Harvard Law Professor: Flying Isn't a Right. Gun Ownership Is

[JNewell]

You would think one of the most basics of all human "rights" is the right to self defense.

(I mean this politely, in the spirit of discussion...) One of? You would think that the right to defend yourself was the single, most fundamental human right. Without that, nothing else is secure: not life, not liberty, not the pursuit of happiness...no liberty, egalite or fraternite...etc.

 

[Rider]

One of? You would think that the right to defend yourself was the single, most fundamental human right. Without that, nothing else is secure: not life, not liberty, not the pursuit of happiness...no liberty, egalite or fraternite...etc.

You obviously haven't read the UN Declaration of Human Rights (You ****ed plebe!) Your first right is to be safe. So you don't need to defend yourself.

 

[Obie1]

I think many folks are misunderstanding the difference between a right and a commodity. If someone else has to provide it for you, it's a commodity. So when folks talk about health care being a right, they misunderstand the distinction.

 

[dennism]

I think many folks are misunderstanding the difference between a right and a commodity. If someone else has to provide it for you, it's a commodity. So when folks talk about health care being a right, they misunderstand the distinction.

Guns are commodities. Nobody has to provide it for me, they choose to in exchange for my money. Same as airline travel.

 

[Roy Rogers]

You plan to take your family on a much-anticipated vacation to the Aloha State, Hawaii. You purchase tickets on one of the many commercial flights freely available to the traveling general public. You pay for the flight and otherwise agree to the airline's commercial terms and conditions. Is it not your right to get on the plane? In what way could your freedom of movement within the United States be construed as a mere privilege subject to arbitrary denial by a governmental entity? If pulled off the flight with no warning just before boarding, apart from wrecking the family vacation, it's not like there's an option to go by car or bus. Evidently nautical options are limited to cruise ships that take 4-5 days' travel each way and once in Hawaii lock you into a regimented itinerary with specific stops.

 

[namedpipes]

You obviously haven't read the UN Declaration of Human Rights (You ****ed plebe!) Your first right is to be safe. So you don't need to defend yourself.

This actually was the basis for the common core civil right: the right to a safe space if offended.

 

[Rider]

I think many folks are misunderstanding the difference between a right and a commodity. If someone else has to provide it for you, it's a commodity. So when folks talk about health care being a right, they misunderstand the distinction.

When I use the term commodity, I specifically mean that we are talking about a commonly available product that is not differentiable from a similar product sold by any vendor. I don't have to buy it from you - I can buy it from anybody. So if you think I am a dick, and don't want to sell me sugar, fine, i can go to another store and buy sugar.

But if the government makes a list, and sends it to every single store, and says, "YOU MAY NOT SELL SUGAR TO THE PEOPLE ON THIS LIST", what does that have to do with my rights as an individual or your rights as an individual? In fact, the government is restricting your right to make money, and my right to live my life as I see fit. All without due process.

Counter to your assertion, I think some people in this thread think the government has the right to tell business who they can do business with. I disagree.

 

[bigblue]

Traveling is a right: Freedom of movement.

How the **** you get there is your business. Withholding or restricting a particular method of transportation does not infringe on your exercise of that right, merely how fast you get to your destination.

You do not have a right to fly.
You do not have a right to drive.
You do not have a right to ride a train.

You have a mother****ing right to walk or swim wherever you wish (so long as it does not infringe on national security).

 

[JNewell]

You obviously haven't read the UN Declaration of Human Rights (You ****ed plebe!) Your first right is to be safe. So you don't need to defend yourself.

Mea culpa maxima. I stand, no, make that kneel, corrected.

 

[Boris]

You do not have a right to fly.
You do not have a right to drive.
You do not have a right to ride a train.

but I have the right not pay with my taxes to support muni airports, roads or trains ... I didn't think so

 

[bigblue]

but I have the right not pay with my taxes to support muni airports, roads or trains ... I didn't think so

Taxation is a different argument and has little to do with freedom of movement. In fact, you do not have a right to choose where your taxes go. You do have a right to participate in government and attempt to direct spending but good luck being heard over 350m people.

 

[Garys]

I find it ironic that the ACLU thinks that the no fly list itself is unconstitutional, but has no interest in opposing the governments use of that same list to deny someone their 2A rights.

Mostly the ACLU seems to want to take on issues that ultimately will undermine the structure of the United States.

 

[bigblue]

I find it ironic that the ACLU thinks that the no fly list itself is unconstitutional, but has no interest in opposing the governments use of that same list to deny someone their 2A rights.

Mostly the ACLU seems to want to take on issues that ultimately will undermine the structure of the United States.

Bunch of ****ing hippies with law degrees.

 

[Garys]

Actually a bunch of pretty bright Communists with law degrees. I seem to remember somewhere along the line that the USSR funneled a lot of money into the ACLU back when it was founded.

