Gun Control

'No Fly, No Buy' Means No Freedom

If the government can take away our natural rights to travel and self-defense, can other fundamental rights be far behind?


Nicole Albee/Us Government Work/ZUMA Press/Newscom

The people in the government who want to control our personal choices are the enemies of freedom. And the enemies of freedom can be very clever and seductive. Last week, these folks, manifesting their lust to keep us dependent upon the government by rejecting the natural right to self-defense, coined a clever phrase: "No fly, no buy." It sounds rational, yet it rejects core American values.

The phrase was pounded home to average Americans during a one-sided 15-hour televised marathon on the floor of the Senate orchestrated by the gun control crowd. The essence of the argument was that stricter laws regarding gun sales would have prevented the massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida. In gun control advocates' dream world, the self-loathing Islamic State-inspired killer, willing to take 49 innocent lives, would somehow have been unwilling to violate restrictive gun purchase laws; and his obedience to those laws would have saved lives.

Their argument is naive and absurd. A person willing to commit mass murder is surely willing to break the law to acquire the means to commit the murders. So blinded were these senators in their misguided utterances about self-defense that they forgot about the Constitution.

The legislation they offered would have required that people whose names the feds put on a terror watchlist or a no-fly list (these are often done simultaneously) would not be legally able to purchase a gun. The senators summarized this idea dozens of times as "no fly, no buy."

Though this phrase, which was quickly picked up by many of my colleagues in the media, has an easy and simplistic ring to it, it reveals a troubling ideology that profoundly rejects core American values.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights and when the inalienability of our rights was codified in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the United States was wedded to the Judeo-Christian principle that our rights stem from our humanity. This was expressly recognized recently by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which it held that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental personal right, not a gift of the government to a group.

A fundamental personal right is the natural ability of individuals to make meaningful choices without a government permission slip. May the government ever interfere with fundamental rights? The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that it can only do so if it can demonstrate a compelling governmental interest—served by the least restrictive means, and only after due process.

Stated differently, if the government wants to silence your speech or deny you the right to self-defense, it must meet a very high burden in a public courtroom. It must demonstrate to a judge and jury that its need to silence or disarm you is compelling, and its goals may not be attained by any lesser means. Americans need not demonstrate a compelling need to speak or bear arms; the government must demonstrate a compelling need to prevent us from doing so.

That is what lawyers call black letter law—meaning it is well-established, followed throughout the land and rarely challenged. Until now.

Earlier this week in the Senate, the gun control crowd sought to give nameless and faceless federal bureaucrats the ability to strip Americans of their right to keep and bear arms by putting their names on a terror watchlist/no-fly list and prohibiting those on the list from buying guns. Yet none of these senators could state the criteria for putting a name on that list, and none could identify the people who prepare or keep the list.

That's because these are well-guarded government secrets—secrets that have no place in American life.

If a government bureaucrat can put your name on a secret list on the bureaucrat's own whim or even using secret standards and, as a result, you have lost a fundamental liberty, then the feds have transformed a natural right into a governmental gift. If the feds can create a no-fly list in secret and "no fly" comes to mean "no buy," then we have no rights but what the government will permit us to do.

As if to underscore his ignorance of American values, one of the senators even stated that due process is killing us. He must have forgotten his oath to uphold the Constitution, which guarantees that the government may not take life, liberty, or property without due process.

Due process—the absolute right to know the law and to force the government to prove a violation of it to a jury before it can take life, liberty or property—is the essence of the rights of free people. It is utterly scandalous—and probably disqualifying from office—that a senator could bemoan its existence.

Can you see how low we have sunk? The gun control crowd doesn't care about personal liberty in a free society; it just cares about control. It wants us all to be pliant and reliant on a government that it controls; never mind that it is utterly incapable of protecting us from crazies who will resort to mass death for their own deranged purposes.

