Terrorist? Wanna Buy a Gun? The GOP Is On Your Side!

[Flagg]

Raw Story

House Republicans reject proposal to ban gun sales to suspected terrorists

By Eric W. Dolan
Wednesday, July 17, 2013 19:22 EDT

A proposal to ban the sale of firearms to individuals on the FBI’s terrorist watch list was defeated by House Republicans on Wednesday.

Reps. Nita Lowey (D-NY) and David Price (D-NC) offered an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations bill that would have given the U.S. Department of Justice authority to block suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms and explosives.

“Terrorists are knowingly exploiting our laws,” Lowey said, citing American-born al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn.

The amendment was defeated in the House Appropriations Committee by a 19-29 vote.

“Americans expect our government to keep guns out of the hands of felons, domestic abusers, the mentally ill, and terrorists,” Lowey said in a statement. “A suspected terrorist cannot board a plane but can pass a background check to buy a gun. It is absurd that my Republican colleagues opposed our amendment to close this dangerous gap in our gun safety laws.”

Similar legislation has been proposed — and defeated — before. The National Rifle Association claimed in 2011 such proposals were “aimed primarily at law-abiding American gun owners” and “sponsored by gun control extremists.”

You may not be able to fly, but by god you can buy as many guns and as much ammunition as you want!

[Grumman]

The Republicans are in the right here - not because letting terrorists arm themselves is good, but because "suspected terrorist" is little more than self-serving bullshit. When a USAF veteran can be put on the no-fly list twice with no justification given just because he is an Arab, it is inexcusable to expand the range of rights that the government can deny you on their whim.

[energiewende]

Being on a government blacklist does not mean you are a terrorist or should be treated like one. Extrajudicial punishments like this seem to be on shaky ground outside the US let alone within its borders.

[Zaune]

Being on a government blacklist does not mean you are a terrorist or should be treated like one. Extrajudicial punishments like this seem to be on shaky ground outside the US let alone within its borders.

Don't you think the appropriate response would be to stop putting people on terrorist watchlists unless there's a very good reason to do so, rather than just introduce a bunch of huge inconsistencies like this?

[Grumman]

Don't you think the appropriate response would be to stop putting people on terrorist watchlists unless there's a very good reason to do so, rather than just introduce a bunch of huge inconsistencies like this?

There aren't any inconsistencies being introduced - the only inconsistency is one that already existed, and the Democrats were trying to remove. And no, it is not appropriate to expand the power of a racist, easily abused law before you make it less racist and easily abused.

[energiewende]

Being on a government blacklist does not mean you are a terrorist or should be treated like one. Extrajudicial punishments like this seem to be on shaky ground outside the US let alone within its borders.

Don't you think the appropriate response would be to stop putting people on terrorist watchlists unless there's a very good reason to do so, rather than just introduce a bunch of huge inconsistencies like this?

If you take the notion of a "watchlist" literally then there's nothing wrong with it. It's a list of people who the government thinks are much more likely than average to be terrorists, but doesn't claim to know that they are. The government then observes them - within the bounds of the constitution and the law - to see if there is solid evidence they are terrorists, and to try to stop any terrorist action they might attempt to carry out.

The problem comes when this "watch"list becomes more like a blacklist, imposing all sorts of restrictions on ordinarily lawful activities. In my opinion that should require a criminal conviction, not the government's mere supposition.

It's also opening the door to something much more sinister: we're assuming so far that the government honestly thinks these people are terrorists. The burden of proof is low so the government can be and often has been wrong. But if we grant the principle that they can add someone's name to a list for any reason and a lot of restrictions can be applied to them, it will become a more general power that the government can use against anyone it finds expedient.

[Sea Skimmer]

Being on a government blacklist does not mean you are a terrorist or should be treated like one. Extrajudicial punishments like this seem to be on shaky ground outside the US let alone within its borders.

Shaky grounds is being incredibly generous. The constitution doesn't rank civil rights; how far would anyone support a watch list to deny suspected terrorists the right to practice Islam? Oh but hey better yet, since foreign nationals without green cards already are banned from buy guns or ammunition, we just found our precedent for not applying the constitution to foreigners, so all that torture is now plainly 100% legal. Go freedom.

[Mr Bean]

There used to be a time and a place when Democrats also objected to placing extra restrictions on those on the FBI terrorist watch list. However it was when George Bush was in office, because now that the list is literally twice as big as it was in 2008 everything is better now.

Keep in mind the terrorist watch list currently stands at last publicly released count at 1.7 million names of which an unknown number are American.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The fact it is "Suspected" terrorists says everything about why you should stand with the GOP on this issue. In fact I know you've had trouble with getting prescription painkillers because you're a suspected drug user, Flagg, so I'd have thought you'd see the obvious parallels to "we take away your constitutional rights over suspicion" that you already suffer under.

