Terror List Suspects Allowed To Buy Guns

[MJS]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42801680/ns/us_news-security/

WASHINGTON — More than 200 people suspected of ties to terrorism bought guns in the U.S. last year legally, FBI figures show.

The 247 people who were allowed to buy weapons did so after going through required background checks as required by federal law.
It is not illegal for people listed on the government's terror watch list to buy weapons. For years, that has bothered Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who is trying again to change the law to keep weapons out of the hands of suspected terrorists.

You have to wonder....how does stuff like this happen? Its good to see though, that at least one pesron is trying to get this changed.

 

[Bruno@MT]

I wonder.

Next thing you know, anyone who is inconvenient will be put on the terrorist list, unable to buy a gun. And so far, the terrorists used bombs, knives and planes. Not handguns or shotguns. If the success of the 'no fly' list is anything to go by, they'll **** this up too.

I am far from a gun advocate, but even I think this is stupid.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

not enough information.
on first glance this appears to me as just another attempt to find ways to limit our rights.
What exactly does it take to get on a terrorist watch list?

If a person considers themselves a patriot and posts on their facebook status comments about the blood of tyrants, and post anti government talk because they feel their rights are being trampled would that be able to qualify you for a terrorist watch list?

If a person travels outside the country often and competes in jiu jitsu tournaments up to and including Abu Dhabi would that qualify you for the terrorist watch list?

No I say take the bull crap infringements on my rights and shove them up that democratic senators rear end. Find a way to do the job without infringing on my rights, its already too much what the TSA is doing, and several other scary things the government has taken it on themselves to do as "protection" for the rest of us... no thanks

 

[MA-Caver]

not enough information.
on first glance this appears to me as just another attempt to find ways to limit our rights.
What exactly does it take to get on a terrorist watch list?

If a person considers themselves a patriot and posts on their facebook status comments about the blood of tyrants, and post anti government talk because they feel their rights are being trampled would that be able to qualify you for a terrorist watch list?

If a person travels outside the country often and competes in jiu jitsu tournaments up to and including Abu Dhabi would that qualify you for the terrorist watch list?

No I say take the bull crap infringements on my rights and shove them up that democratic senators rear end. Find a way to do the job without infringing on my rights, its already too much what the TSA is doing, and several other scary things the government has taken it on themselves to do as "protection" for the rest of us... no thanks

We already know that certain words get red-flagged when we type them in, i.e. nuclear and other "dangerous" words. I would imagine that quite a few people here on MT are on a "watch-list" because of the topics/opinions we've discussed/expressed... which (to me) is the same as a "tornado watch" the weather people call out. Conditions are right but it doesn't mean that there's one around. Odd thing is conditions have been right for a long time in this country.

Another thing about prohibiting "potential terrorists" from purchasing is that it throws THEM a red-flag that they're watched and it gives a 50/50 chance that they'll "activate" sooner or stand-down completely. From my understanding there are known cells waiting activation in this country... these known cells are being watched and as one person told me (being part of the DHS) monitoring these cells and busting them up is kept very low key or not on the radar at all so to not alert other associated cells that their gig is up. :idunno:

I think it probably is a not so subtle move to remove yet another right with an plausable excuse. Yet there are dozens upon dozens of ways to purchase what you need without being legit. All it takes is knowing the right people.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I think it probably is a not so subtle move to remove yet another right with an plausable excuse. Yet there are dozens upon dozens of ways to purchase what you need without being legit. All it takes is knowing the right people.

QFT.
It is very easy in California to go out with cash and return home in a few hours with a trunk load of illegal weapons.
Once again laws prohibiting the purchase of firearms are only going to keep honest people from obtaining them

 

[Bill Mattocks]

But Mousie, thou art no thy lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!

-- "To a Mouse, on Turning Her Up in Her Nest with the Plough," by Robert Burns

For those who do not remember the last time the right to own firearms was abridged by this Senator...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban

The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse in all 50 states. The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such person.

It has long been illegal for a person convicted of a felony, or adjudicated mentally ill, or addicted to illegal drugs, anyone dishonorably discharged from the military, etc, to own firearms.

The "Lautenberg Amendment" added those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence to this list of people who no longer have the legal right to own a gun in the USA, as well as those who are under a restraining order. While it no doubt sounds like a good idea to keep crazed wife-beaters from owning guns, the catch-all nature of the law also means it has been applied to high school sweethearts who slapped each other in an angry moment and the police got called or otherwise got involved. Their right to own a gun is gone, forever, just like that. It also means that anyone who has ever been involved in a domestic dispute is liable to lose their rights as well - many police jurisdictions now mandate that if the police respond to a 'domestic' situation, someone must be arrested; experience has shown that if they don't end it immediately by removing one of the participants, they'll just get called back. A catch-all charge of 'misdemeanor domestic abuse' once meant a $50 fine and many drunk husbands (and wives) were happy enough to plead to it after a night in the can sobering up. Now they lose their gun ownership rights for life.

http://www.issues2000.org/domestic/Frank_Lautenberg_Gun_Control.htm

Frank Lautenberg is not a fan of private gun ownership. The gun-grabbing lobby long ago realized that they could not simply ban all private ownership of guns - people would rise up and smite them right out of office. They have chosen a 'divide and conquer' approach that breaks it down piece-meal. First they go after the ones that make people go "Hey, that's a bad thing, right?" For example, the fact that the 'terrorists' had not yet committed any crimes they could be charged with, therefore they could have legally owned guns.

