Mayor Endorses Another Gun-Control Measure

Status
Not open for further replies.

Matt King

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
1,151
Location
USA
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg held a news conference under the Brooklyn Bridge today to call on Congress to pass a bill that would allow the Justice Department to block gun sales to people who appear on the federal government’s terrorist watch lists.

The bill, sponsored by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Peter T. King, Republican from Long Island, has the support of the Justice Department. But gun control of any kind remains a touchy issue in Washington, where many of the new Democrats in Congress last year were elected on pro-gun stances. Michael Luo of The Times described the bill when it was proposed in April.

Since 9/11, local law enforcement officials and gun control advocates have raised concerns that terrorists might exploit loopholes to buy weapons. John Ashcroft, the former attorney general and a supporter of gun rights, blocked the Federal Bureau of Investigation from comparing federal gun-buying records against a list of suspects detained as part of the 9/11 investigation. He argued that the Brady gun law, which governs the federal system for background checks, prohibited sharing such information for other law enforcement purposes.

In 2004, the F.B.I. instituted a new system that alerted counterterrorism officials when a terrorism suspect tried to buy a gun, giving them three days to find information to disqualify the suspect under the standard federal prohibitions. If the transaction was successful, details like the type of weapon and the place of purchase could not be shared. But if the purchase was blocked, the information could be turned over. In 2005, at Senator Lautenberg’s request, the Government Accountability Office looked into the matter and found that federal law enforcement officials approved 47 of 58 gun applications from terrorism suspects over a nine-month period.

Mayor Bloomberg said today that the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition he co-founded with Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston, had decided to come out in support of the bill.

“One of the most glaring mistakes in preventing 9/11 was the government’s failure to share information and connect the dots,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “As you remember, two of the 19 hijackers were on a terrorist watch list, yet they were allowed to board an airplane. Today, suspected terrorists cannot fly — but they can still buy guns. We just can’t afford to wait for another attack to take these kinds of basic, common-sense precautions.”

The National Rifle Association opposes the measure.

“There’s no one more opposed to terrorists acquiring guns than the 4 million members of the N.R.A., but just because you’re on a watch list doesn’t make you a terrorist,” said Chris W. Cox, the association’s chief lobbyist.

Mr. Cox said the process by which the terror watch lists are devised is not subject to the due process guarantees that criminal defendants are afforded at trial. He noted that the watch lists often result in significant errors: Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, was blocked from boarding flights because his name triggered a similar name on the government’s no-fly list.

“To give a political appointee the arbitrary power – and it is arbitrary — to decide who gets to own a firearm and who doesn’t, with no due process, is bad policy,” Mr. Cox said.

Mr. Bloomberg, who has made gun control one of his major causes, appeared to be trying to use antiterror sentiment to bolster his broader argument against illegal guns.

Mr. Lautenberg joined Mayor Bloomberg at the news conference, as did Mayor Jerramiah T. Healy of Jersey City and Mayor Douglas H. Palmer of Trenton, who is the current chairman of the United States Conference of Mayors.

Under current federal law, there are nine factors — including status as a felon or evidence of a serious mental health problem — that disqualify an individual from buying a gun. The bill would give the Justice Department the ability to disqualify people on terror watch lists from buying a gun from a licensed dealer. Under the bill, a suspect would have the opportunity to challenge the determination in federal court.

Mr. Bloomberg was also joined by Devorah Halberstam, whose 16-year-old son Ari was fatally shot on March 1, 1994, on an on-ramp to the Brooklyn Bridge. A Lebanese immigrant, Rashid Baz, was convicted of murder; he had opened fire on a van carrying 15 members of the Lubavitcher sect of Orthodox Judaism who were returning from a visit to the hospital where the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem M. Schneerson, had undergone surgery.

From: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/mayor-endorses-another-gun-control-measure/?hp
 
What BS! My son's name popped up on a terrorist watch list when his marching band was flying to a college bowl game. He's about as much a terrorist as my Labrador Retriever!:cuss:
 
That's just what we need.

A secret list, that you have no idea if you are on it , how you got there and no way to correct any errors, in case they have you confused with someone else because they stole your social security number.