If the government secretly can put an American's name on a secret list and, as a result, his liberty is lost, then there are no freedoms—just government-granted privileges. And if it can do this to the natural rights to travel and self-defense, can other fundamental rights be far behind?


NEXT: Drug War Ringer Pushes Johnson to Explain Reality of Prohibition at Town Hall

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There’s a bloody shirt to wave, and the dimwits who would presume to run our lives are happy to do so in the hopes of getting elected once more.
    Hey, DiFi, go back to the Presidio Wall if your husband will tolerate your presence. You should have retired many years ago.

    1. Look at that face. She died years ago and is kept animate by lust for power. To retire would be beyond the comprehension of whatever rotting gray matter is left inside her mostly hollow cranial cavity.

    2. We should probably go and invade Vietnam– like you.

      1. Pay your fucking mortgage you fucking parasite.

        1. Hey man… No fly, no buy…

          No peach, no speech!

          If Guv Almighty says that you are not a “Peach” in the Sacred Eyes of Guv Almighty, then, no free speech fer YE!

          Will the Lib-Tards (American Socialists?!) buy into that one as well?

    3. The post-shooting political process is always so predictable. The screeching power grabbers have figured out that they can exploit the tragedy to the maximum extent possible because those who support maintaining enumerated limits on power are restrained by tact from telling cold truth behind the hysteria: it’s just not that big of a deal.

      Statistically, I have a better chance of making the Pro-Bowl this year than I do of being a victim of a “mass shooting.”

    4. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $12000 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too.
      You can check it out here.._________

    5. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
      This is what I do.______

  2. I’d like to assault her with my weapon, and by weapon I mean penis.

    1. And by assault I mean gently make sweet, dirty, passionate consensual love.

      1. That’s it! You’re going on the ‘List’!

        1. He’s already on that one.

  3. I would think that if the law passed, it would immediately open up the opportunity to a constitutional challenge which would put “secret lists” themselves in a position to 1) disclose their own basis for what merits inclusion, and 2) force the govt to provide a legal basis to get oneself removed from said list.

    IOW, while i think its a shitty law being proposed, and one with terrible ramifications – it may be the seed of its own undoing.

    1. Optimism is unbecoming.

    2. You’re really overestimating the court system here. These are are the same people that think “What’s that Lassie? Timmy has shoved cocaine up his ass?” Counts as probable cause.

      1. Normally I’d agree. But this law cuts the Judiciary out of the game.
        Judges get all pissy when their not getting their cut of the vig.

    3. Or another 4-4 tie.

    4. I agree with GILMORE?? the last time these lists were challenged the decision was that they were constitutional because you can take a train or bus instead of flying, so you weren’t losing a right but a privilege. Now they’re using them to deny an enumerated right.

  4. Wait – what’s the difference between natural and fundamental rights? Sorry I keep forgetting. Anyway, yes it is a violation of due process or something. But the real purpose of 2A is to protect us from a deranged government. And government has clearly crossed the line. So, it’s our job to nudge it back into its proper place.

  5. “never mind that it is utterly incapable of protecting us from crazies who will resort to mass death for their own deranged purposes.”

    Wouldn’t one method for protecting us from crazies who will resort to mass death for there own deranged purposes be to deny them the ability to buy an assault weapon?

    1. If a prosecutor can “indict a ham sandwich” as they so frequently claim yet can’t even charge people on the no fly list with a crime then there is clearly no claim that these people should be their rights.

    2. The law can do that?? Holy shit, that’s a revolutionary idea! Man, we should have started denying people the ability to buy booze back in the 1920, or to buy weed, cocaine, and heroin today, by just writing some words on a piece of paper. Why didn’t anyone think of this sooner???

      1. Because the words on the piece of paper said they couldn’t. They had to first change those words.

    3. Wouldn’t one method of protecting us from the deleterious affects of narcotics be to deny people the ability to buy them?

      Wouldn’t one method of protecting the life of the unborn be to deny people the ability to buy an abortion?

