NRA members: Should people on the federal terrorist watch list be able to buy a gun?

[thelaststand]

trebor, the problem with that is that if the person was already convicted of a crime, they already cannot own a gun, so if he is also on the terrorist watch list, it would not be necessary to ban him from owning guns with that list also.

 

[thelaststand]

here's a new list of options. let me know if this is better.


1. No one on the terrorist watch list should be able to buy a gun.
2. Foreigners can't but a citizen can if they are not otherwise banned.
3. Foreigners can, but citizens can't.
4. American citizens should not be placed on a terrorist watch list for any reason
5. A terrorist watch list shouldn't even exist
6. An American should only be placed on a terrorist watch list if he is convicted in court.
7. I'm not an NRA member
8. Other, explained in comment

 

[basicblur]

basicblur, do you think you can control the use of and who is put on that list?

No, I can’t.

Do you think we can decide this?

Don’t know exactly who “we” is.

I think that is far out of our control.

Absolutely-which is why I said “nameless, faceless bureaucrats”…

I think we could eliminate the use of the list for american citizens.

Was not the guy that parked the Pathfinder in NY an American citizen?
Just because you’re a citizen, doesn’t mean you can’t be a terrorist.

…we could simply decide not to remove people's rights because they are on this list.

Rights aside, if you’re mistakenly put on the list, you should have some way to correct the error, but it sounds like it’s near impossible to do so (how much trouble did Ted Kennedy have?).

But to tailor design the list isn't really possible, an agent could simply put someone on the list that they don't like.

I don’t really know what you mean by “tailor designing” a list, but AFA someone simply not liking you and putting you on the list, I believe I already covered that under the “nameless, faceless” part? (with no redress)

 

[TexasRifleman]

So what you're saying is that a long-time out-of-control alcoholic murderer who committed treason (meeting with an enemy nation as an unauthorized representative of the US) should be allowed to buy a gun?

Since he was not convicted of any of that stuff by due process then yeah, he should have been allowed to buy a gun. One of the things about rights is that they apply to everyone, even people we don't like. The moment you get to pick and choose based on feelings they aren't rights any more.

 

[thelaststand]

basicblur, you just made a fantastic argument of why American citizens should not be placed on the list, while an american citizen who does try to kill others should be arrested and tried.

 

[NotSoFast]

Suspect foreign terrorists should be deported immediately...no trial, no questions, just oust them to a middle eastern country and refuse to allow them back in the country at all.

And kick out the UN so that high level terrorists and anti-U.S. diplomats and leaders aren't allowed in either.

 

[pty101]

well the questions asked in the MAIG poll were more complex than they were made and I think skewed the results. Obviously I dont want someone that wants to kill innocent people to be able to do so, but due process needs to be followed so that people's rights are not violated

 

[Radium]

the terrorist watch list is just a damn joke.

ok. so if i am a real terrorist up to no good. im planing on blowing up the washington monument (ok now i am on a watchlist lol ) well all i gotta do technically is go and buy a gun and check if im on the watchlist if i am im not going to followtrew on my plan since the goverment is watching me ? amirite?

now the theory divides up, well if i am a real terrorist im pretty sure my name will NEVER go on that list bacause of what i just said.

the list is nothing but a **** up ur life list. ok so we cant proove anything but we dont like u so we'll just put u on this vip list ok?

screw the list and the daisyringsitting humpers behind it:banghead:

 

[DeepSouth]

I cannot answer because my answer would depend ENTIRELY on the criteria for getting on the list, and how
(or if) those criteria can be changed.

For instance if they decide to, or even had the ability to, put all NRA members on the list, obliviously I would not support it.

If the list was only allowed to included people who were known to have attempted terrorist acts against American Civilians, I would obliviously support it. Fortunately these people are already ineligible to buy a firearm.

SOOOOOOO........ Anyone know what it takes to get on the list, and who has the power to change the criteria. Until we know this we should oppose it, IMO.

BTW: Yes, I'm and NRA Member.

 

[GEM]

Can basic rights of an adult be taken away without a trial and jury of your peers?

That's the core question for me. A terror list composed by bureaucrats with secret sources? That's a touch troublesome.

Since we think it would affect primarily Muslims, some might go for it on the implicit prejudice - to be blunt.

After a replay of Oklahoma City could such a list be composed of more stereotypical "Americans". Yes, in a heart beat.

Pre-emptive detention? We've done that before.

