57
58

Trump supports no fly no buy (self.progun)

pornographicCDs が 投稿

This was an unequivocal endorsement of it. You really can't justify this.

全 79 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]GOA_AMD65 23ポイント24ポイント  (0子コメント)

He mentioned the NRA. We really need to work on them because if they start compromising we are screwed.

[–]Fnhatic 54ポイント55ポイント  (8子コメント)

He specifically said he supports the NRA's stance on no-fly no-buy, which is basically "if there's due process involved, it's okay". Which is probably pretty much in-line with almost everyone. I don't have a problem with the idea, but the implementation is garbage (of both no-fly-no-buy and the no-fly-list).

[–]nosnoopsnoo1 25ポイント26ポイント  (4子コメント)

He said if you get put on the list there should be a way to get off the list.

This is still bullshit. There should be due process to get on the list and he did not say that(because it's not possible). He actually agreed with Hillary many times about it. So you think his idea is OK where you go to buy a gun and get denied, then have to find out why, then have to go through a process to get your name off the list, then get to go try to buy a gun again??? Thats fucked!

If you can't use your rights because "you are too dangerous", you should not be in the public - this idea of safety lists to prevent crime are bullshit. You are innocent or you aren't and if you arent then that requires due process FIRST.

[–]BrianPurkiss 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

Exactly. Due process is not getting your rights back after they've been taken away without a trial.

If there is enough evidence to take away someone's gun rights then put them in a fucking courtroom - otherwise leave our gun rights alone.

[–]nosnoopsnoo1 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

The way Trump and the NRA are talking about this is worrisome because of the precedent it creates.

The only way you could create a list with "due process" to deprive rights without a crime is to make up something new like "pseudo crime" - not really a crime(as we know it today) but can cause you to lose rights. Anyone guilty of pseudo crime would lose rights. Basically it means someone thinks you're dangerous and you were unable to prove them wrong (proving you are not dangerous requires proving a negative, a VERY hard task if not impossible OR never being given the chance to face your accuser before rights are taken) so without being guilty of any crime you are deemed a pseudo criminal - there is no constitutional basis for such a thing and for damn good reason.

This is so creepy to contemplate, what other rights would this get applied to? Guilty of pseudo crimes and you no longer have 4th amendment protections too(why not if you support the concept, why not just apply it to all rights)?

[–]Libertatem_aequitas 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Anyone guilty of pseudo crime would lose rights. Basically it means someone thinks you're dangerous and you were unable to prove them wrong (proving you are not dangerous requires proving a negative, a VERY hard task if not impossible OR never being given the chance to face your accuser before rights are taken) so without being guilty of any crime you are deemed a pseudo criminal - there is no constitutional basis for such a thing and for damn good reason.

You just described the process for civil commitments which bar a person from purchasing or possessing a firearm.

EDIT: To be clear, you are aware of being committed and face your accuser unlike the no fly list or suspected terrorist list. I was referring to the part about supposedly being a dangerous person without committing a crime and the burden being on you to prove you aren't.

[–]nosnoopsnoo1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You just described the process for civil commitments which bar a person from purchasing or possessing a firearm.

Not quit. For it to fully deprive your right you have to be found by a court to not be able to care for yourself. Read the question if you want:

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court

Just having been in a mental institution alone is not enough, I can absolutely promise this. It still requires a court/due process. This is actually discussed already just a little further down the thread. Edit: My bad, thats another page I had in another tab - it's not on this page.

[–]BrianPurkiss 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

He specifically said "due process" to get your rights back. That is not due process.

The no fly list bypasses due process.

You cannot say due process and no fly list at the same time.

If we introduce due process to get on the no fly list, then that's another story.

[–]kfromm65 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes this is what he said not once but twice

[–]nosnoopsnoo1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So you don't think due process is required before you can deny a right? Or do you think you can deny rights at first then make the person clear themselves to get their right back? I don't understand how this can be seen as OK.

I'm just not seeing any situtation here that follows due process.

I get this feeling that if YOU were denied your rights by this list, then had to take time out of your life, your work, pay the fee's with your money just to get a right BACK while not doing anything wrong you would be thinking more critically here.

If you haven't committed a crime, you are innocent. If you are innocent you have your rights.

[–]Dantedamean 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

In fairness he also said there needs to be a system for allowing people to appeal being on it. Not that it justifies the support but at least it's not Hillarys support of just creating an arbitrary list.

[–]ThrowawayGunnitAcct 44ポイント45ポイント  (25子コメント)

Seriously WTF. Stop and frisk; no fly no buy. He's just as much as of a fascist as Hillary.

[–]Junkbot 15ポイント16ポイント  (16子コメント)

Lesser of two evils... Or an unknown evil compared to a definite one.

