Posted on 09/27/2016 6:30:20 PM PDT by Innovative
The Washington Post may be taking Trump out of context on the No Fly List and Second Amendment issue.
Last night Hillary said if a person is too dangerous to fly they are too dangerous to buy a gun. How about if a person is too dangerous to fly they are too dangerous to be out walking around, driving trucks, buying pressure cookers and other methods of killing people? How about arresting them and trying them? Or deporting them? Or admitting there’s really no case against them?
Somewhat?
It's complete chickenshit Big Government overreach. Trump is dead wrong on this.
Trump has a concealed carry permit for NY and has said he was generally armed as a private citizen.
Look at his proposal (on his web site) for national concealed carry that would replace a multitude of bad State laws.
Trump is the most pro-2nd amendment candidate in 100 years.
The bezos blog is now all concerned about 2nd Amendment freedoms?
Riiiiiiiight.
Which is why the NRA endorsed him so rapidly. The earliest NRA endorsement ever.
“I don’t think that depriving someone on a no-fly list of their Second Amendment Rights falls within the Constitutional requirement for due process of Law.
In addition to “no fly” lists, this is true also for things such as restraining orders, IMHO.”
Yes, you are right! But we see our states routinely violating Constitutional Rights “ in the name of safety.” We see that the 2A doesn’t “apply” to felons which is lawful, but we’ve seen Obola try to truncate 2A Rights for Veterans and now SSA recipients, so there seems to be “precident” for these actions and we have a Supreme Court and a Congress that are complicit. While I have no problem with anyone who can legitimately be considered a terrorist or potential terrorist having the ability to legally obtain a firearm taken away, the problem I do have is that the government has “politicized” no-fly lists to the point where they too can and probably are being used against decent citizens whom the administration “doesn’t like.” Furthermore, under the “guise of the need for secrecy,” they say they “need” to keep all of it “secret?” for the sake of our “security.” And unfortunately, they’ve also co-opted the judiciary to be their accomplices. so all I was saying is that we need an above board, competely transparent process that proposes to restrict ANY Constitutional RIGHT.
Who would have thought we would devolve to a point where decent Americans view people who leak our secrets as patriots
The Wash Post says Trump says...
My initial inclination is to assume they are lying, at least until I see a direct quote.
No legitimate government which has the People's best interest at heart would ever advocate for such arbitrary power— not if it honored the Constitution and due process.
This is one of the reasons Founders (such as General George Washington himself) specifically wanted to craft a Constitution that would prevent even the possibility for the Federal government to impose such Tyranny on the People.
Vote Trump!
And he’s right, past generations have not been sufficiently vigilant at keeping the camel’s nose out of the tent and I fear current ones are even worse - they don’t even know the difference between a camel’s nose and camel toes and think the constitution is just a matter of fad and fashion.
Trump will have Senator Jeff Sessions write his version of the Bill.
Hillary will have Senator Chucky Schumer write her version of the Bill.
Felonious Hillary and her SS protection should be on the no-fly list.
If someone is dangerous enough to be on a list, then they should be taken off the streets, charged and given a fair trial.
There should be no ‘lists’.
Easy answer. If you own guns or have a CCW you are automatically placed on the DNF list.
We already believe criminals should not have guns. A terrorist is a criminal. If a person is rightly on a no fly list, then i don’t want them to have guns. If they are wrongly on such a list, they should have access to a quick and easy process to remove their name. That is what i support and what trump said he supports. None of us want criminals or terrorists to have access to weapons. That’s not new. What is new that Trump is proposing is the quick easy way to correct the list. The NRA supports this.
It's a conundrum under current conditions and will take some fine constitutional minds to come up with a proper solution.
Oh, I'm fully aware of that. It's one of the things that really bothers me about him.
The trap is that if a Hillary administration takes over, outspoken conservatives will magically appear on the terror watch lists and be designated as no fly. Trump needs to be reminded of that.
Here is a statement from the NRA after the Paris attacks last year:
"The NRA does not want terrorists or dangerous people to have firearms, any suggestion otherwise is offensive and wrong," said Jennifer Baker, director of public affairs. "Under the current system, law enforcement is notified every time a person on the list attempts to purchase a firearm. Law Enforcement then makes a case by case decision on the appropriate follow-up for each circumstance."The NRA's only objective is to ensure that Americans who are wrongly on the list are afforded their constitutional right to due process. It is appalling that anti-gun politicians are exploiting the Paris terrorist attacks to push their gun-control agenda and distract from President Obama’s failed foreign policy."
So, Trump and the NRA agree. Terrorists should be denied access to weapons, but people on lists should have easy access to fast methods to move listings that are in error.
Don't hear (or see, in this case) obsequious used much. Had a buddy where I used to work in Idaho who would call a co-worker an "obsequious young man" whenever the guy would go all yes-man with the boss.
It took the co-worker about a year to finally look it up. He wasn't pleased. He was still obsequious, though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.