[Flagg]

I'm not going to defend no-fly and terror watch lists but it's pretty fucking sad that we won't let you get on a plane but we'll let you stockpile weaponry.

[Irbis]

There used to be a time and a place when Democrats also objected to placing extra restrictions on those on the FBI terrorist watch list. However it was when George Bush was in office, because now that the list is literally twice as big as it was in 2008 everything is better now.

I'd rank right to fly a plane a lot higher than right to own piece of metal with the only purpose being killing others. So, no, that's not 'extra restriction', it's just common sense. No fly lists can be solved by reinforced doors in planes, terrorist's access to guns can be solved by, you know, not selling them guns

And to be honest, I find potential terrorist in USA to be much less likely to be Islamic, but to be trueblood Confeds4Life US gun militia member, or these idiot Three Percenters, so yeah, such people should be put on the list pronto.

[TheFeniX]

You're talking about a system so fucking stupid and arbitrary in it's enforcement, changing your name can remove all the hassle it creates. Actually, more than that, just intentionally misspelling your own name on the ticket can do so.

Obviously, this wouldn't fly when you sign the papers for a background check on a firearm. But, if you can't get pinged on a federal background check, then wasting tax-dollars on feel-good legislation to fight dem turrests to placate a bunch of idiots isn't going to accomplish anything.

I'd rank right to fly a plane a lot higher than right to own piece of metal with the only purpose being killing others.

Stupid shit like this just goes to show what happens when people who don't know anything about a subject form an opinion.

[General Zod]

There used to be a time and a place when Democrats also objected to placing extra restrictions on those on the FBI terrorist watch list. However it was when George Bush was in office, because now that the list is literally twice as big as it was in 2008 everything is better now.

I'd rank right to fly a plane a lot higher than right to own piece of metal with the only purpose being killing others. So, no, that's not 'extra restriction', it's just common sense. No fly lists can be solved by reinforced doors in planes, terrorist's access to guns can be solved by, you know, not selling them guns

And to be honest, I find potential terrorist in USA to be much less likely to be Islamic, but to be trueblood Confeds4Life US gun militia member, or these idiot Three Percenters, so yeah, such people should be put on the list pronto.

The average argument goes that one of them is enshrined in the constitution as an amendment, so therefore it's automatically more important. The kicker is that most gun-nuts don't have a problem giving up other rights as long as they get to keep their precious shiny noisemakers.

[Formless]

So, as long as its not a right you are currently using, its alright for the government to suspend it without through extralegal means???

I think the issue is being framed all the wrong way, for all the wrong reasons. The GOP never has pure motives, and never will. Gun rights will always be contentious. But the end result is that a watch list that shouldn't exist was not expanded upon in scope. How is that a bad thing? Or are we appealing to irony now? I just want clarification here.

[Flagg]

I'd rank right to fly a plane a lot higher than right to own piece of metal with the only purpose being killing others.

Stupid shit like this just goes to show what happens when people who don't know anything about a subject form an opinion.

Whats wrong with his reasoning exactly? Right to travel on an airplane with our current airport security and passenger asskicking if one gets out of line seems to me far safer than allowing potential terrorists to stockpile arsenals. And if your answer is "hurr second amendment" then you can just fuck off.

[Mr Bean]

Whats wrong with his reasoning exactly? Right to travel on an airplane with our current airport security and passenger asskicking if one gets out of line seems to me far safer than allowing potential terrorists to stockpile arsenals. And if your answer is "hurr second amendment" then you can just fuck off.

Flagg
A pair of questions

1. How do you get on the terrorist watch list

2. How do you get off the terrorist watch list

Bonus round
What existing restrictions are placed on those on the terrorist watch list?

Flagg as I mentioned before there's a reason why the Democrats objected to the list being used to restrict things until the day Obama got elect when Republicans started to object to the list being used to restrict things..

[Napoleon the Clown]

I personally find it kind of interesting that this is where the GOP draws a line on restricting civil liberties for "security." They're willing to suppress peaceful protests, they're will to restrict freedom of speech, but guns? Oh no, can't restrict access to firearms!

I can't say it's especially surprising though.

[TheFeniX]

Whats wrong with his reasoning exactly? Right to travel on an airplane with our current airport security and passenger asskicking if one gets out of line seems to me far safer than allowing potential terrorists to stockpile arsenals. And if your answer is "hurr second amendment" then you can just fuck off.

Because it's amazing how many stupid assumptions can be made in such a short post. If the system could actually keep firearms out of the hands of terrorists, you wouldn't find people arguing against it unless it was the "hur hur 2nd ammendment" brigade people keep attributing to those who fight against dumb-fuck legislation which only has one real goal: undermine legitimate gun ownership in the US under the guise of safety. You know, like how Dick Perry gutted women's right in Texas under the same line of bullshit?

