It is somewhat ironic to be having a discussion today about closing the "Terror Gap." It just happens to be the same day that the only surviving member of the Mumbai massacre--when a gang of extremists waged war on innocent Indian civilians for the better part of 72 hours, using only assault weapons and grenades--has been sentenced to death in India for his role in this mass murder.
You should really watch the chilling documentary on this tragedy, as militants armed only with weaponry you could get at any gun show around the country--without a background check in 33 states--attacked national landmarks and mass transit centers taking 166 lives and grievously injuring many more. The only question at this point, with all the homegrown extremists and international terrorists out there that would love to pull something like this off in the USA--is why with our open invitation for terrorists to buy guns in this country it hasn't yet happened here.
Sadly, though, if history is any guide, it will (you may remember that members of extremist Islamic groups had plans to fly planes into buildings and monuments such as CIA HQ and The Eiffel Tower as far back as 1993, before their eventual "success" in New York and Virginia).
This is why it is even more important than ever for the Obama Administration to live up to a promise made by Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (watch video below) and close the "Terror Gap."
Not to mention Attorney General Eric Holder, when in answering a query from Senator Feinstein in November of 2009, said:
Yes. We will support that legislation. It seems incongruous to me that we would bar certain people from flying airplanes, because they are on the terrorist watch list, and yet we'd still allow them to possess weapons. I think that the legislation that was initially proposed by the Bush administration was well conceived. And we will continue to support that.
Because there is not much courage these days in the Halls of Congress. While faux-moderates (only in today's GOP!) such as Lindsay Graham worry ever-so-much that someone could accidentally lose their right to buy a gun, they call at the same time for stripping citizenship, withholding Miranda Rights and taking away trial by civilian jury for the very same potentially, accidental terrorists.
Translation: You do not have the right to remain silent while exercising your Lindsay Graham & Company-granted right to point that Kel-Tec SubRifle 2000 at American citizens, soldiers and police officers. As both Gail Collins and my friend Digby point out, that is just some brilliant logic there.
Similar to the logic employed by the NRA, who in opposing this provision, it has been pointed out, is doing its darndest to enable terrorists--while opposing the will of only 82% of the American people (according to known Commie Frank Luntz).
I didn't just pick the Kel-Tec SubRifle 2000 out of the thin air either. It is the very weapon our would be Times Square bomber had loaded in his car when caught at Kennedy Airport--and it was pretty easy for him to get. Even though, like the shooters at Fort Hood, Fort Dix, the Little Rock Military Recruiting Station, etc., Faisal Shahzad was on a watch list (Dept of Homeland Security). But hell, that's no reason to deny him access to a deadly weapon.
For my progressive friends worried about government mistakes leading to one being falsely put on this list, I understand and it is a worry. But the Terror Gap legislation gives you means to rectify that. There is no means to rectify standing over friends or family members as they bleed to death, because a guy who couldn't get on a plane was still able to get a AK-47. It is not a huge inconvenience to not be able to buy a gun for a short period of time, before any error is fixed. It isn 't like you're being tortured. Which by the way, many of these same gun nuts think is A-OK to do to a "suspected terrorist."
Think about this for just a second, and please encourage the Administration to do what needs to be done so we are best protected against the McVeighs, McVeys and Mullah Omars.
Follow Cliff Schecter on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cliffschecter
Dan Collins: Giuliani and Pataki Play Monday Morning Patriot
New Yorkers who lived through 9/11 tend to feel a special role in the war on terror. We're silent witnesses to the worst that can happen. Unfortunately, the politicians who were there with us won't stop talking.
Civil rights apply not only to people who have "liberal" views, but also to people who do not share your opinions. They even apply to people who want to own guns.
And it's utterly meaningless since he never used it. Furthermore, he bought if before he was placed on the no-fly list, meaning giving the government the power to block purchases to those on the list would not have hindered him at all.
The list is not due process at all. The government can put anyone on the list for any reason. In fact, a report from the Government Accountability Office showed tens of thousands of names on the list based on irrelevant or outdated information. Once you are on the list, the burden of proof is on you to get yourself off it.
It's pretty simple. No American citizen can be denied their constitutional rights without due process of law.
"It's Pretty Simple: Persons on a Terrorist Watch List Have No Right To Bear Arms"
Now let us apply that logic to other rights...
"It's Pretty Simple: Persons on a Terrorist Watch List Have No Right To an Attorney"
or...
"It's Pretty Simple: Persons on a Terrorist Watch List Have No Right To a Trial by Jury"
or...
"It's Pretty Simple: Persons on a Terrorist Watch List Have No Right not to be Tortured"
or...
"It's Pretty Simple: Persons on a Terrorist Watch List Have No Right To be free from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures"
If you think the above analogies are silly or overblown, you have not been keeping up with the news because those type of restrictions are being heatedly debated right now.
If those fall to the wayside, how long will it be before we start debating:
"It's Pretty Simple: Persons on a Terrorist Watch List Have No Right To Vote"
"It's Pretty Simple: Persons on a Terrorist Watch List Have No Right to Freedom of Speech"
"It's Pretty Simple: Persons on a Terrorist Watch List Have No Constitutional Rights whatsoever and we can throw them all in a concentration camp"
You can not pick and choose the constitutional rights you want protected, because once you do so, ALL RIGHTS ARE IN DANGER.
