You Don’t Deserve That Right

Tell me, just once, where a government that has created a million-name no-fly list gets a legitimate power to ban people arbitrarily placed on that list from firearm ownership?

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff to the Obama White House!

Critical text (h/t David Rittgers, Cato@Liberty):

“if you’re on that no-fly list, your access to the right to bear arms is cancelled, because you’re not part of the American family; you don’t deserve that right. There is no right for you if you’re on that terrorist list.”

I’m sure all those who have faced false positives on that list feel great about Rahm’s statement.

  • Quincy

    Apparently the words “due process” have now been excised from the language. Damn shame, that… The whole rule of law thing was pretty cool while it lasted.

  • Justin Bowen

    You know, you really have to be a pretty cynical person to live in this country. I mean, to be able to listen to people fawn all over the politicians in this country and to actually see people actually claim that this is a free country requires a level of cynicism so unhealthy that it borders on mental illness. The idea that so many people can be so stupid as to be duped by Obama and his political machine is almost enough to make a person want to kill himself just to avoid having to listen to one more moron fall all over himself while praising the Galactic Savior, Jesus Obama. I mean, it really is sickening.

  • skeptic

    Please use credible sources to make your case if you want to be taken seriously — Wiki is not one.

  • KipEsquire

    False positives aren’t even the issue — true positives are just as problematic.

    Suppose for the sake of argument that the no-fly list is constitutional, reasonable and inoffensive to libertarian sensibilities (big assumption, I know).

    What Emanual proposes here is that the (hypothetically appropriate) denial of a privilege (i.e., non-right), without traditional notions of due process (notice and a hearing before a neutral magistrate), be used to bootstrap to the denial of a full-fledged constitutional right (the Second Amendment right to bear arms).

    This the Fifth Amendment simply does not allow. Not even close.

  • Pingback: A Stitch in Haste()

  • Pingback: Loss of two constitutional rights in one swipe » Alabama Republican Liberty Caucus()

  • Sarah

    SO, who decides what and who potential terrorist are?? THE GOVERNMENT??? Oh so what you are saying is the government can decide who gets to fly, who gets a gun just by putting them on a list and not convicting them of anything??? WHAT KIND OF BULL**** IS THIS??? Americans are being led to the ‘slaughter-house’ and what is weird…. they are doing it by consent…they are literally marching to it. Little by little…each of our freedoms and liberties are being stripped from us in the name of this new political fad called terrorism, and the masses are cheering for it….they want it….they cry for it, they believe in it. WAKE THE **** UP YOU GUYS!!! THIS IS MASS MADNESS!!!!!!!!!!

  • southernjames

    I did some quick research and read that the FBI is claiming that 400,000 and not 1 million are on the list; and that only approximately 5% of them are even Americans (20,000); and most of them do not live in the US.

    Not that this should lessen the concern. And who’s to say whether the FBI is lying or not.

    But if the Feds ARE telling the truth and not lying, 20,000 divided by 300 million Americans comes to 0.000067 of the citizenry who are affected in any way by this. None of whom should have constitutional rights (such as 2A) suspended just for being on a list of course.

    Unfortunately, we can’t assume the Feds are giving us accurate information about ANYTHING anymore, not just about stuff like this.

  • Kathryn Rebecca

    I’m not really clear on what a difference this measure would make anyway- what does one thing have to do with the other? How would denying [potential, un-convicted] terrorists their Second Amendment rights change anything? So then people, who are bent on the destruction of our country, its citizens, and their way of life, cannot legallly obtain a handgun? Really? Really? This is the kind of thing we’re wasting time and taxpayers’ money on in the legislature?

    And that doesn’t even touch on the ridiculousness of the idea in the first place.

  • Pingback: The Crossed Pond » More Bushian Thinking from the Obama Inner Circle()

  • Akston

    “We left what we knew was working because of ideology…”

    That was what eventually heralded the Massachusetts invasion by witches in 1694. They only got their list up to 29 before reputable investigators like Mary Watkins recanted and let sorcerers like John Alden free to cast their incantations.

    I think if we would just allow Mr. Emanuel to personally conduct the touch tests and bake the witch cakes, we could finally dismiss all these impractical ideas and ideologies – like defending rights until proven guilty– and get back to what works. I say: No explicitly guaranteed constitutional rights for witches!

    Or we could just find out which of the people on the list weigh as much as a duck.

  • Christine

    I guess my son who is 8 years old is not part of the “American Family” He has been on this list since he was 3.

  • Brad Warbiany


    I’m not one to judge, but I doubt your 8 year old needs a firearm ;-)


    (Sorry, couldn’t resist that one. Best of luck to you guys getting your name off the list).

  • Christine


    On Air America this morning talking about John. 7:20am Will be mentioning this.