100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Obama: It's 'insane' that people on the 'no-fly' list can bu | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Obama: It's 'insane' that people on the 'no-fly' list can buy guns
Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama said Saturday that it is "insane" that people who are not allowed to fly on planes are allowed to buy guns. "Right now, people on the No-Fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun. That is insane. If you're too dangerous to board a plane, you're too dangerous, by definition, to buy a gun," he said in his weekly address. "And so I'm calling on Congress to close this loophole, now. We may not be able to prevent every tragedy, but -- at a bare minimum -- we shouldn't be making it so easy for potential terrorists or criminals to get their hands on a gun that they could use against Americans." Republicans have leveled withering criticism of Obama for tying the massacre to gun control. And also for not, in their view, playing up the terror aspect most immediately. Still, the possibility that the San Bernardino, California, shooting suspects were radicalized confirms the need for people "to work together" to prevent this from happening, Obama said. "We know that ISIL and other terrorist groups are actively encouraging people -- around the world and in our country -- to commit terrible acts of violence, often times as lone wolf actors," the president said. "And even as we work to prevent attacks, all of us -- government, law enforcement, communities, faith leaders -- need to work together to prevent people from falling victim to these hateful ideologies." "It is entirely possible that these two attackers were radicalized to commit this act of terror. And if so, it would underscore a threat we've been focused on for years -- the danger of people succumbing to violent extremist ideologies," Obama said. Let me see now, it's not insane to allow a radical country that calls for the "Death to America" to have Nuclear weapons and Ballistic missles, not insane to allow millions of muslims(probably not on no fly list)to come to America, so they can kill innocent people here. I'll bet the thugs and criminals are laughing their azzes off, cause they don't do background checks bro. The only one insane is in the White House. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obama: It's 'insane' that people on the 'no-fly' list can buy guns
It is insane how many law abiding American citizens are actually on the 'no fly ' list. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obama: It's 'insane' that people on the 'no-fly' list can buy guns It is insane how many law abiding American citizens are actually on the 'no fly ' list. and how many more will be added by this nut? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obama: It's 'insane' that people on the 'no-fly' list can buy guns It is insane how many law abiding American citizens are actually on the 'no fly ' list. and how many more will be added by this nut? The Daily Nexus http://dailynexus.com/2015-12-28/the-mess-created-by-no-fly-lists/ The criteria used to qualify for the list are frustratingly vague and oftentimes arbitrary Individuals neither charged nor convicted with a crime face the consequences of being listed… |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Rock
on
Thu 12/31/15 07:41 PM
|
|
It's insane, that the idiot got voted into the highest office in the land.
Not once, but twice.  Removal of rights without due process, is inherently wrong. But, the morons voted him back in. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This while an army could walk unscathed or hampered thru our southern border |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's insane, that the idiot got voted into the highest office in the land. Not once, but twice. Removal of rights without due process, is inherently wrong. But, the morons voted him back in. I think by abusing others for having a different opinion is not that wise. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's insane, that the idiot got voted into the highest office in the land. Not once, but twice. Removal of rights without due process, is inherently wrong. But, the morons voted him back in. I think by abusing others for having a different opinion is not that wise. Dude, a person can be put on a no-fly list without being convicted of a felony, but in the USA, the right to bear arms can't be taken away without a legal conviction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's insane, that the idiot got voted into the highest office in the land. Not once, but twice. Removal of rights without due process, is inherently wrong. But, the morons voted him back in. I think by abusing others for having a different opinion is not that wise. Obama is far more popular in Kenya where you are, than here in the USA. * seriously * How soon can you come pick Poppy up ? * joke * 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's insane, that the idiot got voted into the highest office in the land. Not once, but twice. Removal of rights without due process, is inherently wrong. But, the morons voted him back in. I think by abusing others for having a different opinion is not that wise. you might want to do some research,Mister! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“Right now, people on the no-fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun,” Obama said in a recent weekly radio address. “That is insane.” Makes sense, right?
