Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I have a question regarding Obama's speach tonight..

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I have a question regarding Obama's speach tonight..

    Maybe someone can explain this, Obama said that people on the "no fly list" can presently legally purchase weapons and that he wants to correct that.
    I have no problem with that, in fact, I support that idea, but I have a question,
    If someone is on a "no fly list" why aren't they being rounded up?
    Can a person on such a list be employed? Because if they are employed they pay income tax, if they pay income taxes, the IRS knows where they live, just tell the cops and arrest them!
    What a cluster hump.
    Last edited by Urban hermit; 06 Dec 15, 22:58.
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

  • #2
    It's worse. If you get on it by mistake, good luck getting off it.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...-rules-n139896

    The federal government lacks an effective system for allowing people to get off the no-fly list who are put there by mistake, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

    The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by 13 American citizens and permanent residents, including four military veterans, who have been barred from flights to or from the United States or over U.S. airspace. Many of them have been told they're on the government's no-fly list.

    Each of them applied for relief under the Department of Homeland Security's Traveler Redress Inquiry Program, but Judge Anna Brown of Oregon said the program is so lacking in providing fairness that it's unconstitutional.
    So, the list itself has been ruled unconstitutional and is being contested in court even now after such rulings. If it were extended to the 2nd Amendment it would fail disastrously in court.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
      Maybe someone can explain this, Obama said that people on the "no fly list" can presently legally purchase weapons and that he wants to correct that.
      I have no problem with that, in fact, I support that idea, but I have a question,
      If someone is on a "no fly list" why aren't they being rounded up?
      Being on a no-fly list simply means the authorities are uncertain regarding the individual in question. He or she may have dubious connections, may have committed a crime in the past, may have a relative who committed a crime in the past, could be anything. The important thing is that the person in question is simply considered potentially dangerous. Now, do you really want the authorities to be given the right to arrest anybody and everybody on the grounds they may be potentially dangerous, in the absence of any real evidence of an actual crime being planned or carried out? There were 47,000 names on the No-Fly List in August 2013. That was double the number in 2012. How many are on the list now? 75,000? 100,000? That's a lot of people being rounded up on mere suspicion.

      Comment


      • #4
        What Obama is proposing is that people lose their Constitutional rights based up being put on a list.
        There is no hearing, no real evidence and no notice to the party being placed on the list.
        Why not propose summary executions, or jail for those people?

        Due process requires that the people be given a hearing where they have a chance to oppose the efforts to remove their Constitutional rights. The fact that our alleged constitutional scholar in chief would make this proposal is frightening and evidence of his ignorance or disregard of our rights.
        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

        Comment


        • #5
          Three great replies.
          People are on the list for fraudulent reasons and the agencies responsible are too lazy or corrupt to investigate the problem and fix it,
          Anyone can be put on the list for no reason and loose their constitutional rights with out a hearing or representation.
          So the list is useless as a legal document.
          Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
            Three great replies.
            Something else to think about:

            It all hinges on how you define a “suspected” terrorist. For Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., all it requires is for your name to be on a government list. She is sponsoring a bill that would prohibit anyone whose name appears on the FBI’s terror watch list from buying a firearm or an explosive while traveling in the United States.

            That list, which contained 47,000 names at the end of George W. Bush’s presidency, has grown to nearly 700,000 people on President Obama’s watch. The fact that they are names, not identities, has led to misidentifications and confusion, ensnaring many innocent people. But surely those names are there for good reason, right?

            Not really. According to the technology website TechDirt.com, 40 percent of those on the FBI’s watch list — 280,000 people — are considered to have no affiliation with recognized terrorist groups. All it takes is for the government to declare is has “reasonable suspicion” that someone could be a terrorist. There is no hard evidence required, and the standard is notoriously vague and elastic.


            http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...-name-n2090088

            Then there is the 72 types of Americans that can be potential terrorist:

            http://thetruthwins.com/archives/72-...ment-documents
            "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

            Comment

            Latest Topics

            Collapse

            Working...
            X