Terrorist watch list and Guns


Should people on the U.S. terrorist watch list be allowed to buy guns?

  • Yes

    Votes: 80 54.8%
  • No

    Votes: 66 45.2%

  • Total voters
    146
Wow I'm kinda surprised how close it is! I'm more surprised that none of the NO's have voiced their side. I'd be interested to hear some reasons why they shouldn't be allowed to purchase firearms.
 

Yes, they should. I agree with all the above posts.

Plus, I don't think a terrorist is going to do any type of mass murders (to the degree to which they want to) with the types of firearms legal for sale. It's the illegal weapons they purchase that worry me.
 
Well, you all oughtta love this...Terrorist Watch List is No Hurdle to Gun Purchases- By Mike Lillis | The Washington Independent
Another day, another damning federal report regarding the ease with which potential criminals can purchase guns in America.

Just days after issuing findings that thousands of guns are being funneled illegally into Mexico, the Government Accountability Office reported that, in the last five years, folks known to be on the FBI’s terrorist watch list have tried to purchase weapons on 963 occasions — and succeeded 865 times.
(Mr. Lillis fails to mention that there are approximately 24,000 people on that list that don't belong there.)

The reason is simple: There’s no law against it. From the report:

Under current law, there is no basis to automatically prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives because they appear on the terrorist watch list. Rather, there must be a disqualifying factor (i.e., prohibiting information) pursuant to federal or state law, such as a felony conviction or illegal immigration status.

Last month, New York Democratic Reps. (Surprize, surprize!) Carolyn McCarthy and Steve Israel introduced a bill that would prevent those found to be on the Transportation Security Administration’s terrorist no-fly list from buying guns. The powerful gun lobby, however, opposes the concept of keeping Second Amendment rights from suspected terrorists.

What really pisses me off about this is that they believe that the obviously flawed terror watch list should trump the reasonably reliable NICS (or state-run counterpart) checks. They then have the audacity to say that if someone erroneously on the list wishes to buy a gun, all they have to do (as though it is such an easy process) is go to the TSA and have their name removed. I guess this is their way around our way around waiting periods.:mad:

BTW, I voted yes. :biggrin:
 
The key word is "suspected".

You can't deprive someone of their rights just because you suspect them of criminal action or intent. We'd all like to keep guns out of the hands of those who would do bad things with them, but using a secret list with no publicly reviewable criteria is a bad idea to bring that about.
 
Nice summary

The key word is "suspected".

You can't deprive someone of their rights just because you suspect them of criminal action or intent. We'd all like to keep guns out of the hands of those who would do bad things with them, but using a secret list with no publicly reviewable criteria is a bad idea to bring that about.

Rayven has just distilled the whole issue into just two sentences. +1

Fortunately i don't see McCarthy's proposed legislation going anywhere. Gun ownership is not a partisan issue, thank goodness. An awful lot of southern dems are avid hunters/sportsmen, and frankly without them the reactionary idiots like McCarthy might actually be taken seriously and their idiotic legislation (like the Rush bill also) might actually gain some momentum.
 
You too can be a Rightwing Extremist

Sen. Lautenberg’s new “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009” HB 111-2159 and SB111-1317 would place unprecedented authority in the hands of the Attorney General to deny someone their Second Amendment rights without having been convicted, or even charged, with any crime. Instead, under this legislation, someone whose name is added – for whatever reason – to a terrorist watch list can suddenly find himself or herself prohibited from exercising their constitutionally-protected rights based on nothing more than suspicion.

You too can be a Rightwing Extremist and put on the Terrorist Watchlist. Here are some of the things that Homeland Security feels may indicate that you are a Rightwing Extremist:

• If you are a veteran with combat training
• If you are unhappy with the current economic or political climate
• If you believe in the US Constitution , States Rights and a limited Federal Government
• If you support the Second Amendment
• If you oppose outsourcing US jobs
• If you believe in protecting our borders
• If you believe in the sovereignty of the US
• If you oppose weapons restrictions and bans
• If you stockpile ammo or guns
• If you stockpile food and supplies
• If you use the Internet to learn about weapons and tactics
• If you use SSL or other encryption methods to communicate over the Internet

The source of this information is here.

