Should potential terrorists be allowed to purchase guns?

Congressional Democrats say no, but then, Democrats have a history of supporting gun control measures:

Congressional Democrats are trying to build support for an effort to bar gun purchases by terror suspects, hoping to take advantage of the same public anxieties about security that gave Republicans a ringing House victory.

Click to expand...

Republicans, backed by the NRA, of course oppose the measure. The Democrats' answer:

By leaving this terrorist loophole open, Republicans are leaving every community in America vulnerable to attacks by terrorists armed with assault rifles and explosives purchased legally, in broad daylight,"

Click to expand...

The position of the NRA is clear:

NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker noted that there have been numerous instances of innocent people mistakenly added to terror lists. She also accused Democrats of trying to take advantage of heightened public alarm following last week's attacks in Paris, which claimed at least 130 lives and for which the Islamic State, which has also threatened the U.S., has claimed responsibility.

Click to expand...

and yet, those potentially innocent people are not allowed on airlines.

source

What is your position?

Dittohead not! said:

Congressional Democrats say no, but then, Democrats have a history of supporting gun control measures:

Click to expand...

I don't know about gun control measures but common sense and respectful of human rights yes. Just because they are not willing to punish the innocent and deprive them of rights, even the right to life and self-defence does not make them some kind of nutter organisation. That is exactly the principle the founding fathers built America on.

Republicans, backed by the NRA, of course oppose the measure. The Democrats' answer:

Click to expand...

Who would not oppose the oppression of innocent people and for any reason? Democrats are simply willing to oppresses and persecute the innocent because they think they may harm somebody. If ever there was an evil in society that is it. Fear of another has seen the death of 262 million in the last century alone. Is that not enough to show these emotional wrecks that what they want is fuel for the graves of genocide. There always is a loophole with this lot. It never goes far enough and never will until there is a complete ban. They still will not be happy and seek other to blame it on.

The position of the NRA is clear:

Click to expand...

It's not very good PR. In fact it does not even address the pubic fear being built up by these fear filled ignorant cowards.

and yet, those potentially innocent people are not allowed on airlines.

Click to expand...

They might.....

source

What is your position?

Click to expand...

I do not like terrorists any more than anyone else but I cannot bring myself to accuse a whole nation or everyone I don't like just becasue I am afraid.

I'll admit I'm a little confused and unsure about US law related to the purchase of firearms but aren't we talking about two separate groups of people - one group, non-citizens who've not yet reached American soil and have no constitutional rights and a second group, citizens or landed immigrants who are on American soil and have full protection of the US Constitution.

As such, how does barring certain "suspected" citizens from purchasing weapons protect America from potential terrorists who are attempting to emigrate to America under UN refugee relief projects?

CanadaJohn said:

I'll admit I'm a little confused and unsure about US law related to the purchase of firearms but aren't we talking about two separate groups of people - one group, non-citizens who've not yet reached American soil and have no constitutional rights and a second group, citizens or landed immigrants who are on American soil and have full protection of the US Constitution.

As such, how does barring certain "suspected" citizens from purchasing weapons protect America from potential terrorists who are attempting to emigrate to America under UN refugee relief projects?

Click to expand...

People who live in fear of others are not concerned with reality or constitutions.

Dittohead not! said:

Congressional Democrats say no, but then, Democrats have a history of supporting gun control measures:



Republicans, backed by the NRA, of course oppose the measure. The Democrats' answer:



The position of the NRA is clear:

[/FONT][/COLOR]

and yet, those potentially innocent people are not allowed on airlines.

source

What is your position?

Click to expand...

My position is that is clearly unconstitutional. Most seem to want 2A rights removed (or limited) for the convicted, many even for those merely (ever?) arrested and indicted but damed few would go so far as to include those "suspected". How long can one be a terror suspect (outside of GITMO)? Who, exactly, is constitutionally allowed to do that suspecting?

No, rights can only be restricted via DUE PROCESS.

Send his ass to court if he did something wrong (I mean, shouldn't you have to commit a heinous crime in order to be on the terror list anyways? WTF).

Luftwaffe said:

No, rights can only be restricted via DUE PROCESS.

Send his ass to court if he did something wrong (I mean, shouldn't you have to commit a heinous crime in order to be on the terror list anyways? WTF).

Click to expand...

Innocent until proven guilty is to much trouble for people filled with fear.

That's called guilt by association.

The FBI has a series of 27 flyers on what constitutes potential terrorists based on what they call is suspicious behavior.

