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.
The only thing you've done is refuse to acknowledge that the no fly list is unconstitutional, when a federal judge has ruled that it is. Any thing that is unconstitutional is exactly that, whether "express", or any other way. Retard.