats get fewer resources—and might go unnoticed.

 

“If reasonable suspicion is the only standard you need to label somebody, then it’s a slippery slope we’re sliding down here, because then you can label anybody anything,” says David Gomez, a former senior FBI special agent with experience running high-profile terrorism investigations. “Because you appear on a telephone list of somebody doesn’t make you a terrorist. That’s the kind of information that gets put in there.”

 

***

 

In 2004, [liberal] Sen. Ted Kennedy complained that he was barred from boarding flights on five separate occasions because his name resembled the alias of a suspected terrorist. Two years later, CBS News obtained a copy of the no fly list and reported that it included [liberal] Bolivian president Evo Morales and Lebanese parliament head Nabih Berri. One of the watchlists snared Mikey Hicks, a Cub Scout who got his first of many airport pat-downs at age two. In 2007, the Justice Department’s inspector general issued a scathing report identifying “significant weaknesses” in the system. And in 2009, after a Nigerian terrorist was able to board a passenger flight to Detroit and nearly detonated a bomb sewn into his underwear despite his name having been placed on the TIDE list, President Obama admitted that there had been a “systemic failure.”

 

***

 

The rulebook appears to invert the legal principle of due process, defining nominations as “presumptively valid.”

Left-leaning Nation tells how two middle-aged, lesbian peace activists got put on the no-fly list.

Bleeding heart Huffington Post noted last year:

You could post something on Facebook or Twitter that raises “reasonable suspicion.”

 

***

 

Or somebody else could just think you’re a potential terror threat.

 

***

 

You could be a little terrorist-ish, at least according to someone.

 

***

 

Or you could just know someone terrorist-y, maybe.

 

***

 

Finally, you could just be unlucky.

 

***

 

A federal judge ruled in June that the government must develop a new process under which individuals can challenge their inclusion on the no-fly list. The judge found the current process “wholly ineffective.”

Progressive Salon reports:

In fact, the rules for putting someone on the list are so weak that it’s acceptable for entire “categories” of people to be considered threats at a White House official’s choosing.

 

***

 

Scahill told HuffPost Live. “The government will not tell you if you are on the list, but it will share its labeling of you as a ‘known or suspected terrorist’ with foreign governments and private contractors. These policies make it nearly impossible to challenge your secret designation. The American public has a right to understand the policies of what amounts to a shadow legal system.”

Liberal Slate writes:

The U.S. government’s reliance on “predictive judgments” to deprive Americans of their constitutionally protected liberties is no fiction. It’s now central to the government’s defense of its no-fly list—a secretive watch list that bans people from flying to or from the United States or over American airspace….

 

Worse, the U.S. government launched its predictive judgment model without offering any evidence whatsoever about its accuracy, any scientific basis or methodology that might justify it, or the extent to which it results in errors. In our case, we turned to two independent experts to evaluate the government’s predictive method: Marc Sageman, a former longtime intelligence community professional and forensic psychologist with expertise in terrorism research, and James Austin, an expert in risk assessment in the criminal justice system. Neither found any indication that the government’s predictive model even tries to use basic scientific methods to make and test its predictions. As Sageman says, despite years of research, no one inside or outside the government has devised a model that can predict with any reliability if a person will commit an act of terrorism.

 

 

***

 

Because the government’s predictive model results in the blacklisting of people who are not terrorists, individuals on the no-fly list need a meaningful method of redress—a fair way to demonstrate their “innocence” of crimes they will never commit. The government refuses to provide these safeguards in its current so-called redress system, which violates the due process guarantees of the Constitution. It refuses to tell our clients all the reasons the government has for predicting future misconduct, leaving them to guess. It won’t provide the evidence underlying those reasons, including government evidence that would undermine its predictions. And it refuses to provide a hearing for our clients to press their case to a neutral decision-maker and challenge government witnesses’ hearsay or biases.

Indeed, the government has a history of labeling dissident as terroristsAny type of criticism of the fatcats may get you labeled as a terrorist in post-9/11 America.

Are any of the government’s so-called “terrorism” programs really only focused on stopping terrorism?  Of course not.

Liberals might remember that George W. Bush said that “you’re either with us or against us” … and stripped Americans of many of our liberties.

One specific example: spying on Americans is all about power, control and moneynot protecting Americans from terrorists.

