NRA defends stance on law that allows terror suspects to get firearms

[Mockingbird]

The NRA says it’s just trying to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to buy guns — even if their names appear on a terror watch list.

The National Rifle Association fired back Wednesday at critics of its opposition to a proposed law banning terror suspects from buying guns in the United States.

“The National Rifle Association wants to prevent terrorists from obtaining any deadly weapon and to suggest otherwise is offensive and wrong,” NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker told the Daily News. “It is not surprising that anti-gun politicians and publications are distorting the facts to push a gun control agenda.”

There was no direct word from the group’s executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre.

The News reported the federal Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act has been stalled for eight years — with proponents blaming the NRA and GOP lawmakers for its failure to pass. A legal loophole allowed more than 2,000 suspects on the FBI’s Terror Watchlist to legally purchase weapons from 2004 and 2014.

Bill sponsor Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) remained pessimistic the bill would pass this year, despite last week’s carnage in Paris.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nra-blasts-report-terror-link-article-1.2439887

[Mockingbird]

"Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law," the Government Accountability Office concluded in 2010. The law prohibits felons, fugitives, drug addicts and domestic abusers from purchasing a firearm in the United States. But people on the FBI's consolidated terrorist watchlist — typically placed there when there is "reasonable suspicion" that they are a known or suspected terrorist — can freely purchase handguns or assault-style rifles.

From Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/16/why-the-nra-opposed-laws-to-prevent-suspected-terrorists-from-buying-guns/

[+Zagadka Subscriber²]

Wait wait wait... I get bitched out all the time for defending Muslims' right to practice religion at mosques, but allowing them to buy automatic weapons is totally fine? I'm not criticizing anything here, but that disparity makes my brain hurt.

[T3X4S]

I want to shoot an M82 .50 cal Barrett... just sayin

[Mockingbird]

I am waiting to see how someone who justified blocking Syrian refugees from settling in the U.S. because some of them could be terrorists could then justify selling firearms to suspected terrorists.

[T3X4S]

I am waiting to see how someone who justified blocking Syrian refugees from settling in the U.S. because some of them could be terrorists could then justify selling firearms to suspected terrorists.

"They're scared of widows and 3-year old orphans" - Obama

[+Zagadka Subscriber²]

This dichotomy just appalls me. Trump and others won't deny wanting to keep a database of Muslims ( http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-would-certainly-implement-muslim-database-n466716 ) , but selling actual guns to people who are on that list is wrong? You can't have it both ways.

They are implying that it is worse to practice a religion than it is to sell guns to people actually on terror watch lists - and beyond that, they - people who scream for small government - want to actually keep databases on groups of people. 

[seeprime]

There is no way in hell that a terrorist should be able to legally buy a gun. Make 'em work for it on the dark street corners of our inner cities, or our gun shows, like other criminals do.

[DocM]

Bear in mind that it's perfectly legal for a legal resident alien to buy and legally use firearms.

The problem with such ban based on the terror watch list is that it's so easy to get on it for nearly no reason, and a royal pain to get off it in spite of all logic. Even the Justice Department Inspector General has said its riddled with errors, and both Democrat and Republican congresses have hammered it.

Still, ignoring the list is risky and a reasonable hold for a backgeound check seems prudent. 

 

[Snaipersky]

Wait wait wait... I get bitched out all the time for defending Muslims' right to practice religion at mosques, but allowing them to buy automatic weapons is totally fine? I'm not criticizing anything here, but that disparity makes my brain hurt.

Buying LEGAL automatics is a bureaucratic hell, can take up to a year, costs upwards of a new car to purchase, and the Feds collect more than what many consider rent or a mortgage payment, every time they change hands.

The brain pain comes from legislators who don't actually know anything about guns or the existing laws trying to make new ones, and an unbridled ATF that has the power to effectively re-write laws as they see fit, and cause tons of unchecked mayhem. They have prosecuted people by declaring shoestrings to be machine guns. Oh, and scrub pads are silencers. And their loose definition of a person ("no, you are not a person, unless we feel like it, so no you don't have these rights"). I wish I was joking.

