Why shouldn't suspected terrorists be banned from purchasing guns, again?

I love the mental backflips the gun guys do in their opposition to putting suspected terrorists on the NICS background check prohibition list.  And then THIS happens.....

I wonder how often the authorities DON'T catch these guys.  It's incredibly -- astoundingly -- easy for would-be terrorists to amass weapons for terrorist plots in the U.S.  Semi-auto assault weapons?  .50-caliber rifles?  No problem.  Hell, as long as they purchase from private sellers, they don't even need to go through the trouble of background checks.  It's just cash-and-carry, baby!  America is a jihadist's jannah.

From the article:

Ulugbek Kodirov, a 22-year-old Uzbek man who moved to the United States planning to study medicine in New York, but ended up working in a suburban Alabama mall, was sentenced to more than 15 years in prison on Friday for plotting to kill President Obama on behalf of a jihadist group in Uzbekistan.

As The Associated Press reports, Mr. Kodirov’s lawyer, Lance Bell, blamed the Internet for radicalizing the young man, who moved to Alabama after giving up on a plan to get a medical degree at Columbia University because his English was not good enough. “I’m not calling him a victim,” Mr. Bell said, “but he’s a victim to a degree of social media.”

According to the signed confession in his plea agreement, which was posted online by The Birmingham News in February, the young man hatched his plot to shoot the president after being radicalized while watching jihadist videos online. He then communicated via YouTube with someone he believed to a member of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which is on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations.
....
He was arrested exactly one year ago at a motel in Leeds, Ala., in possession of an automatic machine gun, a sniper rifle with a telescopic sight and four hand grenades provided to him by an undercover agent for the American government, posing as a jihadist sympathizer.

If he had just stuck to buying semi-auto handguns, rifles, or assault rifles, and as much ammo as he could afford, he wouldn't have actually been breaking the law.  Lucky for us, he wanted a machine gun and grenades.

Don't ya love how he blames the internet for his almost-terror-spree?  Haters, like terrorists and insurrectionist gun nuts, love to come together on social media.  They aren't mainstream enough to find enough like-minded pals in real life.

To all you gunloons who oppose mandatory background checks and the terrorist watch list....  aren't you proud you support "2nd Amendment remedies" for terrorists?

Meet Jihad Joe!

OK, if the US is really serious about fighting the war on terrorism, it needs to get serious gun control NOW!

But, that's just my opinion and you don't mind having a massive body count as "the cost of freedom".

Instead, US politicians protect the right for known potential terrorists on the terrorist list to continue legally purchasing guns--which is a victory for The NRA.

Anyway, I trust you Second Amendment types have no problem with this man telling his Jihady mates to stop on by the local gun show and stock up. After all, They haven't done anything illegal until they have shot up (quite) a few US citizens in some public place(s).

And don't forget this manual!



Any luck, an armed citizen (or more) will show up and turn a terrorist act into a real clutter fuck.

Love it or leave it!

I'm glad I left since it's safer here!

The No-Fly List

FishyJay sent us the link for this fascinating story about the no-fly list.

The United States has issued a written apology to a jet-setting billionaire businessman with close ties to former President Bill Clinton whose name was added to the no-fly list in the wake of the attempted Christmas day bombing of an American passenger plane.

Gilbert Chagoury, 64, a Nigerian citizen of Lebanese descent, was pulled off a private jet Jan. 15 at Teterboro airport in New Jersey and detained for more than four hours after federal agents discovered his name was on the then-recently updated no-fly list.

It seems there was a tenuous connection between a Nigerian banker of Chagoury's acquaintance and the Christmas day bomber. Part of the government's explanation was this:

"Please understand that in order to detect those international travelers involved in illicit activities, we must, at times, unfortunately inconvenience law-abiding travelers," the DHS official wrote to Chagoury in April.

What's your opinion? Doesn't that make sense? Of course it does, but it brings up a disquieting concern.

If it was difficult for a politically-connected billionaire to restore his privileges to fly into the United States, what about ordinary people entangled in the enhanced screening for the no-fly list?