But we should trust Bloomberg, Lautenberg, Corzine and company. Aren't most of these guys the same ones decrying Bush's wiretapping etc?

But for some reason it's OK to keep a secret list of "bad" people and deny them their constitutional rights one at a time? After all these people want to buy "evil" guns so their rights probably don't matter and we can ship 'em to Gitmo and let it sort out later..

How about if we just publish the list, explain whay and how people are on it then create a system to correct any possible errors?

Oh, it's secret, never mind. Forget I even talked about the list, what list?
 
“One of the most glaring mistakes in preventing 9/11 was the government’s failure to share information and connect the dots,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “As you remember, two of the 19 hijackers were on a terrorist watch list, yet they were allowed to board an airplane.

so only 10% of the hijackers were on the list? and not one of them used a gun, so how does this have anything to do with suspending habeus corpus and taking away the rights of people.

a suspect would have the opportunity to challenge the determination in federal court.

at whom's expense. guilty before proven innocent is not what our forefathers fought and died for.

Mr. Bloomberg was also joined by Devorah Halberstam, whose 16-year-old son Ari was fatally shot on March 1, 1994, on an on-ramp to the Brooklyn Bridge. A Lebanese immigrant, Rashid Baz, was convicted of murder; he had opened fire on a van carrying 15 members of the Lubavitcher sect of Orthodox Judaism who were returning from a visit to the hospital where the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem M. Schneerson, had undergone surgery.

Wouldn't be true liberal propaganda without grandstanding a victim of an unrelated incident, or playing to emotional morons.

The more and more stuff like this comes out, it would seem reducing the number of legally owned guns in the hands of people through "terrorism security" measures makes future, more draconian attempts easier to implement, leading to abusive control by those in power.
 
a hundred bucks says that if this passes 98% of the US population will suddenly be put on the 'terrorist watch list'
 
my statement was meant to be humorous, however, it seems far less humorous after I realized that may be EXACTLY what those arseholes are actually planning. scary stuff man...
 
We shouldn't sell weapons to terrorists. That's a great idea. I wonder why we never thought about that before?

I don't think anyone would disagree with this "big picture" notion.


But as has oft been said about many things, the Devil is in the details.


I get all itchy when our rights become contingent on terms defined by people who may or may not have other agendas.

I get REAL itchy when people start putting together lists based upon those definitions when we really don't have any input on the parameters by which that list will be compiled.


-- John
 
"By mandate of the District of Columbia Precrime Division, I'm placing you under arrest for the future murder of Sarah Marks and Donald Dubin that was to take place today, April 22 at 0800 hours and four minutes. " - Minority Report

Life imitates art.
 
Well, I just can't get worked up about banning gun purchases to folks on a terrorist list.

Sure, there might be a few folks on the list by mistake. Gun ownership is the least of their problems. Try getting your green card, visa renewed or booking a flight or a govenment job.

9/11 changed things for America. Virginia Tech changed things for me about guns (made me pro gun and pro carry)

The terror list needs a mechanizim to get clear cut good-doers off.
With that control, don't see any reason to let the bastards have guns! I mean, really.
 
BCC: Its a problem because the 2nd Amendment is a right. Hence, it cannot be revoked without due process. Can you tell me where due process is involved when putting names on a terror watch list? It doesn't take a court or a judge to get someone put on that list. There is no trial. Hence no due process.
 
The terror list needs a mechanizim to get clear cut good-doers off.


The problem lies in defining what is a "clear cut good-doer."


We are all one liberal-biased news article away from being labled a "Militant Extremist."

We often (and recently) have seen news articles tell of people who were found to have "Arsenals" of paramilitary weapons and large caches of ammuniton. Yet, if you read carefully, you find that they had 4-5 firearms and a couple cases of ammunition.

A good writer can make anything seem diabolical. Sadly, many in power think the exact same way.


-- John
 
Thanks guys for your views. It gives me more to think about.

But it still seems like a good thing to keep suspected terrorists from buying guns. And if my rights to add to my collection is temporily suspended while some bureaucrat and me sort out my true status as a good-doer.

