no fly list libs new control ?

[Dr. Bullseye]

Same here, I'll never fly commercially again. Private plane or not at all. I've had several people try to pay for flights and I still won't do it.

Same here. The only place I would ever want to fly is Hawaii for vacation and the urge is not strong enough to get a Real ID or submit to the government for permission.

[Steve Shannon]

Why exactly? Which of those actions indicates they are likely to act in a way that threatens the safety of their flight? By that logic, all violent felons and anyone convicted of trespass on federal property should also be banned from flying and that is damn sure never going to happen.

There are literally 10s of thousands of BLM (and anti-Trump) rioters who violently attacked police and federal law enforcement, and attempted to or succeeded in breaking into federal facilities. Are they on a do not fly list?

Andy

Last question first, those rioters should also be on the do not fly list.

Now to your first question: preventing access to airliners to people who have the potential to commit violence and risk the lives of other people (including law enforcement officers or elected officials) in order to make a political statement is exactly why we have a no fly list. Those involved in the riot have done just exactly that.

I don’t include those who deliberately distanced themselves from the violence and demonstrated peacefully.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[AndyLate]

Last question first, those rioters should also be on the do not fly list.

Now to your first question: preventing access to airliners to people who have the potential to commit violence and risk the lives of other people (including law enforcement officers or elected officials) in order to make a political statement is exactly why we have a no fly list. Those involved in the riot have done just exactly that.

I don’t include those who deliberately distanced themselves from the violence and demonstrated peacefully.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

First, let me make it clear that I disagree with your position regarding the no-fly list only and I also find the capital rioters' actions inexcusable.

No one from the left has been placed on a no-fly list for participating in violent riots, therefore placing rioters from the right on the list is unreasonable. If the multiple thousands do not represent a threat in the FBI's mind, it is cruel and unusual punishment to treat the Trump supporters as such.

Now the idiot who placed the IEDs, whether real or fake needs to be at the top of the no-fly list.

Andy

[Steve Shannon]

First, let me make it clear that I disagree with your position regarding the no-fly list only and I also find the capital rioters' actions inexcusable.

No one from the left has been placed on a no-fly list for participating in violent riots, therefore placing rioters from the right on the list is unreasonable. If the multiple thousands do not represent a threat in the FBI's mind, it is cruel and unusual punishment to treat the Trump supporters as such.

Now the idiot who placed the IEDs, whether real or fake needs to be at the top of the no-fly list.

Andy

I agree that it’s not fair that rioters espousing one political position should be on the no fly list while those espousing a different position are ignored. But I don’t think that the way to handle it is to leave those from both sides off. Instead, I would include those from both positions on the no fly list.
Regardless of political position, those who resort to violence against others to pursue a political objective should be considered a risk, whether it’s Patti Hurst, Ilan Omar, or Zip Tie Guy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Averageman]

I agree that it’s not fair that rioters espousing one political position should be on the no fly list while those espousing a different position are ignored. But I don’t think that the way to handle it is to leave those from both sides off. Instead, I would include those from both positions on the no fly list.
Regardless of political position, those who resort to violence against others to pursue a political objective should be considered a risk, whether it’s Patti Hurst, Ilan Omar, or Zip Tie Guy.

I think that ship already sailed didn't it?
There just isn't going to be an equal application of Justice in any of these cases. I do believe the numerous stories that BLM and Antifa were transporting people back and forth across State Lines to participate in riots. I mean Kamala Harris was involved in raising money to bail them out as quick as they were arrested. Many Democrats were urging these criminals on.
They applied the Law in the absolute lightest possible way because they need these people out there again as soon as possible.

[glocktogo]

I agree that it’s not fair that rioters espousing one political position should be on the no fly list while those espousing a different position are ignored. But I don’t think that the way to handle it is to leave those from both sides off. Instead, I would include those from both positions on the no fly list.
Regardless of political position, those who resort to violence against others to pursue a political objective should be considered a risk, whether it’s Patti Hurst, Ilan Omar, or Zip Tie Guy.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

While I understand the emotional side of your argument, I don’t think you’ve broken down the logical side to it’s components, for the purposes of populating the rioters on the no-fly list.

Which designated terrorist organization do they belong to?

What specific acts indicate they’re a threat to commercial aviation?

What communications have indicated that they’re radicalized and intent on committing, financing or materially supporting terrorist acts?

We have to be very careful when officially designating USPERS participating in the political process, as domestic terrorists. Rarely is anything as cut and dried as “you do X, you are Y”.

[Honu]

They were conservative reporters that were put on the list because they were conservative and reporting about it that is the only reason while the liberal ones were not

Peaceful protestors shouldn’t be put on such a list, but if a person was one of those who broke into and ransacked the capitol or was part of the mob violently opposing capitol police on the outside, they should be on the “no fly” list.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Sid Post]

We are talking about a slippery slope here.

When do I go on the no-fly list for being a white male? Is it when or because I don't post a view favorable to BLM and ANTIFA? Or, just when I make negative comments about rioters, looters, and arsonists?

Simple public protests, social media posts (not advocating obvious violence and otherwise illegal activities), or non-violent trespass is a far cry from hijacking an airplane!

Horses, Peacocks, Snakes, etc. should go on the passenger area no-fly list though!

[AndyLate]

We are talking about a slippery slope here.

When do I go on the no-fly list for being a white male? Is it when or because I don't post a view favorable to BLM and ANTIFA? Or, just when I make negative comments about rioters, looters, and arsonists?

Simple public protests, social media posts (not advocating obvious violence and otherwise illegal activities), or non-violent trespass is a far cry from hijacking an airplane!

Horses, Peacocks, Snakes, etc. should go on the passenger area no-fly list though!

I want a peacock service animal now.

[Korgs130]

Horses, Peacocks, Snakes, etc. should go on the passenger area no-fly list though!

As of 1 Jan 21 DOT has changed it’s rules so all of the above are actually on the no fly list:

- Defines a service animal as a dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability;

- No longer considers an emotional support animal to be a service animal

https://www.transportation.gov/brief...ervice-animals