# No guns if on no fly list? Big problem



## budgetprepp-n (Apr 7, 2013)

From what I have gathered there is a problem with the "No fly list" The problem is
they go by names not the person or social security number. They go by name and
if your names happens to be the same as someone on the list,, Then you don't fly 
until it's straightened out. Can you imagine trying to straighten this out with our
government to buy a gun. Boy I sure am glad my name isn't ockmed. 

I don't think this problem has been straightened out yet.
You can keep your plan. Just put it next to your gun


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

That amendment was rejected by the Senate last week.


----------



## SGG (Nov 25, 2015)

Thank Dog^^^!


----------



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

Is the no fly list available for mortals to see? 

Also, kauboy, double space was it.


----------



## beach23bum (Jan 27, 2015)

My problem is who gets to put names on that list. with out a jury or trial someone can put on your name on the list. so because I buy and collect a lot of guns, does that make me a terrorist?


----------



## budgetprepp-n (Apr 7, 2013)

beach23bum said:


> My problem is who gets to put names on that list. with out a jury or trial someone can put on your name on the list. so because I buy and collect a lot of guns, does that make me a terrorist?


No,, That makes you Kauboy's drinking buddy


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

beach23bum said:


> My problem is who gets to put names on that list. with out a jury or trial someone can put on your name on the list. so because I buy and collect a lot of guns, does that make me a terrorist?


 Yep. That puts you on the list.


----------



## PCH5150 (Jun 15, 2015)

Plus I really doubt a radical guy named Muhammed that is on the No Fly list is gonna waltz into Gander Mountain and start filling out paperwork to buy a gun.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 25, 2014)

It's interesting when you listen in on the liberal press and they talk about gun control. They are completely dismayed why anyone would object to using the no-fly list as a barrier to selling a citizen a weapon. No matter how hard you explain it, they just don;t get it that the no-fly list is a secret list, not a conviction (or even formal charges or evidence). No jurisprudence has been passed on the list, you cannot appeal it, and only a few people even know why a person is placed on the list. In fact, if someone at DHS decided to, they could add any of you to the list with absolutely no evidence of wrong doing. Sure, with a good lawyer and thousands of dollars, and a new presidential administration, mebbe you could get it ironed out...mebbe.

And that is the kind of power the list would have if it were ever used in that manner. You could disarm large tracts of society, or create reasons to incarcerate them, just by adding their name to a list. As Snowden pointed out lucidly, even the Senate oversight committee has no idea what these guys are doing (but since the CIA hacked Feinstein's office, they know exactly what the Senate knows.) 

Gun banners. Seems like most of them I meet are simply ignorant of firearms. All they know is what they hear on facebook or playing League of Carnage.


----------



## GrumpyBiker (Nov 25, 2015)

That is no list to go by.
It has been shown to be inaccurate and no law abiding citizen should have to work to get themselves off a list that they were placed on by mistake.
All the while being denied one of their rights due to the negligence of someone else.


----------



## 8301 (Nov 29, 2014)

I can see that being a problem, they mix up names fairly regularly. 
My ex had the same name as a wanted felon although different looking, but same age... She was mistakenly arrested 3 times over a 2 year period, twice at work and once the local police came to our home where we were able to convince them she was the wrong person so they took the cuffs off her and didn't take her to jail again..


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

They also list possible aliases. So if your John Smith or Joe Smoe, your name is on there. So you have actual and fictional suspicious people that are banned from buying firearms in secret so you can block unlimited legitimate reputable people from exorcising rights. What is there not for a liberal to love about that?


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

The IRS targeted Conservative Organizations, what makes you think the DHS or NSA won't put your name on the No Fly List for political reasons?


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Slippy said:


> The IRS targeted Conservative Organizations, what makes you think the DHS or NSA won't put your name on the No Fly List for political reasons?


...Or that some hacker group gets access to the list...


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

FoolAmI said:


> I can see that being a problem, they mix up names fairly regularly.
> My ex had the same name as a wanted felon although different looking, but same age... She was mistakenly arrested 3 times over a 2 year period, twice at work and once the local police came to our home where we were able to convince them she was the wrong person so they took the cuffs off her and didn't take her to jail again..