[–]neuhmz 16ポイント17ポイント  (6子コメント)

God, I wish you were wrong but the only thing that will save this election is if the debate stage collapses.

[–]J_Schafe13 11ポイント12ポイント  (2子コメント)

Maybe they'll both catch Hillary's pneumonia.

[–]rape-ape 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's really hard to catch Parkinson's, I mean Michael j Fox's wife hasn't gotten it and he's been shaking her down for years.

[–]travisjd2012 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Or she'll catch his sniffles

[–]dieselnut 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I actually hope that Hilary collapses. That is way more probable and would put the final nail in her fucking coffin.

[–]SeniorScore 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

unfortunately I think there's a stock of shit leaders somewhere in the back room with... whoever is looking over all this shit show waiting to throw a new one in

[–]darlantan -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I keep saying that we just need to trade Alaska to Russia for a well-timed accidental thousand-pound "Do-over" dropped on the next event where Trump, Clinton, and their VP picks show up.

[–]Rtreesaccount420 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

Gary........fucking........ Johnson.

Vote for both sanity and Gun rights.

[–]Sanotsuto 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

His VP Bill Weld thinks that "assault weapons" are "weapons of mass destruction". I feel really let down this year.

[–]nosnoopsnoo1 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

Sounds to me like two evil people, not sure which ones the "lesser" when you value the entire Bill of Rights.

Hillary:

We all know her well in here, no need to waste time about how much she sucks.

Trump:

anti 1st (loosen Libel and Slander laws to sue journalists)

anti 2nd (no fly no buy)

anti 4th (stop and frisk)

anti 5th (try american citizens in military tribunals)

anti 6th (try american citizens in military tribunals)

I'm waiting on Trump to OK putting troops in my home any day now at this rate.

[–]RichGunzUSA 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

anti 4th (stop and frisk)

Say what you want about stop and frisk but it greatly reduced NYC's crime rate when Giuliani implemented it.

[–]nosnoopsnoo1 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

I will not say it didn't lower crime. I agree with Trump "it worked" from a crime aspect, but taking away rights is wrong. You know what else would lower crime? Take away everyones rights(all of them), but that is fucked up! That is not how this country works - I don't care if it lowers crime, everyone is innocent until proven guilty and thats the end of the argument for me.

[–]RichGunzUSA 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

See stop and frisk was a tricky topic and to this date im still questioning it. While I do agree it seems unconstitutional to be forced to get searched without justifiable cause and having that evidence used against you, it was not as racially motivated as some make it out to be. Yes stop and frisk targeted mostly black youth, but that was because statistically they were more likely to cause crime. They arent gonna stop and frisk a black man in a suit going to a business meeting. Theyre gonna stop the black kid with a "Fuck the Police" shirt and a backwards hat. The fact that they only stopped people who appear suspicious (not because of skin color but the way they present themselves) meant that while the legality is questionable, the results were effective. The reason it worked was because since criminals did not know when or where they could be stopped and searched by police, they were less likely to carry weapons and contraband with them, thus reducing the flow of drugs and violence.

[–]nosnoopsnoo1 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't think I get your point, are you saying its OK to deprive rights based off hunches because it lowers crime? I agree it "works", but I can't agree it's "right". The potential for abuse is very problematic and that ignores that it's just fucked up to do.

[–]RichGunzUSA 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I never said its ok, I just said it did achieve what it was meant to do. It was ruled unconstitutional for good reason, however it did lower crime. My dad lived in NYC during Mayor Giuliani and my dad always said he was NYCs best mayor. His tough on crime attitude like stop and frisk and his crackdown on jaywalking made NYC a much safer place to live.

[–]0x00000042 11ポイント12ポイント  (6子コメント)

Surprised?

[–]J_Schafe13 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

Nope. He's been anti-2nd Amendment his whole life.

[–]PMmeabouturday 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

" I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record."

  • Donald Trump

[–]J_Schafe13 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's pathetic that Trump is dumb enough to think that the average citizen can go buy something that doesn't exist. Or that he's dumb enough to think that we can go built automatic rifles whenever we want to.

[–]dieselnut 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

We can, but we may not :)

Also, assault weapons actually do exist, if you follow the definition. But I get your point.

[–]Morgothic 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Assault rifle is a defined class of firearm. Assault weapon is a term made up by politicians so they can ban rifles based on aesthetic characteristics that have no bearing on the function of the firearm. The definition is different in every jurisdiction with an assault weapons ban and non-existent in jurisdictions without one.

[–]0x00000042 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Precisely.

[–]pornographicCDs[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I was actually warming up to him (would've voted for him if he reversed a little on trade).

But this kind of dampens all that progress.

[–]SKSMAN 17ポイント18ポイント  (14子コメント)

If this bothers you to the point where you won't vote for him, and you're an NRA member, you might as well cancel your membership too. They've been for the same exact thing since the Orlando attack.