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ATF-shoestring-machine-gun-2004.jpg

http://www.wnd.com/images/2011/11/111711chore.jpg

I am waiting to see how someone who justified blocking Syrian refugees from settling in the U.S. because some of them could be terrorists could then justify selling firearms to suspected terrorists.

"Suspected" being the operative word. Got a common name? You're probably on the list. Who's on the list? Can't tell ya. Am I on the list? Can't tell ya. Why can't I buy this? Can't tell ya.

Once legal proceeding get rolling, then you're scratched.

There is no way in hell that a terrorist should be able to legally buy a gun. Make 'em work for it on the dark street corners of our inner cities, or our gun shows, like other criminals do.

Ah, the "gunshow loophole" nonsense. You do know, there is no loophole, right? Read the actual law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

Are you:

A) A business, or an employee or representative of a business that sells firearms? You must conduct a background check.

B) Are you a private individual selling less than 50 NFA/GCA controlled or defined items per fiscal year, or staying within your tax bracket? No need for a background check.  

Whether in a shop, show, parking lot, home, in the woods, out in the desert, anywhere that falls within US control, these are the regulations, with violations earning a 10 year stint in a federal penitentiary.

Due note that everything between "individual selling" and "?" is all fiat, subject to further restriction at any time, to be discovered as your charges are being read. If you wonder why gun ownership and mistrust of government seem to go hand in hand, its because of the well documented abuses of the ATF. And their tendencies to shoot dogs for no apparent reason.

[Mockingbird]

Bear in mind that it's perfectly legal for a legal resident alien to buy and legally use firearms.

The problem with such ban based on the terror watch list is that it's so easy to get on it for nearly no reason, and a royal pain to get off it in spite of all logic. Even the Justice Department Inspector General has said its riddled with errors, and both Democrat and Republican congresses have hammered it.

Still, ignoring the list is risky and a reasonable hold for a backgeound check seems prudent. 

It's strange how you see the world.

People on terrorist watch list: well, they might not be terrorists.

Refugees from Syria: well, they might be terrorists.

Notice difference in the burden of proof.

Ah, the "gunshow loophole" nonsense. You do know, there is no loophole, right? Read the actual law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

Are you:

A) A business, or an employee or representative of a business that sells firearms? You must conduct a background check.

B) Are you a private individual selling less than 50 NFA/GCA controlled or defined items per fiscal year, or staying within your tax bracket? No need for a background check.  

Whether in a shop, show, parking lot, home, in the woods, out in the desert, anywhere that falls within US control, these are the regulations, with violations earning a 10 year stint in a federal penitentiary.

Due note that everything between "individual selling" and "?" is all fiat, subject to further restriction at any time, to be discovered as your charges are being read. If you wonder why gun ownership and mistrust of government seem to go hand in hand, its because of the well documented abuses of the ATF. And their tendencies to shoot dogs for no apparent reason.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/10/tonight-on-ac360-gun-show-hidden-camera-investigation/

[DocM]

 

It's strange how you see the world.

People on terrorist watch list: well, they might not be terrorists.

 

That's because minor things can get you.on the FBI watch list, starting with taking a one-way overseas flight. Tick off the wrong federal employee.  Tweet the wrong phrase, or word. Have a name which is similar to someone else on the list.  Sen. Edward Kennedy was on the list, as was Nelson Mandela.

In 2013 alone 468,000 watch list nominations were sent to the National Counterterrorism Center by 19 different agencies, and only 1% were rejected. 

That's why it's been so controversial, on both sides of the political spectrum, since it's inception.

[Mockingbird]

That's because minor things can get you.on the FBI watch list, starting with taking a one-way overseas flight. Tick off the wrong federal employee.  Tweet the wrong phrase, or word. Have a name which is similar to someone else on the list.  Sen. Edward Kennedy was on the list, as was Nelson Mandela.