Mistaken identity happens a lot. Every once in a while I get the bank statements of a guy across town with the same name as me. It's a good thing for him that I'm honest.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

beach23bum said:


> My problem is who gets to put names on that list. with out a jury or trial someone can put on your name on the list. so because I buy and collect a lot of guns, does that make me a terrorist?


To a democrat, being in this forum makes you a possible terrorist. Buying and collecting guns, that makes you a threat to national security. Reminds me of the days when Marcos ruled the Philippines, if you complained because his cronies took your land without fair compensation, you are automatically labelled as a communist. You will be arrested and if you don't apologize for complaining, you got executed.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Everyone that has had a back round check in the last 30 years is now on the no fly list.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Many have touched on it in this thread. No need to go after the 2nd, just expand the classes of prohibited persons. I really like j-walking and parking tickets. Who among us is a angel??!! I'm a God fearing man, but, the gov should fear me. not vice versa! I must be on every list they have as most of us here!


----------



## shooter (Dec 25, 2012)

I ended up on the no fly list years ago because someone with my name was wanted on murder charges in Miami, lucky for me it was easily sorted out at the airport to let me on the plane as the person who was wanted was black and I being white it did not take much brain power to figure out it was not me. However after the trip it took me 2 weeks to get things clean up so I would not show up on the no fly list again. And it was nothing hard to do just took some time, and getting some notary work and going to a police station. The only catch was for the next 2 years every time I flew I would be sent to the pat down and go though your stuff area. And after I started documenting this I sent a letter to TSA saying this was not random and was a form of harassment, and if it did not stop I was going to contact some civil rights groups and news groups it stopped. 

So how is this list that got a white guy and black guy mixed up, that I could call the FBI, or other law enforcement agency and complain about a neighbor being odd or an introvert, with no real proof going to stop anything and not be a violation of someones rights. But then again as the media has shown in recent years your guilty until proven innocent so I guess using the no fly list just goes along those lines...


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

The unsubstantiated no fly list will be step one in the agenda he will pursue and he will broaden the capabilities of qualifying innocent citizens for the list. It will become a major loophole he will utilize whether you fly or not. Just my expectation, as he continues with the gun banning agenda. Expect the propaganda to continue as he finds the needed support through lies and dirty politics, to push forward.


----------



## Grim Reality (Mar 19, 2014)

"Shooter", I applaud you for your successful efforts in "turning around the Queen Mary in the marina". Out 
where I am we have a governmental juggernaut of stupidity known as "Social Security". In the last few months 
a fellow 91 years old was declared dead...he is very much alive...it was HIS WIFE who died. He is out of money 
and is about to be evicted, etcetera. You get the picture. No amount of documents or personal appearances on
his part have changed anything. The local news even did a 5 O'clock broadcast about him all to no avail! 

Sometimes government can't tie it's own shoelaces! I hate when crap like this happens!

Grim


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

I just want to reiterate, this amendment was REJECTED.
Without the legislature approving such a change via a bill, Obama can't do anything to affect this.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Teddy Kennedy was on the No Fly List. For real!
Now, the No Drive List I could see, after all Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

I don't really think this is per se a prepper issue.

I think it more of a general population concern.

In fact though I suspect very few americans would be effected by this. It will likely only be due if you are fraternizing with known or suspected terrorists.

The real issue I could see is that "domestic terrorism" tie in that occured a while back dealing with preppers being deemed domestic terrorists. 

I think if looking at this coherently most american's shouldn't be worried.

I'm a little suprised actually with all the hate of terrorists on here, how you all would find keeping guns out of suspected terrorists hands is being seen as a bad thing.

Clearly it is a constitutional concern, what doesn't make sense to me, is why are these no fly list people not in jail?

If they are such a threat on a plane, why arn't they a threat off it too?


From what I understood you could detain terrorist suspects indefinately, atleast in the past it was this way.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Will, no offense meant.......but you fail to see the big picture. There is no quick fix for this, you have already "been had".


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Will2 said:


> I'm a little suprised actually with all the hate of terrorists on here, how you all would find keeping guns out of suspected terrorists hands is being seen as a bad thing.