He actually did that because he's an asshole, in case you didn't get where I was going with this. The same kind of asshole who thinks hassling people they don't like is a good idea. Even in the case of laws that actually fight crime yet trample on the rights of people they don't like, as in the "Stop and Frisk" laws in NYC.

Did you even bother reading my link? An 8-year-old is being molested (which started at the age of 2) because he shares the same name with a suspected terrorist. His father, who has the same name, didn't run into issues until their last trip. Nothing is mentioned about them hassling the parents. Only the 2-8 year-old child, as if Superbabies was a documentary and the parents were little more than his idiot handlers. The idiocy is staggering and you want to let it expand into other areas of American life because..... you hate rednecks? I don't get it.

The No-Fly/Terrorist/I'mwastingtaxpayermoneyandthere'snothingyoucandotostopme list is a fucking scourge and I'm not about to jump on some fucking bandwagon and support it because people I like are using it to target people I don't like. If you have enough evidence to actually label someone as a suspected terrorist, then arrest them.

But really, there's no point in even arguing this with anyone who honestly believes a firearm has no legitimate use outside of killing people. It's no different that the rest of the "Scary guns" brigade and their bullshit like anti-aircraft guns. ZOMG PEOPLE CAN BUY THEM, WE'RE DOOOMED! They spread lies because they are ignorant and/or just don't like gun owners.

[Flagg]

Whats wrong with his reasoning exactly? Right to travel on an airplane with our current airport security and passenger asskicking if one gets out of line seems to me far safer than allowing potential terrorists to stockpile arsenals. And if your answer is "hurr second amendment" then you can just fuck off.

Flagg
A pair of questions

1. How do you get on the terrorist watch list

2. How do you get off the terrorist watch list

Bonus round
What existing restrictions are placed on those on the terrorist watch list?

Flagg as I mentioned before there's a reason why the Democrats objected to the list being used to restrict things until the day Obama got elect when Republicans started to object to the list being used to restrict things..

I know you're really slow and probably can't read very well, but I already said I'm not going to defend the watch list.

[General Zod]

I personally find it kind of interesting that this is where the GOP draws a line on restricting civil liberties for "security." They're willing to suppress peaceful protests, they're will to restrict freedom of speech, but guns? Oh no, can't restrict access to firearms!

I can't say it's especially surprising though.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the millions of dollars the GOP receives in donations and advertising from the NRA.

[Mr Bean]

I know you're really slow and probably can't read very well, but I already said I'm not going to defend the watch list.

You are defending it by default if you want to use it.

[Ralin]

I know you're really slow and probably can't read very well, but I already said I'm not going to defend the watch list.

You are defending it by default if you want to use it.

I don't think he's saying he wants to use it so much as that it's funny that this is where they draw the line.

[Flagg]

I know you're really slow and probably can't read very well, but I already said I'm not going to defend the watch list.

You are defending it by default if you want to use it.

Yeah, in make believe land. This is the real world not friendship is magic so try to keep up.

[Mr. Coffee]

Which is it, Flagg? Do you support the goddamn watch list or do you not support it? If you do not support it then why are you advocating using such a flawed system that's so readily abused or nullified?

Oh no, "terrorists" might stockpile weapons. Or some poor bastard who got added to the list by mistake gets their rights infringed on so widdle ol' Fwagg can go to sleep without his goddamn nightlight on. Are terrorists using stockpiled weapons really such a huge fucking threat?

9/11 happened almost 12 years ago, people. Stop shitting your pants every time someone says "terrorist" already. Move on, stop being a bunch of scared little wienies and stop trying to undermine our goddamn civil rights for an illusion of safety.



And no, I haven't been drinking, but goddamn if the level of pussy asshole behavior we've apparently been reduced to doesn't make me want to get a good running start to jump right the fuck off the wagon.

[Flagg]

Which is it, Flagg? Do you support the goddamn watch list or do you not support it? If you do not support it then why are you advocating using such a flawed system that's so readily abused or nullified?

Oh no, "terrorists" might stockpile weapons. Or some poor bastard who got added to the list by mistake gets their rights infringed on so widdle ol' Fwagg can go to sleep without his goddamn nightlight on. Are terrorists using stockpiled weapons really such a huge fucking threat?

9/11 happened almost 12 years ago, people. Stop shitting your pants every time someone says "terrorist" already. Move on, stop being a bunch of scared little wienies and stop trying to undermine our goddamn civil rights for an illusion of safety.



And no, I haven't been drinking, but goddamn if the level of pussy asshole behavior we've apparently been reduced to doesn't make me want to get a good running start to jump right the fuck off the wagon.

Coffee, I know you're just a dumb hick, but you must be able to fucking read. You do post here... poorly.