Some of us fit all of these criteria. Most of us fit some of the criteria. I’ll bet all of us fit ONE. I fit all of these, yet I am just a proud American.

An unacceptable problem with the proposed Lautenberg legislation is that the Attorney General decides who get put on the list. He can make up any criteria for the list he wants. What happened to due process?

The other unacceptable problem with this is that you can be put on the list without even being investigated. Then once you’re on the list, there is no way to get off. Here is the source Department of Justice report
 
I hear terrorists and don't think of Americans, I mean by think legal people here in this country working for the good of the country. Not here illegal and working here and sending funds out of it..:no:
 
I voted no, but reading these posts shows me I didn't think it through...the word "terrorist" strikes a cord and I think of 9/11 and the war and I guess that's what anti-gun people are hoping for. I've had my eyes opened, I won't be so quick to answer next time.
 
I voted no, but reading these posts shows me I didn't think it through...the word "terrorist" strikes a cord and I think of 9/11 and the war and I guess that's what anti-gun people are hoping for. I've had my eyes opened, I won't be so quick to answer next time.
That is exactly what the Anti's are hoping for, and among their ranks are the media. It is no accident that any media poll or news article that raises this question fails to mention how unreliable the no-fly list really is or that the people who actually DO belong on the list aren't going to the gun shop to make a purchase.

I wish others who voted "no" would pipe up and explain their answer like you have. Welcome to the forum.
 
First, they didn't do anything, yet.

Second, let's face it. If a terrorist wants to "do their job", they're going to do it with more than just a gun. A sad reality, but a reality nevertheless...
 
Even though every single one of the 20,000 or so gun laws on the books in this country is unconstitutional, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that I'm in favor of denying them the right to purchase guns. Sure, laws against the purchase and possession of firearms and ammunition by convicted felons and the mentally ill have never stopped them from getting guns, and it won't stop accused terrorists either, but nevertheless, the thought of radical Islamic fundamentalists being able to purchase them as easily as I can doesn't sit well with me.
 
Even though every single one of the 20,000 or so gun laws on the books in this country is unconstitutional, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that I'm in favor of denying them the right to purchase guns. Sure, laws against the purchase and possession of firearms and ammunition by convicted felons and the mentally ill have never stopped them from getting guns, and it won't stop accused terrorists either, but nevertheless, the thought of radical Islamic fundamentalists being able to purchase them as easily as I can doesn't sit well with me.


I am against Terrorist having guns. However we all know that terrorists and terrorist watch lists are not one in the same. Seeing as how most of us that post on this forum are right wing terrorist according to some, we could very well be now or in the future on the government watch list.
 
Even though every single one of the 20,000 or so gun laws on the books in this country is unconstitutional, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that I'm in favor of denying them the right to purchase guns. Sure, laws against the purchase and possession of firearms and ammunition by convicted felons and the mentally ill have never stopped them from getting guns, and it won't stop accused terrorists either, but nevertheless, the thought of radical Islamic fundamentalists being able to purchase them as easily as I can doesn't sit well with me.
That is to say then that you give the NICS system less credability than this No-Fly/ terrorist watch list. Sorry, but when 963 people on the No-Fly list attempt to buy a gun, and 865 were successful, that tells me something. It tells me that the NICS system did it's job and prevented those 98 people who were not supposed to possess a gun from doing so. And the other 865 didn't belong on the list to begin with, just as approximately 24,000 other people on the list do not belong there.

And by the way, Islamic Fundamentalists already get guns WAY easier than you or I. And they get all the fun ones too. They don't go to a gunshop or gunshow, they have smugglers bring them right to their front door.
 
Link Removed

Friday, December 11, 2009


Understanding the Latest Anti-Gun "Poll"

This week, anti-gun New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, released the findings of a poll conducted by a political consulting firm called "The Word Doctors," whose slogan is "It's not what you say, it's what people hear." Word Doctors' president is a pollster who has been reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research and censured by the National Council on Public Polls, and who says that the key to polling is "to ask a question in the way that you get the right answer."

At some other time in our nation's history, an organization like this would not have been commissioned to conduct a poll, and perhaps it would not even have existed. At a minimum, its poll would have been considered biased and rejected by every newspaper in the country.

But today, as the distinction between editorials and news has become blurred, information is treated so superficially that a catchy word or two is enough to get someone elected to public office, and some in positions of authority cannot conceive of the concept of shame.