Another example: indefinite detention.

So we've got to stop mass shootings ... but using a Kafkaesque, fatally flawed watchlist system is not the way.

Postscript: What does the Daily Beast article linked above mean when it says that – while liberals may dislike the Second Amendment – it’s still a Constitutional right?

A top liberal Constitutional law expert explains:

Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda.

 

***

 

It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.

 

Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.

 

***

 

More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.

 

Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.

 

None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that … here’s the really hard part … the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.

And liberal icons Gandhi and the Dalai Lama accept gun ownership as moral.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 12/12/2015 - 01:38 | 6913604 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

LOL - that is one of the best comments I've read on this site. Kudos. 

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 23:08 | 6913220 redd_green
redd_green's picture

So the no fly list people are aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllll  terrorists. Yep, that solves the whoooole thing.   The empty heads in the US government already know who aaaaaalll the terrorists are.  Problems solved!   Genius.

 

Puuhhlease stop with this "the liberals think..." crap.

Sat, 12/12/2015 - 08:30 | 6913994 Arnold
Arnold's picture

Heard this Syrian refugee story the day before yesterday.

I find it credible that charters are being used to ferry these goombas in.

No fly list indeed.

http://www.inquisitr.com/2589858/obama-administration-using-ups-cargo-pl...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3363086/posts

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2015/11/false-flag-alert-obama-caught-...

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 23:03 | 6913208 Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch's picture

"Everyone agrees – other than ISIS and a handful of crazies – that we have to stop the epidemic of mass shootings..."

That requires the arrest of the FBI and the CIA who execute the operations and supply the funding and weapons. Am I being too obviously blunt?

The intelligence agencies will continue to provide the weapons for these operations, even if the Government bans gun ownership.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 22:59 | 6913200 YHC-FTSE
YHC-FTSE's picture

So, basically if you want to travel anywhere by commercial air in the 21st century, you have to keep your fucking mouth shut? I don't know why I find this funny (I shouldn't really), but it's almost Pythonesque in its stubborn absurdity. I can just see myself arguing to no avail with an airline desk clerk at some god forsaken airport at 3 am, shouting "Do I LOOK like a fucking terrorist?" then getting tazed for my troubles. All because I had "liked" an RT article on Facebook. 

What a fucking stupid, oppressive world we live in. It's a global Idiocracy.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 22:30 | 6913125 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

Sen. Ted Kennedy should not have been on a no-fly list. Mary Jo would suggest that he should have been on a no-driving list.

Sat, 12/12/2015 - 21:02 | 6916001 Caleb Abell
Caleb Abell's picture

Ted was never given credit for his accomplishments as a scientist.  He was the first to prove that pregnant girls can't hold their breath under water.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 08:14 | 6916909 grekko
grekko's picture

It was probably proven true way before that.  Like the Spanish Inquisition.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 22:12 | 6913053 dchang0
dchang0's picture

Thank God there are some liberals who see the inherent problem with the lack of due process in these latest calls for gun bans.

I think it is becoming more and more important to differentiate between liberals, leftists, and progressives. Each term has a specific history, context, and meaning. Even the term liberal can be divided into classical liberalism (similar to libertarianism) vs. the social liberalism that replaced it in the 20th century vs. modern liberalism of the last few decades. Each of these terms has different meanings even to different experts, so there is no consensus on what each term means.

National Review has coined the term "illiberal left" as the real threat. The illiberal left advocate using gov't lethal force (sending armed cops to people's homes with or without warrants) to push their usually-progressive policies.

I can only wish/hope that mainstream liberals will turn away from the leftists and return to classical liberalism, but this will probably never happen. True "live and let live" attitudes have left our politics. Yes, Millenials poll like libertarians, but they so far haven't acted in a truly libertarian fashion. We will find out if they will ever walk the talk soon enough as they continue edging out the Baby Boomers.

A lot of the USA's ills could be solved just by following a few Commandments plus the Golden Rule:

1) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (No hypocrisy, in short.)

2) Thou shalt not steal. (No property crimes of course, PLUS no personal welfare, no corporate welfare, no gov't-entity-welfare like civil asset forfeiture, nor any bailouts.)

