NRA (Republicans) wants Terrorist Suspect to Own Guns in U.S.

[GiannaIsMyGod]

Battle Erupts Over Gun Rights For Terror Suspects

In defense of the right to bear arms, the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups seem to have taken up the cause of those on the FBI's terror watch list.

There were 963 people from the watch list who were recorded trying to buy guns in the last five years, according to a new Government Accounting Office report. Well over 800 purchases were permitted under the current law. Only 10 percent of all those who tried to purchase guns were actually turned down.



Is anyone really surprise?

 

[thebear247]

sure while your at it give child molesters a day care

i mean come on how freaken stupid can some people get it is wrong to smoke but lord help us if we tell a terrorist he cant have a gun i mean really

 

[Jeep!]

You can't defend gun ownership as a constitutional right, then deny it to people who are only suspected of a crime. That'd be like denying free speech to the guy you think might be stealing your newspaper. Remember, this is the same 'terror watch' list that had Cat Stevens on it.

 

[thebear247]

You can't defend gun ownership as a constitutional right, then deny it to people who are only suspected of a crime. That'd be like denying free speech to the guy you think might be stealing your newspaper. Remember, this is the same 'terror watch' list that had Cat Stevens on it.

free speech i mean really they now tell us where we can and cant smoke how we dress in puplic

it feels less free every day but yet that is ok sounds like a big double standard to me

 

[Rey C.]

I'm an NRA Life Member and I'm not a Republican. And I'm not a Democrat either.

What this position (really) is about is the fact that the Bush Administration allowed these secret watchlists to be created, which relied on little more than a name as the primary identifier - and once your name is on the list, it's apparently hell to get it off the list. I'm not sure that Obama is keen to do anything to really end this sad practice. There are reporters on the list, whose only "crime" was pissing off one of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld neocon thugs. There are toddlers and babies on the list, because the pencil pushing goofs who create the lists are too lazy to do further investigation much of the time. You can't even get a straight answer as to how a name got to be on the list. "The List"? Sounds like something Josef Goebbels would come up with. :o

The NRA does not want terrorist suspects to own guns. The NRA wants the government to act in a responsible manner, before trying to infringe upon the legitimate civil rights of otherwise innocent Americans. If these "list people" are so damn dangerous, why don't they just send out the goon squad and lock them all up? :dunno:

 

[Ainttalkinlove]

There is no reason to turn down someone trying to buy a gun if they havent commited a crime. Just because they are on a government watch list means nothing. The government haveing any sort of watch list against anyone who is not convicted of a crime should be illeagle.

 

[biomech]

What are the standards for making the list, as someone said above you could ruffle the wrong feathers and end up on a list.
I am no Republican, but I fully support the right to own guns.
The NRA doesnt want to arm terrorists, its a bunch of hysterics.

 

[GiannaIsMyGod]

link - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/23/battle-erupts-over-gun-ri_n_219437.html

 

[Rey C.]

Like I said...

A report in May from the Justice Department inspector general found that the list kept by the Federal Bureau of Investigation carried the names of 24,000 people included on the basis of outdated or sometimes irrelevant information.

Gun rights advocates said showing up on a terrorist watch list should not be grounds for being denied a gun.

“We’re concerned about the quality and the integrity of the list,” said Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association. “There have been numerous studies and reports questioning the integrity, and we believe law-abiding people who are on the list by error should not be arbitrarily denied their civil rights” under the Second Amendment.

Hey Lautenberg, great idea: propose legislation for something that you don't fully understand yourself. Next week, maybe you'll propose legislation to spend a few billion to study polar bear poop. Keep up the good work. You're doing a fine job.

The names of the people on the watch list are secret, and Mr. Lautenberg said he was frustrated by the F.B.I.’s refusal to disclose to investigators details and specific cases of gun purchases beyond the aggregate data.

The senator said that getting a better understanding of who is being allowed to buy guns and how people are connected to terrorism would help assess the need for legislative remedies.

Frankie, last but not least, this is Obama letting you know that you're going to hang from that tree all by your lonesome. When Eric Holder and Hillary stepped out on that limb, when the (corrupt) Mexican government was whining about U.S. firearms a few weeks ago, ask them if Obama had their backs. Live together, but die alone.

The G.A.O. reported that the Justice Department in the Obama administration, however, was “noncommital” about whether it would develop guidelines if Congress moved to give the attorney general discretion to block such gun sales.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/us/politics/20watch.html?_r=2

 

[calpoon]

The government haveing any sort of watch list against anyone who is not convicted of a crime should be illeagle.

To play the devil's advocate here, how are you going to convict someone of a crime if you don't find evidence that connects them to it...which operates on the assumption that such a connection does exist, E.G, someone who is a suspect in criminal activity and on a list stating as much. That's generally how investigators do their job, if they didn't it would limit them to only catching criminals that they happened to personally witness committing a crime, which is hardly any of them.

 

[D-rock]

Considering it's a constitutional right, (where boarding an airplane isn't) it would be pretty silly denying somebody it for a reason other than them being convicted of a violent felony in a court of law. The watch list isn't that. It isn’t a conviction of guilt. There isn't even a burden of proof the government has to show to get anybody on it. It's an woefully inadequate, probably somewhat arbitrary list of people that nobody really knows how people get on in the first place. The method they use to put people on it isn't made totally pubic. It can also be a pain in the ass to get off one on it, and require time and money. Like I said before it's woefully inaccurate. There have been a ton of people, some of them not even older than infants, some of them even famous and well known, where it was blatantly obvious that them being on the list was a joke. In any case there is no judicial oversight of the list, and to think it even comes close to being reasonable enough to limit an inherent right people have is pretty farfetched.

 

[Ainttalkinlove]

To play the devil's advocate here, how are you going to convict someone of a crime if you don't find evidence that connects them to it...which operates on the assumption that such a connection does exist, E.G, someone who is a suspect in criminal activity and on a list stating as much. That's generally how investigators do their job, if they didn't it would limit them to only catching criminals that they happened to personally witness committing a crime, which is hardly any of them.

A crime must be commited before evidence can be sought. You cant look for evidence of anything then say "Ha- gotcha buddy, Ive been thinkin you were gonna commit a crime for years now". thats what watch list look out for people who "Might" commit a crime.


dont know if many of you remember but John Lennon had an FBI file because he was a hippie. Not because he was involve in any terrorist activities.

 

[meesterperfect]

Hello?
If the government can find any cause to deny firearm ownership, they will.
period.
From DUI to a domestic arguement, to Felony conviction.
If they can find an excuse they will and they do.
Apparently these people had clean records so why would their 2nd amendement rights be denied?