Nope, if folks aren't able to have a gun, they need a trial and jury of their peers in this decision loop.

 

[JohnBT]

Terrorist Screening Center

National Security Branch > Terrorist Screening Center > Redress Procedures

Redress Procedures

The Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) works with the Department of Homeland Security and other Government agencies on a daily basis to resolve complaints from individuals experiencing repeated screening delays or difficulties that may be related to the consolidated terrorist watchlist. Because individuals could experience problems during screening for any number of reasons, not just because of the terrorist watchlist, they should contact the agency conducting the screening process in question.

Because the contents of the consolidated terrorist watchlist are derived from classified and sensitive law enforcement and intelligence information, the TSC cannot confirm or deny whether an individual is on the watchlist. The watchlist remains an effective tool in the government's counterterrorism efforts because its contents are not disclosed. The nondisclosure of the watchlist information protects the government's operational counterterrorism and intelligence collection objectives, as well as the personal safety of those involved in counterterrorism investigations.

 

[JohnBT]

"Should people on the federal terrorist watch list be able to buy a gun?"

Yes, it's a watch list, not a conviction list.

Do you know how many tens or hundreds of thousands of people are on the list? Senator Kennedy didn't either until he turned up on it. At least he had the name and political pull to get off of it.

John

 

[Deanimator]

I'm with TexasRifleman, the floater that got left off is my choice.I didn't agree with any of those answers.

Likewise.

Nobody's fundamental rights should be abridged without due process. If gun ownership, why not the right to vote?

If it took Baron Harkonnen (Ted Kennedy) three weeks to get removed from the watch list, what would any mere peasant have to go through?

 

[jfdavis58]

Be glad I'm not the president.

There would be no terrorist watch list because long ago I'd have 'glassed-over' the entire middle-east. And I'd stand ready to convey the favor to any who objected. I'm all for nuclear disarmament: one fireball at a time, more if I get up in a bad mood.

 

[benEzra]

I don't see a choice for "secret blacklists should not be used as a basis for denying fundamental rights."

I don't mind too much if the FBI or whoever has an internal list of people they have files on or want to investigate further to make sure they're clean. I *do* mind if that list is used to deny civil rights, whether it be the 2nd Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, whatever. Particularly since people get added to the current watchlists simply to meet quotas, or because they showed up at a political protest or an environmental rally.

 

[CoRoMo]

here's a new list of options. let me know if this is better.

Nope. A simple yes and no would have been best. Most of the options, new options, and newest options don't make any sense.

 

[ArmedBear]

Since he was not convicted of any of that stuff by due process then yeah, he should have been allowed to buy a gun. One of the things about rights is that they apply to everyone, even people we don't like. The moment you get to pick and choose based on feelings they aren't rights any more.

Obviously, I fully agree with you. As I wrote above, a "watch list" is just that: a tool for law enforcement to prioritize its time and effort. It's not to be used to deny ANYONE any rights -- not even rights that aren't "fundamental."

I just find it funny that people would use Ted Kennedy as an example of someone who obviously shouldn't be on a "watch list".

 

[natman]

1) I have no faith whatsoever in Mayor Bloomberg as a representative of the opinions of NRA members. He certainly doesn't represent me.

2)It's amazing that the same people who are up in arms over the civil rights of foreign nationals who are here illegally have no problem restricting the explicitly protected constitutional rights of law abiding American citizens without due process.

Hypocrisy in action!

Suggested Poll Choice:

Are you in favor of restricting the constitutional rights of law abiding American citizens without due process?

I bet Bloomberg didn't phrase it like that.

 

[.378 Wby]

"Due Process" and legal recourse to challenge/appeal. Lieberman wants to strip "terrorists" of their American citizenship. The legal criteria for that one is the law which strips citizenship to those serving in a foreign armed force. Lieberman wants to apply it to "militant enclaves."

Yeah, and then we start listing the Ku Klux Klan and Tea Baggers, David Koresh, Ruby Ridge as "militant enclaves."

"Patriot Act" is an unfortunate misnomer. Read Owell's "1984" or "Animal Farm" with regard to naming groups and ideologies.

 

[Mr.Davis]

Internet polls should be banned. No offense intended to you personally OP, but it's very very hard to make scientifically fair and accurate polls, and people go to school for years to learn how to do it.

Foreigners (except under very specific circumstances) can't buy guns in America in the first place. Citizens should not be deprived of that right except by due process of law. The terrorist watch list is not due process of law, and anyone could wind up on there.

