T
Theo520
Guest
Perhaps you should make an effort, and read the links provided.
Also, have any of these non-terrorist mass killers been on the list?
Last edited:
- Status
Also, have any of these non-terrorist mass killers been on the list?
S
Seeksadvice
Guest
You would be amazed who is on the no-fly list. Didn’t they have a few members of government on it at one point?
T
Theo520
Guest
Sen. Ted Kennedy told the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2004 that he had been stopped and interrogated on at least five occasions as he attempted to board flights at several different airports. A Bush administration official explained to the Washington Post that Kennedy had been held up because the name “T. Kennedy” had become a popular pseudonym among terror suspects.
John Lewis’s long year
On the same day Kennedy revealed his flight troubles, civil rights icon and longtime Rep. John Lewis revealed he, too, had been snarled by the watchlist dragnet. According to his office, the Georgia Democrat had over the course of a year been held up 35 to 40 times. Despite reaching out to a number of federal agencies over that period, Lewis’ name had remained on a list.
No-fly toddler?
No-fly headaches aren’t just for international pop stars and federal lawmakers. In 2012, Jet Blue removed an 18-month-old child from a flight before takeoff.
The girl’s mother, speaking to a CNN affiliate, said she was informed by an airline employee, “Your daughter was flagged as no fly.”
S
Seeksadvice
Guest
Have you seen how toddlers behave on flights? I actually agree with no-fly for toddlers…
Ted Kennedy - they just wanted to see where he was hiding his stash of booze
Ted Kennedy - they just wanted to see where he was hiding his stash of booze
U
upant
Guest
teddy kennedy had issues flying but tsa claimed he wasn’t on any list; someone else was. if kennedy can be mixed up for someone else God help the rest of us.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Cath13:
.
When Bill Clinton’s Attorney General Janet Reno called law-abiding peaceful people praying the Rosary in front of an aborturary, “terrorists” do you think THESE innocent people should now be on the “No Fly List”? Should they be on a “No Buy List” too now?
With some Government officials, you are always possibly one creative re-definition away from jail. Or at least getting proverbially tattooed (re-defined) as a “terrorist”.
Do YOU think THAT’S OK?
Do you think this CANNOT happen again?
Can’t you understand WHY it is imperative that good honest citizens safe-guard their rights too?
.
I think your proclamation of “collective guilt” (“pro-gun violence group”) against good law-abiding Constitutionally-supporting citizens was merely another example of bigotry.
Do you proclaim collective guilt against other groups too (or is this your only bigotry)?
Do you charge “collective guilt” against Jewish people because of the actions of the Sanhedrin?
If a black commits a crime, do you paint ALL BLACKS as criminals too?
What about those drunken Irishman, or Indians. Are they ALL drunks too in Cath13 world?
What about when cops or military people are bad. Do you collectively call to disarm the police?
Or is YOUR protection too important to YOU?
Why be a stooge for (at least some) people who want to constantly whittle away the rights of good, honest, hard-working, law-abiding citizens? (They always get victimized too by these things by people like you. Why keep attacking the victims?)
Ex-President Obama has a well-armed Secret Service contingent. Should we disarm them too?
The “perp” here had a dishonorable military discharge and a history of assaulting children (his own child) and assaulting his wife.
Just WHAT LAW can you dream up, that would have prevented this catastrophe without ALSO “infringing” upon the good law-abiding citizens?
Are you aware that it is being reported that the bad guy was shot (while leaving the church) by a good guy with a gun?
Do you understand if THAT didn’t happen there MAY have been MORE deaths? (Possibly even to some of the innocent and brave police officers pursuing him?)
If you know there was defensive firearm usage by a churchgoer here, why not say it?
If you are unaware, why should I trust YOU in other matters (if you are uninformed about such reports)?
(Is it possible you might just be “uninformed” about other things too related to this topic?)
Do you think this makes it OK for YOU to impugn Constitutional supporters as “the pro-gun violence group”?
.
When Bill Clinton’s Attorney General Janet Reno called law-abiding peaceful people praying the Rosary in front of an aborturary, “terrorists” do you think THESE innocent people should now be on the “No Fly List”? Should they be on a “No Buy List” too now?
With some Government officials, you are always possibly one creative re-definition away from jail. Or at least getting proverbially tattooed (re-defined) as a “terrorist”.
Do YOU think THAT’S OK?
Do you think this CANNOT happen again?
Can’t you understand WHY it is imperative that good honest citizens safe-guard their rights too?
.
I think your proclamation of “collective guilt” (“pro-gun violence group”) against good law-abiding Constitutionally-supporting citizens was merely another example of bigotry.
Do you proclaim collective guilt against other groups too (or is this your only bigotry)?
Do you charge “collective guilt” against Jewish people because of the actions of the Sanhedrin?
If a black commits a crime, do you paint ALL BLACKS as criminals too?
What about those drunken Irishman, or Indians. Are they ALL drunks too in Cath13 world?
What about when cops or military people are bad. Do you collectively call to disarm the police?
Or is YOUR protection too important to YOU?
