New York Times:
People on the government's terrorist watch list tried to buy guns nearly 1,000 times in the last five years, and federal authorities cleared the purchases 9 times out of 10 because they had no legal way to stop them, according to a new government report.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
What the problem is, that there is no due process. You're guilty based on suspicion, and there's not recourse to correct this.
When Bush put this into place, everybody screamed bloody murder cause it violated people's Constitutional rights.
But now, it's ok. As long as it's gun owners. Guilty or not.
Such BS.
What absolute rubbish.
Such extreme statement will only further decline your movement when you say we advocate such fascism.
The panic over political minority status really appear to be affecting your judgment, I must say!
I had not idea that questioning the lack of due process was such an extreme statement.
Thank you for enlightening me.......
I guess the Constitution is dead after all.
whell duh!!!
if we kept the NRA and crazy right from buying guns, then the repubz wouldn't have a base!
too bad about all those liberal democrats who own guns...wasn't it hillary that fondly remembers hunting ducks with her dad....
Hillary isn't a Liberal. Learn your ideology.
twogunmojo.....First of all, Hillary is a conservative.
Secondly, hunting ducks with rifles, is totally different than having assault weapons, which are only purchased to kill humans.
If you are an adult, I can't believe you don't know the difference.
People don't buy assault weapons to hunt game, they buy them to shot humans.
So the problem is that a bunch of people who havent committed a crime legally bought guns? I notice the article doesnt mention the results of these gun sales...did any of these people do anything illegal with these weapons?
How is it OK to block a person from flying, but permit them to possess a firearm? There's a dichotomy here. Either both should be permissible, or both should not.
lets see..flying is not a right nor is travel....owning a gun is...and i doubt if these people are prevented from flying on private planes...probably just commercial...
I see your point.
Let them fly.
If there are really one million terrorists that aren't in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib, why are we worrying about them buying guns when they should already be in jail with their right to habeas corpus violated unconstitutionally for a politically trumped up charge?
I don't understand the fuss. According the ACLU from about a year ago, the watch list contains over 1 million names and growing at a rate of 20,000 a month. Considering the source of this list, the Bush administration, I can't imagine too many people on this website would really think this list holds it's weight in spit. Why then is it so terrible that they aren't using a list, a list compiled with the empiricism of a witchhunt, to deny people the right to bear arms? If your against the 2nd Amendment, shame on you for being so ignorant, but it's your right. However, to deny any right without due process and based upon arbitrary hearsay is as reckless, irresponsible, and intolerable as the administration which created this million person list to begin with.
To those who are defending these people, good on you, but I do hope you were just as outraged the past eight years when these same innocent people were being harrassed every time they crossed the border of the United States. And if you weren't, if you were caught up in your own fear and refuse, I hope you can at least empathize with the palpable fear of your replacements and see the mess the past eight years have put us in.
Besides, who wants to live in a society where everyone hides under the table when Robers "terrorist watch list" Jones buys a bear claw at Krispy Kreme? ;-) (think about it)
It just amazes me that all this is coming out after Obama was elected. NRA would go out of business if the wrong person is killed. The last 2 deaths meant nothing to them. Those individuals were meaningless to them. There have to be guidlelines on gun sells and who can purchase a gun. The excuse that "Obama want to take our weapons" would not be a basis for killing officers and innocent citizens. There are too many unstable people out there with a gun. Children are killing people!
the nra is a lobby group...not a gun manufacturer...
You are right. Who are they lobbying for?
There ARE guidelines on who can purchase a gun.
These people PASSED a background check. Apparently they arent criminals. What would you like to do, make it unlawful for anyone you dont like to buy a gun?
Yeah, that's exactly what they want..
Does this news surprise anyone?
its only a surprise to the anti-gunners who don't believe in the 2nd amendment....they don't understand that real rights as enumerated are sacrosanct...flying on a plane is not a right...health insurance is not a right....the internet is not a right...but owning a gun is an individual right....as precious as all the others....and if you haven't been convicted of a felony or adjudicated to be mentally unstable no one can deny you that right....
You really do think in very simple, black and white terms, don;'t you?
This news is actually more justification that the watch list should be looked at for most reasonable people - but you appear to have decided that we liberals like to attack anyone who likes guns: as opposed to we liberals being against silly black lists - that those in the right accuses US of doing more than they do.
The proof of this stupidity is in the list.
We should have an honest debate on guns with all parties involved, and yes including the NRA. It is obvious that the NRA is using Obama's election to sell more guns; they do not care who buys these guns as long there is money to be made.
