Politics and the rights of terrorists

[MaggieMae]

The one right terrorists can count on
Under current law, people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list can walk into a gun store and buy an AK-47, said Gail Collins in The New York Times.

posted on May 13, 2010, at 1:45 PM
Gail Collins
The New York Times

Should an Islamic extremist be allowed to buy weapons? asked Gail Collins. It may sound like a ridiculous question, but under current law, people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list can indeed walk into a gun store and buy an AK-47. Last week, a Senate committee held a hearing on a proposal to stop gun sales to people on the watch list, the same way the government now bans the sale of guns to convicted felons. But Republicans in thrall to the National Rifle Association’s reflexive opposition to any limits on gun sales immediately rejected the proposal, arguing that even suspected terrorists should enjoy their God-given right to own firearms.

Over the past six years, 1,119 people on the watch list have bought weapons, and some of them were very bad characters. Yet the same Republicans who insist that it’s wrong to give a Miranda warning to a suspected terrorist, or let him talk to a lawyer, think it would be oppressive to stop him from stocking up on weapons. Indeed, “there seems to be a strong sentiment in Congress that the only constitutional right suspected terrorists have is the right to bear arms.”

The one right terrorists can count on - The Week

Unfuckingincredible...

 

[rightwinger]

Hey....we have to contend with the NRAs slippery slope. If you can deny guns to terrorists the next thing you will do is deny guns to Ma and Pa America.

 

[MaggieMae]

Where's all the Second Amendment people defending this action by Republicans?

 

[uscitizen]

The one right terrorists can count on
Under current law, people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list can walk into a gun store and buy an AK-47, said Gail Collins in The New York Times.

posted on May 13, 2010, at 1:45 PM
Gail Collins
The New York Times

Should an Islamic extremist be allowed to buy weapons? asked Gail Collins. It may sound like a ridiculous question, but under current law, people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list can indeed walk into a gun store and buy an AK-47. Last week, a Senate committee held a hearing on a proposal to stop gun sales to people on the watch list, the same way the government now bans the sale of guns to convicted felons. But Republicans in thrall to the National Rifle Association’s reflexive opposition to any limits on gun sales immediately rejected the proposal, arguing that even suspected terrorists should enjoy their God-given right to own firearms.

Over the past six years, 1,119 people on the watch list have bought weapons, and some of them were very bad characters. Yet the same Republicans who insist that it’s wrong to give a Miranda warning to a suspected terrorist, or let him talk to a lawyer, think it would be oppressive to stop him from stocking up on weapons. Indeed, “there seems to be a strong sentiment in Congress that the only constitutional right suspected terrorists have is the right to bear arms.”

The one right terrorists can count on - The Week

Unfuckingincredible...

I had to chuckle over the "God given right" passage.

People are innocent until proven guilty.

 

[uscitizen]

I do feel that anyone charged with a violent crime should not be able to purchase guns until the charge is resolved. But upon being cleared their gun buying "right" should be immediately restored without any action required by the accused.

 

[editec]

That's rather hilarious.

Happily for us, all terrorists need is a few box cutter and tickets to ride and they can change the world as we know it.

 

[Immanuel]

I hate to say this because it is a scary thought but I happen to think that a person who has not been convicted of a crime should have all his or her constitutional rights protected. Just because someone is on the FBI's watch list does not mean they are terrorists or even extremists.

These people are innocent until proven guilty or supposed to be anyway.

Lord help us all when the government starts removing our rights because it thinks we might commit a crime in the future.

Oh and by the way, I do not consider myself to be a devout proponent of the second amendment. I believe we all have the right to weapons, but I am not against gun control.

Immie

 

[Sherry]

What is the criteria to be placed on the list, and how easily could they change the criteria?? The NRA is probably especially concerned after Napalitano's comments about right-wing extremist groups posing a threat.

 

[MaggieMae]

The point is they are not allowed to fly, but are allowed to buy guns. There's something wrong with that picture.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Shouldn't be able to buy it from stores, but they most certainly can get it on the streets.

 

[gr0upthink]

The point is they are not allowed to fly, but are allowed to buy guns. There's something wrong with that picture.

because radical fundies have such a long history of gunning down americans.

 

[hortysir]

I hate to say this because it is a scary thought but I happen to think that a person who has not been convicted of a crime should have all his or her constitutional rights protected. Just because someone is on the FBI's watch list does not mean they are terrorists or even extremists.

These people are innocent until proven guilty or supposed to be anyway.

Lord help us all when the government starts removing our rights because it thinks we might commit a crime in the future.

Oh and by the way, I do not consider myself to be a devout proponent of the second amendment. I believe we all have the right to weapons, but I am not against gun control.

Immie

I think I understand your point, Immanuel.

And it ties to Maggie's reply:

The point is they are not allowed to fly, but are allowed to buy guns. There's something wrong with that picture.

We do not have a constitutional right to fly on an aircraft.


Just playing devil's advocate ( a little bit)

 

[Immanuel]

The point is they are not allowed to fly, but are allowed to buy guns. There's something wrong with that picture.

I believe the point is that the government can put anyone they want on their "watch lists" and thus start removing particular rights. A President's (or any powerful individual for that matter) political enemies would be easy targets in this case. Simply put a name on that list and the person owning that name is pretty much eliminated.