Why be a stooge for (at least some) people who want to constantly whittle away the rights of good, honest, hard-working, law-abiding citizens? (They always get victimized too by these things by people like you. Why keep attacking the victims?)
Ex-President Obama has a well-armed Secret Service contingent. Should we disarm them too?
The “perp” here had a dishonorable military discharge and a history of assaulting children (his own child) and assaulting his wife.
Just WHAT LAW can you dream up, that would have prevented this catastrophe without ALSO “infringing” upon the good law-abiding citizens?
Are you aware that it is being reported that the bad guy was shot (while leaving the church) by a good guy with a gun?
Do you understand if THAT didn’t happen there MAY have been MORE deaths? (Possibly even to some of the innocent and brave police officers pursuing him?)
If you know there was defensive firearm usage by a churchgoer here, why not say it?
If you are unaware, why should I trust YOU in other matters (if you are uninformed about such reports)?
(Is it possible you might just be “uninformed” about other things too related to this topic?)
Last edited:
Use of the No Fly list in this way would obviously apply to either the individual is not a citizen, or has no criminal record. Someone with a criminal record would/should be flagged for a gun purchase on the NICS anyway.
So, let’s see. You are advocating the suspension of someone’s right to arms, due process, and the presumption of innocence. Are there any others you want to add to the list? Search and seizure? Cruel and unusual punishment?
Last edited:
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
There was a rule that TSA could only challenge two “middle eastern” men per flight.
So … they could toss out two taxi drivers and then if Osama Bin Laden came by they HAD TO LET HIM ON BOARD.
Political correctness rules.
So … they could toss out two taxi drivers and then if Osama Bin Laden came by they HAD TO LET HIM ON BOARD.
Political correctness rules.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The rule (if it exists) would be to provide a disincentive for tossing out the two taxi drivers without good cause in the first place.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Why the limit of three?
What if the entire flight is filled with jihadists?
You can kick off only two.
What if the entire flight is filled with jihadists?
You can kick off only two.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Cath13:
This is utter non-sense Cath13.
Why?
Because I never argued foundationally, that the reason WHY we don’t infringe upon the free citizenry is BECAUSE law breakers will break those laws anyway.
That was NOT the foundation of my argument (you go back and re-read my posts).
You don’t pass “laws” infringing upon the free citizenry, because the U.S. Government has NO POWER to do so (unless they FIRST change the Constitution).
.
YOU are advocating turning Government into an institutionalized law-breaking and lying (the people who took an oath to uphold the Constitution would now be NOT upholding the Constitution but shredding it at least in part) enterprise.
You also go back and re-read my questions to you (post 1734) about your sinful application of collective guilt and your bigotry, and answer the questions.
.
This is utter non-sense Cath13.
Why?
Because I never argued foundationally, that the reason WHY we don’t infringe upon the free citizenry is BECAUSE law breakers will break those laws anyway.
That was NOT the foundation of my argument (you go back and re-read my posts).
You don’t pass “laws” infringing upon the free citizenry, because the U.S. Government has NO POWER to do so (unless they FIRST change the Constitution).
.
YOU are advocating turning Government into an institutionalized law-breaking and lying (the people who took an oath to uphold the Constitution would now be NOT upholding the Constitution but shredding it at least in part) enterprise.
You also go back and re-read my questions to you (post 1734) about your sinful application of collective guilt and your bigotry, and answer the questions.
Last edited:
U
upant
Guest
offer something other than feel good laws.
background checks are already required except in private sales. how do you regulate private sales if the parties want them to remain private. it is a feel good law.
what do you propose that would stop this type of killings? we have over 14,000 laws on the books right now. what is the new one that will work.
U
upant
Guest
someone makes a law or ruling or decision to make their establishment a gun free zone and when the killers take advantage of it, it is the law abiding gun owners fault? where is the logic in this?
we have a morals issue. as we do away completely with objective morality in our schools the subject morality replacement allows for all kinds of self-delusions to go unchecked because they have a right to be what they want as long as it isn’t overtly christian.
yes we have a problem and it isn’t the gun it is the me culture and the anything i do or wanna be is ok even if it is evil or wrong because what is wrong anymore?.
U
upant
Guest
in a gun free zone 1 gun is the most.MonteRCMS:
No, no, no . . . the guys with the most guns rules. Who ever is standing at the end wins!
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Regulating private sales would be a disaster.
A dad who gives his 12 year-old son his old shotgun and doesn’t first put it on a proverbial “gun-registry” (called a “background check”) I guarantee, would be found by SOME creative judge and D.A. a . . . “Straw purchaser” and be unjustly proclaimed a “felon”.
This is only one of many scenarios where good people get turned into criminals by misapplications of the law (what if someone borrowed their shotgun to their non-criminal brother for his duck hunting trip without a registered background check? What if this gal then told her brother to hang onto the shotgun until AFTER his goose hunting trip next month? Is SHE now a straw-purchaser and a FELON"? Some will say yes.)
When President Bush took office in 2001 he found the Government was (ILLEGALLY) not expunging those background check records.
He told them to obey the law and expunge them. (Who knows if they did or not).