I'm quite sure no one on here has assumed a position that could be construed to state that they support terrorists getting weapons.
We all seem to be in agreement that this is clearly not the best way to go about achieving that goal.
An arbitrary list which any citizen or non-citizen could be added to without their notice or a chance to defend themselves, is clearly a violation of freedom if said list keeps them from exercising their rights to freely travel or own a firearm.
You state correctly that, if these people were truly a threat, they should be detained. As this would be a direct constitutional violation if done without due process, it is not done very often. This list stands as a means to achieve similar restrictions to incarceration without the legal hassle. Its very existence is an affront to liberty.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 25, 2014)

I object to the No Fly list because it is not a conviction, not even a formal indictment. It is beyond reproach, beyond appeal, and too secret for those on it to even know why they are on it. It is an abortion of of legislation known as the Patriot Act. (Why in the hell do they always use such nice names on evil legislation like that? More like the Anti-Patriot Act!!)

To use it as criteria to deny you your 2nd amendment rights is ludicrous. What's funny is that liberals act like gun owners are crazy conspiracy theorists who own firearms to defend themselves against the evil government. Despite everything we have learned from Snowden, they act like WE are he crazyones, seeing a shooter on every grassy knoll. But the truth is, our government is actively spying on us on an industrial scale. Don;t worry about spammers getting your info, they're amateurs to your own government.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Will2 said:


> I don't really think this is per se a prepper issue.
> 
> I think it more of a general population concern.
> 
> ...


 That is because you are part of that liberal system. There are few terrorist on the no fly list . Most are agenda drive names .
Remember the DHS you love so much declared US military veterans the number 1 threat to America not ISIS or any Muslim terror group.
If fact they refused to name any group as Terrorist except return US military vets.
Most Jews had nothing to fear in Germany .....for awhile.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

beach23bum said:


> My problem is who gets to put names on that list. with out a jury or trial someone can put on your name on the list. so because I buy and collect a lot of guns, does that make me a terrorist?


 If you are a white male you move near the top , if you add being a Christian on top of being white and male you go to the top of the list.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Will2 said:


> ...
> 
> I'm a little suprised actually with all the hate of terrorists on here, how you all would find keeping guns out of suspected terrorists hands is being seen as a bad thing.
> 
> .


How absolutely stupid is this comment? If anyone thought the poster has one ounce of intelligence, this post should clear up that misconception.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

So you want to trust a government watch list . The same government that missed 73 workers Working for the TSA that were on the list.
How did they miss them? Simple they wanted to, they were to busy using the list to target others. Obama would never allow real terrorist to be on the list.

"At least 73 individuals employed in the airline industry should have been disqualified and flagged under terrorism-related activity codes by the TSA"

TSA Missed 73 Workers on Terror Watchlist - The Daily Beast


----------



## 8301 (Nov 29, 2014)

I haven't flown in about 20 years, I need to buy a ticket just to see if I'm on the "no fly" list.


----------



## Montana Rancher (Mar 4, 2013)

budgetprepp-n said:


> From what I have gathered there is a problem with the "No fly list" The problem is
> they go by names not the person or social security number. They go by name and
> if your names happens to be the same as someone on the list,, Then you don't fly
> until it's straightened out. Can you imagine trying to straighten this out with our
> ...


Its another shot at gun control, the powers that be know banning or consficating guns outright would result in nullification. (If you don't know what it means then just look it up, I suggest "nullification tom woods" and you will get a education.

I am totally against the guvment basing gun ownership upon a "no fly list" or any other random set of rules that are not based upon innocent until proven guilty.

What part of shall not be infringed do they not understand?


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Slippy said:


> How absolutely stupid is this comment? If anyone thought the poster has one ounce of intelligence, this post should clear up that misconception.


My only misconception about Will was that perhaps very strong anti psychotic medication would help. I am no longer under that misconception. There is no help.


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

Prepared One said:


> My only misconception about Will was that perhaps very strong anti psychotic medication would help. I am no longer under that misconception. There is no help.


I have no misconceptions that you have no class in your line of discourse and are completely out of line with baseless ad hominem attacks that only sour any chance of civil discourse. Nothing but name calling because you have nothing of value to add to the topic being discussed so you have to resort to personal attacks. Why don't you go back to the pile you came from.