In 2013 alone 468,000 watch list nominations were sent to the National Counterterrorism Center by 19 different agencies, and only 1% were rejected. 

That's why it's been so controversial, on both sides of the political spectrum, since it's inception.

What about Syrian refugees?

Just maybe, the grand majority are normal people (not terrorists) just trying to get by, but are now dislocated because of a "civil war".

BTW, I am NOT a supporter of Islam: I just want to point out the hypocrisy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps, what you are really telling me is that terrorists are okay, so as long they are not Muslim terrorists.

[Snaipersky]

It's strange how you see the world.

People on terrorist watch list: well, they might not be terrorists.

Refugees from Syria: well, they might be terrorists.

Notice difference in the burden of proof.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/10/tonight-on-ac360-gun-show-hidden-camera-investigation/

Congrats, every law was followed. A private individual following the laws for private individuals.

[Emn1ty]

I am waiting to see how someone who justified blocking Syrian refugees from settling in the U.S. because some of them could be terrorists could then justify selling firearms to suspected terrorists.

As someone else here said, they key word is "suspect". The difference here is that one is barring a right, and the other isn't. People who are here legally do have a right to buy a firearm (and just because they are suspect does not mean they lose that right). But nobody has a "right" to be allowed into the United States. You can say that it's weird to use opposing logic in the two different scenarios (ie, we can't let them in cause they might be terrorists, but even if they might be terrorists they can still buy a gun) but really the latter is the least of our problems if a terrorist is already here. Even in Paris with far stricter gun laws the "terrorists" were still able to obtain weapons. The real goal with terrorists is to not let them get here and find them before they do anything if they already are here.

[Mockingbird]

Congrats, every law was followed. A private individual following the laws for private individuals.

Suppose for the argument that I am John, the terrorist.

I then bought guns from private sellers.

You think that that is okay?

As someone else here said, they key word is "suspect". The difference here is that one is barring a right, and the other isn't. People who are here legally do have a right to buy a firearm (and just because they are suspect does not mean they lose that right). But nobody has a "right" to be allowed into the United States. You can say that it's weird to use opposing logic in the two different scenarios (ie, we can't let them in cause they might be terrorists, but even if they might be terrorists they can still buy a gun) but really the latter is the least of our problems if a terrorist is already here. Even in Paris with far stricter gun laws the "terrorists" were still able to obtain weapons. The real goal with terrorists is to not let them get here and find them before they do anything if they already are here.

Have you ever heard of home grown terrorists?

Also, you argument against stricter "gun" regulation is ridiculous.

That same argument could be made for many other things:

There shouldn't be stricter [gun] regulations because people will be able to get them anyway.

There shouldn't be stricter [heroin] regulations because people will be able to get them anyway.

There shouldn't be stricter [insert something here] regulations because people will be able to get them anyway.

[Snaipersky]

Suppose for the argument that I am John, the terrorist.

I then bought guns from private sellers.

You think that that is okay?

Have you ever heard of home grown terrorists?

Also, you argument against stricter "gun" regulation is ridiculous.

That same argument could be made for many other things:

There shouldn't be stricter [gun] regulations because people will be able to get them anyway.

There shouldn't be stricter [heroin] regulations because people will be able to get them anyway.

There shouldn't be stricter [insert something here] regulations because people will be able to get them anyway.

To your first point, its not a question of whether its okay, its a matter of the inevitable. As someone who actually understands the laws, owns and has built firearms, the NICS background check system is a horrible broken mess, despite the numerous overhauls that tried to fix it, and the ATF actually prosecutes next to none (Last published record was somewhere around 0.1% were actually taken to court, and all but 3 were immediately dropped). And one could easily build a far more effective firearm than what can be bought. It's easier to break the law than it is to follow.

And yes, we've heard about home grown terrorists.

The proponents of stricter "gun" regulations also have next to no understanding of the existing laws, or actual workings of firearms, and derive most/all their information from Hollywood, with their very artistic take on reality, or other, equally ignorant proponents, especially in the media.

