President Bush is supporting a bill to ban the purchase of firearms by anyone on a list of suspected terrorists:
Will Bush lose support on the right by supporting this bill? Or is this bill a legitimate tool in the fight against terrorism? Are those opposing this bill aiding and abetting terrorism?
I don’t think one that opposes the bill is supporting terrorism. One may oppose it based on what it means to be a suspected terrorist. Who gets on this list and why? Terrorist sounding name = No gun for you?
If you aren’t a terrorist, then what difference does it make? You’ll still be able to buy a gun. The administration would never put anybody mistakenly on the watch list. And on the off-chance you are mistakenly put on the watch list, there will probably be a easy way to remove your name from it.
I’d like to retract my last post. I was just making a silly joke, but it occurs to me that it might get blown out of proportion. I’m not really in the mood for a gun control debate (even one as bizarre as this one would probably be), so I’ll step out of the thread.
The law is well-intentioned, but as BrightNShiny (sarcastically) points out, the potential for abuse is huge. It harkens back to the days before states started to pass “shall issue” laws, when all applicants had to demonstrate “need”. It’s far too easy for government opponents to force you to demonstrate that you are not a terrorist before you are allowed to make a purchase.
As far as President Bush losing support, I don’t think he has to worry about losing the last 50 people in the United States that support him. After all this time, if they still have his back there’s nothing in the world that will shake them loose.
Oh, no. You’re absolutely right. Sarcasm was noted, but that doesn’t mean that you didn’t hit the salient points.
Would such a law even be constitutional? Looks like it chucks due process in the trash. Or have “no-fly” lists, etc done that already?
Gun owners who have not had their head firmly lodged in their nether regions have always known that Dubya is not looking out for us. The only difference between him and a Democrat on this issue is that he won’t push gun control, but he’s publicly stated that he’ll happily approve any that comes his way. Congress is responsible for the death of Bubba’s “Assault Weapon” ban, Bush would have signed it if they’d renewed it.
Might come as a surprise, but some folk don’t much care for that fella…
First they grabbed the guns from the terrorists, and I said nothing, for I was not a terrorist…
This bill seems kinda stupid to me.
If somebody is “suspected” of being a terrorist, but there’s not enough evidence to actually drag them into court on charges, there is no basis for due process and any abrogation of rights would be unconstitutional (not to mention unnecessary and paranoid).
If, on the other hand, there is enough evidence to charge a suspect, but instead of being charged, they are being surveilled covertly for investigative purposes, it seems the last thing you would want is to tip them off that you’re on to them by throwing up a big red “terror” flag when they go to buy a gun.
Throw in the very real potential for abuse, and I just don’t see anything good about this one.
Yes, I’m shocked too. Shocked that there is such a thing as a “terrorist watch list” in the United States of America.
So, for once I agree with the NRA. Great, George, look what you made me do. :dubious:
Well, it’ll stop Ted Kennedy from owning a gun. And everyone named John Smith.
What can I say? There is only one good thing about this law; everyone would be able to get their hands on this ‘terrorist watch list’. Because, of course, not all gun sales are done through gun dealers.
Or would this outlaw all private transfers of guns as well? I suspect it would have to. As well as inheriting guns.
Okay, the only good thing about this law is that Congress is unlikely to pass it. Thank you, Mr. Bush, for thinking of a gun law the Democrats won’t like.
It is obviously unconstitutional, and as soon as Mr. Bush is told this, he will probably drop this idea like a hot potato. Just imagine what could happen if they expanded on this silly idea-the next thing they might do is restrict travel on the airlines based on nothing but unstated opinions of anonymous officials.
Or is that just silly?
Funny, even though I’m usually in favor of increased oversight for gun ownership, I’m very much against this bill for exactly the reasons that BrightNShiny (through sarcasm) brings up.
If they want to restrict ownership based on actual convictions, that’s worth considering, but simply on suspicion?
Bush is crazy like a fox in this case, so I bet Karl Rove is behind it. He knows it wouldn’t stand constitutional muster and it wouldn’t pass anyway. But what it does do is raise the alert level at the NRA, meaning donations to the NRA are going to go up as will the attention of the gun-lovers. Anything that riles the gun-lover base is music to the ears of Karl Rove as it could easily translate into a seat or two in Congress. I think it’s smart politics for Bush to throw out a little hint at gun control once in a while, it makes him ever so slightly less offensive to the left and it gets the right all stirred up to vote Republican next time out.
Not only that, but if a real terrorist is denied a gun purchase because his name is on the list, he will surely give up in his attempt to buy a gun. Why would any terrorist risk the possibility of a six month jail sentence?
Impossible.
ETA: emphasis added by me, of course
I meant it in the mathematical case. If current likeability is x, his new likeability would be the limit as y approaches zero of x+y.