Here they are:

https://publicintelligence.net/fbi-suspicious-activity-reporting-flyers/

So in short if you buy twelves loaves of bread for the month, then because some terrorists stock food, you could be a potential terrorist, and then therefore you should have your firearms taken away. And knives, and weapons, oh and laundry detergent and pipes and box cutters.

That only increases government power and surveillance.

Why do you want to give the government so much power over our lives?

Why do you want to live in a world where you have to ask permission to do everything?

Dittohead not! said:

Congressional Democrats say no, but then, Democrats have a history of supporting gun control measures:



Republicans, backed by the NRA, of course oppose the measure. The Democrats' answer:



The position of the NRA is clear:

[/FONT][/COLOR]

and yet, those potentially innocent people are not allowed on airlines.

source

What is your position?

Click to expand...

If the Democrats would stop letting them into the country, then we wouldn't have to worry about them buying guns here.

Seems we're not ready to take away rights of people who haven't been convicted of any crime. So far so good. Now, is it OK for the president to send a drone to kill suspected terrorists, even American citizens, in foreign countries?

Beaudreaux said:

If the Democrats would stop letting them into the country, then we wouldn't have to worry about them buying guns here.

Click to expand...

What about potential terrorists who are already here, maybe born here?

Dittohead not! said:

What about potential terrorists who are already here, maybe born here?

Click to expand...

Damned good question. Then they should be investigated, have a warrant for search and seizure issued only upon probable cause by a judge of a pertinent court, then given the right to have their case heard before a Grand Jury, and if upon Indictment, have a trial by jury, and then, and only then, shall they be either convicted or acquitted of an actual crime, and if acquitted set free, or if convicted jailed, at which time it will not matter if they have a gun because they will either be proven to not be a threat, or be in jail if they are.

If they are here then they are probably, or especially born here then definitely, citizens. However, our rights guaranteed under our Constitution are not exclusive to just citizens. Non-citizens still have all the same rights while inside our borders as citizens do, including "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..." under the 14th Amendment, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" under the 4th Amendment, as well as "No person shall be held to ... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ..." under the 5th Amendment.

People that have been put on a list, generated by the government, without regard to the above three Amendments to the US Constitution, do not rise to the level of allowing for the deprivation of the rights protected by those three Amendments. Up to and including the right to Keep and Bear Arms in the 2nd Amendment.

But, like I said, damned good question.

Dittohead not! said:

Congressional Democrats say no, but then, Democrats have a history of supporting gun control measures:



Republicans, backed by the NRA, of course oppose the measure. The Democrats' answer:



The position of the NRA is clear:

[/FONT][/COLOR]

and yet, those potentially innocent people are not allowed on airlines.

source

What is your position?

Click to expand...

What the hell is a potential terrorist?

Dittohead not! said:

Seems we're not ready to take away rights of people who haven't been convicted of any crime. So far so good. Now, is it OK for the president to send a drone to kill suspected terrorists, even American citizens, in foreign countries?

Click to expand...

You gonna hijack your own thread?

Everyone is a potential terrorist.

But I suppose you're talking about the "official label" of potential terrorist - in which case I'd suggest to you, that our intelligence community is way too stupid and incompetent to know or decide who's a potential terrorist (or even a real one apparently, since they failed to prevent the Paris attacks, just like they failed to prevent 9/11).

Nah man, this intelligence community is so damn stupid they actually stop the cops from arresting terrorists 'cause they're "intelligence assets".

I would not trust this government to dictate (or decide) who's a "potential terrorist" and who isn't. That's just begging for another McCarthy-style witch hunt, and this one'll have teeth in it.

ballantine said:

Everyone is a potential terrorist.

But I suppose you're talking about the "official label" of potential terrorist - in which case I'd suggest to you, that our intelligence community is way too stupid and incompetent to know or decide who's a potential terrorist (or even a real one apparently, since they failed to prevent the Paris attacks, just like they failed to prevent 9/11).

Nah man, this intelligence community is so damn stupid they actually stop the cops from arresting terrorists 'cause they're "intelligence assets".

I would not trust this government to dictate (or decide) who's a "potential terrorist" and who isn't. That's just begging for another McCarthy-style witch hunt, and this one'll have teeth in it.

Click to expand...

if you read many of the comments of the gun banners on this board-many of them believe anyone who owns a gun or wants to own a gun is a potential terrorist.

What is a "potential terrorist"? How is it defined?

