Let's see here. We said no to Schumer's first, horrific bill, and now he wants to come back and try again...and his counteroffer is not to fix the problems in his first bill, but to tack on this bullshit "terror watch list" that the left used to decry when Bush was in office, and make it a disqualification without due process.
Yeah, that's really going to sell it to us.
And by the way, these stories keep telling us how many "suspected terrorists" have bought guns each year--thousands per year. And yet, where is all the bloodshed that we should be seeing if everyone on that list was an honest to God terrorist?
I figured you'd bring them up as some sort of proof. As I've told you before, we only know of one handgun that they had. Djokhar was too young to buy it legally, and as a Permanent Resident, Tamerlan would only have been able to buy long guns legally. So, no, however they got the handgun, this wouldn't have stopped them.
However, even if they had gotten the gun legally, that's one case. Maybe two with the Times Square guy (can't remember if he was on the watch-list before hand, and frankly, I don't feel like doing your homework for you and looking it up while I have the flu).
And that's out of over a thousand "suspected terrorists" who bought guns, each year, over a period of a couple years. So again, I ask you, where are the piles of bodies we should see if all of those thousands of people should have been denied buying guns but weren't?
Maybe some of these folks are bad guys and biding their time; maybe they're not. Either way, the government doesn't have enough proof to arrest them, so why should we allow it to strip them of one of their fundamental rights without due process?
You pointed to the numbnuts from Boston--now I've given you a lead on another possibility--I'm sure you'll be googling furiously to check on it so that you can say, "HA! Two examples!" and repeating your question of, "Isn't that enough?"
No. It's not enough. Just like it's not enough to bar these people from other rights such as associating with others in the Mosque, or even preaching in the Mosque. I'm sure there are people who would like to place such restrictions on these people to ensure that they don't become more radicalized, or, worse, radicalize others. Still, the fact stands, there isn't enough proof for a case, so the feebs need to keep looking into them, but we cannot start stripping them of their rights because of what they might do.
Is that dangerous? Sure, but so is just letting them walk around in the streets. Heck, they could buy a gas can, drop a firework into it, and firebomb some place at any moment if they're so inclined.
Having freedom brings risk with it. If you want safety, you can just let the government lock up anyone it suspects of terrorism, but you won't be living in the same country we grew up in.
I thought the point of closing the "terror loophole" was so that we can prevent terrorists getting guns and killing lots of people in terrorist attacks, not dragnetting a large group of non-terrorists and making sure they don't have a gun to rob a 7/11.
1. The terrorist watch list is secret with no due process to get a person on and no clear way to get a name removed.
2. The Boston bombing happened in, um, where--oh, yes, Massachusetts. The two bombers are highly unlikely to have bought their gun legally. To have done so, the buyer would have had to have a license to buy, among many other hurdles.
Let's see here. We said no to Schumer's first, horrific bill, and now he wants to come back and try again...and his counteroffer is not to fix the problems in his first bill, but to tack on this bullshit "terror watch list" that the left used to decry when Bush was in office, and make it a disqualification without due process.
ReplyDeleteYeah, that's really going to sell it to us.
And by the way, these stories keep telling us how many "suspected terrorists" have bought guns each year--thousands per year. And yet, where is all the bloodshed that we should be seeing if everyone on that list was an honest to God terrorist?
Well the Boston Boys for one. There may have been others, and there may be in the future.
DeleteIsn't that enough?
I figured you'd bring them up as some sort of proof. As I've told you before, we only know of one handgun that they had. Djokhar was too young to buy it legally, and as a Permanent Resident, Tamerlan would only have been able to buy long guns legally. So, no, however they got the handgun, this wouldn't have stopped them.
DeleteHowever, even if they had gotten the gun legally, that's one case. Maybe two with the Times Square guy (can't remember if he was on the watch-list before hand, and frankly, I don't feel like doing your homework for you and looking it up while I have the flu).
And that's out of over a thousand "suspected terrorists" who bought guns, each year, over a period of a couple years. So again, I ask you, where are the piles of bodies we should see if all of those thousands of people should have been denied buying guns but weren't?
Maybe some of these folks are bad guys and biding their time; maybe they're not. Either way, the government doesn't have enough proof to arrest them, so why should we allow it to strip them of one of their fundamental rights without due process?
You pointed to the numbnuts from Boston--now I've given you a lead on another possibility--I'm sure you'll be googling furiously to check on it so that you can say, "HA! Two examples!" and repeating your question of, "Isn't that enough?"
No. It's not enough. Just like it's not enough to bar these people from other rights such as associating with others in the Mosque, or even preaching in the Mosque. I'm sure there are people who would like to place such restrictions on these people to ensure that they don't become more radicalized, or, worse, radicalize others. Still, the fact stands, there isn't enough proof for a case, so the feebs need to keep looking into them, but we cannot start stripping them of their rights because of what they might do.
Is that dangerous? Sure, but so is just letting them walk around in the streets. Heck, they could buy a gas can, drop a firework into it, and firebomb some place at any moment if they're so inclined.
Having freedom brings risk with it. If you want safety, you can just let the government lock up anyone it suspects of terrorism, but you won't be living in the same country we grew up in.
Another question is who's checking. I doubt very much if every gun crime is being cross referenced against the Terrorist Watch List.
DeleteI thought the point of closing the "terror loophole" was so that we can prevent terrorists getting guns and killing lots of people in terrorist attacks, not dragnetting a large group of non-terrorists and making sure they don't have a gun to rob a 7/11.
DeleteI will see to it that an amendment is added concerning domestic terrorist groups, such as your NRA.
Delete1. The terrorist watch list is secret with no due process to get a person on and no clear way to get a name removed.
ReplyDelete2. The Boston bombing happened in, um, where--oh, yes, Massachusetts. The two bombers are highly unlikely to have bought their gun legally. To have done so, the buyer would have had to have a license to buy, among many other hurdles.
3. You expect us to trust Schumer on anything?
"ONLY" one hand gun? ONLY one MIT security guard dead. Good ratio.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone been checking? No.
DeleteChecking what? A secret list with no due process? Are there any rights that you aren't ready to throw away?
Delete