3) Thou shalt not bear false witness (No accusing or punishing the innocent of committing crimes someone else committed. This covers gun bans that punish innocent law abiding gun owners for crimes other violent criminals committed. It also covers these nebulous charges of racism where no racism could possibly be proven--at least not without accurate mind-reading or time travel.)

4) Thou shalt not covet... (No class warfare.)

5) Thou shalt not kill. (No use of gov't lethal force except in self-defense, i.e. no interventionist wars and no no-knock SWAT team raids flash-bombing babies in playpens, no ATF door-kickers coming to take your guns, no IRS door-kickers coming to take your money.)

No, I am not of the Religious Right (Bible thumpers). In fact, I became a libertarian primarily because of the authoritarian tendencies of the Religious Right. But the Commandments still have value in that some of them absolutely would fix a lot of society's ills. The illiberal left would not be able to exist if they actually followed the Commandments and Golden Rule above...

 

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 08:24 | 6916919 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

No matter if God invented the 10 Commandments or Moses sat down and figured them out. They are common-sense rules.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 23:02 | 6913207 tarabel
tarabel's picture

 

 

No, I am not of the Religious Right (Bible thumpers).

1) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (No hypocrisy, in short.)

Sat, 12/12/2015 - 02:44 | 6913718 OldPhart
OldPhart's picture

Golden Rule rules!

Too bad we left it over a century ago.

Sat, 12/12/2015 - 11:50 | 6914392 Gargoyle
Gargoyle's picture

The Golden Rule has been re-hypothecated, just like all the other gold.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 11:36 | 6917301 J Jason Djfmam
J Jason Djfmam's picture

The Tungsten Rule is in charge now.

Sat, 12/12/2015 - 14:13 | 6914838 undertow1141
undertow1141's picture

293 awful rules for every one good one, then we can call taht the Obama Rule.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 21:34 | 6912953 Orc from Mordor
Orc from Mordor's picture

Mass shootings have skyrocketed because the pyramid can't grow any higher and you have to stop eating like mad pigs at the expense of the rest of the world and start paying your m.f. debts. That's obvious, but you're afraid to acknowledge it. And don't say it's all banksters. You have 300 milion guns in free circulation, so you've been content with what your banksters have been doing while you were allowed to be fed from the crumbs which fell from their table. But the table no longer have enough crumbs, so "work harder to fulfill the american dream"

Sat, 12/12/2015 - 14:02 | 6914801 YouThePeople
YouThePeople's picture

10 days...you win today's stoopid award

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 23:11 | 6913223 tarabel
tarabel's picture

 

 

Party like its 1999, Mord. 

The debt pyramid is coming down. Once it does, the only thing that matters is what you have in your pocketses. We have hundreds of millions of guns in ours.

People complain about working for "The Man" even now. Wait until "The Man" has all the guns and the rules are off. You'll still be working for him. Only longer hours and with a much more respectful tone of voice.

Regardless of whether the system holds together and attains its goals, or if it all falls apart and reintroduces the state of nature, the net effect on the defenceless is the same.

Long serfdom (for those who have surrendered or want to surrender the right to protect themselves).

A very long serfdom.

 

Sat, 12/12/2015 - 21:05 | 6916009 Caleb Abell
Caleb Abell's picture

"The debt pyramid is coming down."

I was told by a reliable source that the debt pyramid is used to store grain.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 22:43 | 6913170 grumpy stacker
grumpy stacker's picture

Well said Orc, it is time for us Americans to stand up and accept responsibility. As I see it, we have become so open-minded that our brains have begun t spill out. "From time to time the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson.   It may well be past time for a refreshing, Where is the spark? Who will pick up the torch? Soon. I smell it in the wind. The dry willowed fields of California crops reminding us of the Oklahoma dust bowl. The gunpowder residue smell in San Bernardino. The smell of despair in the Coal industrial belt. The smell of fear in the American oil industry. Sniff the prevailing breeze and you may smell it too. "At this time, what difference does it make?" We may well learn what difference it makes. Soon. It may be soon.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 11:35 | 6917295 J Jason Djfmam
J Jason Djfmam's picture

Not condoning this but...

We will kill as many as it takes to keep the dream alive.

Signed, America.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 21:22 | 6912912 Abbie Normal
Abbie Normal's picture

Guns don't kill, people do.