      Wouldn’t one method of protecting people from scammers and unsafe accommodation be to deny them the ability to buy them?

      How well has that worked out.

      1. Wouldn’t one method of protecting us from the deleterious affects of destructive political systems be to deny socialists the ability to speak?

        1. Why, that sounds like just common sense speech control to me!

    4. Let’s ban planes.

      1. But they’re cheaper than belt sanders, and don’t use electricity!

    5. Define crazies, how long can they not purchase a gun? Have they committed a crime?

      I know that in socialism rights aren’t exactly a high priority.

    6. The government is incapable of doing that. Didn’t you read the phrase that you copied/pasted?

    7. And I wonder–not that I expect you to give a coherent answer–have you thought about how this could turn around and bite you in the ass in the future, if a Republican gets into the White House?

    8. “Wouldn’t one method for protecting us from crazies who will resort to mass death for there own deranged purposes be to deny them the ability to buy an assault weapon?”

      Like the “assault weapon” OJ or Ted Kennedy used? Or any of the many legal choices like an exploding propane canister, compressed air nailer, baseball bat, hammer, lighter & hairspray…?
      Come on, doofus, you know this stuff. How would you deny unidentified crazies this capability?

      1. A couple molotov cocktails could have down a lot of damage in a crowded night club.

    9. Government has proven time and again that they are not capable of defending every citizen from harm. The courts have ruled that they have no legal responsibility to do so. They respond to that by attempting to deny us the means to protect ourselves.

      Our natural right is to be able to protect our own life, liberty and property. To those on the left, they grant us a right to have a government employee protect our life, liberty and property, except it’s not really a right, it’s when they can get to it.

    10. Because criminals always follow laws, and always purchase their equipment from approved venues.

    11. Certainly, if there were some way the government could accomplish it. Which would be execute people before they commit the crime. You might have missed the little thought experiment where they asked you to imagine how awestruck and impotent a deranged terrorist would have to be to violate the law by buying an illegal weapon before they violate the law by going on a murderous rampage?? Why would a guy who plans to kill a bunch of random people give a shit if it’s against the law to possess the gun he uses to execute said rampage? Is that a difficult concept to grasp? And before you say it, banning things doesn’t make them unavailable – see the war on drugs. Banning them might make them more expensive, but it won’t get rid of them. Banning guns to stop terrorists will work just as well as prohibition did at eliminating people’s desire for a beer.

    12. I sure wish that Lenin, and Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung, and Pol Pot, and Adolf Hitler, Che Guevara, and Fidel, and Kim Ill Dung-Breath, and all their buddies… Note that they were all “…crazies who will resort to mass death for there own deranged purposes…”… ***AND*** that they were all “socialists”… I wish THEY had been deprived of THEIR assault weapons!

      Ya know WHO is going to be the ONLY ones to stand in their power-hungry ways? Liberty-loving would-be SLAVES of theirs, who will NOT stand for being their slaves! “Water the trees of Liberty, from time to time”, I say!

  6. It will be awesome to see the faces of gun grabbers when, if they get their way with these laws, they realize the 2A will protect our 2A (and other) rights.

    Sweet irony.

    1. How did it turn out for those who choose to defend their own rights at Waco?

      1. They chose the wrong approach. Being in Texas, they should have learned the lessons of the Alamo.

      2. Oklahoma City

  7. OT

    I have some spare parts from my latest computer build – giving them away if *you have a use for them* (for you or someone you know, not for resale).

    Send me a message.

    1. ASUS Maximum V Gene Motherboard – may not work. May work. I dunno, bought it, had it for a few months, stopped working so I replaced it. Haven’t looked at it since.

    2. Intel i7 *3770K* CPU

    3. 16 GB Corsair ‘Vengeance’ DDR3 RAM, 2400 MHz

    Reimbursement for shipping would be appreciated but NOT NECESSARY.

    Send me an email Agammamon at gmail – might be a day or two before I get back to you.

