Yes, if you are on the terrorist watch list, the authorities can keep you from getting on a plane but not from purchasing an AK-47. This makes sense to Congress because, as Graham accurately pointed out, “when the founders sat down and wrote the Constitution, they didn’t consider flying.”
The subject of guns turns Congress into a twilight zone. People who are perfectly happy to let the government wiretap phones go nuts when the government wants to keep track of weapons permits. A guy who stands up in the House and defends the torture of terror suspects will nearly faint with horror at the prospect of depriving someone on the watch list of the right to purchase a pistol.
“We make it so easy for dangerous people to get guns. If it’s the Second Amendment, it doesn’t matter if they’re Osama bin Laden,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
What do you think about that? How could people who accept illegal wiretapping of American citizens be so upset about the Constitutional implications of this proposal?
Please leave a comment.
"What do you think about that? How could people who accept illegal wiretapping of American citizens be so upset about the Constitutional implications of this proposal?"
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to figure out who those "people" are. I don't know one gun owner that is a fan of the Patriot Act.
Mikeb: "How could people who accept illegal wiretapping of American citizens be so upset about the Constitutional implications of this proposal?"
ReplyDeleteI am continually surprised that this question is so often asked without the realization that it WORKS BOTH WAYS.
If one is concerned about the infingement of rights by the war on terrorism, how can one possibly be OK with the denial of 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights because bureaucrats have placed your name on a secret list using secret criteria?
Yet we see some of the most vocal critics of previously perceived infingement of rights by the war on terrorism now PROMOTING the "terror gap" proposal.
How can THAT be?
Case in point: Bloomberg claimed that national-security concerns take precedence over Second Amendment rights.
ReplyDelete"Our Founding Fathers did not write the Second Amendment to empower people who wanted to terrorize a free state," Bloomberg said.
But 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 by the same reasoning, national-security concerns should ALSO take precedence over any FOURTH Amendment right.
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.
So, why not just suspend the civil liberties of everyone who finds themselves on a secret government list?
ReplyDeleteI mean, if you're arguing we should do it for the 2nd Amendment then logically you'd support violating all individual rights under the same premise.
MikeB: “How could people who accept illegal wiretapping of American citizens be so upset about the Constitutional implications of this proposal?”
ReplyDeleteAnd how could people who accept the constitutional implications of this proposal be so upset about illegal wiretapping? This is the point I was making to Jade in the last post- that by pointing out Graham’s hypocrisy, you yourself are being a hypocrite. Go “all-in” denying rights in the name of national security, or stand by the constitution. Which one are you for MikeB?
Question for everyone: is there is a “no-fly” list and a separate “watch list”? I have seen both terms used by the gun-control side- are they different? Is the proposal to deny guns to the “no-fly” list or the much larger “watch list”? I am not entirely sure, so someone please chime in if you have more knowledge.
The hypocrisy of the gunloons is breathtaking. As I've sagely noted, gunloons have been unconcerned about civil rights of any kind. Their sole concern has been for anyone to have unfettered access to firearms.
ReplyDeleteWhen FWM says he doesn't know one gunowner that is a fan of the Patriot Act, we can only assume he is either lying or has never heard of Dick Cheney or the many, many gunowning Congresscritters who love the Patriot Act.
Sadly, folks like TS and FJ believe Heller gave them the right to unfettered access to firearms. It didn't. This is the part of Fat Tony Scalia's opinion they'd just as soon forget: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
--JadeGold
"When FWM says he doesn't know one gunowner that is a fan of the Patriot Act, we can only assume he is either lying or has never heard of Dick Cheney or the many, many gunowning Congresscritters who love the Patriot Act."
ReplyDeleteJade, to be fair, I wasn't counting Congress critters as people. ;)
TS asked, "Go “all-in” denying rights in the name of national security, or stand by the constitution. Which one are you for MikeB?"
ReplyDeleteThe one I'm for is the one which either revokes the 2nd Amendment altogether or drastically changes the way we understand it in modern America.
After that we can talk.
JadeGold: "Sadly, folks like TS and FJ believe Heller gave them the right to unfettered access to firearms."
ReplyDeleteAs usual, JadeGold claims that I "believe" things that I don't.
I don't believe that any Constitutional right is unfettered. I do however have doubts that a Constitutional right should be suspended for those that bureaucrats have placed on a secret list.
Wish I had said that:
ReplyDeleteTHEY TOLD ME IF I VOTED FOR JOHN MCCAIN, fearmongers would push civil rights restrictions in the name of a war on terror. And they were right!
(From Instpundit)
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/98863/
Jadegold: “The hypocrisy of the gunloons is breathtaking. As I've sagely noted, gunloons have been unconcerned about civil rights of any kind.”
ReplyDeleteIt seems most everyone here has spoken up for all rights. Who are these “gunloons” that you speak of anyway?
Jadegold: “Sadly, folks like TS and FJ believe Heller gave them the right to unfettered access to firearms.”
This isn’t grade school- you don’t have to pay attention. But don’t tell me what I believe if you are not even listening to what I say. You just brought this up one week ago. Go read my answer and tell me if I said Heller grants unfettered access. Hell, DC effectively still has a handgun ban.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/04/more-on-draconian.html
MikeB: “The one I'm for is the one which either revokes the 2nd Amendment altogether or drastically changes the way we understand it in modern America.”
ReplyDeleteMike, I appreciate your honesty here. Bloomberg and other anti-gun politicians can’t say this lest they get booted out of office. Even the Bradys are trying to rewrite themselves as not being a gun ban organization to keep some semblance of support. But regarding the “terror gap” issue- as of now, gun ownership is a right. And to say that right should be revoked without due process while berating others for suspending the right to privacy and Miranda rights is pure hypocritical. You just concentrate on getting the 2nd amendment stricken from the Bill of Rights, and after that happens you won’t even have to make a secret list to take away guns.
The only way to close the terror gap is to find and imprison all those on the terrorist watch lists.
ReplyDeleteAnything less than that is just pointless politics.
TS, I don't think it necessarily follows that eliminating the 2nd Amendment would mean total bans on guns. But what it might mean is we'd be better able to control the guns we do have and get our gun crime stats down there with the other 1st world countries. What we've got not is a disgrace.
ReplyDeleteMikeB: “TS, I don't think it necessarily follows that eliminating the 2nd Amendment would mean total bans on guns.”
ReplyDeleteNote I never said “total bans on guns”, but without a constitutional right the government can take away whatever they want from whomever they want for whatever reason.
You could ban guns tomorrow and our gun crime stats would never approach those of other 1st world countries. Mainly because other 1st world countries don't have entire cities ruled by criminals, like Chicago for example.
ReplyDelete