Hence there are wrinkles of America’s permissive gun laws so bizarre they beggar belief. To wit: “Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law.” Neither does inclusion on the government’s ever-growing terrorist watch list.
That is what the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the research arm of Congress, found after looking into the background checks of prospective buyers gun dealers are required to file to the FBI. According to a GAO report read at a congressional hearing last year, sales of guns and explosives to people on terrorist watch lists totaled 1,119 in a period of six years.
Yikes. It defies any imagination that people aren't up in arms (so to speak) about this, regardless of political party or even gun ownership! While there is evidence that some might have been added to the list wrongly, or some names might be similiar enough to be confused, it is nonetheless a valid means of identifying "the worst of the worst" dangers to this country.
ReplyDeleteIf not, why the hell keep the list??
That whole Bill of Rights thing sure is a bitch, huh?
ReplyDeleteBaldr: “If not, why the hell keep the list??”
ReplyDeleteBecause it is called a “watch” list, not a “to do” list. How many of these “terrorists” are free to exercise their right to privacy? Isn’t it scary to you that we can’t watch them 24 hrs a day without a court order even though they are on a watchlist?
Baldr: “it is nonetheless a valid means of identifying "the worst of the worst" dangers to this country.”
It is not at all “worst of the worst”. Maybe you could make an argument for the “no-fly list” being the “worst of the worst” because it is a small subset of the entire watchlist. But that is not what the GOA report is referring to.
TS: You're playing with semantics and I suspect you know you're wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'll guarantee those on the awtch list are being monitored to various degrees.
Really, Jade? You think the government is monitoring a million people? I’ll bet the majority of them are just added to the list and forgotten about. The ones they *really* want to watch are watched. But they better get a court order if they want to eavesdrop. You are not saying you are OK with the government wiretapping hundreds of thousands of Americans without a court order, are you?
ReplyDeleteTS: As I wrote "to various degrees."
ReplyDeleteDoes that mean they are following everyone on the list 24/7? No. But some are.
Are they tapping everyone on the list? No. Butsome are.
Some of the surveillance may be quite benign--such as tracking credit card purchases or changes of address. But some is definitely more intrusive.
But the point you wish to deflect attention from is the fact that these folks on the watch list are there for a reason.
"But the point you wish to deflect attention from is the fact that these folks on the watch list are there for a reason."
ReplyDeleteYou mean like Ted Kennedy? Or the lady that was married to a TSA agent that was mad at her and added her to the list so she couldn't fly home?
"According to a GAO report read at a congressional hearing last year, sales of guns and explosives to people on terrorist watch lists totaled 1,119 in a period of six years."
ReplyDeleteAnd how many of those sales led to a terrorist act? Zero.
What about the home-grown terrorists and the militia maniacs? Are they part of the famous list? Or is it just the scary muslims?
ReplyDeleteFWM wants everybody to have access to guns. It's their right.
Criminals and terrorists should be in prison and not have access to guns.
ReplyDeleteWhy are all of these dangerous terrorists free to wander the streets and buy guns through legal channels?
If they are truly terrorists, why are they not in jail or Bin Ladenned?
Jadegold: “Are they tapping everyone on the list? No. Butsome are.”
ReplyDeleteIs that only because they don’t have the time or resources? What you did not answer was are you OK with the government wiretapping the phone line of a suspected terrorist without getting a court order- with the only reason being that they are on a watchlist? Notwithstanding that they won’t be able to tap everyone. Is that OK with you?
TS: Short answer is 'no.'
ReplyDeleteThe fact is your hero, GWBush, basically gutted the FISA process--which was pretty lenient to begin WRT getting wiretaps.
You really need to read up on this issue. Wiretaps are pretty inefficient in that they are resource-intensive and you have to know the specific communication line used by the target. Why do that when you can datamaine?
But wiretaps are really the last stage--reserved for those the feds are already actively surveilling.
It may help to think of how law enforcement deals with organized crime. Obviously, the bosses are going to get the most attention; the worker bees and occassional participants less so.
The question remains, however. Why are you opposed to forbidding weapons sales to those who are known to have terrorist connections?
An observation, Jade; you never seem to argue against a person or against a point. You argue against the gunlooon in your head. He is a fat, white, middle aged, racists, George Bush loving conservative. And it doesn’t matter what the topic at hand is, you stick with your boiler plate arguments against this guy whom you have already determined exactly what his position is. It is a sign of a weak position.
ReplyDeleteI have never voted for GWB. You also would know I am against warrantless wiretaps- either by simply reading this thread, or the dozens of other times I mentioned it. You spout off about law enforcement use of wiretaps, which is hardly the point. The point is due process; something of which you feel is necessary for these “terrorists” unless of course it is taking guns away. You have no problems throwing due process away so long as the second amendment goes with it. It is a flaming bag of hypocrisy. I have no problems denying those on the watchlist gun purchases, so long as we follow due process. That means a court order by a judge for each individual case with an expiration period. How does that not satisfy your desire to keep guns away from terrorists?
I've got an idea, let's use due process to throw the 2nd Amendment into the compost bin where it belongs. Then we can talk about the safety implications of gun ownership without all the interference of "rights."
ReplyDeleteThe right to life and right to self-defense DOES NOT translate into a right to own a gun. That's an impossible leap.
I've got an idea, let's use due process to throw the 2nd Amendment into the compost bin where it belongs. Then we can talk about the safety implications of gun ownership without all the interference of "rights."
ReplyDeleteAnd you want us to believe that you don't want to take away all guns
The right to life and right to self-defense DOES NOT translate into a right to own a gun. That's an impossible leap.
http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/2011/06/97-year-old_woman_beaten_robbed.php
http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/70-year-old_woman_son_targeted_in_home_invasion_117575653.html
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-01-18/news/27087778_1_home-invasion-robbery-machete-victim
http://www.wbay.com/story/14705934/2011/05/24/suspect-sought-in-hobart-home-invasion
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/31/20110131florida-elderly-man-shoots-robbers.html
And you wonder why we accuse you gun grabbers of coddling criminals.
MikeB: “I've got an idea, let's use due process to throw the 2nd Amendment into the compost bin where it belongs.”
ReplyDeleteNow you’re talking. This should be the first step in your plan. It is the only honest way to go about it.
No reply from Jade all weekend, huh? What do you think the over/under should be on number of days until Jade ignores this post yet again and says something like “TS wants to arm terrorists”?
Actually, I think we could do away with the 2nd Amendment justification without desiring total gun elimination. Both sides would be more honest then. Some people want guns and some people need guns for safety. That's good enough. In order to control them severely enough to minimize the flow into the criminal world, it would not be necessary to eliminate them completely. The folks who want guns and those who need guns for safety can still have them. For these people nothing much changes, if they're of the law-abiding stripe.
ReplyDelete