Or, Punoqllads and the NRA agree on a gun control issue.
It appears that nearly 50 people on the terror watch list have purchased guns. Now, we deny guns to convicted felons as well as the mentally ill and illegal immigrants. Surely we should deny guns to terrorists! Er, people who we think are terrorists.
Now Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ) feels we need to close up this loophole. He’s asked Attorney General Alberto “Bring back torture” Gonzales to look in to the matter. I’m not sure if Sen. Ted “No-fly list” Kennedy has weighed in on the issue or not. And now the NRA (purveyors of terror themselves, right?) says, “Well, maybe we should have something akin to evidence that they’re a danger to the community before denying them guns.” There they go again, that wacky NRA.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, my head is about to explode. No known terrorist links have been discovered, but authorities are still investigating.
“Should the suspected terrorist list be used to deny gun purchases?”
I don’t think so, but then, I don’t think suspected terrorists should be imprisoned indefinely without benefit of counsel or criminal charges. If the administration believes this is permissable, then I don’t see why they would oppose barring suspected terrorists from buying guns. Unless it would piss off the red states; then it is a bad thing.
Yeah, or maybe the FBI wouldn’t think it very beneficial to give someone on the list advance warning before they send them off to GB.
“Hello, you Capitalist Heathen P … eh, good sir. Could I have a gun please?”
“Why certainly, sir, please fill in this form.”
Suspected Terrorist fills in form and hands it over.
“Thank you sir, now please wait while I check if you’re on the suspected terrorists list. Ah, I’m sorry, yes you are. Sorry.”
“Oh, alright. *Now at least I know * … thanks again.”
“Anytime.”
Yeah, like Mohammed Atta didn’t suspect the FBI might be looking for him. Do you really think terrorists are any less careful just because they aren’t certain what the government knows? I should think that they are always as secretive as they can be, whether they know they are on a watch list or not.
Besides, if terrorists know that they might be discovered when they purchase a gun, they may be less likely to attempt to buy weapons. I’m not saying it would prevent them, but any stick in their wheels is a good thing.
It might also be pretty hard to manage effectively. Many of these people might have similar names as normal folks. Goven the prevelance of certain names in the Muslim Arab and Muslim Non-Arab communities, we’d need photos and possibly interviews all over the place, right?
Very few terrorist actions in the United States are done with legal weapons, purchased after the terrorist became a terrorist suspect, by the terrorist. Oklahoma City was a homemade bomb, as was Twin Towers I. Twin Towers II was box cutters. Columbine was parent’s guns. Any terrorist organization with enough complexity to pull off Twin Towers II will have a mule to buy guns from.
NICS checks are a very formal procedure, and all that is ever given is approved, delayed, denied. And they goof. So it wouldn’t necesarily be a tip off.
They do that now when someone’s info matches up with someone who is a prohibited possessor. Often it is cleared up with interviews or supplying a SS# on the 4473 IIRC.
I wonder if this was actual people who were on the watch list or just name matches? It’s not like being on the watch list was the same as being a convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence or a felony. So no big deal. Just broaden what the 4473 covers. They already did that with some legal alien firearms ownership regulations after 9/11.
Minor nit, E. One firearm was illegally purchased from a friend of a friend. The other two were acquired via strawman purchase (a woman) at a gun show.
I’m over here, raising an eyebrow, Fear. While I understand what you’re referring to, I’m surprised you’re picking the bone with me, as I’m quite pissed about the situation, myself.
Sorry, thought I was in the Pit. Tabbed browsing got me.
My earnest apologies to the esteemed member of the Dope.
Thank you for the nit, BF. Doesn’t change anything, though, insofar as gun laws would resolve.
Speaking in terms of common sense rather than legal tecnicalities, isn’t it rather ridiculous to say that a person–especially one with close ties to a foreign country–has lost more freedom upon being barred from buying a gun than upon being barred from traveling by airline?
