Home > Community Lounge > Politics > thanks to the nra people on FBI's Terrorist Watchlist can buy guns and explosives

thanks to the nra people on FBI's Terrorist Watchlist can buy guns and explosives

  1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/04/nyc-mayor-bloomberg-outra_n_563337.html
    With his city still on edge over this weekend's attempted truck-bombing in Times Square, New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg heads to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to give Congress a piece of his mind on a closely related issue.

    Bloomberg is upset about a federal loophole that, amazingly enough, allows people on the FBI's Terrorist Watchlist to legally buy guns and explosives.

    Current federal law specifies only a limited number of reasons the government can cite to block the purchase of guns or explosives -- and being in the FBI's database of those "known or reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorist activity" isn't one of them.

    Despite what would appear to be an easy vote, members of Congress, at least in part due to fear of the gun lobby, have consistently bucked requests from both the Bush and Obama administrations to close what Bloomberg calls the "terror gap."

    "We need Congress to have our back on this issue, it's upsetting that, so far, they haven't," Bloomberg told the Huffington Post on Tuesday, through a spokesman.

    "There is no silver bullet, but we have to give law enforcement every tool we can. New York City remains at the top of the terrorist target list, something we were reminded of this weekend."

    Weapons sales to suspected terrorists are not hypothetical, either. According to new statistics compiled by the Government Accountability Office and exclusively obtained by the Huffington Post, individuals on the terrorist watchlist were involved in firearm or explosives background checks 1,228 times in the past six years -- and 1,119 of those transactions were allowed to proceed.
  2. Government needs to stand on one side of the fence or the other, if you are going to basically blacklist a person for suspected terrorist involvement or a watch list, why wait for them to prove themselves as one. Deport their ass on out of here asap.

    Problem solved.

    Each one of those requests by persons on a suspect list were phoned in by a gun dealer and approved by the state. As soon as one applies for the gun send a police officer to handcuff their butts and haul them in.

    Changing the law is full of crap, get rid of the problem when it's known to exist.
  3. The criteria for placing someone on the terrorist watch list isn't focused enough to be used to prohibit someone from legally owning a firearm or acquiring various classes of explosives.

    And that's the problem.
  4. Then there's a problem with the list not the law. The story says Bloomberg wants anyone on the list to be prohibited from purchasing a firearm or explosive, if the person in question is that suspicious, then why let them stay here in the first place?
  5. Agreed.

    Because the list is faulty. There are far more innocent people on the list than even potentially guilty.

    The list's primary purpose is to keep a watch on people because of the methodology used to determine how one gets on the list.
  6. Agreed.

    We are a nation of laws, innocent until proven guilty being one of the constitutional biggies. But the law only works when it's enforced. Both extremes end up negative. (a) not enforcing the law,and (b) breaking it.

    So giving up our liberties to prevent further possible attacks, is it worth it?
  7. We walk a very thin line between individual freedom and overall security. Everything I read in that report points to loose boarder control as the main problem.

    At some point tighter control needs to be applied, where to apply that is the question. One of the shining aspects of this country is the individual freedom of it's citizens (I can already hear the keyboards clicking away on that one as it's fading fast) but the reason for any loss of individual freedom is it's given away by the citizens in return for the appearance of increased security. In the end, it's either we give up all freedom and privacy or we close the boarder and purge the list.

    Problem being is we end up like we were in WWII, locking up and deporting everyone that looks different, because without doing just that it's just a matter of time before someone is successful.
  8. I am assuming you know the difference between watching and paying attention...

    People watch TV all the time...are they paying attention to what they are watching?

    Does the average TSA employee at the airports pay attention?

    All the nonsense that has followed from 9/11, if not 9/11 itself has to do with people not paying attention...

    Imagine if the security personnel paid as much attention to their work as traders pay attention to the stock tickers, charts, futures, etc.

    Why is it in America that we fill some of the most important positions, i.e. security, teaching, etc. with some of the least talented people on earth...well, we know why...

  9. Bloomberg wants to bar everyone from being able to buy guns. This is just a convenient way to bash the NRA.

    I have to agree with a previous poster. If being on the watch list is the problem, why not just deport all the non-citizens on it? I'm just guessing the liberals lining up to bash the NRA would howl over that.
  10. The person in question is a US citizen as relates to the event in New York City...