Seems reasonable to me. A little colateral damage is acceptable to mess up the bastards.
 
Well, I just can't get worked up about banning gun purchases to folks on a terrorist list.

Let me get this straight: you can't get worked up about depriving rights to people who have not been convicted of any crime??

Yeah! Who needs the fifth amendment anyway!
As a refresher, the fifth amendment states, in part:
No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentv

And if my rights to add to my collection is temporily suspended while some bureaucrat and me sort out my true status as a good-doer. Seems reasonable to me. A little colateral damage is acceptable to mess up the bastards.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
 
Quote:
Well, I just can't get worked up about banning gun purchases to folks on a terrorist list.
Let me get this straight: you can't get worked up about depriving rights to people who have not been convicted of any crime??

Yeah! Who needs the fifth amendment anyway!
As a refresher, the fifth amendment states, in part:
Quote:
No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...tml#amendmentv

Quote:
And if my rights to add to my collection is temporily suspended while some bureaucrat and me sort out my true status as a good-doer. Seems reasonable to me. A little colateral damage is acceptable to mess up the bastards.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
__________________
Yeah, to answer your question. I'm infavor of the exchange of governmental department info to try to reduce the opportunity for terrorist getting on plane, buying guns, tons of fertilizer, and getting visa renewals.

If they get there name off the list, god love 'em.
I don't see how your Franklin quote applies to me. I can do with my current assortment of weapons and stockpile of ammo. Postponing a handgun purchase a little bit while I clear up the goverment miss info about me being a terrorists. It's no biggie and certainly not the government trying to take away our guns!
 
But it still seems like a good thing to keep suspected terrorists from buying guns.
Aside from the fact that these people are being denied a right without due process. Because they act suspicious in some way. They haven't proven themselves to be terrorists, but would be denied their rights based on the possibility that they were.

I seem to remember an administration not too long ago that considered right-wing protestant gun owners and such to be terroristic. It's possible that the same folks will get in charge again, and go back to the same viewpoints.

If these folks are on a 'terrorist watch list', I should hope that somebody is, indeed, watching 'em. Those folks ought to be able to report if the 'terrorists' are buying guns. And/or possible explosives.

This is a gun-control bill claiming to take guns from terrorists... in spite of the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda in the USA involving firearms. Those folks seem to prefer explosives and kamikaze missions.

It's the equivalent of trying to get AR-15s banned because Reagan was shot with a pistol.
 
If those on a terror watch list are subject to having their 2nd amendment rights revoked without due process, I suspect everyone here is in a world of hurt.

What's to stop someone like Hillary from labling this website as a "terrorist" organization and using the PATRIOT Act to subpoena our ISPs for our names, addresses, etc.? I mean seriously, this is :barf::barf:

I believe that I may already be on a watch list after the police saw how much ammunition I have in my house.
 
It's no biggie and certainly not the government trying to take away our guns!

True. Right now it's Mayor Bloomberg, his consortium of mayors, and others who are trying to have the federal government do that. It's not a biggie until they succeed. Then it will be a biggie.

You've been "pro gun and pro carry" since April of this year--about four or five months. Your ability to change positions was made possible by decades of hard, frustrating work by a great many people including at least some of those in this forum. Is it possible, do you think, that their knowledge and experience allow them to see signs of disaster ahead that you aren't yet able to recognize?

If that's even a possibility perhaps it would be wise to shift from arguing against them to asking them to help you understand. That's what they're trying to do, I think.

A lot of us have seen the exact same technique being used by Mayor Bloomberg now employed repeatedly by other politicians in the past to accomplish exactly what you say isn't happening and that you think is good. I'm not talking only about guns, by the way, but about social engineering in all of its aspects. I was a young man during the great Communist witch hunt of the 1950s when many lives were ruined because ordinary people were placed on lists such as this and forced to defend themselves if they could. An anonymous letter or phone call, the mere mention of someone's name in a garbled context, an overheard conversation, or an appearance at a lecture or party or club were enough to get people on such lists and bar them from jobs. For a long time the general public--other ordinary people, perhaps like you--thought it was a good idea because they were told that it kept them safe from the Communist menace. As that body count increased, though, many of those ordinary people recognized that a lot of people were being hurt for no good reason. But there are always people whose fear overcomes their judgment and humanity. Some Americans still look backwards on that time in this country and think that what you call "collateral damage" was acceptable, but they are never the people who were that collateral damage.