    1. How many sticks form that 16gb of memory?

        1. I have to double check on whether or not my current rig will take that (I forget how old the guts are at the moment)

  8. “It sounds rational…”

    No. It doesnt. Being arbitrarily put on a secret list to be denied your inalienable rights is the worst kind of tyranny that there is.

  9. I think the right answer to those advocating gun control is to start asking which of their rights they’re willing to give up in exchange. We all know that politics is all about compromise and giving something to get something. So, if gun control is so important, what rights are the gun control advocates willing to forego? Perhaps we could pass an amendment revoking the Second and banning abortion. Or what about an amendment trading a revocation of the Second for a repeal of Lawrence v. Texas? We all know that their goals here are really important and they’re not just willing to infringe on the rights of people they don’t particularly care for to do things they don’t particularly enjoy. So, how many of them are going to step up to the plate and give up their liberties.

    * Obviously, I don’t want anyone of either side to give up their freedom. I just think it would be delightful to rip off their sanctimonious masks.

    1. They would be more than willing to trade the 1st or the 2nd, if you’re interested.

      1. The stipulation is that it would only be their own rights that are forfeit.

        1. I’m sure they’d still trade their 1st amendment rights for your 2nd.

          1. Would the corporate assault media trade any of their power? Their power comes from their rights and restrictive licensing that keeps out competitors. I don’t think the corporate assault media would trade their rights. To do so they’d also be trading their power, which they’d never do.

    2. Your examples are not equivalents.

      Giving up a strictly enumerated protection of a universal right is not the same as losing a penumbral decision by an activist court.

    3. Also, what about all the pro-2nd gays who in your second example lose both their right to self defense and their protection from the “no sodomy” rule?

      This proposal was not well thought out and presumes a strictly binary set of political viewpoints.

      1. Also, what about all the pro-2nd gays who in your second example lose both their right to self defense and their protection from the “no sodomy” rule?

        Their stated “price” for revoking the second would be infinite. It’s the question itself that is revealing. As I said, I’d oppose either revocation of freedom. I think it’s useful for the debate (and increasingly a lot of debates) to demand people name a price they’re willing to pay to infringe on the rights of others.

      2. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t an actual proposal; it was just a thought experiment to show how hypocritical the typical leftist can be.

    4. Alright, we’ll get rid of the right to keep and bear arms, and also the right of collective bargaining. Deal?

      1. How about I give up my 2nd amendment rights – as they keep trying to define them, ie. I no longer have the right to possess a Brown Bess musket when mustering with my local organized militia. Since all this other stuff doesn’t meet those criteria, well, I’ll just be keeping those.

    5. Gun control advocates have a stock answer to this: “other rights don’t kill people.”

      Done. End of argument. Fold their arms and make a smug little smile face.

      It’s really not worth engaging these people.

      1. “Other rights don’t kill people”

        My response would be: Tell that to the people who voted for Andrew Jackson and his Trail of Tears. Or the people who voted for Woodrow Wilson so he could keep us out of WW1. Or the people who kept voting for FDR until he died and Truman became President. Or the people who voted for Kennedy and :BJ so we’d be more involved in Vietnam.

        Or tell that to all the people who were never born because of the right to abortion.

      2. I tell those people to do a search on copycat killings and media coverage. I also suggest they do a search on “clear and present danger”. I point out that when the 1st Amendment was ratified, there were no electronic media or machine powered printing presses (assault presses), only un-amplified sound and hand-powered presses. Then I ask them how they like them apples.

  10. I’m for making some more list of people who lose a Constitutional right.

    Protest a war? – no 3rd Amendment for you – we move an infantry squad into their house without compensation.

    Use the wrong hashtag? – no 1st Amendment for you – all you social media is suspended.

    1. That would sink a lot of infantry into occupying houses during a war. That might be a strain on resources better employed elsewhere.

      1. Maybe just the training cadre doing urban warfare drills.

      2. Plus put a group of infantrymen in a structure and you are guaranteed to have it completely covered in cartoon dicks in 3.2 seconds, it is known.