The question is: Would you sell a gun to someone who is mentally unstable or taking psychotic medication? My answer is a big NO. We need sensible gun control laws. For instance domestic violence, If I am the victim and my spouse has a gun, I want out of that house and I want the police to take the gun away from him/her. For my protection.
There are 2 issues here: the right to bear a gun and the lunatics on Fox News and other right wing web sites spreading all kind of lies about President Obama trying to take your guns away. There is a lot of manipulation and this is being done on purpose. The killer of Dr. Tiller for instance: his wife left him in the early 90's because she was afraid of him, the guy had some mental issues back then and she feared for her life. Back to point 1: Should we allow people with mental problems own guns?
What can you tell to the families of the Dr. Tiller, the three police officers in Pittsburgh, or the guard at the Holocaust museum last week? They were all of them right-wing, hate-driven attacks.
and who is going to decide who is crazy and shouldn't have a gun....will you be able to appeal the decision..will the board be impartial..will it be stacked with anti-gunners...will the members be appointed or elected....see the problems you run into...and being afraid of someone is not reason enough to keep them from having a gun....
Oh, well - let's just not have a debate then.
That appears to be your true goal...
an honest discussion would have to include an acknowledgment that everyone who is of age and has no convictions for felonies can own and carry a gun....anywhere they choose....
Especially paranoid schizophrenics who watch cable and treat it as gospel, and like to threaten those who they disagree with with violence.
Yep, the NRA lobby on their behalf too. Because they haven't yet committed a crime.
UG UG
Wonder how Sen. Kennedy feels about this being that he's been on a 'watchlist'?
They might let him buy a gun. We have over a million Americans on the terror watchlist . This must be a terrorist country.
So , you can get put on a list and suddenly lose you 2nd amendment rights. Boy, and you liberals whined about trashing the constitution the gov't when listened to terrorist phone calls.
Thats a tough one. Just because you on the watch list, doesnt mean you have committed any crimes.
So if your convicted of a crime, you shouldnt be discriminated against. I know of people who are on the do not fly list/terrorist watch list, who were not terrorist at all. For instance, anyone remember when Kennedy was on the list? Ok, that one is debatable depending on how radical of a anti american republican you might be. But realistically Kennedy was no terrorist and should not have been on the list.
On the other hand, if I recall correctly one of the people who first tried to blow up the world trade towers in 1996 with the rental trucks in the parking garage was said to have listed on his visa form that he needed to come to the US because he was in fear of his life in his country for being a terrorist bomber.
Now thats pretty obvious that he should not be allowed in or to buy anything , including a stick of gum.
I say It's kinda hard to tell the difference between terrorist from other countries and your everyday ordinary home grown w.ing n'ut with a gun.
This so-called "Terrorist Watch List" has over 1 million names on it and grows by 20,000 per month. It takes an act of congress to get your name off of it (re: Nelson Mandela). My point is that it's an ARBITRARY list created by Washington bureaucrats full of names that clearly don't belong there. Denying gun ownership (or anything else) based on one's name being on that list is ludicrous. This is yet another example of Government getting too big for it's britches.
And they bragged how they kept us safe?
They kept their constituents, safe. They allowed them to buy up all the weapons that they want to protect themselves from, the left wing? We are our own worse enemy.
That's what innocent until proven guilty means. If you are not yet guilty of something then what else can you do? It's part of the cost of freedom. Right now the law is clear you can only deny someone the "right to bear arms" if they are a felon, dishonorably discharged, legally insane or guilty of domestic assault. You can't start allowing the government to deny rights based on suspicion alone. I don't care who's watch list anyone is on. Half the time these watch lists are bull anyway.
Thank you for a rational post on a site where there's little rational thought regarding this subject.
I totally agree. The terror watch list isn't even a list of people suspected of having committed a crime; it's just a secret list of people, period. We don't know the criteria for being placed on the list, who is on the list, and apparently, since it is a secret list, it would be difficult to protest one's inclusion. How would that work with the current process for contesting one's denial of a weapons purchase. Currently, if you are denied a weapon purchase, you must be told why and be given an opportunity to dispute the defect, and reverse the decision. It appears this study is simply a rouse to fabricate a rationale for expanding gun control. Preserving our second amendment rights may very well be preserving many of our other rights, such as our rights to Life and Liberty. If there are terrorist within our midst, prosecute them, and then deny their second amendment rights. Enough of these secret lists and States Secrets Crap.
Loading comments…
First Posted: 06-20-09 11:04 AM | Updated: 06-20-09 11:24 AM