Indeed. Before I could buy guns I built them. This is not uncommon. There's not a whole lot you can't do with $200 and the ability to read.

There are many reasons the "war on drugs" is an abject failure with costs in the billions of dollars, millions of lives ruined, and tens of thousands of lives lost, with no realized gain, other than a massively expanded  international drug market and several governments now being run by cartels.

And yeah, pretty much. Thought control and pre-emptive punishment is something found in many forward-looking books (sadly, fiction has become parable), meant to be a warning and deterrent, not a guidebook.

Due note, that actual crimes (not failure to dot "i"s) involving firearms happen far more often in places with strict laws against individual autonomy. Places that do less to limit what you can and cannot own, do, and don't hound the general populace with more-equal police and social justice systems, all have lower violent crime rates. The issue is not too weak laws, its a too weak society abused by a too strong government.

[Emn1ty]

 

Have you ever heard of home grown terrorists?

Also, you argument against stricter "gun" regulation is ridiculous.

That same argument could be made for many other things:

There shouldn't be stricter [gun] regulations because people will be able to get them anyway.

There shouldn't be stricter [heroin] regulations because people will be able to get them anyway.

There shouldn't be stricter [insert something here] regulations because people will be able to get them anyway.

Well, drugs and "insert something here" aren't constitutional rights. So again, they aren't the same thing. Home grown terrorists are an entirely different issue, so I'm not sure why you're drawing lines between local terrorism and immigrant ones (since the latter can be stopped at the border far easier).

The reason people like you want a gun ban is so that you don't have the constitutional dilemma of explaining why one group of people can own a gun and another can't, because the entire dogma of progressives is about defending equal rights. And if guns are banned across the board, then equality is preserved.

But lets say we start banning "suspect" terrorists from getting guns. Now what qualifies someone as a "suspect terrorist"? At what point does someone lose their constitutional rights? A google search? A tweet?

[Mockingbird]

Well, drugs and "insert something here" aren't constitutional rights. So again, they aren't the same thing. Home grown terrorists are an entirely different issue, so I'm not sure why you're drawing lines between local terrorism and immigrant ones (since the latter can be stopped at the border far easier).

The reason people like you want a gun ban is so that you don't have the constitutional dilemma of explaining why one group of people can own a gun and another can't, because the entire dogma of progressives is about defending equal rights. And if guns are banned across the board, then equality is preserved.

But lets say we start banning "suspect" terrorists from getting guns. Now what qualifies someone as a "suspect terrorist"? At what point does someone lose their constitutional rights? A google search? A tweet?

Firstly, It has already been established that the 2nd amendment is not completely unrestricted. For example, convicts are people with history of mental illnesses are restricted from owing firearms.

Secondly, what you want to do is use a huge dragnet.

Thirdly, I am not a "progressive".

 

[Emn1ty]

Firstly, It has already been established that the 2nd amendment is not completely unrestricted. For example, convicts are people with history of mental illnesses are restricted from owing firearms.

Secondly, what you want to do is use a huge dragnet.

Thirdly, I am not a "progressive".

Well, yes it is not completely unrestricted. But convicts and mentally ill are confirmed to have either committed a crime or are incapable of responsibly owning a firearm. This is very different than just being "suspect". So again, your examples aren't really very good examples.

As far as "what I want to do", I'm not really sure what you mean by that. I didn't indicate anything about "what I want to do" other than closing borders to a particular set of migrants for security reasons. Too many unknowns and no effective way to vet each refugee means we don't let them in until these problems are solved. You brought up home grown terrorists, yet you seem perfectly okay with letting people in who have the highest chance of being converted (I assume this due to your need to point out the hypocrisy regarding that issue).

If you aren't "progressive" then what are you? Judging from many of your posts, you often fall on the side of progressive opinions and specifically political correctness. But I'll digress from this statement because it was wrong of me to jump to conclusions. I should have been more general with that statement.