Sounds great as long as the list of 'terror suspects' are the guys we think of - long robes, arabic names, pray to Allah, etc. And when that net gets expanded?

Currently, the list of prohibited people is basically felons and those who are mentally incompetent. They added MISDEMEANOR convictions for domestic assault, and now they want to ban ownership for people who have not been convicted of anything at all - have not even been in front of a judge or jury - just because someone wrote their name down on a list somewhere.

Besides - I thought the list of 'terror suspects' was secret? If you don't know you're on it, how can you be held accountable for breaking the law?

I don't like secret laws; you're held responsible for following it, but you are not allowed to know if you are in violation or not until you break it. Screw that noise.

 

[Touch Of Death]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42801680/ns/us_news-security/



You have to wonder....how does stuff like this happen? Its good to see though, that at least one pesron is trying to get this changed.

Key-word... suspects. They aren't guilty of anything yet, and are innocent until proven to be not so.
Sean

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Key-word... suspects. They aren't guilty of anything yet, and are innocent until proven to be not so.
Sean

Correct. It is the wording. Imagine if it was said this way:

"People not convicted of ANY CRIME are allowed to buy guns!"

It would be laughed out of existence.

Change the wording, and presto.

"Sexual deviants allowed to serve in the military!"

versus

"No sexual preference bar to enlistment in the military!"

One sounds awful. Both say the same thing (strict reading for the word 'deviant', for those about to get their panties in a twist).

 

[MA-Caver]

QFT.
It is very easy in California to go out with cash and return home in a few hours with a trunk load of illegal weapons.
Once again laws prohibiting the purchase of firearms are only going to keep honest people from obtaining them

I'm an honest person but because I was once young and stupid and holding a felony record I am prohibited from buying firearms. I've been law abiding since my arrest/probation (the crime? forgery... last I heard NOT a violent crime) and release from such ... but I still can't buy a gun for home self-defense purposes.
So were I in position ($$) to do so I would have to do it under the table.


If I were so inclined.
Right now all I have are my blades and my MA/SD training.

 

[MJS]

Gee, I didn't figure this thread would raise such tension. *shrug* Anyways...instead of quoting each post, I'll just touch on a few that caught my eye.

IMO, and I know some will disagree, and thats fine, but anyone who's a law abiding citizen, shouldn't have anything to worry about. Then again, theres talk about the govt trying to limit the size of the clips for guns. Legit gun owners are having a fit because they dont feel they should be limited, the govt think that they should, blah, blah, blah. I guess you could look at it like this....if you dont speed and drive like an *******, chances are, you will fly under the radar and wont get pulled over. Dont hang out in problem areas, bars, bad sections of town...chances are you wont run into issues.

What puts someone on a watch list? Not a clue. Anyone have any ideas?

Is a gun the weapon of choice for a terrorist? No idea. Yes, so far, they've used bombs, planes, etc, but just because someone hasnt used a gun, doesnt mean they wont. I mean, I'm sure people never thought a plane would be used to crash into buildings, but it happened.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

...anyone who's a law abiding citizen, shouldn't have anything to worry about.

Think about that one for a second. If I am a law-abiding citizen, it means that I don't break laws. Right?

It also means - in a nation that has a basic premise that everyone is innocent until proven guilty - that it means anyone not convicted of a crime is - by law - a law-abiding citizen.

What this amendment would do is remove the 'conviction' part. You're a law-abiding citizen until someone in a position of authority in a government agency says you're not. Then you're not. No accusation, no prosecution, no defense, and no appeal. You are deprived of a basic right without any of the trappings of law.

If we want to the turn the USA into a nation that presumes guilt instead of presuming innocence, that might fly. But I don't want to live in such a nation.

Trading liberty for safety is a non-starter in my book. Always will be.

 

[MA-Caver]

Think about that one for a second. If I am a law-abiding citizen, it means that I don't break laws. Right?

It also means - in a nation that has a basic premise that everyone is innocent until proven guilty - that it means anyone not convicted of a crime is - by law - a law-abiding citizen.

What this amendment would do is remove the 'conviction' part. You're a law-abiding citizen until someone in a position of authority in a government agency says you're not. Then you're not. No accusation, no prosecution, no defense, and no appeal. You are deprived of a basic right without any of the trappings of law.

If we want to the turn the USA into a nation that presumes guilt instead of presuming innocence, that might fly. But I don't want to live in such a nation.