[–]darlantan 10ポイント11ポイント  (7子コメント)

Important distinction is that the NRA wants due process to get on the list in the first place, as well as a method to be taken off of it.

Not too many people have a problem with that.

Trump seems to be saying that a removal option is "good enough", which is total bullshit.

I'm not a NRA fan, but it's looking like we need them more than ever, and I'm wondering if shit isn't getting so bad that us "liberal" gun owners are going to cause a bit of a membership shift that will resolve some of their problems. I've been looking at joining just because shit is getting so terrible.

[–]nosnoopsnoo1 4ポイント5ポイント  (6子コメント)

Important distinction is that the NRA wants due process to get on the list

How would that even work? Some kind of court case that gives you limited rights because you might be dangerous but haven't actually committed a crime? I just can't see a way that is constitutional, you are either innocent or you are guilty and until you are found guilty you have your rights. It would require heavy changes to the constitution to create a "might be dangerous" class of person that doesn't exist at the moment.

I honestly think that was the NRAs way to back track Trump out of a stupid comment but Trump didn't get the hint he was supposed to add that part to his original comment for the future.

[–]darlantan 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

I imagine that the entity trying to have you added would have to at least show you have well-defined connections to terrorist organizations. Essentially, if the government isn't already building a case against you to haul you into court or has actionable intelligence that you're part of an imminent threat, you probably couldn't get added to the list.

So yeah, that's kind of the point. The NRA's stance is basically saying that a list is fine with due process, but the unsaid implication there is that if there's actually due process the list is all but pointless to begin with, rendering it a non-issue.

[–]mclumber1 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

So if I get added to the list on accident, I should have to spend time and money to get off of it?

What a weird world in which we live, were the party that stood for gun rights just a year ago, no longer actually stands for them.

[–]darlantan 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

It would be rather hard to get added "on accident" if addition required due process. I mean, unless you're regularly going to the bar with known ISIS members and hanging out at their place discussing the best prices for ammonium nitrate.

Again, this list should basically only contain people who are already facing bigger legal issues, but the case is still being built. Much how you can't have your house searched, but a warrant can be issued if there is enough evidence. Same idea -- if you couldn't get a warrant, you couldn't put someone on this list.

[–]mclumber1 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

So by using this list to deny them their civil rights, you are tipping them off to the fact that they are being investigated. How will the government be able to build a case when Ahmed starts destroying the evidence in his apartment after he's tipped off by the gun transaction denial?

[–]darlantan 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You mean just like a warrant tips people off that they're being investigated?

If there's enough proof to add them to the list in the first place, there's enough that a case is being assembled -- or enough threat that the risk of tipping them off vs. having them fly / buy a gun is worth it. Presumably an arrest would happen shortly thereafter. Most people won't even know they're on the list because they won't be trying to fly or buy a gun before they get picked up for whatever got them on the list to begin with.

There's not a whole lot of people that could pass the "due process" bar that are going to be hanging around for years before charges are laid. That's kind of the point in pushing for due process, it stops the bullshit additions without any real justification that we're seeing now.

[–]Zumbert 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You would think that but we have had SENATORS end up on the no fly list by mistake. There are also more than a few stories of vets being mistakenly placed on it.

[–]0ttervonBismarck 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Do gun owners even like the NRA? Aren't there much better gun rights advocacy organizations?

[–]Trot1217 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

The NRA or it's affiliates won't see a dime from me.

[–]backinnam92 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

not until they start fighting for the hughes amendment to be repealed will I sign up

[–]thefatshoe 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So not until they start a losing fight will you contribute?

[–]rivalarrival 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Done and done.

[–]Igardub 8ポイント9ポイント  (3子コメント)

He said what the NRA said, if there is a good process to put people on there and if you remove people who shouldn't be on there then no fly no buy should be in affect. I agree with that, I don't want some crazy terrorist getting a gun. Until we solve the problem of innocent people on there we should think of something else though.

[–]JeremyHall 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

They can just get a pressure cooker. The entire idea that laws prevent determined criminals is ludicrous.

[–]nosnoopsnoo1 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't want some crazy terrorist getting a gun.

You aren't a terrorist until you commit a crime, you can't be denied rights until you are tried for that crime. Tell me how a list of non-criminals that are not allowed their rights fits in to this process?

I get what you are saying, but this idea of preemptive crime lists fails every time you try it - it is always abused.

You could create a list of "poor people" and deny them rights, that would also work and lower crime but it is wrong to do. You are innocent until proven guilty.

[–]nosnoopsnoo1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

if there is a good process to put people on there and if you remove people who shouldn't be on there then no fly no buy should be in affect.

You are adding words to his comment. He did not say anything about how people would get put on the list. I asked this elsewhere, what would the process be exactly and how would it not be depriving rights from people who are innocent?