Nobody was ever held accountable as far as the public knows.
Should misuses of power like this inspire confidence in the state in these “infringements” upon the citizens privacy or not?
Could anything like this EVER happen again?
IS it happening right now AGAIN?
A dad who gives his 12 year-old son his old shotgun and doesn’t first put it on a proverbial “gun-registry” (called a “background check”) I guarantee, would be found by SOME creative judge and D.A. a . . . “Straw purchaser” and be unjustly proclaimed a “felon”.
This is only one of many scenarios where good people get turned into criminals by misapplications of the law (what if someone borrowed their shotgun to their non-criminal brother for his duck hunting trip without a registered background check? What if this gal then told her brother to hang onto the shotgun until AFTER his goose hunting trip next month? Is SHE now a straw-purchaser and a FELON"? Some will say yes.)
When President Bush took office in 2001 he found the Government was (ILLEGALLY) not expunging those background check records.
He told them to obey the law and expunge them. (Who knows if they did or not).
Nobody was ever held accountable as far as the public knows.
Should misuses of power like this inspire confidence in the state in these “infringements” upon the citizens privacy or not?
Could anything like this EVER happen again?
IS it happening right now AGAIN?
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
In post 1734 Cath13 was back at it again . . .
LeafbyNiggle.
Where were you?
Why were you not being the thread sheriff here and correcting this?
Why admonitions against the constitutional supporters on this thread but silence from you here?
(It really suggests your corrections are all about if you agree with their political positions or not. And not REALLY concerned about personal attacks.
You go after the person who defends himself (and herself) and ignore the person who starts it many times).
Well here is yet another example of Cath13 throwing mud at people and YOU . . . well . . . you are QUIET about it.
.
.
LeafbyNiggle.
Where were you?
Why were you not being the thread sheriff here and correcting this?
Why admonitions against the constitutional supporters on this thread but silence from you here?
(It really suggests your corrections are all about if you agree with their political positions or not. And not REALLY concerned about personal attacks.
You go after the person who defends himself (and herself) and ignore the person who starts it many times).
Well here is yet another example of Cath13 throwing mud at people and YOU . . . well . . . you are QUIET about it.
.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Cath13 (with emphasis mine):
.
This is non-sense Cath13.
NOBODY here is suggesting we “not do anything”.
Nobody.
Nobody.
People here are here are saying “not do anything against good, honest, law-abiding citizens”.
There is a big difference.
But you can’t seem to see the difference.
.
.
This is non-sense Cath13.
NOBODY here is suggesting we “not do anything”.
Nobody.
Nobody.
People here are here are saying “not do anything against good, honest, law-abiding citizens”.
There is a big difference.
But you can’t seem to see the difference.
Last edited:
I am all for keeping people safe, and free. So, I’d like to see us come up with solutions to the issue without eliminating rights. Rights are not by majority rule, so you 77% number is irrelevant.JonNC:
It is unfortunate that every effort to try to improve keeping our churches, schools and public areas safe is perceived as a a threat to take away your right to own a gun. At some point, the 77% of us who do not own guns and who want our families to be safe from gun violence might grow tired of your absolute refusal to consider any changes to the system. So, children and church goers will continue to be gunned down while you staunchly defend your right to own as many guns as you like. That is definitely a Pro-Life position
But you didn’t answer my question. You’re post indicated that due process didn’t matter, and presumption of innocence is to be ignored. Which other rights should be subject to elimination by government. And speaking of government, worldwide governments killed hundreds of millions of citizens in the 20th century. Shouldn’t we there to end gun violence?
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Cath13:
.
Do you think it is this way too Cath13, for police and military?
Should we strip THEM of THEIR firearms too based upon this principle?
Or is it different when it concerns YOUR safety?
Is it applicable ONLY against good, honest, law-abiding citizens?
.
…
Do you think it is this way too Cath13, for police and military?
Should we strip THEM of THEIR firearms too based upon this principle?
Or is it different when it concerns YOUR safety?
Is it applicable ONLY against good, honest, law-abiding citizens?
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Cath13:
.
There are a lot of people smarter than me and I’m open to hearing their ideas if they are legitimate solutions.
I humbly do not know the answer to your question.
But I DO KNOW, what the answer ISN’T.
The answer ISN’T to attack the good-guy, because of the bad guy.
As I said earlier, you do NOT bomb Costa Rica, because of the aggressions of North Korea.
(I am not advocating bombing North Korea here by the way. The focus of this point is Costa Rica and their innocence. And how you bring no harm to them because of OTHER aggressors).
.
.
There are a lot of people smarter than me and I’m open to hearing their ideas if they are legitimate solutions.
I humbly do not know the answer to your question.
But I DO KNOW, what the answer ISN’T.
The answer ISN’T to attack the good-guy, because of the bad guy.
As I said earlier, you do NOT bomb Costa Rica, because of the aggressions of North Korea.
(I am not advocating bombing North Korea here by the way. The focus of this point is Costa Rica and their innocence. And how you bring no harm to them because of OTHER aggressors).
Last edited:
- Status