Sure it does. If you uncritically accept the validity of the “no-fly” list in the first place. If you’re prepared to accept the judgment of President Obama and his White House staff as to what qualifies as a threat to national security, you’re good-to-go with the No-Fly list. But what if your standards are different from theirs? Of course, you might say: “The federal government has to protect people from acts of terrorism. A lot of terrorism happens on airplanes.” True enough. But what are the criteria for getting on a no-fly list? From an article in 2014 cited by CNN.com: The Obama administration has quietly approved a substantial expansion of the terrorist watchlist system, authorizing a secret process that requires neither “concrete facts” nor “irrefutable evidence” to designate an American or foreigner as a terrorist, according to a key government document obtained by The Intercept. The “March 2013 Watchlisting Guidance,” a 166-page document issued last year by the National Counterterrorism Center, spells out the government’s secret rules for putting individuals on its main terrorist database, as well as the no fly list and the selectee list, which triggers enhanced screening at airports and border crossings. The new guidelines allow individuals to be designated as representatives of terror organizations without any evidence they are actually connected to such organizations, and it gives a single White House official the unilateral authority to place entire “categories” of people the government is tracking onto the no fly and selectee lists. It broadens the authority of government officials to “nominate” people to the watchlists based on what is vaguely described as “fragmentary information.” It also allows for dead people to be watchlisted. CNN.com also reports: While the criteria for adding individuals to the list remains murky, one thing is for sure: it’s still a lot easier to get on the list than get off it. Even in clear cases of mistaken identity or clerical blundering, a name can linger in the system for years. Under the guise of fighting terrorism, the federal government has been able to create its very own enemies list. As I wrote in a recent column, the federal government as we know it, particularly under Obama, has adopted the kinds of practices for which Richard Nixon was driven from office, back in 1974. There are two fundamental, rights-violating problems with the “no-fly” list as we know it. One, it’s not objective. Two, it’s not even law; it’s simply an edict. Laws tell an individual, in concrete and understandable terms, what he or she may or may not do, and what the consequences are if he or she fails to do what the law requires. Do any of us really understand what’s required to get on a “no-fly” list? And do any of us have hope of getting off such a list if even by bureaucratic “accident” we were placed on it? People are put on the no-fly list without the burden of proof normally required by a legal procedure. Nobody seriously objects to it. Why? Because anybody rational wants to avoid terrorism, especially while flying on an airplane. However, terrorism cannot be justification for violating rights, particularly in such a blatant way. Preventing innocent people from being harmed by violent people is absolutely a legitimate purpose of government in a free society. But shouldn’t the government be obliged to require evidence? Shouldn’t the procedures for identifying terrorists be something other than “unilateral” White House designations? I am so sick of hearing politicians (both parties) claim we cannot militarily fight back against terrorist-sponsoring countries because “that’s not who we are.” (The same logic, by the way, would have prevented defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan back in World War II.) But what about the government of a supposedly free country being able to place citizens that a president’s staff deems “a threat” on a no-fly list? Compiling watchlists without any requirement of facts or proof? Is this really who we are? If it is, then we are no longer a free country. Neither in principle nor, it seems, in practice. Federal “No-Fly List” is A Personal Enemies List for Politicians by Dr Michael Hurd | 27 Dec 2015 | POLITICS http://capitalismmagazine.com/2015/12/federal-no-fly-list-is-a-personal-enemies-list-for-politicians/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This while an army could walk unscathed or hampered thru our southern border .....and probably is too! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Fri 01/01/16 05:28 AM
|
|
The DHS would be in real trouble if they passed a law like that (the "no fly" clause) because it seems that several thousand employees both in DC and working not only the airport security systems around the country but every office covered by the TSA and several other govt agencies as well are presently on that list.... along with a few governors, statesmen/women, several police officers, teachers, children, clergy, etc, etc, etc! Of course, just like he did with Obozocare, when they realize their screw-up good ole Barry will overstep his authority again and start making law exempting supporters, foreigners, democratic voters, and fund raisers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Fri 01/01/16 08:21 AM
|