[Mockingbird]

Well, yes it is not completely unrestricted. But convicts and mentally ill are confirmed to have either committed a crime or are incapable of responsibly owning a firearm. This is very different than just being "suspect". So again, your examples aren't really very good examples.

As far as "what I want to do", I'm not really sure what you mean by that. I didn't indicate anything about "what I want to do" other than closing borders to a particular set of migrants for security reasons. Too many unknowns and no effective way to vet each refugee means we don't let them in until these problems are solved. You brought up home grown terrorists, yet you seem perfectly okay with letting people in who have the highest chance of being converted (I assume this due to your need to point out the hypocrisy regarding that issue).

If you aren't "progressive" then what are you? Judging from many of your posts, you often fall on the side of progressive opinions and specifically political correctness. But I'll digress from this statement because it was wrong of me to jump to conclusions. I should have been more general with that statement.

First off, there are often obviously signs that some would be considered suspected terrorists. For example, attempting to contact ISIS's recruitment center.

Second, you are making a bad faith assumption that the refugees could be terrorists, when in fact, a lot of them just want to live normal lives, but cannot do so due to a "civil war". At the same time, you make a good faith assumption that the people on the terrorist watch lists may not be terrorists.

Thirdly, there are a lot of people don't get WND, Breitbart, Fox News, etc. Instead, they get news from sources like CNN, Washington Post, NYTimes, WSJ.

They used to be called moderates, but I guess that these days, the right has moved far right, that they now called the former "progressives" or "liberals".

[Emn1ty]

First off, there are often obviously signs that some would be considered suspected terrorists. For example, attempting to contact ISIS's recruitment center.

Second, you are making a bad faith assumption that the refugees could be terrorists, when in fact, a lot of them just want to live normal lives, but cannot do so due to a "civil war". At the same time, you make a good faith assumption that the people on the terrorist watch lists may not be terrorists.

Thirdly, there are a lot of people don't get WND, Breitbart, Fox News, etc. Instead, they get news from sources like CNN, Washington Post, NYTimes, WSJ.

They used to be called moderates, but I guess that these days, the right has moved far right, that they now called the former "progressives" or "liberals".

1. Well, that would be an obvious sign yes. But that's not the only kind of terrorist we're concerned about locally. The problem is you're damned if you do and damned if you don't when it comes to cutting off fundamental rights. Try and prevent a non-terrorist from getting a gun because they're "suspect" and you have a law suit on your hands for breach of constitutional rights. Allow a terrorist to get a gun because you can't actually know that they're a terrorist to properly and accurately prevent them from getting a firearm and it's your fault for not jumping to conclusions when they commit and act of terrorism.

2. Are you saying that they can't be terrorists? This is another damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. As I've sated before in other threads discussing this, it's not making an actual judgment to prevent people from coming into the country. The bad faith assumption wouldn't be preventing them from entering the country, but throwing them in jail/camps like we did with the Japanese during WWII and how we treated suspected Communists during the Cold War. What the country would really be doing is deferring judgement, opting out and saying we'd rather not be burdened with the choice at all of who is and isn't a terrorist. This is exactly the same logic as above, except that one is forced to the other side by virtue of a constitutional right to buy firearms. Whereas here we can just not let them in so them being a terrorist or not is a complete non-issue. Or would you like to be the guy who said, "well they aren't all terrorists" and one of them did happen to commit an act of terrorism? Was it worth the PR hike of political correctness and compassion to lose lives of citizens? Personally, I think life > PR.

3. Or perhaps they've moved left. I am no expert in their political leanings, however. But I can pretty confidently say that CNN is not "moderate". In fact, I'm not sure they ever "used to be" center at all, since studies as far back as 1986 have put many of these left of center. There have been 3 separate studies (1986, 2002, 2005) that have all come to the same conclusion. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Liberal_bias] So we've had a supposed "liberal bias" for 29 years at least.