  11. Hmm. It occurs to me that the Founding Fathers “could not have imagined” Scientology, Wicca, or any number of “religions” that the 1A supposedly protects.

    1. Or even more mainstream Christian(ist) sects like 7th Day Adventism or Mormonism, which didn’t exist yet at the time of the founding.

      1. Exactly. These things are like “assault weapons” and should be banned.

    2. Though stuff like this did. Many of the founders were deists too.

      It’s almost like the French Revolution was the evil after image of the American Revolution – what we got right they got wrong. But never fear, their descendants are on the job, sitting on the floor of the House.

      1. You can’t equate the American Revolution and the French revolution. The French revolution was more of a civil war while ours was fighting for a right to be our own country.

    3. I always found it particularly ridiculous for anti-2A people to say that the founders “couldn’t have conceived” the weapons that would exist today. They had all seen some incredible advances in weaponry during their lifetimes. In addition, a few of them were men of science with numerous inventions to their names. But somehow, the idea that “weapons of the future will be more effective than the weapons of today” was utterly incomprehensible to them?

  12. What is Hillary’s position on this? Tell me again about how she is qualified to be president.

    1. Tell me again about how she is qualified to be president

      She is a natural born citizen of at least 35 years of age who has lived at least the past 14 years within the united states. So, yes, she meets the minimum qualifications set out for the presidency in the constitution.

      Whether anyone should vote for her is a different matter.

    2. Hillary’s position is that she can’t wait to get her hands on the list, to start adding names.

  13. Maybe the gun rights proponents could come up with a better way to describe what the gun control crowd was advocating.

    “No flights, no rights.”

    1. I’d like to see the Republicans respond with a bill denying voting rights to people on the secret government list.

      1. Do we really want terrorists to vote?

        1. If you’re not economically literate enough to understand that Bernie’s plans would destroy the budget and the US economy, you’re too dangerous to vote.

  14. “We believe that if you are too dangerous to fly on an airplane you are too dangerous to have children.”

    “We believe that if you are too dangerous to fly on an airplane you are too dangerous to use a public restroom.”


  15. Money quote:

    If a government bureaucrat can put your name on a secret list on the bureaucrat’s own whim or even using secret standards and, as a result, you have lost a fundamental liberty, then the feds have transformed a natural right into a governmental gift. If the feds can create a no-fly list in secret and “no fly” comes to mean “no buy,” then we have no rights but what the government will permit us to do.

  16. it appears there are at least three arguments about the rights being destroyed on huffington post today. don’t have time to read today to confirm their legitamacy

  17. So America’s leftists are in favor of the secret police being able to put people on a list, which means those people lose their freedoms. Remember when liberals used to be against stuff like that?

    And as much as people sneer at slippery slope arguments, this is exactly what we’re seeing here. One dumb law is passed, and then it’s used as justification for other dumb laws. “Well, if these people are too dangerous to be allowed to fly, why would you allow them to buy a gun?” The problem is the exact same logic could be used to justify
    -letting them within 10 miles of a nuclear plant, chemical factory, military base, school, or public gathering
    -letting them move around the country at all
    -letting them communicate without being monitored
    -letting them meet with more than two other people at once

    1. You’re confusing the word “liberals” with the word “communists”.

    2. If they’re too dangerous to be allowed to fly, we can’t let them be on the internet or hand out leaflets, because they might radicalize other people.

  18. Next time someone tells me that “slippery slope” argumentation is fallacious, I’m going to push them down a slippery slope.

    1. The way I’ve always seen it, the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy but politics is not exactly an exercise in logic. It sorta reminds me of Mr. Spock being puzzled when big furry primitive giants with massive spears didn’t respond “logically” to his staged demonstration of technical superiority; rather, they got pissed and started throwing massive spears.

      1. In this case the “slippery slope” argument is in no way fallacious, even though many gun control supporters don’t realize it.