Also, they are pretty bright Communists who are helped along by fellow traveler judges in the federal judiciary. People should remember that next time they plan to stay home on election day because none of the Republicans are conservative enough. Elections have consequences, one of which is that the President gets to appoint judges to the federal bench and once appointed and confirmed by the Senate, said judges have life time tenure.

Bunch of ****ing hippies with law degrees.

 

[Christian]

Actually a bunch of pretty bright Communists with law degrees. I seem to remember somewhere along the line that the USSR funneled a lot of money into the ACLU back when it was founded.

Also, they are pretty bright Communists who are helped along by fellow traveler judges in the federal judiciary. People should remember that next time they plan to stay home on election day because none of the Republicans are conservative enough. Elections have consequences, one of which is that the President gets to appoint judges to the federal bench and once appointed and confirmed by the Senate, said judges have life time tenure.

Whoa whoa whoa hold on a second there, you mean you want folks to venture out of the little hurr durr derp derp worlds they've created for themselves and step back to look at the big picture? Good luck with that.

 

[Bfatz]

Calling this a “loophole” is so misleading. It’s a precrime suspicion list that completely circumvents due process.

This must be what it was like when Hitler was allowed to come to power and slowly take over a country, but yet we look back at those times and ask how was Hitler allowed to come to power and do what he did. History repeats itself when good people allow themselves to become enslaved.

While most of us know who funded Hitler’s rise to power, that isn’t the point. Everyone stood around and watched their rights get sucked away then; point is, it is happening again.

 

[browncoat]

Traveling is a right: Freedom of movement.

How the **** you get there is your business. Withholding or restricting a particular method of transportation does not infringe on your exercise of that right, merely how fast you get to your destination.

You do not have a right to fly.
You do not have a right to drive.
You do not have a right to ride a train.

You have a mother****ing right to walk or swim wherever you wish (so long as it does not infringe on national security).

Sounds a lot to me like this:


You have a right to bear arms in self defense, but only the ones attached to your shoulders. Sounds just as stupid to me as well.

 

[bigblue]

Sounds a lot to me like this:


You have a right to bear arms in self defense, but only the ones attached to your shoulders. Sounds just as stupid to me as well.

Very poor parallel that only works if you are using a provided or pooled resource for self defense. Since you are not depending on a shared resource that cuts across property and relies on the resources of others to defend yourself I don't see the parallel you wish to draw. Your entire post is filled with fail and weak ass insults.

 

[namedpipes]

No, jpk is saying you have the right to own weapons but you can't force someone to sell them to you if they don't want to.

And he would be absolutely correct in that viewpoint.

Bu it is not parallel to the no-fly/no-buy list.

Here, the government is ordering one private party NOT to do business with another private party, on the basis of a notoriously inaccurate list maintained by the government.

There are almost certainly NES member that *could* enter a name on the list because offended by a neg rep earned for a leftie comment. With thousands of active members, SOME of y'all work within the system. Whether any of those would be so dishonorable as to use that access for petty revenge is between them and their God. I speak of potential, not reality.

If that is possible here, you can imagine the potential for abuse outside the safe space of NES...

 

[dennism]

Traveling is a right: Freedom of movement.

How the **** you get there is your business. Withholding or restricting a particular method of transportation does not infringe on your exercise of that right, merely how fast you get to your destination.

You do not have a right to fly.
You do not have a right to drive.
You do not have a right to ride a train.

You have a mother****ing right to walk or swim wherever you wish (so long as it does not infringe on national security).

Garbage, the government interfering with a persons attempt to fly somewhere has abridged their right to travel.

 

[bigblue]

Garbage, the government interfering with a persons attempt to fly somewhere has abridged their right to travel.

Using that demented logic, my inability to get on a rocket to Mars has abridged my right to travel.

 

[dennism]

Using that demented logic, my inability to get on a rocket to Mars has abridged my right to travel.

If the government does not allow you to buy a high capacity magazine have they infringed upon your right to bear arms? I mean you can still buy guns just not one specific tool.

Having a right to something means you have a right to purchase it in the open market, you are not owed the service. As travel to mars does not exists there is no right to it. If commercial travel to mars did exist you would have every right to travel there and government actions preventing it infringe upon those rights.

Speech is a right, I am not owed a newspaper column or venue. Derek could nuke this post and he would not abridge my rights. Now if the government said I cant post on the internet, they would have abridged my right to speech.

 

[bigblue]

If the government does not allow you to buy a high capacity magazine have they infringed upon your right to bear arms? I mean you can still buy guns just not one specific tool.

Having a right to something means you have a right to purchase it in the open market, you are not owed the service. As travel to mars does not exists there is no right to it. If commercial travel to mars did exist you would have every right to travel there and government actions preventing it infringe upon those rights.

So now you are rewording and redefining your right based upon what is "commercially available"? What is an open market? Travel to Mars does exist, so does travel on a submarine. One could argue that the government is withholding these "services" from the open market and restricting your right. Just like a Federal AWB would limit what is available on the open market.