[Mockingbird]

1. Well, that would be an obvious sign yes. But that's not the only kind of terrorist we're concerned about locally. The problem is you're damned if you do and damned if you don't when it comes to cutting off fundamental rights. Try and prevent a non-terrorist from getting a gun because they're "suspect" and you have a law suit on your hands for breach of constitutional rights. Allow a terrorist to get a gun because you can't actually know that they're a terrorist to properly and accurately prevent them from getting a firearm and it's your fault for not jumping to conclusions when they commit and act of terrorism.

2. Are you saying that they can't be terrorists? This is another damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. As I've sated before in other threads discussing this, it's not making an actual judgment to prevent people from coming into the country. The bad faith assumption wouldn't be preventing them from entering the country, but throwing them in jail/camps like we did with the Japanese during WWII and how we treated suspected Communists during the Cold War. What the country would really be doing is deferring judgement, opting out and saying we'd rather not be burdened with the choice at all of who is and isn't a terrorist. This is exactly the same logic as above, except that one is forced to the other side by virtue of a constitutional right to buy firearms. Whereas here we can just not let them in so them being a terrorist or not is a complete non-issue. Or would you like to be the guy who said, "well they aren't all terrorists" and one of them did happen to commit an act of terrorism? Was it worth the PR hike of political correctness and compassion to lose lives of citizens? Personally, I think life > PR.

3. Or perhaps they've moved left. I am no expert in their political leanings, however. But I can pretty confidently say that CNN is not "moderate". In fact, I'm not sure they ever "used to be" center at all, since studies as far back as 1986 have put many of these left of center. There have been 3 separate studies (1986, 2002, 2005) that have all come to the same conclusion. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Liberal_bias] So we've had a supposed "liberal bias" for 29 years at least.

1. If you let suspected terrorists buy firearms and then kill other people, you have just violated other people's rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". That is unless you want to argue that the right to own firearms trumps the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

2. A bad faith assumption is to assume that the refugees from Syria are terrorists. Sure, some may be terrorists, but a few does not make a whole. You have to remember these refugees are refugees because their homeland is no longer habitable for anyone but those willing to take part in the conflicts.

3. I am not going to get into this discussion again. There was a whole thread just on this.

[Emn1ty]

1. If you let suspected terrorists buy firearms and then kill other people, you have just violated other people's rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". That is unless you want to argue that the right to own firearms trumps the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

2. A bad faith assumption is to assume that the refugees from Syria are terrorists. Sure, some may be terrorists, but a few does not make a whole. You have to remember these refugees are refugees because their homeland is no longer habitable for anyone but those willing to take part in the conflicts.

3. I am not going to get into this discussion again. There was a whole thread just on this.

1. One right does not supersede another, but there is already consequences for killing other people. It's called jail. One's right to life is also not justification to lock everyone into rooms of isolation to prevent them from taking each other's lives (or perhaps even their own). A right is something you choose to exercise, but that choice must always be available.

2. The whole isn't who we're concerned about, it's the few. This is why I keep saying it's not about judging the whole, but avoiding having to discover the few amongst the whole. We're not killing them, we're not locking them up. We're just not letting them in. Why is that a bad thing? Yes, it's unfortunate that they have such terrible things happening in their homeland but at the same time it isn't our job to take care of them. Especially when taking them in could result in people dying. I again pose the question to you. Is it worth American lives to take the chance? You yourself said some may be terrorists. Is the risk of them being one worth the ability to boast about the humanitarian efforts of the US?

[TMYW]

That's because minor things can get you.on the FBI watch list, starting with taking a one-way overseas flight. Tick off the wrong federal employee.  Tweet the wrong phrase, or word. Have a name which is similar to someone else on the list.  Sen. Edward Kennedy was on the list, as was Nelson Mandela.

In 2013 alone 468,000 watch list nominations were sent to the National Counterterrorism Center by 19 different agencies, and only 1% were rejected. 

That's why it's been so controversial, on both sides of the political spectrum, since it's inception.

Oh, boo-hoo! A few hundred of these 468K people not being able to get a gun and accidentally blow a 6-year old's head off because they checked the wrong box on a form is just so tragic a situation!