This topic is about no fly lists not being a jackass. Why don't you stick to the topic and stop name calling cause you have no clue and are completely whitewashing this discussion with dribble.

You suck, can we move on and actually discus the topic in atleast a pseudo intelligent way rather than just using it as a means of creating social stigmatization because you don't like my views. Grow the hell up. You and slippy belong in a zoo not the public with the way you go around and attack people for their views. Intelligent people can attack views rather than the people expressing them.

I would not be the least bit saddened by any loss of your rights if you ended up on one of these lists because you have no civil class whatsoever and shouldn't be in a place where you disrupt peoples peace by attacking those people baselessly. You are a jerk, you want to attack me, do it in the proper venue, this isn't it. You are just flame bating and derailing a discussion. GROW UP. You are the one with improper brain function because you can't learn to discuss an issue without resorting to name calling. You drew first blood here and demonstrated yourself to be an immature prick. Move on.


----------



## SGG (Nov 25, 2015)

FoolAmI said:


> I haven't flown in about 20 years, I need to buy a ticket just to see if I'm on the "no fly" list.


You should! I'm not! Yet...








Mexico City


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Will2 said:


> I don't really think this is per se a prepper issue.
> 
> I think it more of a general population concern.
> 
> ...


Clearly, you are not looking at this coherently.

This administration has made it clear it views Christians, pro-lifers, NRA members and those who view the constitution as being the supreme law of the land as potential terrorists.

What requirements are necessary to place someone on the no-fly list is not known to us, but what we do know is people ranging from military personnel to U.S. politicians are on the list, yet the last two jihadists to kill in the name of Islam were not on the list.

Coherency would make all this obvious.

Furthermore, all Americans have the right to due process before they are deprived of their rights. Being placed on some mysterious list by bureaucrats is not due process.


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

Denton said:


> Clearly, you are not looking at this coherently.
> 
> This administration has made it clear it views Christians, pro-lifers, NRA members and those who view the constitution as being the supreme law of the land as potential terrorists.
> 
> ...


Anyone is a potential terrorist. People with ideologies "radicals" as deemed contrary to the "idealized views of the authority" are able to be terrorists if they use militancy to win symbolic victories over the hegemony of that authorities ideology.

I'm libertarian and I fully agree that people should have rights, I'm not a nationalist though, I believe in humanity as the baseline to make rights decisions.

As far as constitutional rights, is the right to free travel in there? There is protection against arbitrary search and seizure but the extent of confinement of those rights by due process of the law is confined by the other aspects of the constitution or rights granted from other points of law, common law or otherwise.

ANYONE who is going to launch an attack on a plane, or use a plane as a means of escaping an arrest procedure however it makes no sense to let get on a plane.

Since I'm not a nationalist, the national security aspect is secondary to natural law in that peoples means of transport need to be blocked off if there is a warrant for their arrest or they are freshly perused in a crime, or are sought to be arrested for reasonable grounds of intent to commit a crime.

So yes due process is a good thing, however reason is also a good thing. I think you are mistaken if you think no fly lists are "arbitrary" they are subject to court process also, much like warrantless wiretaps are. The infringement on rights and peoples privacy is not a good thing, the idea of intelligence over policing, intelligence not confined by the law, these are real problems. However muslim christian or anyone, if they are endangering the public and using a plane to further that, it makes total sense to have them on that list.

I do think that these no fly lists should be used in concert with apprehensions with legitimate grounds for arrest or detainment though.

Hopefully we aren't on a different page.

Someone gots to make the call.

All I know is that regardless of how much I have had the government making my life difficult I haven't been stopped from boarding a plane (except in the US) so while I don't know if I am on a US no fly list, I have flown repeatedly on non-us carriers with no issues. My travel ban ending earlier in the year I was able to enter the US, over the 5 year ban I was able to fly over the US repeatedly on non-us carriers. They had no reason to prevent my access reasonably to the US, it was a political decision, and arbitrary. I can understand how anyone else on a list could be in this situation, but the bottomline is, sure it should be possible to do this for the purpose of public safety, but yes I think these intelligence or policing decisions should be open to transparent review. The argument that these things need to be kept secret to insure that no one knows is secondary. Whatever it is. However if you aren't safe to use a plane, you sure as hell shouldn't be safe to use a gun, or a car, or anything dangerous, in fact you should be in jail, and it should be based on reasonable grounds.