I'm also not talking only about the history of this country but about world history. The technique being used by Mayor Bloomberg is the same technique used by the Nazis and the Soviets to identify and eliminate those who might resist them. The technique depends upon creating lists of potential enemies and potential wrongdoers--meaning anyone who might do what the listmakers don't want--so that they can be neutralized. It simply doesn't matter whether those on the list have committed or are even on the verge of committing a crime. The listmakers don't care about collateral damage.

The acceptance of collateral damage is a reversal of the traditional American value derived from the Talmudic principle that it is better for a thousand guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be punished. It's sad to see Mayor Michael Bloomberg urge that reversal and sadder still to see other Americans join with him. History does repeat itself, endlessly, and always at the cost of those who become the collateral damage.

Given enough time and money you might be able to get your own name off such a list if you had been placed on one. Or perhaps not. Perhaps the majority of those listed did not even learn they had been on a list until years or even decades later. They didn't understand until too late how or why their lives were going badly no matter how much they worked or how well. The lists gave them dead end lives. A lot of people who did discover that they were on a list in the past couldn't get off it no matter how hard they tried. If you've never seen the movie Schindler's List now is a good time to do it, before you continue to defend the concept, and perhaps so you'll realize just how deadly it is. There rarely is a Schindler willing and able to rescue people on the list. Bloomberg's List is the opposite of Schindler's and will condemn people who shouldn't be punished. That's what people here are saying.
 
Last edited:
blocked the Federal Bureau of Investigation from comparing federal gun-buying records

Umm, I thought they weren't allowed to keep records...Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Batman.

I'd be entirely against it, wholeheartedly. Who gets to define Terrorist? Bloomberg? Hillary? Bush? Your ex? the Brady Campaign?

What's to stop someone like Hillary from labelling this website as a "terrorist" organization and using the PATRIOT Act to subpoena our ISPs for our names, addresses, etc.? I mean seriously, this is

They've already got them, they just need the official paperwork to bring it to light publicly is all. Remember the AT&T "secret" rooms. They are already doing this stuff, its just the semantics of law if they want to come after you.

How do you think the DC police knew which houses to "visit" and ask folks if they owned a .223 rifle? No lists my arse!!!!

It's no biggie and certainly not the government trying to take away our guns!

How many millions of dead Jews and Russians will it take to change your mind? We are already into millions, how many more? Do Americans need to start disappearing before you think it's not real? Honestly, read some history books before you allow your government to say what you can and cannot do. They are there to represent their constituents, not themselves.

Think more critically, please. Please illustrate to me why I should put in any faith in my government to do the right thing and not tamper with my liberties, I'm all ears...or eyes as this case may be.

Well put Hairless, very well put. My apologies for the rant tone, but this stuff seriously rubs me the wrong way, especially when fellow gunnies think it's all "okay".
 
Last edited:
I don't see how your Franklin quote applies to me. I can do with my current assortment of weapons and stockpile of ammo. Postponing a handgun purchase a little bit while I clear up the goverment miss info about me being a terrorists. It's no biggie and certainly not the government trying to take away our guns!

What you are missing is the fact that if your name is on that list you are already in violation just because you have a gun already. So they can arrest you and put you in jail for that. If that ever became law that anyone on the suspected Terrorist list could not have a gun.
 
Any law that can be abused WILL be abused.

What if the government said "No guns to Muslims who are not on an approved list"? Would not there be widespread outrage and a media hysteria?

The thought of the government having an approved list of people who are allowed to exercise their Constitutional rights absolutely terrifies me. Will this be extended to bookstores? Associations? Houses of worship? Newspapers? Speech?

If there are terrorists in the country:

1. How did they get here and why are they not arrested, prosecuted and removed from the country?

2. If the terrorists can get here, why do you think they will have problems brining in firearms, RPGs, explosives, inter alia with them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top