Should people on terrorist watch list be allowed to buy guns?

[Kerjack]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/22/terror.guns/index.html


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- When people on the government's terrorist watch list have tried to buy guns or explosives in recent years, the government has let them the vast majority of the time.


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/06/22/terror.guns/art.gun.afp.gi.jpgCurrent law doesn't stop firearm or explosives sales to people whose names are on the terrorist watch list.




http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif


That's the finding of a new report by the Government Accountability Office, sent to lawmakers last month and released publicly Monday.
From February 2004 to February 2009, 963 background checks using the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System "resulted in valid matches with terrorist watch list records; of these matches, approximately 90 percent were allowed to proceed because the checks revealed no prohibiting information," the GAO report says. About 10 percent were denied.
"Under current law, there is no basis to automatically prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives because they appear on the terrorist watch list," wrote the GAO's director of homeland security and justice issues, Eileen R. Larence.
"Rather, there must be a disqualifying factor (i.e., prohibiting information) pursuant to federal or state law, such as a felony conviction or illegal immigration status."
Of the 963 background checks, 865 were allowed to proceed, and 98 were denied, the report said.
The GAO (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/U_S_Government_Accountability_Office) provided the report in response to a request from Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey. The GAO said Lautenberg had requested an update to a 2005 report.
In a statement Monday, Lautenberg said, "this new report is proof positive that known and suspected terrorists are exploiting a major loophole in our law, threatening our families and our communities. This 'terror gap' has been open too long, and our national security demands that we shut it down."
The statement said Lautenberg is introducing legislation that would give the U.S. attorney general "authority to stop the sale of guns or explosives to terrorists."
However, an official with the National Rifle Association, the leading lobbyist group that espouses gun ownership rights, said problems with the terror watch list made a broad prohibition likely to violate the rights of law-abiding citizens.
"The integrity of the terror watch list is poor, as it mistakenly contains the names of many men and women, including some high-profile Americans, who have not violated the law," said a statement by Chris W. Cox, the NRA chief lobbyist. "In fact, a March 2009 report by the inspector general of the Department of Justice concluded that many people whose names were mistakenly placed on the list remain there even after their cases have been vetted and closed."
The GAO notes that being on a terrorist watch list does not mean that someone is involved in any terrorist activity.
Last month, the Justice Department reported that the FBI had kept thousands of names on its watch list based on outdated information and should have removed them.

And the poll results so far that went with it:
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n299/Vaun_Kerjack/Guns.jpg

[Hanover Fist]

There are 2 separate things here. I am absolutely pro-gun first of all and I think being able to own guns is a right that should have few limitations. That being said, I still think there should be some limitations.

Of course felons, undocumented immigrants, certain cases of documented mental illness, and a few other situations I think are situations that should not be allowed to have firearms. I am also in favor of background checks and waiting periods (as long as they aren't excessive, 3 days seems fairly reasonable).

Getting back to the point, I have no problem with people on the list being denied access to firearms, however I have a pretty big problem with how people make it onto that list.
The terror watch list has grown into this monstrosity that doesn't really seem to have any set criteria and that once you are on it for whatever reason it takes an act of God to get removed from it.
If there were more concrete criteria for getting people on that list beyond the fact that maybe they called someone in Yemen who was once photographed at a market that just happened to have a known associate of a guy who once met the guy who washed Bin Ladens car. Or even a "right-winger" who once posted on a blog about how the government is taxing too much and thinks we should have tea parties across the country to protest.

I mean we've all heard stories about 6 year old kids on the list, or nuns, or Hollywood actors or musicians I mean really, what exactly is the criteria for the list?

[Hannibal Lecter]

...I mean really, what exactly is the criteria for the list?
Do you trust the government to not abuse this power?

[Morfin]

Getting back to the point, I have no problem with people on the list being denied access to firearms, however I have a pretty big problem with how people make it onto that list.
The terror watch list has grown into this monstrosity that doesn't really seem to have any set criteria and that once you are on it for whatever reason it takes an act of God to get removed from it.