The idea of taking no risks whatsoever and applying it only to airplanes makes no sense. Clearly though these decisions should be based upon founded legal grounds.

No fly lists aren't "an absence of due process" they made a process for that. Being on these lists though, and being completely innocent having no intent of doing any criminal acts, I would fear for political persecution by default. I would be worried.

But really who on here actually has legitimate grounds to think they are on a no fly list??? And if so why???

I would suspect this list is very small and generally composed by the FBI for people who have hit flags online or in real world places, or for calling the wrong person etc...

The last thing we want is for what happened in Egypt to happen on planes we are flying on.

Trust me all you got to do is loose your temper and you are kicked off planes these days. It ain't hard to get banned from flights these days.

I know that the government, in canada, does not consider access to any transport but by foot through land you own to be a legal right. Its horrible and I think law ought to be mitigated by reason, however that is not the world we live in and we need to recognize that reality.

We are far past the point of unfettered travel freedom.

I ain't gonna be happy if I can't get on a plane, but that's happened to me before (by the US Gov) I've been thrown in a prison by the US Gov for crossing a border. I had nothing but innocent travel in mind. Fact is all these things you fear I've had done to me already. Do I think they shouldn't be able to, no. But yes I think there ought to be a process of making sure the facts are straight in a critical review way. That is the real problem of all this, it is unilateral and in my experience based on false information. The police state isn't required to be accurate only to create a story.

This ain't about Islam, you are making it about Islam. it has nothing to do with Islam, it has to do with dangerous people not being stopped from damaging society. There are MILLIONS of Muslims in America, and likely only a handful of them are on the no fly list due to being associated with terrorist organizations, which happen to be in parts of the world with repressive governments (not saying their views aren't repressive but that is the pot calling the kettle black). Bottom line here, show me who is on the no fly list, and I am guessing there is a reason why each of them are on it. Where is the abuse in it?

If you are in the process or have just committed a felony, you don't have due process you have an arrest in store. The only due process needed for deprivation is reasonable grounds a felony has or will occur.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In certain situations, private individuals have the power to make an arrest without a warrant. These types of arrests, known as citizens arrests, occur when ordinary people either detain criminals themselves or direct police officers to detain a criminal.

Citizens arrests are subject to fewer constitutional requirements than an arrest by law enforcement officers, but citizens arrests still have rules that govern them. Failure to abide by these rules can result in civil and criminal liability for the arresting individual.

Felonies

A person can arrest someone that they reasonably suspect of committing a felony, even if the felony didnt occur in the presence of the individual making the arrest. As long as a felony was actually committed and the individual making the arrest knew of the crime, a reasonable suspicion about the identity of the perpetrator will justify their arrest.

The felony must have actually occurred before an individual can make a citizens arrest. Even if a person reasonably believes that a felony has occurred, if the crime did not in fact happen, the person making the arrest could become civilly and criminally liable.

Breaches of the Peace

In general, people cant use citizens arrests for misdemeanors unless the misdemeanor involves a breach of the peace. Even in these circumstances, however, individuals can only make arrests when they have personally witnessed the criminal behavior and the breach has just occurred or there is a strong likelihood that the breach will continue.

Constitutionality of a Citizens Arrest

As mentioned above, a citizens arrest does not carry with it the same constitutional requirements that attach to an arrest by law enforcement officers. If, however, a person acts on the request of law enforcement, any arrest they carry out must meet the same constitutional standards as an arrest by the law enforcement officers themselves.

For example, a citizens arrest upon the request of law enforcement would still have to comply with the Fourth Amendments restrictions against unreasonable searches and seizures and its warrant requirement. A citizen could also face prosecution under statutes that make it a crime to deprive someone of their constitutional rights.

If a citizen acts on their own initiative in making the arrest, however, those same constitutional restrictions do not apply.