What do you think? Is it worth it that some people will be inconvenienced in order for the government to do its job of searching out terrorists? Aren't the stakes too high to allow everyone free movement unless they've already been convicted of terror related crimes? Don't you think it's possible to ensure this terror-list policy is not abused, short of eliminating the whole thing?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

NRA Members on the Terror Gap

ThinkProgress posted this fantastic video. The last guy is the best.

As Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne noted at the time, the poll indicates that NRA members are “more reasonable than the organization’s leaders and supporters in Congress in understanding the urgency of keeping guns out of the wrong hands.”

I think we have to consider another unofficial poll: gun-bloggers. In my own limited experience I'd say they overwhelmingly agree with the NRA leadership. Why do you think? It is a puzzlement.

Please leave a comment.

More on the Terror Gap

The New York Times published an op-ed about the Congressional discussions about closinig the terror gap. This has been pretty well covered by both sides, but this article contained some interesting points.

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.

The Terror Loophole

The Washington Post reports on the latest initiative by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG).

The first aims to close the so-called "terror gap" in existing gun laws by prohibiting any one on the country's "no fly" list from being allowed to purchase a gun. Such a prohibition would allow the FBI to stop "people who are too dangerous to get on a plane from buying guns and explosives," said New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a co-founder of the mayors group. This proposal is a no-brainer.

There has been quite a lot written by the pro-gun crowd in opposition to this proposal, using lots of inflammatory language about freedom and rights, but doesn't the MAIG proposal make good sense? No one is suggesting the federal government should be allowed to keep open-ended lists of political enemies and to abuse the system in any way, but the idea of preventing "people who are too dangerous to get on a plane from buying guns and explosives," seems fairly simple, does it not?

Is It True? Terrorists Buying Guns?

MSNBC reports on the latest concerns over the gun buying frenzy in America.

More than 800 gun purchases were approved after background checks in the last five years even though the buyers' names were on the government's terrorist watch list, investigators said Monday.

Being on the watch list is not among the nine factors, such as a felony conviction, that disqualify someone from buying a gun under federal law. More than 900 background checks between February 2004 and February 2009 turned up names on the watch list, and all but 98 were allowed to go through.

The watch list — maintained by the FBI and used by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies — is meant to identify known or suspected terrorists. However, the list has drawn criticism over the years for mistakes that have led to questioning and searches of innocent people.

I believe this is the same list we talked about last year. At that time there were reports all over the internet that the list contained a million names, obviously many who didn't belong there. Suddenly the government announced the list is much shorter than that, around 16,000 they said. So what does it mean? What does it mean for the 800 "suspected terrorists" who've purchased firearms over the last five years?

The top lobbyist for the National Rifle Association said the terrorist watch list has names of people who should not be on the list.

"Law-abiding Americans should not be treated like terrorists," the NRA's Chris Cox said. "To deny law-abiding people due process and their Second Amendment rights based on a secret list is not how we do things in America."

I'm certainly in agreement with that, although I don't know if it qualifies as a "secret" list. The federal government that keeps lists on it's citizens might be all right for China and Iran, but surely not in America. But what's a government to do? How are they supposed to anticipate another 9/11 attack if they don't keep lists? These are difficult questions.

About anyone being able to buy guns, certain places in America are havens for that sort of thing, aren't they? No one goes to New Jersey for that, but there are states where anyone, terrorist, felon, mentally ill person, anyone at all can easily buy guns. And let's not forget the so-called "straw purchasers" and the middle men looking only to turn a profit. That's the problem. That's where a lot of the gun flow happens.

We talked about New Jersey's new one-gun-a-month law the other day. Is it safe to assume that the crime guns in Camden and Newark are for the most part imported from out of state? Then would it be safe to assume that if those other states had similar restrictions to those of NJ, this type of gun flow would cease? I say yes, and I say that's part of the solution. I also say it would be a small price for the legitimate gun public to pay for a major improvement in the gun violence problem.

What's your opinion?