Did they commit a crime yet?

Answer is no? -> they are innocent and have all their rights.

Answer is yes? - They are a criminal and can not buy a firearm.

Edit: A "watch list" of people found guilty of a crime is wasted resources we have a list of people who committed crimes already - "watch list" by its own name means were watching them because they MIGHT commit a crime - but that means their innocent and have their rights.

How would such a list that denies rights from people who have not committed crimes work? There is nothing in the constitution about this middle ground of maybe dangerous people who should have limited rights - it's pretty specific about being innocent until PROVEN guilty. Now we can talk about if criminals should be able to get their rights back but thats another topic, were talking about taking rights from someone who is not yet guilty of a crime and thats fucked up.

[–]ZeroSumHappiness 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hit him on social media. Remind him that due process comes first and requires open court.

[–]forzion_no_mouse 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

He said he supported having a process in the next sentence.

[–]Vayate 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

He's always supported it and it shouldn't be a surprise. I'll take it over Hillary's comments about Heller being wrongly decided.

[–]Cuisinart_Killa 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

If the do not fly were an effective tool?

Hahaha there's children on it by accident.

[–]Creatio_ex_Nihilo 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I expect the NRA to make a joint statement with him "clarifying" this position.

[–]Rtreesaccount420 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

No shit.. I remember when the NRA was all about being no-partisan. They told people to vote for the best candidate for RKBA..

This year it is CLEARLY Gary Johnson. Did they mention that? Nope. Just a big old picture of Hillary's ugly mug on the cover to scare people to the Republicans who they have been bought by.

Fucking hell.

[–]lookatmycoolusername 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

The comment on no fly list starts at 1:26 in this clip in case some of you missed it. https://youtu.be/zdcrlgaRz_0

[–]Bigred2989 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'm done caring about a candidates stance on guns, because it's becoming a nonfactor due to how shitty both are about it. I'm moving on to the shit that's more important and I'll deal with the fallout after the election. I just want this shit show to be over with so we can get something hopefully better in 2020. Let's focus on Congress and state legislators, the latter is where the battles have been won.

[–]darlantan 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I might agree with you, but they're still miles apart. Trump is merely terrible, whereas Clinton is basically the poster child of everything anti-gun.

We'd stand a chance of getting the no fly / no buy thing fixed in several years. Another AWB is unlikely to have a sunset clause, and stands basically zero chance of being rolled back.

[–]TWFH 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

#letgarydebate

[–]cheeeeeese 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

no one cares what you think

[–]Mssnjr 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not voting for Trump, I'm voting for that empty seat in the supreme court, it could be a loooooong few decades suffering with whatever Hillary would appoint

[–]WonderWheeler 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Trump doesn't care, he doesn't look like he's middle eastern. He's a fat balding white rich guy. He's got money and can buy whatever he wants on credit. Guns, whatever.

[–]Taylor814 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm really starting to believe that most of you people weren't alive during the Clinton administration.

You cannot be a second amendment supporter and vote for anyone other than Donald Trump. The last time that gun owners split the vote and allowed a 3rd Party to siphon off votes and coronate a Clinton, the result was NICS and the Assault Weapons Ban.

We should have these debates and by all means, push back on Trump's policies.

But a vote for Gary Johnson is no different than a vote for Ross Perot... It is a vote to allow an Assault Weapons Ban to become a reality.

[–]sosota 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Then you shouldn't have supported a Democrat for the Republican Nomination. Remember Trump historically supports AWBs, if you believe anything he says right now then I have a bridge for sale.

I'll vote Johnson. shit I might actually vote for a muppet if I could

[–]Taylor814 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

My father has been anti-gun for most of his life. His best friend was killed in a hunting accident. After two years of debating him and presenting him with facts, he has finally come around.

This is essentially what happened with Donald Trump and his son, Don Jr.

Do you argue with anti gunners? Is it just to hear yourself talk because of you are so convinced that people cannot change on the issue, I can't see any other reason why you'd engage anti gunners in discussion...

[–]pornographicCDs[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

You don't own my vote, and neither do the democrats. My vote for Gary is for Gary alone.

I tell trump supporters like you if you're really going to make that argument, I'll just go ahead and not waste my vote and vote for the corrupt liar of the egotistical dumbass. (and vice versa for clinton supporters).

[–]Taylor814 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't own your vote, and apparently the second amendment doesn't either.

You're free to vote for Gary Johnson. Just do everyone a favor and stop with the charade that you care about the 2nd Amendment.

[–]Taylor814 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

There is nothing wrong with a Terry stop and Trump's position is a verbatim copy of what the NRA is pushing for, a due process-centric policy.

[–]thefatshoe -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you are on the no fly list you should not be in this country. You should be sent to some middle eastern shit hole