Reasonable Force

Despite the fact that citizens arrests do not carry the same constitutional requirements as a typical arrest, individuals must only use the amount of force that is reasonable and necessary to make the arrest. Just what exactly constitutes the reasonable and necessary amount of force depends on the facts surrounding each arrest. Juries will usually examine the facts surrounding a citizens arrest and make the determination of whether it involved excessive force.

The use of excessive force can open up the arresting individual to civil and criminal liability, and this is especially true when individuals use deadly force to apprehend criminals. States have different rules about the use of deadly force during a citizens arrest, and failure to comply with the law in this area can result in serious consequences.

Some states prohibit the use of deadly force except in circumstances where the person making the arrest or someone else is faced with the threat of serious bodily injury or immediate use of deadly physical force. In these situations, the person making the arrest may use deadly force in order to prevent harm to themselves or others. Sure be political, make laws for how you think the law should be that is your right as a citizen, however, belief doesn't trump the courts unless you are judge or jury.

Other states allow people making a citizens arrest to use deadly force to stop a fleeing arrestee as long as the person making the arrest used reasonable methods in order to make the arrest. Some states go further and require that the person using deadly force first attempt to restrain the subject of the arrest, and other states require pursuit and an explicitly stated intent to arrest before using deadly force.

Any use of deadly force during a citizens arrest that does not comply with the applicable state law could result in manslaughter or murder charges against the arresting individual, as well as a wrongful death lawsuit from the family of the suspected criminal.

- See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/citizen-s-arrest.html#sthash.TOCCsvr7.dpuf

I agree though, this should only be used in concert with an arrest or lawful detainment. Much like disarming someone for that purpose should be based on lawful grounds of an arrest or detainment on the basis of public safety.

NO FLY = ACTIVE INVESTIGATION OR OPERATION THAT WOULD BE DISRUPTED OR SPREAD OF COMMUNICATION OUTSIDE CONTROLS.

its dirty. I agree its horrible but it is coherent and obvious why. They are very paranoid and not taking any risks. Apparently they didn't know these people intended to do what they did. If so that is an intelligence failure but I think they would be in jail if it was known, not on a no fly list.

This is nothing compared to red scare mccarthyism. People were thrown in jail in the past not told they can't get on a plane. It is political persecution nuff said. Oh and people are thrown in jail still and maybe put on a no fly list too. Hell they have cruise missiles and hellfire shoved up their rumps these days. It ain't pretty but lets live in reality of how it really is.

You don't need to convince me of the woes of the police state, but you sure as hell shouldn't try to convince me its not the world we are living in. Sure dreaming is great but we should present ourselves from the real world instead of the way we want it to be only. That is delusion.

How would people feel if EVERY SINGLE SOCIAL MEDIA POST that is removed is sent to the FBI as an automated reporting method. Now how many posts are vetted by SOCIAL media these days? Is this what you want your military doing? Even China, Russia and Turkey fail to have a total drag net, people will always find ways to slip through the cracks.

No fly no guns can in some instances make total sense for fugitives to be subject to. If you think I mean that anyone should be able to be spooked or disrupted no, I don't think so that is clearly a human rights violation as well as a violation of international commerce law. We must be sane in our applications of breach of peace measures.

We have a global police state though, ignoring the way it is is not going to help change it. The legal framework exists. Clearly constitutionalists need to look at the interpretation of the constitution by the courts to see how the justice system views the constitution. Sure everyone has the right of belief, but that doesn't change how the system looks at it unless you are judge or jury.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Will2 said:


> I have no misconceptions that you have no class in your line of discourse and are completely out of line with baseless ad hominem attacks that only sour any chance of civil discourse. Nothing but name calling because you have nothing of value to add to the topic being discussed so you have to resort to personal attacks. Why don't you go back to the pile you came from.
> 
> This topic is about no fly lists not being a jackass. Why don't you stick to the topic and stop name calling cause you have no clue and are completely whitewashing this discussion with dribble.
> 
> ...


I have been asked to refrain from engaging this poster. :rofl3:


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Will2 said:


> As far as constitutional rights, is the right to free travel in there? There is protection against arbitrary search and seizure but the extent of confinement of those rights by due process of the law is confined by the other aspects of the constitution or rights granted from other points of law, common law or otherwise.