Muslim is the religion of peace.

 

Sat, 12/12/2015 - 21:08 | 6916017 Caleb Abell
Caleb Abell's picture

"Muslim is the religion of peace."

 

Islam is just another Abrahamic religion.  And like all the others, it's just one more piece of fruit from that poisonous tree.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 22:03 | 6913037 Midlife Rambler
Midlife Rambler's picture

Gun violence today - particularly the mass shooting kind- in the US is a byproduct of the pharmaceutical industry and the failed war on drugs. Add in the failed "war on terror" and you've identified the cause of 90% of all gun violence

 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/themikemadisonshow/2015/12/07/easy-2-steps-...

Sat, 12/12/2015 - 00:31 | 6913465 Pickleton
Pickleton's picture

It is also a byproduct of our devaluation of human life ala abortion and endless war (kill 'em all) and the left stripping this country of morals, conscience and standards.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 08:27 | 6916922 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

When I was young, hoods (or thugs) might get out knives if it got really bad. Usually, it was fists.

It's not the "gunz" it is a lack of respect for others.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 09:52 | 6917066 Okienomics
Okienomics's picture

By the time he's 15, a typical American male has virtually killed thousands of humans, watching their blood and guts explode quite realistically.  Many have virtually stolen and/or wrecked thousands of vehicles, sucker punched old people and commited acts of violence against women.  Day, after day, after day, after day, in high resolution color.

I don't advocate banning violent video games, but I do advocate what was once quaintly called parenting.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 21:38 | 6912934 George Washington
George Washington's picture

The Vast Majority of Muslims HATE ISIS and Terrorism

I agree that it's people, not guns, that kill people.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 23:06 | 6913215 redd_green
redd_green's picture

Same as thinking that outlawing beans will stop farts. 

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 22:25 | 6913099 Tarzan
Tarzan's picture

The vast majority of chopped off heads fall at the feet of a muslim,

I agree, swords don't behead people, Muslims do,

and Lucifarians cheer them on....

Sat, 12/12/2015 - 21:17 | 6916035 Caleb Abell
Caleb Abell's picture

"The vast majority of chopped off heads fall at the feet of a muslim"

 

Google "The Verdict of Verdun."  4500 in a single day, but it's OK because it was done for the Prince of Peace, and his mother, the Beloved Virgin.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 08:11 | 6916872 Tarzan
Tarzan's picture

IT'S NOT OK!

Have a look at Foxe's Book of Martyrs while we're at it.

Those who want to claim that the Muslim faith is peaceful, that the extremists aren't true followers of Islam, often hypocritically paint all Christians with the sins of the Crusaders, or the blood thirsty Catholics of the dark ages.  They were not following Christ, though they brandish His name.

Violence done in the name of religion is evil no matter what religion is abused to justify it!

Christ walked the earth speaking truth to power,  His sword was his tongue, and peace with your neighbor was his message.  His most violent act was to drive the Bankers from the Temple with a whip made of a tree branch.  No matter who they are who lift a sword in Christ's name, they are not following the teachings or actions of Jesus Christ.  He was a man of Peace, not war!

Contrast that with the life of Muhammad, who began and ended his rise with the edge of a sword, concurring lands with the blood of all who resisted him!  Those who today lift a sword in the name of Islam are following the teachings and actions of Muhammad, who was a man of War and conquest not peace!

Killing in the name of GOD will always be Evil no matter who the killers follow!

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 08:56 | 6916925 Tarzan
Tarzan's picture

By Richard A. Gabriel
5/17/2007

 

......The idea of Muhammad as a military man will be new to many. Yet he was a truly great general. In the space of a single decade he fought eight major battles, led eighteen raids, and planned another thirty-eight military operations where others were in command but operating under his orders and strategic direction. Wounded twice, he also twice experienced having his positions overrun by superior forces before he managed to turn the tables on his enemies and rally his men to victory. More than a great field general and tactician, he was also a military theorist, organizational reformer, strategic thinker, operational-level combat commander, political-military leader, heroic soldier, and revolutionary. The inventor of insurgency warfare and history’s first successful practitioner, Muhammad had no military training before he commanded an army in the field.