  11. The occasional crazy person getting guns is the trade-off we make for our general right to have them.
  12. True.

    However, there are methods to filter out some of the crazy people, and/or people on a terrorist watch list.

    We shouldn't allow felons to buy guns, right?

    Unless they are NRA members...

  13. No, being on a "watch list" shouldn't in itself be reason to suddenly deny your Constitutional Rights. What if a totalitarian government decided to issue a blanket watch list with millions of names on it?
  14. I think that until we're putting chips into everyone's brains, to monitor for "unauthorized" thoughts, we'll just have to accept the method we've long used: if someone shoots, for example, a dozen people at a school, on the highway, at a fast food joint, etc., then we know they are crazy and they can't have guns.

    As far as I know, the government is already "all over" people they catch who are fraternizing with known terrorist organizations, foreign or domestic, so I'm not sure of the utility of more laws on the issue.
  15. republicans refuse to stop people who are considered too dangerous to get on an airplane from legally buying guns and explosives.

    Bloomberg 'Terror Gap' Argument Shot Down By Pro-Gun GOP Senators

    New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's appeal to what he called "common sense" at a congressional hearing Wednesday morning failed to sway two Republican senators who said that giving the government the ability to block the purchase of guns by suspected terrorists would undermine the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.

    "Shouldn't FBI agents have the authority to block sales of guns and explosives to those on the terror watchlists -- and deemed too dangerous to fly? I actually believe that they should," Bloomberg told senators. Federal law currently only allows the government to block guns sales for a very limited number of reasons, and being on that list is not one of them. (For more background, see Tuesday's article on the subject.)

    "This common-sense legislation is not anti-gun -- it's anti-terrorist," chimed in Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), the sponsor of a bill that would close what Bloomberg has called a "terror gap."

    But GOP Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina wouldn't go along.

    Admitting that "at first blush" the bill "seems to be an obvious step that we should take," Collins said that many people on the FBI's watchlist don't belong there. "None of us wants a terrorist to be able to purchase a gun, but neither should we want to infringe upon a Constitutional right of law-abiding Americans," she said.

    Graham described the bill as an instrument of those who would ban guns altogether. "We're talking about a constitutional right here," he said, explaining that he could not support a bill that would force "innocent Americans" to "pay the cost of going to court to get their gun rights back."

    Graham wasn't nearly as concerned about rights when he launched into a disquisition on the treatment of American citizens accused of terrorism. "I am all into national security," he said. "I want them to stop reading these guys Miranda rights."

  16. Once again, your putting the cart in front of the horse, if these people are too dangerous to let fly on an airplane, why are they here?

    If they are US citizens without a felony, they have the constitutional right to purchase firearms. If they are legal/illegal aliens --- why is our government letting them stay here if they are dangerous.

    Laws won't stop criminals from getting their hands on guns. Disarming the public only makes them vulnerable.

    Why would we allow anyone from another country to stay inside our boarders if the FBI suspects them of terrorism is beyond me.
  17. i would guess that these are us citizens. illegal aliens are not going to be putting themselves through the permiting process.

    there is no reason the law cant be tightened up so suspected terrorists would be denied when they try to buy explosivies. the nra is on the wrong side of public opinion on this one,as usual.

    law abiding gun owners should be for this. freedoms are lost in response to things like this. if gun owners want to keep the right to buy arms they should support common sense laws.
  18. I would guess that most are not US citizens but are here on visa, students and such.

    I would agree that anyone suspected of being a terrorist shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, but if they are a US citizen you are violating their constitutional rights if they haven't done anything wrong.

    Reread your history about how we treated Japanese people after Pearl Harbor.

    Passing a law will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals if they want them, one more law broken means nothing. It's all feel good legislation but does very little.
  19. I presume your point, if I may finish your thought, American institutions are failing because of affirmative hiring practices.
  20. You are finishing your own revelatory thought...not mine.

  21. All well said and excellent points. Couldn't agree more.
  22. Then finish your thought. *rolleyes*