Thus, earlier this week, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) excitedly called attention to the bought-and-paid-for Word Doctors "poll," which claimed that a majority of NRA members and other gun owners support Lautenberg's bills to prohibit the possession of firearms by people placed (often mistakenly) on the FBI terrorist watchlist (S.1317), to require gun show promoters to send ledgers of customer information to the federal government (S.843), and to let the FBI retain records for 180 days of every gun purchase approved by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) (S.2820). The poll also claimed support for Bloomberg's proposal to rescind the Tiahrt Amendment, which prevents unfettered release of BATFE firearm trace data. (Bloomberg, of course, wants to use the data in lawsuits against the firearms industry.)

But did the poll really show such strong support? Certainly the participants didn't have much information to go on. The poll didn't explain that the watchlist has been under fire by the Department of Justice's Inspector General's office and the ACLU for improperly including the names of innocent people, and that many innocent people have been mistaken for those who are on the watchlist. It didn't explain that Lautenberg's gun show bill would do much more than require NICS checks on private gun sales at gun shows.

The poll mischaracterized the issue of NICS record retention. Instead of informing poll participants that the accused Ft. Hood murderer had been investigated by the FBI and found to not constitute a terror threat months before he went through a NICS check to purchase the gun he allegedly used in the murders, the poll simply asked whether "the FBI should be able to access and keep information about gun purchases by terror suspects in cases similar to [the accused Ft. Hood killer's]?" Worse, Word Doctors misinformed poll participants by telling them that the accused killer was still under investigation at the time he purchased the gun.

The poll also asked if participants agreed that "The federal government should not restrict the police's ability to access, use, and share data that helps them enforce federal, state and local gun laws," when in fact the Tiahrt Amendment fully allows access to trace information, as long as it's related to crimes that they're actually investigating.

And the poll also claimed that a majority of gun owners want to "balance" their rights against the need to stop criminals from getting guns. But what it actually asked was whether gun owners agreed that "We can do more to stop criminals from getting guns while also protecting the rights of citizens to freely own them." Coupled with the poll's findings that an overwhelming majority of gun owners believe "Criminals . . . should be punished to the maximum extent of the law" and "Law-abiding Americans should have the freedom to choose how to protect themselves, based on their personal situation," it's fair to conclude that gun owners understand the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. Since the ideas are compatible, they don't require a "balance," as suggested by gun control supporters.

Notably, Lautenberg mentioned none of the poll's findings that undercut the anti-gun agenda, and Dionne mentioned few. These include findings that an overwhelming majority of gun owners:

* Thinks President Obama will try to ban guns;
* Agrees that the Supreme Court's decision in last year's Heller case was correct;
* Agrees that the Second Amendment should prevent all levels of government from infringing the right to arms;
* Agrees that people should be allowed to carry guns for protection in national parks;
* Agrees that people should be allowed to transport firearms in baggage on Amtrak trains;
* Agrees that gun laws should be less strict or left as they are; and
* Opposes or is neutral about gun registration and an "assault weapon" ban.

One final note: Since Word Doctors had no access to NRA membership lists, there's no way the pollsters could verify that any of the "NRA members" actually were NRA members. While this is a fatal flaw, we mention it at the end only because the poll's other flaws were even worse.
 
I a lot of us are probably on some kind of list. If you are a Christian conservative who clings to God and guns you ARE on this administrations "watch" list.

I would have to say: Depends?
Who Decides?
What are the prerequsites used to place someone on a "Watch" list?
Are they a "Law Abiding" American citizen?

IMO; Law abiding "American" Citizens should have the right to "Bear Arms" PERIOD!!
 
I a lot of us are probably on some kind of list. If you are a Christian conservative who clings to God and guns you ARE on this administrations "watch" list.

I would have to say: Depends?
Who Decides?
What are the prerequsites used to place someone on a "Watch" list?
Are they a "Law Abiding" American citizen?

IMO; Law abiding "American" Citizens should have the right to "Bear Arms" PERIOD!!

I'm a veteran and i believe in God, guns and guts. Noone is going to take any of the 3 without a fight!

WATCH me all you want, just don't try to pet!
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,255
Members
74,961
Latest member
Shodan
Back
Top