There are 13 terror watch lists -- 12 smaller ones and one master one compiled from the others. And then there is the no fly list. These lists are generally secret, they have no real uniform criteria for being placed on them, and there is no judiciary process to being placed on them.
These lists primarily rely on names, not biometrics, not physical descriptions.
Studies BY THE GOVERMENT ITSELF say that the majority of people on these lists have never commited a crime and do not actually have ties with terrorism. They have also never been charged or indicted for a crime nor is there a warrant for their arrest.
IOW, the majority of the people on these lists are innocent. And technically, by the concept of innocent until proven guilty, pretty much all of them are innocent.
I have to say I am really disappointed that a lot of supposed "liberals" were up-in-arms about this horrible law until it could be used to hurt people who like guns, at which point it became a cause. Something like, "civil rights only matter for people who I identify with, not 'gun nuts.'"
As to Rahm Emanuel, his no-fly list, the American family, and the rights of American citizenship and who we should surrender them to, I would say that in the words of Thomas Jefferson, the dogs of war have been loosed all over the world, with no declared war. And Mr Emanuel is decidedly a dog of war.
We have a handy catch-all term "war on terror". It has no limits, no defined battlefield, and is entirely dangerous as a concept.
Terror is both state sponsored and non-state sponsored. Terror is an emotion felt by civilians and everyone else as well.
Surely we all want to be safe, both when we fly and at all other times. Having the TSA determine our rights as citizens is subversive in its very concept.
Again, cite and specifics. (not that I don't already know).
Let's take a look at how that logic would have to play out in her mind:
-- My friend is on the no-fly list, so he can't travel by air unless and until he clears up the mistake. Oh well.
-- My friend is on the no-fly list, so if people on the no-fly list couldn't buy guns, my friend would not be able to buy a gun unless and until he cleared up the mistake. Oh my God!! No way! Don't you dare take away (or even delay) my friend's sacred right to buy the assault weapon of his choice!
-- People who BELONG on the no-fly list (assuming that Carly allows for the possibility that there are such people) can't travel by air. They darned well better NOT be able to travel by air. If any of them do board a plane, it proves how incompetent this administration is!
-- People who BELONG on the no-fly list can legally buy any guns anyone else can buy. Oh well.
Wrong again.
Most of those guys were never on a watch list. Hasan at Ft Hood, for example, not only was never on a watch list, he was investigated and cleared by the FBI as not a threat and had been investigated and cleared for a US milityar security clearance. Shahzad, as another example, was only put on a no fly list on 3 May and that was only done AFTER the failed bombing attempt when he became a suspect. He bought the firearm a couple month prior to being placed on the list
We are saying that your assertion is incorrect.
Anyone?
(crickets)
Also, would any legislation imaginable cover car-trunk sales, the 'other, other gun show'? No. People can sell guns back and forth between themselves 'til the cows come home and no one would be the wiser. Also, there's gun THEFT. With so many people owning guns(and being careless with them), eventually, someone's just going to lose one, or leave the gun cabinet(and their front door) unlocked, and then the forces of evil have another tool of destruction to add to the collection. Also, what if terrorists just started using large stones, as weapons? Or, broken stairway bannisters, or broomsticks? How much of all that is just plain paranoia, and putting one more gun law on the books that won't be followed?
So Mr Cliff Schecter, you better hope and pray that some disgruntled European named Clifford Schecter does not make a threat against the Queen of England or something like that or your name might end up on one of these lists.
BTW, isn't it ironic that just a couple years ago people were claiming they were being put on these lists for being outspoken againt the US government, but now those same people want to use these lists to deny people their rights?
CIte please.
Second, as a cop with a degree in criminology and being called as an SME by the courts regarding firearms, I can tell you for a fact the registration does very little to help solve crimes and is absolutely no deterrent what so ever. Canada's experience with registration bears this out.
If my firearms are stolen, I have all the serial numbers and photos of them in a safe place and can provide the appropriate info to the police to identify them as mine if they ar ever recovered. Same as with my TV and other expensive items (A habit picked up in the military).
Since when suspicion of being a terrorist equivalent to being a terrorist?
If so, you better hope and pray that no one in the US or in the world for that matter has the same name as you do and that they never do something to get on one of those lists.
WRONG! The militants were armed with full-auto firearms, grenades, and other explosive devices. you cannot buy those items at gun shows in the US. All of these items are strictly controlled by US federal laws, much more so than "regular" firearms. If you want a complete lesson on how wrong you are, I will be more than happy to explain, but first you may want to brush up on the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act.
Again, you are completely WRONG!!!
News flash ......... National Firearms Act very poorly enforced or regulated !
Perhaps... the issue however is how easily available are fully automatic weapons? A good proxy to determine just how available such weapons are, is to determine how often such weapons are used in crimes. Got any statistics to substantiate such a claim?
I will wait.... but I will not hold my breathe.