Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It would be hard to get "your 15 minutes of fame" if you are never referred by your name again.
The thing is, how far would that go, how far could such a person be nameless.
Will he be nameless in the research journals? Would he just be listed as "crazy person" and nothing more?
That is sort of like saying that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luttif_Afif was a terrorist of Islam and the indications are that he was not. Palestinian probably but not really to one religion or another.
When it comes to research, grouping the problem people under one general title really does not help to figure out how to solve the problem.
I suppose if someone is out to get attention, even being a foot note in a book is something, especially if the news doesn't mention one's name.
You mean something crazy like enforcing existing laws?
Maybe the govt. had a weak case and they opted to get a conviction rather than risk losing at trial. More details are needed to determine if that was reasonable.
The thing is, how far would that go, how far could such a person be nameless.
Will he be nameless in the research journals? Would he just be listed as "crazy person" and nothing more?
That is sort of like saying that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luttif_Afif was a terrorist of Islam and the indications are that he was not. Palestinian probably but not really to one religion or another.
When it comes to research, grouping the problem people under one general title really does not help to figure out how to solve the problem.
I suppose if someone is out to get attention, even being a foot note in a book is something, especially if the news doesn't mention one's name.
So, how far would it go?
That I don't have a answer too; but we have a people problem, there is still a nut case pulling the trigger, the GUN by it's self can do nothing. It seems like there is something in the water, or some other factor that is causing people to flip out.
But I do know the answer is not in restricting the rights of millions of legal gun owners that did not commit a crime
Nonsense. You don't need to be convicted of a crime to be on the no-fly list. If we can prevent people from flying without being convicted of a crime, we can certainly make sure students who are expelled for making threats against other students don't get their hands on weapons like this one.
You have apparently overlooked a central, salient point that renders the above statement inoperative as a matter of fact.
There is no constitutional right to fly on an airplane. Period.
There is, however, a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Which is not to say that persons who have been adjudicated as mental defectives should be allowed to possess firearms. Insofar as mental defectives are concerned, the Second Amendment right can be modified or removed by a court of competent jurisdiction, given sufficient legal cause. No new laws needed for that, of course.
But being expelled from school and being adjudicated as a mental defective by a court of competent jurisdiction are two entirely different things.
You have apparently overlooked a central, salient point that renders the above statement inoperative as a matter of fact.
There is no constitutional right to fly on an airplane. Period.
There is, however, a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Which is not to say that persons who have been adjudicated as mental defectives should be allowed to possess firearms. Insofar as mental defectives are concerned, the Second Amendment right can be modified or removed by a court of competent jurisdiction, given sufficient legal cause. No new laws needed for that, of course.
But being expelled from school and being adjudicated as a mental defective by a court of competent jurisdiction are two entirely different things.
A small correction is in order here.
There is no constitutional right to board a commercial aircraft...but there is indeed a constitutional right of the freedom to travel, by any conveyance in common use, and that includes airplanes. So you DO have the constitutional right to travel by airplane.
The "No Fly List" is not a prohibition against YOU being on an airplane. It is merely a prohibition issued to a commercial carrier not to let YOU on THEIR aircraft operated as a common carrier under US aviation law.
It would be hard to get "your 15 minutes of fame" if you are never referred by your name again.
Yes! And branding works. Trump proved that with Low Energy Jeb, Crooked Hillary, Lyin’ Ted. No one would want to be the loser, but when people talk about the Columbine kids they always bring up their bullies, as if it’s some kind of justification. Now they’re anti-heroes instead of the psychotic losers they were.
The thing is, how far would that go, how far could such a person be nameless.
Will he be nameless in the research journals? Would he just be listed as "crazy person" and nothing more?
That is sort of like saying that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luttif_Afif was a terrorist of Islam and the indications are that he was not. Palestinian probably but not really to one religion or another.
When it comes to research, grouping the problem people under one general title really does not help to figure out how to solve the problem.
I suppose if someone is out to get attention, even being a foot note in a book is something, especially if the news doesn't mention one's name.
So, how far would it go?
Of course they would report the name, especially this guy since he’ll have a trial, but it doesn’t have to be said over and over in every report, with his picture and post history all over the news. Remember the guy who shot Gabby Giffords and his “manifesto”? Was it necessary to give ravings of a lunatic a revolutionary name like that? They did the same with Jihadi John, the British guy who was on all the ISIS propaganda videos. It had the ring of GI Joe, like something to aspire to.
Say it when necessary, but don’t over-saturate. Report more about the victims and the heroes. There will be plenty of time later to cover the trial.
There is no constitutional right to board a commercial aircraft...but there is indeed a constitutional right of the freedom to travel, by any conveyance in common use, and that includes airplanes. So you DO have the constitutional right to travel by airplane.
The "No Fly List" is not a prohibition against YOU being on an airplane. It is merely a prohibition issued to a commercial carrier not to let YOU on THEIR aircraft operated as a common carrier under US aviation law.
But people have been put on the No Fly List for all sorts of reasons, and it’s nearly impossible to get off it. You could be angry at a flight attendant and end up on a No Fly List. I think we have had congressmen on the No Fly List. And who gets to decide that, and do we trust them?
**After reading your post, I see you said that. I personally do not think being on a No Fly List meets the legal burden of restricting a right. Only a Court should be able to do that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