Our rights are not derived from the constitution.

Your misunderstanding of this discounts any and all points you attempt to make on any other issue.

The no-fly list is unconstitutional. Period.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Will, I read your rambling, disconnected post, attempted to respond to parts and pieces of it, but then realized I have better things to do.

Why do you make posts that indicate a disconnected thought process and then hit the report post button every single time someone comes to a reasonable conclusion about you?


----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)

Unless its a spam post only cry babies hit the report button.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Will, I read your rambling, disconnected post, attempted to respond to parts and pieces of it, but then realized I have better things to do.
> 
> Why do you make posts that indicate a disconnected thought process and then hit the report post button every single time someone comes to a reasonable conclusion about you?


I hope he reports your post.
:mrgreen:


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

I think this is one of our national problems, nowadays.

When I was a kid, children were expected to keep their mouths shut when the adults are talking. We had no experience and no understanding about anything. In the early 90s, I started noticing a new phenomenon. While the adults were talking, children were allowed to inject nonsense without being told to be seen and not heard. These children, as you can well imagine, have grown up to believe their nonsense is just as worthy as the "adults'" statements.

Without restraint, good sense and reason is shouted down by those who have grown up believing all thoughts are of equal weight.

It is no wonder why we have so many of our fellow countrymen popping happy pills.


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

Will2 said:


> I have no misconceptions that you have no class in your line of discourse and are completely out of line with baseless ad hominem attacks that only sour any chance of civil discourse. Nothing but name calling because you have nothing of value to add to the topic being discussed so you have to resort to personal attacks. Why don't you go back to the pile you came from.
> 
> This topic is about no fly lists not being a jackass. Why don't you stick to the topic and stop name calling cause you have no clue and are completely whitewashing this discussion with dribble.
> 
> ...


Will2, you need to either toughen up or use the ignore feature. Seriously, just stop. Was it really necessary to write these massive retaliation posts? You could've just summed up the above ramblings into: Quit being a buncha hosers eh!

I tried to read your other post but it was so long and discombobulated that my eyes crossed and a lil drool started forming on the corner of my mouth... Try to condense your posts a lil. Thanks, your pal Ark.

P.S. how is your twin brother Will doing? We haven't heard from him for awhile.


----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)

This is my favorite part - "You and slippy belong in a zoo":laughhard:


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> Our rights are not derived from the constitution.
> 
> Your misunderstanding of this discounts any and all points you attempt to make on any other issue.
> 
> The no-fly list is unconstitutional. Period.


Well that provided supporting points. Why don't you flesh out cause what I see is that its already been challenged and a judge said it was constitutional as long as a lawyer with special security clearances is told why the person is on the list.

"The judge didn't say the government has to get rid of the list. But it does have to come up with a better way for people on the list to challenge the fact that they are on it. The government must also disclose to those on the list any unclassified information used to justify their inclusion.

Much of the information about people on the list is classified. U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown said the government should summarize that information or disclose it to an attorney with the proper security clearance. "

You seem to be wrong, imagine that.

Wheres your Face now? you seem to have fallen outside of Grice's Maxims. Now what, more personal attacks because you have nothing of value to add to an actual discussion on a subject that real adults converse on.

Yeah guns and rights are good, can we have a real discussion now that we established that point.

Do you realize how paranoid your talk is thinking you are one of the less than 500 Americans on a no fly list? Where that 500 is probably almost all Muslim.

Really where do you think your rights come from? There is a separation of church and state. The US constitution establishes US governance, not fundamental rights. You don't know what you are talking about, and I challenge you to actually talk about what you are saying you think you know, cause all I see is empty space where words should be.


----------



## budgetprepp-n (Apr 7, 2013)

hawgrider said:


> Unless its a spam post only cry babies hit the report button.


Report button? I have a report button? where is it? I'll ware the paint of that puppy.


----------



## Montana Rancher (Mar 4, 2013)

budgetprepp-n said:


> From what I have gathered there is a problem with the "No fly list" The problem is
> they go by names not the person or social security number. They go by name and
> if your names happens to be the same as someone on the list,, Then you don't fly
> until it's straightened out. Can you imagine trying to straighten this out with our
> ...