 “Right now, people on the no-fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun,” Obama said in a recent weekly radio address. “That is insane.” Makes sense, right? Sure it does. If you uncritically accept the validity of the “no-fly” list in the first place. If you’re prepared to accept the judgment of President Obama and his White House staff as to what qualifies as a threat to national security, you’re good-to-go with the No-Fly list. But what if your standards are different from theirs? Of course, you might say: “The federal government has to protect people from acts of terrorism. A lot of terrorism happens on airplanes.” True enough. But what are the criteria for getting on a no-fly list? From an article in 2014 cited by CNN.com: The Obama administration has quietly approved a substantial expansion of the terrorist watchlist system, authorizing a secret process that requires neither “concrete facts” nor “irrefutable evidence” to designate an American or foreigner as a terrorist, according to a key government document obtained by The Intercept. The “March 2013 Watchlisting Guidance,” a 166-page document issued last year by the National Counterterrorism Center, spells out the government’s secret rules for putting individuals on its main terrorist database, as well as the no fly list and the selectee list, which triggers enhanced screening at airports and border crossings. The new guidelines allow individuals to be designated as representatives of terror organizations without any evidence they are actually connected to such organizations, and it gives a single White House official the unilateral authority to place entire “categories” of people the government is tracking onto the no fly and selectee lists. It broadens the authority of government officials to “nominate” people to the watchlists based on what is vaguely described as “fragmentary information.” It also allows for dead people to be watchlisted. CNN.com also reports: While the criteria for adding individuals to the list remains murky, one thing is for sure: it’s still a lot easier to get on the list than get off it. Even in clear cases of mistaken identity or clerical blundering, a name can linger in the system for years. Under the guise of fighting terrorism, the federal government has been able to create its very own enemies list. As I wrote in a recent column, the federal government as we know it, particularly under Obama, has adopted the kinds of practices for which Richard Nixon was driven from office, back in 1974. There are two fundamental, rights-violating problems with the “no-fly” list as we know it. One, it’s not objective. Two, it’s not even law; it’s simply an edict. Laws tell an individual, in concrete and understandable terms, what he or she may or may not do, and what the consequences are if he or she fails to do what the law requires. Do any of us really understand what’s required to get on a “no-fly” list? And do any of us have hope of getting off such a list if even by bureaucratic “accident” we were placed on it? People are put on the no-fly list without the burden of proof normally required by a legal procedure. Nobody seriously objects to it. Why? Because anybody rational wants to avoid terrorism, especially while flying on an airplane. However, terrorism cannot be justification for violating rights, particularly in such a blatant way. Preventing innocent people from being harmed by violent people is absolutely a legitimate purpose of government in a free society. But shouldn’t the government be obliged to require evidence? Shouldn’t the procedures for identifying terrorists be something other than “unilateral” White House designations? I am so sick of hearing politicians (both parties) claim we cannot militarily fight back against terrorist-sponsoring countries because “that’s not who we are.” (The same logic, by the way, would have prevented defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan back in World War II.) But what about the government of a supposedly free country being able to place citizens that a president’s staff deems “a threat” on a no-fly list? Compiling watchlists without any requirement of facts or proof? Is this really who we are? If it is, then we are no longer a free country. Neither in principle nor, it seems, in practice. Federal “No-Fly List” is A Personal Enemies List for Politicians by Dr Michael Hurd | 27 Dec 2015 | POLITICS http://capitalismmagazine.com/2015/12/federal-no-fly-list-is-a-personal-enemies-list-for-politicians/ will someone take some of those Pens please! They cause too much Monkeybusiness! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This while an army could walk unscathed or hampered thru our southern border .....and probably is too! it's actually easier at the norther border... everyone always focuses on the south, but the northern border is bigger and less protected, and less fences... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The NSA is watching...all who posted on this thread are now on the no fly list
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The NSA is watching...all who posted on this thread are now on the no fly list hope we will at least get the Nuggets,else we're really screwed!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's insane, that the idiot got voted into the highest office in the land. Not once, but twice. Removal of rights without due process, is inherently wrong. But, the morons voted him back in. I think by abusing others for having a different opinion is not that wise.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's insane, that the idiot got voted into the highest office in the land. Not once, but twice. Removal of rights without due process, is inherently wrong. But, the morons voted him back in. I think by abusing others for having a different opinion is not that wise. RG, have you been abusing others again?
|
|
|
|
|