 

Muhammad’s intelligence service eventually rivaled that of Byzantium and Persia, especially when it came to political information. He reportedly spent hours devising tactical and political stratagems, and once remarked that “all war is cunning,” reminding modern analysts of Sun Tzu’s dictum, “all war is deception.” In his thinking and application of force Muhammad was a combination of Karl von Clause­witz and Niccolo Machiavelli, for he always employed force in the service of political goals. An astute grand strategist, he used non­mili­tary methods (alliance building, politi­cal assassination, bribery, religious appeals, mercy, and calculated butchery) to strengthen his long-term position, sometimes even at the expense of short-term military considerations.

 

Muhammad’s belief in Islam and his own role as the “Messenger of God” revolutionized Arabian warfare and resulted in the creation of the ancient world’s first army motivated by a coherent system of ideological belief. The ideology of holy war (jihad) and martyrdom (shahada) for the faith was transmitted to the West during the wars between Muslims and Christians in Spain and France, where it changed traditional Christian pacifistic thinking on war, brought into being a coterie of Christian warrior saints, and provided the Catho­lic Church with its ideological justification for the Crusades. Ideology—whether religious or secular—has remained a primary component of military ventures ever since.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 08:29 | 6916924 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

Jesus never said you could not protect yourself or your family or society.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 08:40 | 6916939 Tarzan
Tarzan's picture

Well, he said turn the other cheek, he did not even defend himself, just saying he personally did not participate in violence... 

I'm not saying defending your family or neighbors is wrong, just that GOD doesn't want me killing people for a ideological cause, piece of Land, or business adventure, as most Wars and ventures of conquest are....

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 08:40 | 6916935 FredFlintstone
FredFlintstone's picture

He did say slaves should be obedient to their masters or something to that effect.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 08:41 | 6916941 Tarzan
Tarzan's picture

Actualy, Paul said that

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 09:53 | 6917068 FredFlintstone
FredFlintstone's picture

Thanks. It's been a while since I read that stuff

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 21:14 | 6912896 Collectivism Killz
Collectivism Killz's picture

Two words: Habeus Corpus

....oh, and two more, Molon labe

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 20:50 | 6912816 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Being on the No-Fly list is in itself a constitutional violation IF applied to a US citizen. Period. End of story.

There are no charges ever brought against "the accused", their rights were confiscated in the mists of a bureaucratic Star Chamber somewhere, the thieves never deigning to allow DUE PROCESS in open court to present their evidence and "the accused" never given any opportunity to refute said evidence in open court, which is of course, in itself a violation of the BoR's.

This is apart & besides infringing on the "the accused" Second Amendment rights.

Obama has somehow managed to attack not only the 2nd but the 5th, 14th and it's genesis in the Magna Carta (setting aside "the kings" desire for control) when he made his blanket statement of "its insane that anyone on a fly-list can buy a gun." proving once again that he's not a "constitutional law professor".

He wouldn't even be hired as a clerk.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 08:30 | 6916926 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

The dude does NOT have a license to practice law anymore, so it's mute.

Sat, 12/12/2015 - 00:01 | 6913378 Abaco
Abaco's picture

Obama is, and has always been, a constitutional fucktard.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 21:00 | 6912849 LibertarianMenace
LibertarianMenace's picture

Negative rights are so boring, and, um, un-proggie like anyway. We're so much more sophisticated than the Magna Carta by now. We must be-cos we're proggies!

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 21:24 | 6912917 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Gawd don't get me going on his stupid "negative rights" beliefs, if anyone wants to comprehend his true statist nature, his navel-gazing-insanity-theory-par-excelence, they can look it up themselves and come back and splain to me what exactly gave them that right to go research it.

The government (if it had it's way) would never allow it ;-)

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 20:57 | 6912840 Joebloinvestor
Joebloinvestor's picture

I thinks anyone who threw a shit fit on a plane and was taken off or forced a landing can make it onto the list and fine by me.

They should only not be allowed to fly, and that shouldn't have anything to do with gun ownership.

How about banning auto possession for repeat DUI offenders?

 

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 22:35 | 6913135 boattrash
boattrash's picture

Joeblo,
  Long story, but while boarding a flight home from work (with my Captain) on AK Airline, the Capt's bag brushed a man's arm (so lightly that  the Capt was unaware it had touched the guy). When the guy started to cuss him out, the capt just apologized and said excuse me.