Let me be clear: There is a difference between traveling on a service that uses a shared resource (rail, road, airport) and purchasing a good that enables you to exercise your right. You may fly your plane from one lake or corn field to another or drive your car on your property.

I disagree that the state is responsible for enabling your ability to travel in any manner that you wish. That's not a right, it's entitlement.

 

[Neuro]

He is the Faculty sponsor of the Harvard Law Trap and Skeet Club. he is great ally to have.

 

[badshot101]

Without their permission? Of course not.

WITH their permission? Of course. It's a private contract between a provider and a consumer. With the debatable exception of charging a sales tax, .gov has no legit place in the transaction.

If an airline has policies that make them susceptible to terrorism, people will tend to go with another airline, unless the pricing is so competitive that they roll the dice.

Thats actually a really interesting question - Is someone on the no-fly list able to charter a plane?

 

[dennism]

So now you are rewording and redefining your right based upon what is "commercially available"? What is an open market? Travel to Mars does exist, so does travel on a submarine. One could argue that the government is withholding these "services" from the open market and restricting your right. Just like a Federal AWB would limit what is available on the open market.

Let me be clear: There is a difference between traveling on a service that uses a shared resource (rail, road, airport) and purchasing a good that enables you to exercise your right. You may fly your plane from one lake or corn field to another or drive your car on your property.

I disagree that the state is responsible for enabling your ability to travel in any manner that you wish. That's not a right, it's entitlement.

I never said that the state is responsible for enabling the transport, I said the state is not allowed to interfere with the transport. Two VERY different things. Note my point about no guarantee of venues offered in the 1A in the earlier post.

Private subs exist and I can exchange money in exchange for their use. That is not a shared resource, that is the owner of the sub contacting with me to bring me somewhere in exchange for my dollars. Airlines are not a shared resource. They are a private resource. Government interfering with access to a resource that is covered under freedom of movement is a violation of that freedom.

 

[namedpipes]

So now you are rewording and redefining your right based upon what is "commercially available"? What is an open market? Travel to Mars does exist, so does travel on a submarine. One could argue that the government is withholding these "services" from the open market and restricting your right. Just like a Federal AWB would limit what is available on the open market.

Let me be clear: There is a difference between traveling on a service that uses a shared resource (rail, road, airport) and purchasing a good that enables you to exercise your right. You may fly your plane from one lake or corn field to another or drive your car on your property.

I disagree that the state is responsible for enabling your ability to travel in any manner that you wish. That's not a right, it's entitlement.

If I agreed that the government should be able to specify a group of people that are forbidden to buy or sell products and goods and services, without due process or any recourse whatsoever, then I might agree with you. But I don't.

I certainly hope nobody on this forum ever wants to buy something everyone else has but the government doesn't want you to have or to do something that is legal but the government doesn't want you to do.

No Fly / No Buy / No Sense

 

[browncoat]

So now you are rewording and redefining your right based upon what is "commercially available"? What is an open market? Travel to Mars does exist, so does travel on a submarine. One could argue that the government is withholding these "services" from the open market and restricting your right. Just like a Federal AWB would limit what is available on the open market.

Let me be clear: There is a difference between traveling on a service that uses a shared resource (rail, road, airport) and purchasing a good that enables you to exercise your right. You may fly your plane from one lake or corn field to another or drive your car on your property.

I disagree that the state is responsible for enabling your ability to travel in any manner that you wish. That's not a right, it's entitlement.

The easiest answer is that the shared resources should not exist. Like you say, the state should not be responsible for enabling travel in any way, so it should not fund airports, build roads, or subsidize passenger trains.

However, I do not agree that once the state has already done the subsidizing, that that gives them more say over who uses what. The only valid reason for them to engage in such subsidization is to promote freedom of movement - if they are using the subsidies to restrict freedom of movement then they are overstepping their boundaries.

The GFSZA is predicated on the theory that the carriage of weapons that have been involved in interstate commerce can be regulated by the Federal government. That's what the Federal government would like you to believe the Commerce Clause means. That their regulatory might is essentially unlimited. The Constitution is meaningless if it doesn't limit the Federal and State governments.

 

[JNewell]

Thats actually a really interesting question - Is someone on the no-fly list able to charter a plane?

To follow up on that, can people on the no-fly list:

- work in a nuclear power plant?
- fly their own GA aircraft?
- work in medical or food manufacturing facilities?
- drive a bus (of any kind)?

I'm sure there are lots more things that have infinitely greater mass-casualty potential than a firearm that no one has talked about connecting to the no-fly list.

 

[Woodstock]

To follow up on that, can people on the no-fly list:

- work in a nuclear power plant?
- fly their own GA aircraft?
- work in medical or food manufacturing facilities?
- drive a bus (of any kind)?

I'm sure there are lots more things that have infinitely greater mass-casualty potential than a firearm that no one has talked about connecting to the no-fly list.

Apparently 72 of them can work at Homeland Security: https://www.northeastshooters.com/v...-the-terrorist-watchlist?highlight=dhs+no+fly