When did I make an irrelevant statement? Everything I have said has been consistent. You're the moron that thinks it's legal to have a gun and ammo on your person while flying
cons vote yes on selling guns to terrorists
- Thread starter dherd
- Start date
Keep dancing coward. Here they are again:
1.Should people on both the no fly and terrorist watch lists have the prohibitions eliminated from their lives?
2.Is it OK for people on both the no fly list and the terrorist watch list to be able to fly with guns and ammo on their person?
1.Should people on both the no fly and terrorist watch lists have the prohibitions eliminated from their lives?
2.Is it OK for people on both the no fly list and the terrorist watch list to be able to fly with guns and ammo on their person?
That's better. If I wasn't on mobile I'd post a gif from the movie airplane of the security gate.
EG believes that if you can sell guns to people on the terrorist watch list, then the suspects should be able to carry them on planes, on their person, and with ammo.
You agree or disagree with my statement?
No. If you are taking a gun on a plane it must be in checked baggage terrorist or non terrorist
Must be in checked bag, in an approved locked case, and I believe ammo must be separate from firearm. You must also declare it to airliine when checking in.
I understand that's the rules. But why should anyone not be able to take a gun and ammo on the plane and keep it on their person?
Well for one the plane is property of the airline and they can chose whether or not to have guns on their property. My guess is they say no to on the plane/property. Second, the plane flies in US airspace and the plane is in air spaced regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration. They say no. So really, as a gun owner, i respect the rights of private property as mentioned as number one above. Plus, a bullet shooting a hole through the fuselage is not a good thing. Although it probably wouldn't go all the way through in most cases.
I don't think Greed even knows what he's arguing at this point - so long as it is contrary to some principle that he believes conservatives would support.
1.Should people on both the no fly and terrorist watch lists have the prohibitions eliminated from their lives?
2.Is it OK for people on both the no fly list and the terrorist watch list to be able to fly with guns and ammo on their person?
Hey, Greed, how about you answer these first:
1. Do U.S. citizen's have an express Constitutional right to keep and bear arms?
2. Do U.S. citizen's have an express Constitutional right to air travel?
If so, on which Amendment is it based?
3. How many people on the "no-fly" list are U.S. citizens?
4. Would the proposed law have prevented the San Bernardino shooters from acquiring firearms?
1. Do U.S. citizen's have an express Constitutional right to keep and bear arms?
2. Do U.S. citizen's have an express Constitutional right to air travel?
If so, on which Amendment is it based?
3. How many people on the "no-fly" list are U.S. citizens?
4. Would the proposed law have prevented the San Bernardino shooters from acquiring firearms?
If it's so simple, then just answer the questions, coward.....here, I'll remove half the questions you refuse to answer.
2.Is it OK for people on both the no fly list and the terrorist watch list to be able to fly with guns and ammo on their person?
No, I most certainly am not going to answer questions first when I've been asking unanswered question for several hours. Coward.
No shit Sherlock I have never once said it was. If you would pay attention you'd know I've said if they are on the watch list then according to liberals they are extremely dangerous and involved in terrorist activity. Being involved in terrorist activity IS A CRIME therefore they can be arrested.
Fair enough.
1. I have no problem with the no-fly list. Despite the 9th circuit's (or, 9th circus' if you prefer) ruling this summer, I don't believe there is s constitutional right to fly. As for the firearm issue, as I stated previously, I am undecided.
2. No one should be permitted to fly with a loaded firearm on their person. There are restrictions to carrying firearms - schools, govt. buildings, etc. I have no problem with airplanes falling within that category. And, as Herdman stated, the airlines - as private businesses - can choose not to allow firearms anyways.
Now, answer mine.
The "due process" clause is not implicated unless you are infringing on some Constitutionally guaranteed right - of which you yourself admit there is no such right as it relates to air travel. Absent a Constitutional right, there is NO triggering of due process. Therefore, your argument is baseless.
As for your second question/response, the law is well-settled that there are certain places where the of carrying of firearms should be restricted for common sense reasons. Airlines are one of those locations. Your attempt at skewing the logic between carrying firearms in everyday pursuits as opposed to carrying them on airplanes is (1) inconsistent with the law, & (2) ridiculous.
Now answer my questions, coward.
As for your second question/response, the law is well-settled that there are certain places where the of carrying of firearms should be restricted for common sense reasons. Airlines are one of those locations. Your attempt at skewing the logic between carrying firearms in everyday pursuits as opposed to carrying them on airplanes is (1) inconsistent with the law, & (2) ridiculous.
Now answer my questions, coward.
Speaking of being a COWARD for not answering questions, how about you FINALLY answer the questions of whether or not you offer your employees health care & if you started your business by yourself?
Hey BlunderCat:
1. Do U.S. citizen's have an express Constitutional right to keep and bear arms? Yep. But there is no "express" constitutional right to own ammunition. (that i know of)
2. Do U.S. citizen's have an express Constitutional right to air travel? Answered this in my most recent post.
If so, on which Amendment is it based? Answered this in most recent post.