I didn't read the 40+ other replies but here is my though

Denying a constitutionally protected right based upon a list from who knows who

Without due process of law is worst than criminal and is unconstitutional.


----------



## Auntie (Oct 4, 2014)

Will2 said:


> Well that provided supporting points. Why don't you flesh out cause what I see is that its already been challenged and a judge said it was constitutional as long as a lawyer with special security clearances is told why the person is on the list.
> 
> "The judge didn't say the government has to get rid of the list. But it does have to come up with a better way for people on the list to challenge the fact that they are on it. The government must also disclose to those on the list any unclassified information used to justify their inclusion.
> 
> ...


All I see is words where empty spaces should be. I try and try hard to comprehend your posts and what your point is. I have said quite a few times perhaps if you used less words and were more concise in what it is you are trying to say it might be clearer to us dumb americans. Are you sure you want to tell someone that their talk is paranoid? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

Do you really think it is appropriate to tell someone that they should be in a zoo and then say that they should act like grown ups? I don't see you acting like an adult. Do unto others..... or shut the hell up.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Will2 says "why don't you flesh out"?

Not that it is a priority...... but what does that mean? Must be something smartass.

I read his posts and get his rambling, but the dots do not connect with rationale.


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

Will2 said:


> Well that provided supporting points. Why don't you flesh out cause what I see is that its already been challenged and a judge said it was constitutional as long as a lawyer with special security clearances is told why the person is on the list.
> 
> "The judge didn't say the government has to get rid of the list. But it does have to come up with a better way for people on the list to challenge the fact that they are on it. The government must also disclose to those on the list any unclassified information used to justify their inclusion.
> 
> ...


Will2, our rights come from God. The unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Read The United States Declaration of Independence. The Second Treatise of Government by John Locke is also pretty good.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Will2 said:


> Well that provided supporting points. Why don't you flesh out cause what I see is that its already been challenged and a judge said it was constitutional as long as a lawyer with special security clearances is told why the person is on the list.
> "The judge didn't say the government has to get rid of the list. But it does have to come up with a better way for people on the list to challenge the fact that they are on it. The government must also disclose to those on the list any unclassified information used to justify their inclusion.
> Much of the information about people on the list is classified. U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown said the government should summarize that information or disclose it to an attorney with the proper security clearance. "
> You seem to be wrong, imagine that.


You might be unaware of this, but judges can be WRONG!
They are more than happy to let you believe they are infallible, but they aren't. If a right has been restricted, such as the right to travel freely, and the restriction was implemented without due process, that is illegal and unconstitutional.


> Wheres your Face now? you seem to have fallen outside of Grice's Maxims. Now what, more personal attacks because you have nothing of value to add to an actual discussion on a subject that real adults converse on.


Where is my face? Have I personally attacked you at all? I am more than capable of pointing out an individual's incompetence with regard to important topics without needing to insult them with personal attacks. I strongly recommend you withdraw from this conversation, as you are not well-equipped to speak about it.


> Do you realize how paranoid your talk is thinking you are one of the less than 500 Americans on a no fly list? Where that 500 is probably almost all Muslim.


I never claimed to be on the list. Straw-man arguments are not welcome here. I can speak to the illegitimacy of a policy without being directly affected by it. I assume you can grasp that concept.


> Really where do you think your rights come from? There is a separation of church and state. The US constitution establishes US governance, not fundamental rights. You don't know what you are talking about, and I challenge you to actually talk about what you are saying you think you know, cause all I see is empty space where words should be.


Ah, and we finally reach the actual point of my post you quoted...
The rights of man are inborn. They do not exist because some other human says they do. The exist because we exist. There is no "separation of church and state". I challenge you to find such anywhere in our founding documents.
I'm fully aware that the constitution does not establish rights. That was the point of my post. Why you felt the need to restate it as if I'd been incorrect is unknown to me.
I know full well what I'm talking about. A challenge must be proposed by someone with authority to judge the other on the topic at hand. As you have shown no competency on the subject, your challenge is null and void.

I repeat, I strongly recommend you withdraw from this conversation, as you are not well-equipped to speak about it.


----------