Let's take this thing to its logical conclusion. Somebody on the watch list (without merit) or someone whose name matches someone's on the watch list tries to buy a gun. Gun dealer reports the attempted buy to the ATF. You know, such reporting would be required for the sake of public safety. A few hours later, police tactical team "knocks" on the door of the innocent American citizen who just happened to share a name with somebody on the watch list, and is now in the position of needing to prove his own innocence. The media shows the formerly respected gentlemen brought in cuffs to the courthouse with the headline "suspected terrorist attempts to buy an assault rifle", and it leads the evening news. All because somebody's name matched someone else's on the watch list.

Also, what keeps politicians or law enforcement from targeting average joe citizens who have been particulary outspoken about 2nd Amendment rights and putting them on the list to ruin their good name?

Nah, I'm not for this restriction. I guess that means I'm with the terrorists. I just believe the terrorists win if they're able to deprive us of our daily rights and liberties for the sake of protecting against boogeymen.

 

[wishin]

Anyone that is legitimately on the terrorist watch list should be watched from behind bars. That is after according him his constitutional right to do whatever he damn well pleases, and Mirandizing of course. Once he's judged guilty of being a traitor, a firing squad would be appropriate.

I see this threat as a little more serious than the communist lists of the 50's. Kiss the right to bear anything goodbye if a nuke is set off by these people anywhere in this country.

 

[benEzra]

I see this threat as a little more serious than the communist lists of the 50's.

People on the sekrit terrah blacklist aren't any more of a threat than some actor in the '50s who attended a leftie meeting and got on McCarthy's blacklist. The real terrorist suspects aren't put on the watchlist, because it would tip them off.

And the actual threat back in the '50s was much more serious than the threat environment today. Al Qaeda can blow up a few buildings, and their ultimate fantasy would be to level a couple of city centers, though they don't currently have that capability and there's no indication they are anywhere close to getting it. The Soviets, on the other hand, not only had every bit of that capability, but far more so, and they were engaged in espionage to boot.

Al Qaeda cannot destroy this country. However, mindless pursuit of More Authority at the expense of fundamental liberties can.

Kiss the right to bear anything goodbye if a nuke is set off by these people anywhere in this country.

I don't see how that unlikely event would change anything with regard to the personal ownership of Title 1 small arms.

 

[stickhauler]

I'm not going to bother with the list because my opinion of Bloomberg's idiotic claims about what we need to do with guns doesn't deserve an accounting of NRA members beliefs on his brand of gun control.

The fact is, he wants the "no fly-no buy" bill passed. The "No Fly" list includes citizens not guilty of any actions against this country. You can simply be near a "person of interest" in some form and be placed on this list. You can, simply by having a similar name to a person seen as a person of interest, be placed on the list. There's too many examples of people placed on this list who pose no danger to our country.

Those truly a danger to our country are from foreign countries, usually here on student visas, or visitor visas, and are not citizens, so they can't buy a gun from a FFL anyway. And think this through seriously for a second, put yourself in the thought process of a person who plans an attack on our country. Would you, even if you were legally able to buy a gun, actually go and get your name on file through the paper trail created by any sale from an FFL? Or, if you needed firearms, would you obtain them in the same manner as a criminal who can't buy a gun from an FFL anyway, get one on the black market, or persuade someone to do a "straw purchase" on your behalf?

Bloomberg, and his merry band of mayors who follow his every word to rid the country of guns are idiots, using a mantra they claim the NRA is against.
NO legitimate gun owner wants illegal guns on the streets, the NRA is against illegal guns being on the streets, I don't know any responsible person who does.

 

[natman]

Internet polls should be banned. No offense intended to you personally OP, but it's very very hard to make scientifically fair and accurate polls, and people go to school for years to learn how to do it.

Foreigners (except under very specific circumstances) can't buy guns in America in the first place.

And some of those people who went to school for years use that skill to manipulate the questions to get the answers they want, e.g. Bloomberg's poll.

Resident aliens can buy firearms by proving residency for the last 90 days. Nonresidient aliens can buy firearms with a hunting license.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/nonimmigrant-aliens.html

 

[shockwave]

But to tailor design the list isn't really possible, an agent could simply put someone on the list that they don't like.

More likely the list is mostly computer-generated. Regardless, the time to protest this was before the so-called "Patriot Act" got signed into law. Once that abomination happened, all the rest of this was ordained.