3. How many people on the "no-fly" list are U.S. citizens? I read about 500.
4. Would the proposed law have prevented the San Bernardino shooters from acquiring firearms? Don't see how that is relevant, but probably not.
Now, what's the other set of questions that I'm chicken to answer?
1. Do U.S. citizen's have an express Constitutional right to keep and bear arms? Yep. But there is no "express" constitutional right to own ammunition. (that i know of)
2. Do U.S. citizen's have an express Constitutional right to air travel? Answered this in my most recent post.
If so, on which Amendment is it based? Answered this in most recent post.
3. How many people on the "no-fly" list are U.S. citizens? I read about 500.
4. Would the proposed law have prevented the San Bernardino shooters from acquiring firearms? Don't see how that is relevant, but probably not.
Now, what's the other set of questions that I'm chicken to answer?
1. Do U.S. citizen's have an express Constitutional right to keep and bear arms? Yep. But there is no "express" constitutional right to own ammunition. (that i know of)
Firearms and ammo are interchangeable under federal firearms laws, so once again you're wrong. The prohibition against felons and other specific classes of persons (illegals, under indictment, etc.) from possessing firearms include ammo.
2. Do U.S. citizen's have an express Constitutional right to air travel? Answered this in my most recent post.
If so, on which Amendment is it based? Answered this in most recent post.
And I explained to you why your position is inherently wrong. THERE IS NO "DUE PROCESS" VIOLATION OF THE UNDERLYING CONDUCT DOES NOT IMPLICATE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
3. How many people on the "no-fly" list are U.S. citizens? I read about 500.
That is correct. I would be in favor on reconsidering classification or some type of screening process for citizens. I don't really care if noncitizens are precluded from flying.
4. Would the proposed law have prevented the San Bernardino shooters from acquiring firearms? Don't see how that is relevant, but probably not.
The proposal to ban persons on the "no fly" list from purchasing guns would not have prevented the shooters from obtaining guns because they weren't on any terrorist watch lists to begin with.
Now, what's the other set of questions that I'm chicken to answer?
Firearms and ammo are interchangeable under federal firearms laws, so once again you're wrong. The prohibition against felons and other specific classes of persons (illegals, under indictment, etc.) from possessing firearms include ammo.
2. Do U.S. citizen's have an express Constitutional right to air travel? Answered this in my most recent post.
If so, on which Amendment is it based? Answered this in most recent post.
And I explained to you why your position is inherently wrong. THERE IS NO "DUE PROCESS" VIOLATION OF THE UNDERLYING CONDUCT DOES NOT IMPLICATE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
3. How many people on the "no-fly" list are U.S. citizens? I read about 500.
That is correct. I would be in favor on reconsidering classification or some type of screening process for citizens. I don't really care if noncitizens are precluded from flying.
4. Would the proposed law have prevented the San Bernardino shooters from acquiring firearms? Don't see how that is relevant, but probably not.
The proposal to ban persons on the "no fly" list from purchasing guns would not have prevented the shooters from obtaining guns because they weren't on any terrorist watch lists to begin with.
Now, what's the other set of questions that I'm chicken to answer?
The right to bear arms and a well regulated militia. The last time I checked well regulated militia didn't carry or keep guns without ammunition and the right to bear arms would have an implied meaning of the bullets(bullets were around at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment). The elements of the well regulated militia are the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT and the right of the States. Various cases have been tested through the courts and reasonable restrictions have been upheld and sometimes over turned by courts. Example, automatic weapons were outlawed(except with a federal stamp that is not easy nor cheap to get) in the 1930's and have been illegal ever since. A federal background check is required to buy new guns. Dealers of guns must have a federal firearms license and so on. But, you can't strip the fundamental right.
Finally there was a reason the 2nd Amend was put in place.
Finally there was a reason the 2nd Amend was put in place.
From the 13th post earlier in this thread........."But let's eliminate all prohibitions of the No Fly List and Terrorist Watch List altogether."
Yeah because you weren't trying to intentionall skew the debate with all your other crap in thoseposts
The only thing skewed was the cons logic that we can sell guns to those on the watch lists but they can't get on a plane. That's pure nonsense.
Yeah, spend more time posting a stupid face palm than actually considering the lunacy. Good little sheep.
I've explained to your retarded a$$ at least three times how a legitimate/logical argument can be made to differentiate between the two. And, again, to be clear, I am undecided in the matter and still researching the law/options. You are either too stubborn, our too ignorant, to acknowledge that there is a fundamental difference between being allowed to engage in a particular means of travel and the right to own/posses a firearm. Until you do so, it's hard to take anything you say seriously. Frankly, it comes across as someone merely towing the party line, i.e. being the "sheep" you accuse others of.
eg I know what you want. You want people to say the no fly list is stupid and we should get rid of it that way you can blame bush like you always do. I don't agree with no fly list only because of due process. If they are dangerous then charge them with a crime
