Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxxxxx | Hacker News Reader

That's strange to me too. People on the terrorist watch list can't fly but they can buy guns. That doesn't really make sense.

View on HN

> People on the terrorist watch list can't fly but they can buy guns.

On the one hand, people who have been found to be a legitimate danger of terrorism by a reasonable process including due process of law arguably shouldn't be able to buy guns. Or fly on commercial airliners.

OTOH, I can also see a reasonable argument to be made that the various terrorist watch lists (including the no-fly list) do not meet the appropriate standard of due process for either or both of those consequences.

I am in total agreement that the watch lists do not meet standards of due process. I was only pointing out the inconsistency of not being able to fly but being able to buy guns.

People get on the no-fly list for "a reasonable suspicion". Basically you can get to the no-fly list for using the wrong search terms on the internet. I'm glad Ben Swann covers these topics, you should check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud9Kfuvdw4Q

Should we be adding more power to a list that anyone can be added to for any reason with no recourse to get removed from it? And should a constitutionally protected right be revoked merely on vague suspicion? Being on a terrorist watchlist is not proof that you're a terrorist or have terrorist sympathies. There's no trial or opportunity for defense.

You have an explicit right to own a gun. You don't have a right to fly. Throw into the fact that anyone can be put on a no-fly list for any reason with no recourse and you have just given the government the opportunity and means to deny ANYONE ownership of a gun.

... good?

Not really... If the federal government can take away the constitutional right for anyone to own a gun, they can and likely will take away every other constitutional right. Soon after an evisceration of the 2nd amendment, people will need to raise their hands, wait for approval, and only when approved step into free speech zones for saying what they believe. Then, if the speech is not in line with the consensus the person will have a lawsuit against them.

All of those things have been proposed this year or are already enacted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com