Trading liberty for safety is a non-starter in my book. Always will be.

Ben Franklin has that famous quote about trading safety for liberty is deserving of neither.

but anyone who's a law abiding citizen, shouldn't have anything to worry about.

Yes I do... I gotta worry about the ***-holes who are NOT law abiding citizens. I can call 911 if someone is breaking into my house while I'm there... but I'm not going to stand idly by letting them do whatever until the police show up. I'd rather have them incapacitated or at least held at bay when the police arrive.

 

[MJS]

Think about that one for a second. If I am a law-abiding citizen, it means that I don't break laws. Right?

It also means - in a nation that has a basic premise that everyone is innocent until proven guilty - that it means anyone not convicted of a crime is - by law - a law-abiding citizen.

What this amendment would do is remove the 'conviction' part. You're a law-abiding citizen until someone in a position of authority in a government agency says you're not. Then you're not. No accusation, no prosecution, no defense, and no appeal. You are deprived of a basic right without any of the trappings of law.

If we want to the turn the USA into a nation that presumes guilt instead of presuming innocence, that might fly. But I don't want to live in such a nation.

Trading liberty for safety is a non-starter in my book. Always will be.

Good points as usual Bill. Nor would I want to live in such a nation. I think alot of it still comes down to common sense though. Of course we know how that goes. LOL. But I think that if it was going to happen, it'd have happened already. The scumbags will get guns no matter whether they're legal or not. But the article is talking about terrorists, not the average Joe. Do you have any reason to be on a list? I doubt it. I have no reason to be on one either.

Ben Franklin has that famous quote about trading safety for liberty is deserving of neither.



Yes I do... I gotta worry about the ***-holes who are NOT law abiding citizens. I can call 911 if someone is breaking into my house while I'm there... but I'm not going to stand idly by letting them do whatever until the police show up. I'd rather have them incapacitated or at least held at bay when the police arrive.

Nor did I say you had to stand there idle. I'd hope you wouldn't. BUt you're a law abiding citizen, who's minding his own business, who legally owns a gun, who is following the law in your state regarding SD.

Again, I'm not sure how we went from talking about terrorists to average people who want to own a gun. Guns have been around longer than I've been alive. If some radical new law was going to happen, it would've happened by now.

 

[The Last Legionary]

You can get on the so called "terror list" for owing back taxes, child support, having too many speeding tickets, and a dozen other things that have nothing to do with actual "security". So unless the people are actually really 'threats' let em have guns, bullets, or dildos. Who cares?

 

[granfire]

You can get on the so called "terror list" for owing back taxes, child support, having too many speeding tickets, and a dozen other things that have nothing to do with actual "security". So unless the people are actually really 'threats' let em have guns, bullets, or dildos. Who cares?

roflmao

If they are not actual threats, why are they on there....

oh, wait...nvm...that one never made a heck of a lot of sense from the get go...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

At one point in time I was behind on my child support. I was told if I didn't get it caught up I could be denied a passport or if I had one have it revoked, be denied permission to exit the US, be denied permission to exit NY, have my drivers license revoked, be denied the ability to obtain a gun permit or be required to surrender one if I had it as well as be forced to 'turn in' any fire arms I may have, and be placed on the No-Fly list.

Because I owed someone money.

Not because I had broken any laws, been convicted of any crimes, made any threats, or created any probably cause that I would commit any crimes or flee.

Just because I owed money.

 

[MA-Caver]

roflmao

If they are not actual threats, why are they on there....

oh, wait...nvm...that one never made a heck of a lot of sense from the get go...

Well we ARE talking about the United States Government right?

At one point in time I was behind on my child support. I was told if I didn't get it caught up I could be denied a passport or if I had one have it revoked, be denied permission to exit the US, be denied permission to exit NY, have my drivers license revoked, be denied the ability to obtain a gun permit or be required to surrender one if I had it as well as be forced to 'turn in' any fire arms I may have, and be placed on the No-Fly list.

Because I owed someone money.

Not because I had broken any laws, been convicted of any crimes, made any threats, or created any probably cause that I would commit any crimes or flee.

Just because I owed money.

Hmm, I owe money all over the place. Mainly hospital emergency rooms where I went to get treatment for anything between walking pneumonia to minor stitches from a bicycle accident I had once... I told them "got no insurance" and they still treated me (of course by law and the Hippocratic oath) but they still send me a bill and because I still could not pay sent the records to collection agencies who hound me until I drop off their radar (by moving without forwarding addresses) or they gave up (so it seems). Either way mon credit is kaput... I doubt that I even HAVE a rating... if I do it's prolly somewhere around... ohh... -300 or so :lol2:

But it does seem odd that they control certain aspects of your life because you owe money... and it puts you on a watch list that ideally you should have no part of ... unless of course owing money puts a strain on the national debt and thereby threatens the security of this nation in some small insignificant way.
I guess the big boys want theirs and they'll get it however they can.

Be so much easier if they just run the printing presses at the treasury dept. night and day.