Dittohead not! said:

Congressional Democrats say no, but then, Democrats have a history of supporting gun control measures:



Republicans, backed by the NRA, of course oppose the measure. The Democrats' answer:



The position of the NRA is clear:

[/FONT][/COLOR]

and yet, those potentially innocent people are not allowed on airlines.

source

What is your position?

Click to expand...

Number one.. the whole point of terrorism is to promote terror so that you change your way of life.. actions etc. When we let fear reduce our freedom.. the terrorists win.

Number two... the whole.. let terrorists get guns seem quite stupid. I mean really? the 9/11 hijackers took over a plane with BOX CUTTERS.

the issue has been and always will be the individual terrorists.. not the means of terrorism.

Korimyr the Rat said:

What is a "potential terrorist"? How is it defined?

Click to expand...

Similar to a potential rapist, pedophile or wife beater....or anyone who owns an AR or AK pattern rifle.

Dittohead not! said:

Congressional Democrats say no, but then, Democrats have a history of supporting gun control measures:



Republicans, backed by the NRA, of course oppose the measure. The Democrats' answer:



The position of the NRA is clear:

[/FONT][/COLOR]

and yet, those potentially innocent people are not allowed on airlines.

source

What is your position?

Click to expand...

The only way your 2nd amendment rights should be taken way is while you are in jail,prison, or the loony bin.People not in those should have their rights restored upon release because they have been deemed safe enough to be in the general public. Anti-gun laws didn't stop those terrorists in France.Nor did it prevent terrorists from flying planes into buildings or blowing themselves up in crowed places. All the the anti-2nd amendment laws in the world are not going to stop someone who is hell bent on killing someone.

The Heller and McDonald decisions leave room for reasonable gun regulations akin to those barring felons or certain mentally ill people from owning guns, preventing military grade weaponry to be sold to citizens, etc. I see nothing in those decisions that indicates it would definitely be unconstitutional to prohibit people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns until they cleared up whatever got them on the list.

Now, if you want to have a discussion about whether we're too loose with putting people on that list, go right ahead. But that's a different topic.

Dittohead not! said:

Congressional Democrats say no, but then, Democrats have a history of supporting gun control measures:



Republicans, backed by the NRA, of course oppose the measure. The Democrats' answer:



The position of the NRA is clear:

[/FONT][/COLOR]

and yet, those potentially innocent people are not allowed on airlines.

source

What is your position?

Click to expand...

If someone is enough of a threat that there is cause to take away their right to self defense then lock them up. This "potential terrorist" stuff is crap.

If you are selling a gun and the purchaser starts talking about jihad then don't sell him the gun. That's the way this stuff is supposed to work.

Dittohead not! said:

Congressional Democrats say no, but then, Democrats have a history of supporting gun control measures:



Republicans, backed by the NRA, of course oppose the measure. The Democrats' answer:



The position of the NRA is clear:

[/FONT][/COLOR]

and yet, those potentially innocent people are not allowed on airlines.

source

What is your position?

Click to expand...

It's a terrorist loophole now? News flash. Terrorists use bombs, airplanes, fertilizer, fire. Guns are low on the list. They do that because guns are relatively inefficient when you want to do a lot of damage.

Mr Person said:

The Heller and McDonald decisions leave room for reasonable gun regulations akin to those barring felons or certain mentally ill people from owning guns, preventing military grade weaponry to be sold to citizens, etc. I see nothing in those decisions that indicates it would definitely be unconstitutional to prohibit people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns until they cleared up whatever got them on the list.

Now, if you want to have a discussion about whether we're too loose with putting people on that list, go right ahead. But that's a different topic.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure it really is a different topic. What we're talking about is taking a Constitutional right away from certain people without due process of law. It's like the asset forfeiture laws that take property without due process. Now, if the accused has been convicted of a crime, then there is no violation of the Constitution. If they're just accused, like being on the terrorist watch list, there has been no due process of law.

Mr Person said:

The Heller and McDonald decisions leave room for reasonable gun regulations akin to those barring felons or certain mentally ill people from owning guns, preventing military grade weaponry to be sold to citizens, etc. I see nothing in those decisions that indicates it would definitely be unconstitutional to prohibit people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns until they cleared up whatever got them on the list.

Now, if you want to have a discussion about whether we're too loose with putting people on that list, go right ahead. But that's a different topic.

Click to expand...

No court has the power to usurp the constitution. Now if you would like to discuss that maybe you will see that the constitution and our rights stand and nothing else counts.