Many people are concerned that the government puts people on the watch list too easily and sometimes for alternative reasons. I agree these are concerns which much be addressed. But the NRA position seems a bit paranoid to me.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.
"H.R. 2159 isn't about making America safe from terrorists; it's about giving the federal government new, arbitrary authority to prohibit loyal Americans from exercising their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. Cloaking it in terms of 'national security' doesn't change that fact."
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
If Bloomberg's intentions are not to attack the Second Amendment, then why not do the intellectually honest thing and capture all the suspected terrorists on the watch lists?
ReplyDeleteConsidering terrorists aren't too fond of using guns in the US, locking them all up will go a lot farther to save lives than just simply denying them a tool that they'd never use in the first place. Denying them a gun purchase isn't going to stop them from filling a Ryder truck with ANFO. nd apparently, being on a No-Fly list isn't going to stop them from getting on an airplane.
And isn't this just another case of the anti-gunners pulling another Virginia Tech by using a completely unrelated event to push their pet legislation? How many times have we seen VTech pimped as a marketing ploy to close the "Gun Show Loophole", despite the fact the shooter didn't buy his guns at a gun show? Now we have to listen to them use an attempted car bombing to push anti-gun legislation?
What's next? Using jay walking to ban concealed carry?
If someone is a terrorist, why not just put them in jail? How difficult of a solution is that?
ReplyDeleteBecause it isn't about "known terrorists", FWM, it's about people who are potentially capable of terrorism.
ReplyDeleteThe Times Square bomber incident suggests a compromise on this issue.
ReplyDeleteThe Times Square bomber was placed on a suspect list at the same time he was being sought for arrest for the Times Square bombing attempt.
Therefore, I would support legislation makeing it illegal for anyone to buy a gun who has been placed on a suspect list AND at the same time is being sought for arrest for a felony (or has any outstanding felony arrest warrant).
Is it not odd that the same folks who advocate those on a terrorist watch list have the right to purchase any firearm (or numbers of firearms)--yet they get bent out of shape when suspected terrorists are read their rights?
ReplyDeleteHmmm.
The gunloons always call unfettered access to any firearm a civil right. Yet the same folks are demanding we be allowed to phone tap, microchip, conduct electronic surveillance, deatain without warrant all those nonwhite folks.
--JadeGold
Because it isn't about "known terrorists", FWM, it's about people who are potentially capable of terrorism.
ReplyDeleteThat's an incredibly low, vague standard. Everyone posting here is "potentially capable of terrorism."
Jade - Do you even know when a suspect has to be Mirandized? (hint - It's not like what you see on TV)
Check out Mike W--he's not a lawyer but he plays one on the internets. He's not a crimefighter but he plays one on the internets.
ReplyDeleteA suspect in a crime is required to be Mirandized any time the police take him into custody (e.g., arrest) or interrogate that person in a custodial situation.
--JadeGold
Considering terrorists aren't too fond of using guns in the US,
ReplyDeleteAzRed shows, once more, he lives on another planet, in a galaxy far, far away.
In point of fact, it's not difficult to show firearms are the *preferred* weapon in US terrorism.
VaTech, Columbine, the murders of abortion doctors, the murders (or attempts) of US Presidents and civil rights leaders were all committed with firearms.
And if we look at the most prevalent and active terrorist groups in the US such as the Klan, Aryan Nation and various ideological offshoots--firearms are the weapon of choice. Look at the Hutarees and other militia-type groups.
--JadeGold
Jade, you’re slacking. You were supposed to make the following correction:
ReplyDelete“With his city still on edge over this weekend's NRA INSPIRED attempted truck-bombing in Times Square…”
Jadegold: “The gunloons always call unfettered access to any firearm a civil right. Yet the same folks are demanding we be allowed to phone tap, microchip, conduct electronic surveillance, deatain without warrant all those nonwhite folks.”
It sounds to me like you are opposed to Bush’s Patriot Act antics but support Bloomberg’s “terror gap” antics. Please correct me if I am wrong by denouncing what Bloomberg is proposing here. If not, all you are doing is finding examples of people being hypocritical and using that as an excuse to be hypocritical yourself. I say we can fight terrorism within the bounds of our rules that protect our citizens- both the Patriot Act and “terror gap” are wrong. Do you stand with me on that, or do you just say whatever your political party tells you to say?
"Because it isn't about 'known terrorists', FWM, it's about people who are potentially capable of terrorism."
ReplyDeleteSo how do you measure a "potential terrorist"? Is there a scale somewhere or is it up to the judgement call of some bureaucrat?
So how do you measure a "potential terrorist"?
ReplyDeleteNRA ballcap or decal.
--JadeGold
So how do you measure a "potential terrorist"? Is there a scale somewhere or is it up to the judgement call of some bureaucrat?
ReplyDeleteJudging by his hate rhetoric, I would consider JadeGold a "potential terrorist". Does anybody know how I can alert the authorities that he may be someone they might want to watch? You wouldn't mind being inconvenienced "just in case" would you Jade?
"VaTech, Columbine, the murders of abortion doctors, the murders (or attempts) of US Presidents and civil rights leaders were all committed with firearms."
ReplyDelete9/11 and Tim McVeigh killed many more people without guns. And half of the events you listed weren't even terrorism.
"And if we look at the most prevalent and active terrorist groups in the US such as the Klan, Aryan Nation and various ideological offshoots--firearms are the weapon of choice. Look at the Hutarees and other militia-type groups."
And what acts of terrorism have they committed with those guns?
Face it, Jade. You're wrong as usual. Terrorism in America is magnitudes deadlier without a gun than it is with a gun.
If you want to save lives, lock terrorists up. Denying them a gun will accomplish nothing.
Jade, I would like you to address my question. You’ve aptly brought up a comparison between “terror gap” legislation and denying Miranda rights. This means you can support both, be opposed to both, or be a hypocrite. So which is it? Put down your “Progressive Handbook” and think for yourself for a minute.
ReplyDeleteThe "Bloomberg" referred to in this post -- that isn't the same Bloomberg who predicted that the Times Square bomber would turn out to be someone unhappy with the health care bill?
ReplyDeleteIf so, why would we listen to such a fool?
So how do you measure a "potential terrorist"?
ReplyDeleteNRA ballcap or decal.
--JadeGold
And still you wonder why the NRA would oppose such a silly, subjective law.
A suspect in a crime is required to be Mirandized any time the police take him into custody (e.g., arrest) or interrogate that person in a custodial situation.
ReplyDeleteactually a suspect does NOT have to be mirandized merely because he is arrested. If there is no custodial interrogation no warning need be given.
The cops absolutely are not required to mirandize you immediately upon arrest
There's also a public safety exception to Miranda. Go look up the case law if you're so inclined. (NY v. Quarles)
From the news:
ReplyDeleteBut Bloomberg claimed that national-security concerns take precedence over any Second Amendment arguments.
“Our Founding Fathers did not write the Second Amendment to empower people who wanted to terrorize a free state,” Bloomberg said.
One could just as easily say: "Our Founding Fathers did not write the FOURTH Amendment to empower people who wanted to terrorize a free state."
So national-security concerns should ALSO take precedence over any FOURTH Amendment arguments.
If we are to deny Second Amendment rights to anyone that bureaucrats have placed on a secret list, we should also deny their Fourth Amendment rights and search their homes without warrants.