        This is because most gun control supporters don’t understand/have no interest in guns. They just know that every time a mass shooting, or really anything sad involving a gun, happens they feel sad and powerless and want someone powerful to do something.

        The lack of interest in guns and gun issues leads to a lack of awareness of what has already been done, and why it hasn’t worked. They just know it hasn’t worked, and so they believe we need “more.” Like the Democrats sitting in the House right now, they don’t know “of what,” they just know we need “more.”

        So, those who are opposed to gun control see as plain as day that every time something like Orlando happens, and it will happen again, the gun control people will want “more.” It still won’t work, and the next time they’ll want “more.” Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.

  19. I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 100usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Learn More From This Site..

    Go to the web============>

  20. Okay, so the argument is that weapon ownership is a fundamental right, without any restrictions or regulations.

    There are a few reasons this argument does not work. I will only be addressing one here.

    Let’s say that I commit a crime while I have a weapon on my person. The police find me running from the scene of the crime. They assume that I have committed the crime. They do not yet have any evidence other than that I’m fleeing the scene. So, they remove the weapon from me and take me into custody.

    They have restricted my freedom without due process.

    Following this logic, a police officer should not be able to remove a weapon from a person ever.

    Until that person is “demonstrated by a judge and jury” to be guilty of a crime, my “God-given” freedom is being impinged upon.

    Disarming a suspect of a crime is government tyranny.

    Until someone is actually found guilty of a crime, they should be allowed to carry whatever weapon they choose.



    1. They have restricted my freedom without due process.

      Incorrect. Due process includes rules governing when police may arrest and detain a citizen. Granted, they don’t always follow the rules. But the rules do exist.

      Further, they can’t just keep you in custody however long they like. They are obliged to make their case to the courts.

      None of this applies with “watch lists”. So your analogy massively fails.

      1. I’m not arguing for watch lists. I’m arguing against the logic in the article.

        This is very clear:

        1. Either you have the freedom to choose to arm yourself.

        2. Or you have no freedom and are under government tyranny if you are disarmed.

        The ONLY exception to these categories is IF you are found guilty by a judge and jury.

      2. To quote the article:

        “May the government ever interfere with fundamental rights? The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that it can ONLY do so if it can demonstrate a compelling governmental interest?served by the least restrictive means, and ONLY AFTER due process.

        “Stated differently, if the government wants to silence your speech or deny you the right to self-defense, it MUST MEET A VERY HIGH BURDEN IN A PUBLIC COURTROOM. It must demonstrate to a judge and jury that its need to silence or disarm you is compelling, and its goals may not be attained by ANY LESSER MEANS. Americans need not demonstrate a compelling need to speak or bear arms; the government must demonstrate a compelling need to prevent us from doing so.”

        A similar analogy against this logic could be made about “free speech.” Clearly, there are some limitations upon free speech. But, based on this simple logic, the ONLY way the government can silence speech is AFTER the same process has been completed.

        By ANY LESSER MEANS (suspicion, arrest, incarceration, etc.) is tyranny.

        1. To stop someone requires reasonable suspicion, to arrest requires probable cause, if no charges are brought, the person must be released. To violate this IS tyranny. If the government has reasonable suspicion, let them investigate; if there is probable cause, they can arrest, and if there is enough evidence to bring charges, charges will be filed. But in the absence of some proof beyond reasonable doubt, one’s rights cannot be denied. It is the government’s burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person is a threat.

    2. Due process, how does it work?

      The agents of the government are authorized to disarm you and imprison you for a short time if they have probable cause. But they have to release you and return your property if they don’t have enough evidence for an indictment.

      1. That entire process is not specified in the article. The clearly stated antithesis stands: either absolute freedom or absolute government tyranny.

        1. The clear implication from this article is that from the time your weapon is removed from you until you are found guilty of a crime, the government has removed your freedom and is being tyrannical.

    3. Okay, so the argument is that weapon ownership is a fundamental right, without any restrictions or regulations.

      False premise.