The Legacy: Frivolous Terrorism Charges

The Los Angeles Times reports on the case of Tamera Jo Freeman who was arrested, charged with terrorism and spent three months in jail, all for spanking her kids on a flight and mouthing off to the flight attendant.

A flight attendant confronted Freeman, who responded by hurling a few profanities and throwing what remained of a can of tomato juice on the floor.

The incident aboard the Frontier flight ultimately led to Freeman's arrest and conviction for a federal felony defined as an act of terrorism under the Patriot Act, the controversial federal law enacted after the 2001 attacks in New York and Washington.

The LA Times article says that 200 people have been arrested in various situations and charged in this way.

In most of the cases, there was no evidence that the passengers had attempted to hijack the airplane or physically attack any of the flight crew. Many have simply involved raised voices, foul language and drunken behavior.

Some security experts say the use of the law by airlines and their employees has run amok, criminalizing incidents that did not start out as a threat to public safety, much less an act of terrorism.

Is this covered by what Obama said yesterday about the United States as a country: "nor does it entitle us to do as we please." Is it to be hoped that as President, Barack Obama will see to it that some of these abuses are corrected?

What's your opinion? Some may say that policies like the Patriot Act do more good than harm. Is that possible?

(H/T to Susie Madrak at Crooks & Liars)

Terrorist Watch List

CNN reports that the Terrorist Watch List is a lot shorter than previously believed. We discussed the famous list before here and here. The suggestion that a million names are on the list seemed ridiculous, but then again we are talking about the government.

Michael Chertoff revealed for the first time that 2,500 people are on the "no fly" list and only about 10 percent of those are U.S. citizens. Individuals on this list are barred from boarding aircraft because intelligence indicates they pose a threat to aviation.

Fewer than 16,000 people are designated "selectees," he said, and most are not Americans. These people represent a less specific security threat and receive extra scrutiny, but are allowed to fly.

At the risk of sounding cynical, I'd say the list was closer to the American Civil Liberties estimate just a week or two ago. Then in anticipation of this press release, it was chopped down. They probably removed the ones who shouldn't have been on it in the first place, the ones placed there for purely harassment purposes.

It has been pointed out that many thousands more have names or dates of birth similar to those on the lists. These people are wrongly delayed at airports or actually denied access.

But what I wonder is, what kind of threat do these people really pose? According to the stats there are about 250 Americans who CANNOT fly. If they're so dangerous why aren't they already in Guantanamo?

My opinion? The Department of Homeland Security is run by the same kind of feckless idiots that have run the IRS for decades. These are bureaucrats of the worst kind, who, at every level of the hierarchy strive to spend their allotted budgets and justify spending more next year with, in most cases, little or no regard for the quality of their output.

What do you think?

I'm on the Pavement Thinkin' 'bout the Government

According to an article on the Propublica site, the ACLU is reportiong that the watch list has now reached one million names. (via Patrick) This is the same watch list that Naomi Wolf so eloquently spoke about in the video I posted the other day.

The American Civil Liberties Union held a news conference this morning to commemorate what it says is the addition of the millionth name to the nation’s terrorist watch list. The number is a calculation based on a 2007 Justice Department inspector general report, which said the database had 700,000 records and was growing by an average of 20,000 a month.

Of course the FBI denies this. Chad Kolton, spokesman for the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, says the figure of one million is far in excess of the actual 400,000 he admits are listed. I wonder if he was able to say that with a straight face; to me it sounds like a sick joke. Mr. Kolton defends the program claiming that it has enabled law enforcement personell to exercise front-line preventative measures in the war on terror.

That large net ensnares many innocent travelers, leading to an erosion of civil liberties, the ACLU argues. People flagged by the watch list have reported having to go through extra screening or having to answer numerous questions to prove they are who they say they are. Others have been prevented from getting on planes.

Personally, I'm more concerned with the government's over-reaching policies than I am about another terrorist attack. Of course we need reasonable policies in place to protect people, but it seems to me that since 9/11, the federal government has gone too far.

What do you think?