This is a big part of my problem. The other part is the aspect of being punished (or a right being taken away) without being convicted of anything, that is, without due process. Compare the convicted felon not being able to own a gun. He was convicted of doing something illegal and he knew(or should have known) the potential penalty. Here, we do not know what exactly it takes to get on the list.

[Hanover Fist]

Do you trust the government to not abuse this power?

It's not even a matter of it being abused to me, it's more of a matter of it getting out of control with nobody really having an idea of how it works. It's like a bureaucratic nightmare, reminding me of something out the movie "Brazil"

[Grieves]

The term 'terrorist' can be, and will be, used too broadly by the government. I mean you don't even get a fair say to defend yourself against the charge of being a suspected terrorist. How can any fuckwit try and defend this shit? According to that memo that DHS put out a couple of months ago, returning vets that are against the war are suspected terrorists.

[Archangel]

Getting back to the point, I have no problem with people on the list being denied access to firearms, however I have a pretty big problem with how people make it onto that list.
The terror watch list has grown into this monstrosity that doesn't really seem to have any set criteria and that once you are on it for whatever reason it takes an act of God to get removed from it.

[/thread]

[schnapps87]

I believe that gun ownership is as much a right as any other. I may not be right about this, but I think that terrorist watch list, which I support, is secret, and impossible to get off once you are on, and you are not made aware you are on it to defend yourself once on it.

So I think this is a bad fucking idea to prevent people that might not be terrorist buy guns. Then again, I dont think peoples that are likely involved in terror or supporting it, muslims, tree huggers, nigs, antiwar protestards and the like, should be allowed access to guns or any weapon of any kind.

[Morfin]

I dont think peoples that are likely involved in terror or supporting it, muslims, tree huggers, nigs, antiwar protestards and the like, should be allowed access to guns or any weapon of any kind.

Wow. Just. Fucking. Wow.

I'd like to assume you are kidding, but from your use of the ever-so-delightful descriptors "nigs," "camel Jockies" (in the other thread), I believe you are serious. Seriously stupid.

[redsox39]

I mean really, what exactly is the criteria for the list?

I always thought it was making shitty music...
http://downwiththeinternet.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/catstevens.jpg

[nothingman]

Then again, I dont think peoples that are likely involved in terror or supporting it, muslims, tree huggers, nigs, antiwar protestards and the like, should be allowed access to guns or any weapon of any kind.
Especially the tree huggers!!!

[fuldstændigamok]

Tree huggers buy guns?

[BIG PIZZLE]

I am also in favor of background checks and waiting periods (as long as they aren't excessive, 3 days seems fairly reasonable).

Why 3 days and not 3 weeks?

[Hoser]

There are 2 separate things here. I am absolutely pro-gun first of all and I think being able to own guns is a right that should have few limitations. That being said, I still think there should be some limitations.

Of course felons, undocumented immigrants, certain cases of documented mental illness, and a few other situations I think are situations that should not be allowed to have firearms. I am also in favor of background checks and waiting periods (as long as they aren't excessive, 3 days seems fairly reasonable).

Getting back to the point, I have no problem with people on the list being denied access to firearms, however I have a pretty big problem with how people make it onto that list.
The terror watch list has grown into this monstrosity that doesn't really seem to have any set criteria and that once you are on it for whatever reason it takes an act of God to get removed from it.
If there were more concrete criteria for getting people on that list beyond the fact that maybe they called someone in Yemen who was once photographed at a market that just happened to have a known associate of a guy who once met the guy who washed Bin Ladens car. Or even a "right-winger" who once posted on a blog about how the government is taxing too much and thinks we should have tea parties across the country to protest.

I mean we've all heard stories about 6 year old kids on the list, or nuns, or Hollywood actors or musicians I mean really, what exactly is the criteria for the list?