      1. Where are the specific exceptions stated in this article to this statement?

      2. Not false, true. That is, the only limit, restriction, or regulation that can be put on it is in regard to your violation of someone else’s rights. If you aren’t violating someone else, then you have the absolute right to any potential weapon. The restrictions are imposed on your actions using a weapon, not your right to have one for self defense.
        Anyone who threatens the public has violated the rights of the public, and can and should be disarmed until they’ve no longer a threat to society, but you don’t disarm people who are simply owning a weapon without threatening the rights of others.

  21. Step 1: Make a list of people who are too dangerous to travel or buy guns.
    Step 2: Hillary gets to add more names to the list when she is elected.

  22. “the Judeo-Christian principle that our rights stem from our humanity.”

    Uuuuhhhh, no, the Judeo-Christian view is that those rights stem from a diety. It is a classic liberal position that rights exist because of existence.

  23. For a much more reasonable response to this, without the flawed logic, see Glenn Greenwald’s “Democrats’ War on Due Process and Terrorist Fearmongering Long Predate Orlando.”

  24. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,


  25. Via the war on drugs, FDA, and Obamacare, we’ve already lost our natural right to control our own body.

  26. The government does everything bass-ackwards. For example, they tax what they want to encourage (income), and subsidize what they want to discourage (unemployment), so it should be no surprise that they want to punish the law-abiding.
    It should be called “Abide, No Sale” because the law abiding are barred from selling to people on the list. That’s what they like, because they know the law breakers won’t follow the law, so they have to deprive law-abiding sellers from selling.
    What they forget is that prohibition doesn’t work, ever, 100%. People willing to break the law can become sellers as well as buyers (some even work for the CIA or FBI selling drugs or guns). Murder has been prohibited for a long time, subject to the highest penalties, and as a crime, it has nearly 100% public support, but it still happens. People need to be able to defend themselves against aggressors, because laws are not magic solutions to the problem. The bottom line is that this problem can’t be solved by punishing and depriving the law abiding for the actions of those who aren’t.
    Illegal arms dealers are also less likely to come forward with information than those who are operating legally.

    1. Wooo-Hoo, some plain truth!! Yeah!

      If what you said was NOT true… If, at the instance that a new law were passed, we’d all instantly obey… Then all we’d need would be ONE Sacred Law… “Everyone must Love Everyone”… No more hate, starvation, greed, hunger, or war would be seen, anywhere… Subtext, “Violators will be shot at dawn… In a LOVING manner”!!!!

      Anyway, lost on 95% of the humans, 80% of the time… SURPRISE!!! Not everyone obeys the laws!!!

      WHO would have thunk of THAT??!?!?!

      1. Hey, we could all live forever – just make it illegal to die and punish it severely enough – the death penalty for dying.

  27. Cudos to the judge, his comments ring true, all to true.

  28. I dream of a day when I no longer have to see pictures of that fucking crypt keeper on websites.

  29. I’ve been saying for years that we only have privileges granted to us by the government, that we don’t have rights. Look at the war on drugs. If an adult does not have the right to decide to use a mind-altering, possibly addictive drug or not, if the government can arrest and imprison him for such use when his behavior has neither harmed nor endangered the rights of others, then the government owns that person’s body and mind. It is not his. (Alcohol, a legal narcotic drug, is the most used and abused drug in the world. It’s mere use also causes the most violence. We have government privilege to use it, but not marijuana.)

    So, that the unconstitutional Congress of the United States would do what Mr. Napolitno has written about does not surprise me in the least. We are becoming a police state, one bit of legislation at a time.

  30. My question is this. If this law is passed, who is to stop them from putting everybody’s name on that list?

  31. You are complaining after the horse has left the barn. Once the “no fly” list was adopted, due process went down the drain. Once the lists is there, adding new prohibitions to it is child’s play.

  32. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ?

  33. before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

    Please click the link below

  34. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.