Well, in his thick Romanian or Ukrainian accent, (an educated guess on my part), this douchebag continued to dog-cuss my Capt. all the way through the boarding tunnel. Finally the captain calmly told the guy, if he'd like to make it about something more than words, he'd be happy to do that to.

We continued onto the plane, with the guy still running his mouth and saying he was going to file a complaint. By now I've had enough of the stupidity. I calmly leaned over toward his ear, and told him that it was over, and suggested the best thing he could do was to sit down and shut up.

He promptly told me to mind my own fucking business, to which I replied, that man is my business.

Well, he told the flight attendant that he felt threatened, who then told the pilot, who then announced he could not take off with anybody feeling threatened onboard.

They could not spot my captain, but they saw me and asked questions, I told them we ran into a rude passenger, but there is no conflict, there had been an exchange of words, but it was over.

They walked the guy through the cabin until he could point out the captain, then took him off of the plane. They came and got me, took me to the flight attendant for some more questioning, and asked again what happened. I told them that a passenger had gotten extremely rude, loud and profane, to a couple of the last men that had not been emasculated. (the other flight attendant loved that, and would have bumped me into 1st class, if it had been up to her). Instead, I was then removed from the flight.

As I was headed to the terminal, I was greeted by 5 of Anchorage's finest, running at me full speed. (turns out, the captain had gotten out soon enough to get to the bar). I found one officer that I could speak to, as the other four were just foaming at the mouth, hoping to practice their "take down" skills.

Well, good cop takes me to the Airline Rep to tell my story a third time. After that was over, she said it appears that we took the wrong people off the plane, apologized, and had us another flight lined up in 15 minutes.

A few quick points, 1. That asshole would have felt more than "threatened" if I could have found him in the Seattle airport upon landing (I was looking for him).
2. He's lucky that two tired, burned-out sailors were able to maintain their composure that day.
3. It's a damn miracle that my captain and I did not wind up on a No Fly list over it.

4. AND DEFINITELY, People need to fucking  reach down, find their fucking Man-Sack, and stand up for themselves. Quit expecting some fucking inept, corrupt, immoral, Govt/Quasi-Govt Agency to take care of every little fucking aspect of their existence. FFS

So, Joeblo, do you thing I should be unable to fly or possess guns? There is no blanket policy that fits everybody.

Sat, 12/12/2015 - 00:07 | 6913405 Joebloinvestor
Joebloinvestor's picture

You never threatened anyone let alone with a gun.

i correct my statement to mean anyone should make it to the no fly list that deserves it, I doubt you did.

I think acting like an ass and threatening to use a gun should get one on a list.

I am for gun rights, a no fly list shouldn't determine who gets access to a gun.

It would make more sense to restrict ownership or possession of a car for multiple DUI's.

(It wouldn't work either)

Sat, 12/12/2015 - 01:26 | 6913457 boattrash
boattrash's picture

...and I may be a bit cynical. I just have ZERO faith in Govt. being able to fix anything. Period.

Edit; I also don't believe Govt. wants to fix anything. Sure don't trust their ability to keep lists that arbitrarily deny rights w/out any due process.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 21:46 | 6912987 Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

I was on a flight for 5 hours with a passenger throwing a shit fit ( could not land, we were over the pacific). The physical abuse the flight attendants took was pretty bad. Mr and four other guys made plans to subdue this guy if it escalated. Fortunately they didn't have to and everyone cheered when the cops stormed the plane and hog tied him.

When you are trapped in a box with a belligerent drunk asshole with no means to defend yourself except with a flimsy plastic fork, it's fucking Hell. All of us would probably vote he be banned from flying for life. Clear cut case.

Miffed

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 21:18 | 6912906 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Well it's fine by me too except when it's the government doing it. If an airliner wants to say "Ya know, you're an idiot & a fucking menace and really screwing up the other paying passengers good vibe about what we do, so if you ever try to book with us again we will REFUSE SERVICE."

Completely different...akin to...No Shoes No Shirt No Service...or forcing a hetero baker to bake a ghey wedding cake...however you want to frame it.

Personally if I were ghey, I would suspect the cake after forcing them to bake it.

But hey, thats jus me ;-)

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!