Immie

 

[drsmith1072]

I do feel that anyone charged with a violent crime should not be able to purchase guns until the charge is resolved. But upon being cleared their gun buying "right" should be immediately restored without any action required by the accused.

The thing is that you have to be convicted of a felony in order for your inalienable right to bear arms can be infringed upon. Only then do conservatives support limiting a right that they believe has no limits. LOL

A mere charge or accusation is not enough grounds to strip someone of their rights.

 

[Sherry]

I do feel that anyone charged with a violent crime should not be able to purchase guns until the charge is resolved. But upon being cleared their gun buying "right" should be immediately restored without any action required by the accused.

The thing is that you have to be convicted of a felony in order for your inalienable right to bear arms can be infringed upon. Only then do conservatives support limiting a right that they believe has no limits. LOL

A mere charge or accusation is not enough grounds to strip someone of their rights.

That's a contradiction. How can they support a limitation if they believe there are no limits??

 

[drsmith1072]

I do feel that anyone charged with a violent crime should not be able to purchase guns until the charge is resolved. But upon being cleared their gun buying "right" should be immediately restored without any action required by the accused.

The thing is that you have to be convicted of a felony in order for your inalienable right to bear arms can be infringed upon. Only then do conservatives support limiting a right that they believe has no limits. LOL

A mere charge or accusation is not enough grounds to strip someone of their rights.

That's a contradiction. How can they support a limitation if they believe there are no limits??

That was my point. The right has preached endlessly about how "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" no matter what and then in the case of felons they support that right being removed completely. I have had this debate and asked questions about this contradiction many times and in the end I am usually attacked and accused of arguing that felons should have guns and be allowed to kill people, when all i am doing is shining a little light on the contadiction.

 

[Sherry]

The thing is that you have to be convicted of a felony in order for your inalienable right to bear arms can be infringed upon. Only then do conservatives support limiting a right that they believe has no limits. LOL

A mere charge or accusation is not enough grounds to strip someone of their rights.

That's a contradiction. How can they support a limitation if they believe there are no limits??

That was my point. The right has preached endlessly about how "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" no matter what and then in the case of felons they support that right being removed completely. I have had this debate and asked questions about this contradiction many times and in the end I am usually attacked and accused of arguing that felons should have guns and be allowed to kill people, when all i am doing is shining a little light on the contadiction.

I would say that with those rights come responsibilities. I don't own any guns, but I think law abiding citizens should be able to do so.

 

[Immanuel]

I hate to say this because it is a scary thought but I happen to think that a person who has not been convicted of a crime should have all his or her constitutional rights protected. Just because someone is on the FBI's watch list does not mean they are terrorists or even extremists.

These people are innocent until proven guilty or supposed to be anyway.

Lord help us all when the government starts removing our rights because it thinks we might commit a crime in the future.

Oh and by the way, I do not consider myself to be a devout proponent of the second amendment. I believe we all have the right to weapons, but I am not against gun control.

Immie

I think I understand your point, Immanuel.

And it ties to Maggie's reply:

The point is they are not allowed to fly, but are allowed to buy guns. There's something wrong with that picture.

We do not have a constitutional right to fly on an aircraft.


Just playing devil's advocate ( a little bit)

Hmmm, okay, point taken. We don't have a constitutional right to fly on an airplane. In fact, we don't have a constitutional right to drive or travel across country, but I would not want to be the congressperson who attempts to take that "right" away from innocent citizens.

I really don't like the idea of putting people on "no fly" lists because they have dark hair and complexions. I don't like the idea of putting people on such lists for any reason except that they have been convicted of a violent crime that endangers other passengers.

I don't like the idea of taking someone's rights away simply because they might do something in the future.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

The point is they are not allowed to fly, but are allowed to buy guns. There's something wrong with that picture.

I believe the point is that the government can put anyone they want on their "watch lists" and thus start removing particular rights. A President's (or any powerful individual for that matter) political enemies would be easy targets in this case. Simply put a name on that list and the person owning that name is pretty much eliminated.

Immie

Well that's kind of a reach. I don't think John Boehner is on Obama's no fly list.

Although the FBI won't divulge the names on the terrorist watch list, there are specific guidelines for how they get there. All I'm saying is the next guy who wants to blow up Times Square might be on the terrorist watch list and has to take a bus to get to Times Square, but he could be packing legally obtained weapons. It's absurd.

 

[Immanuel]

The point is they are not allowed to fly, but are allowed to buy guns. There's something wrong with that picture.

I believe the point is that the government can put anyone they want on their "watch lists" and thus start removing particular rights. A President's (or any powerful individual for that matter) political enemies would be easy targets in this case. Simply put a name on that list and the person owning that name is pretty much eliminated.

Immie

Well that's kind of a reach. I don't think John Boehner is on Obama's no fly list.

Although the FBI won't divulge the names on the terrorist watch list, there are specific guidelines for how they get there. All I'm saying is the next guy who wants to blow up Times Square might be on the terrorist watch list and has to take a bus to get to Times Square, but he could be packing legally obtained weapons. It's absurd.

I don't think it as much of a stretch as you think it is.

Even as a conservative, I opposed the Patriot Act, because I believed that it could and will eventually be used for just such a travesty, meaning the removal of the rights of law abiding citizens because they may be a threat. Which party will break that ice? Not sure... right now, I would have to guess that it will be the Democrats, but that is only because I don't foresee Republicans having any power for the next twenty years or so.

Immie