Minus the first paragraph and the short 3 day period I completely agree.

[Das Kahlua]

Getting back to the point, I have no problem with people on the list being denied access to firearms, however I have a pretty big problem with how people make it onto that list.
The terror watch list has grown into this monstrosity that doesn't really seem to have any set criteria and that once you are on it for whatever reason it takes an act of God to get removed from it.

I come from a big Irish family, and my (then) 19 year old brother and several of my cousins ended up on 'No Fly' lists, for whatever reason, perhaps because they shared a similar name to someone who did something somewhere. The point is, it was a major inconvenience for people who did nothing wrong, and it took practically, as Hanover said, an act of God to get them off of it.

Governmental bureaucracies are just about the most bloated and inefficient organizations on the planet; every time they are given more power, they manage to mess it up more and more. I certainly don't want the US to be arming anymore terrorists, but I certainly don't trust their bureaucracies to effectively manage these terrorist lists. Especially since so many of these true terrorists have about a dozen aliases, it would be virtually impossible to completely prevent them from getting weapons, it would only ensure that the innocent people would be prevented from protecting themselves.

Why 3 days and not 3 weeks?

What if you absolutely need to kill someone because you're pissed off? You might not still be angry in 3 weeks!!

[Strega]

NO....but when they do show up trying to buy, put one in their ear......

[Stax]

There are 2 separate things here. I am absolutely pro-gun first of all and I think being able to own guns is a right that should have few limitations. That being said, I still think there should be some limitations.

Of course felons, undocumented immigrants, certain cases of documented mental illness, and a few other situations I think are situations that should not be allowed to have firearms. I am also in favor of background checks and waiting periods (as long as they aren't excessive, 3 days seems fairly reasonable).

Getting back to the point, I have no problem with people on the list being denied access to firearms, however I have a pretty big problem with how people make it onto that list.
The terror watch list has grown into this monstrosity that doesn't really seem to have any set criteria and that once you are on it for whatever reason it takes an act of God to get removed from it.
If there were more concrete criteria for getting people on that list beyond the fact that maybe they called someone in Yemen who was once photographed at a market that just happened to have a known associate of a guy who once met the guy who washed Bin Ladens car. Or even a "right-winger" who once posted on a blog about how the government is taxing too much and thinks we should have tea parties across the country to protest.

I mean we've all heard stories about 6 year old kids on the list, or nuns, or Hollywood actors or musicians I mean really, what exactly is the criteria for the list?

This is about right. I don't mind the idea in principle of not selling guns to terrorists, but you have to tighten up the criteria for this list to this first.

[Hoser]

NO....but when they do show up trying to buy, put one in their ear......

The same rule should apply for stupid rednecks

[Strega]

The same rule should apply for stupid rednecks


Check your history numbnuts. Those 'rednecks', white and black, have always been the first to step up to defend your ass while you were hiding in college or Canada! Don't knock 'em if you ain't one!!!

[Hoser]

I forgot rednecks defend Canada. My bad.


P.S. I was not talking Military personal, but people like this
chkt2WJGx8Y

[Archangel]

Check your history numbnuts. Those 'rednecks', white and black, have always been the first to step up to defend your ass while you were hiding in college or Canada! Don't knock 'em if you ain't one!!!

I love the implication that people with higher education are necessiter cowards.

Last I checked, officers in the US armed forces all went to college.

[Strega]

I love the implication that people with higher education are necessiter cowards.

Last I checked, officers in the US armed forces all went to college.

I did not say a college education was bad....I have one!!! What I did say was that there was a time in this country that shitbirds dodging the draft or military service in general would 'hide' in college...taking skate classes with no major in mind.

PS....OCS actually trains non-college people with leadership skills to become officers.

[Strega]

I forgot rednecks defend Canada. My bad.


P.S. I was not talking Military personal, but people like this
chkt2WJGx8Y


Unfortunately, there is always a shallow end of the gene pool....that could use some chlorine!!!