Then maybe....otherwise she should know that we will not be stripping anyone's constitutional rights without due process. I feel the no fly list as it is, is the antithesis of liberalism and Democratic principals.

so they can 'constitutionally' buy guns?

And this is your interpretation of "liberalism and Democratic principals"?

Are you sure your not on the wrong website?

Im for trying or releasing all political prisoners in Cuba too...same issue, less severe circumstances,

is worse than a totalitarian regimes incarceration of political prisoners?

And you take the position that banning sales of guns to people on the no fly list is just more bad government?

Once again - you are in the wrong place.

There may be justification for it short term but by now should require something more than "we don't want you to fly"....if my civil riguts or liberties are violated or denied I have the absolute right to know the basis for the denial.

Regarding opposition to no fly lists and banning gun sales, libertarian and liberal are not equivalencies.

As liberals, we understand there are limits to our absolute freedom to do as we please (also known as anarchy). We apply reasonable and sensible limits for what is best for the greater good. That's a "we" as in "we the people."

In light of what has happened for decades on airplanes - not just 9/11 - can we not expect reasonable use of intelligence and oversight to at least hinder terrorist acts? Would we not reasonably conclude these same people shouldn't be able to legally buy guns?

This is not the place to argue "libertarian" positions. What your selling, we ain't buying!

Same type of disregard for rights. Liberals as a group do not support arbitrary disregard for civl liberties. Which party has been outspoken opposition to Guantanamo Bay?

Pipoman, myself, and many many others here at DU are not willing to shred the Constitution as you would like. That does not make us bad Democrats; that makes us good Americans, thank you very much.

The US Constitution delineates specific and (ideally) absolute limits upon government power. It says that we all have the right to "keep and bear arms." For "we the people" (as you fancy yourself, yallerdawg) to change that, it would take 2/3 of both houses of COngress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures. Let us know when you get to that...

Regarding the no-fly list (a Bush-era unconstitutional boondoggle which you defend - are you sure YOU are on the right site yallerdawg?), the US Constitution guarantees us all that we shall not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." I would say that travel falls well within the sphere of liberty, and is also protected by the 9th Amendment. Putting people on a government list MUST follow a due process, as mandated by the 14th Amendment ("nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.&quot But when you propose to use this unconstitutional, secret, Bush-era list to deny people arms, you further compound its unconstitutionality by also violating the 2nd Amendment.

And you claim to be a liberal? Shame on you.

-app

there is a process to get oneself corrected. Meanwhile these are identified.

Do you have a link?

Identified by who? Under what criteria?

Things like:

The U.S. government does not reveal whether a particular person is on or not on a watchlist.

Many factors are considered to determine whether to select someone for secondary screening, but for security reasons they cannot be disclosed.

Security procedures and legal concerns mandate that we can neither confirm nor deny any information about you that may be within federal watch lists


Public transportation isn't a right....this is completely different.

But I also figure that it's worth pointing out that we as Americans have more rights than too many acknowledge, as often as possible.

Good to have you as a peer and DU brother, pipoman!



-app