|

House Republicans vote to let suspected terrorists buy guns and explosives

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

John Aravosis has the story HERE:

Republicans in the US House Appropriations Committee yesterday voted down an amendment that would have permitted the Justice Department to block the sale of guns and explosives to suspected terrorists on the terror watch list.

If we stop terrorists from buying explosives, then the terrorists win.

You see, Republicans say they don’t trust the terror watch list, and neither do their masters at the NRA. So rather than figure out how to improve the terror watch list, Republicans figure it’s better to just arm the terrorists.

Oh, but it gets worse, Roll Call reports that Republicans also opposed giving local police access to the ATF  gun data. What did Republicans support?  An amendment “to block the ATF from continuing to require the reporting of purchases of multiple firearms in border states.”

I hate to go all George Bush, but is the GOP, and the gun lobby, now in the pocket of Al Qaeda?

Think that’s hyperbole, here’s an Al Qaeda operative talking about the importance of taking advantage of America’s weak gun laws.  Here’s Al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn in 2011:

“America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at a local convention center [photo above] and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?”

Share:

14 Comments

  1. Neftali

    The terror watch list has over 875,000 people in it. So yeah, let’s be sure to ban every single one of these people from exercising their Constitutional rights just because some mope in government suspects you might be a terrorist.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/3/terror-watch-list-grows-875000/?page=all

    Liberal slant: Ban the sale of guns to all these people first, just to make sure we include the terrorists.

    Republican slant: Fix the terrorist watch list first, then lets talk about banning the sale.

    In other words, this is just an ill-fated attempt at drastically restricting gun sales. Nice try liberals. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

  2. Neftali

    Bah. Just re-read my own link. Of that 875K, only 1% or about 9,000 people, are Americans.

    Still….taking away Constitutional rights just because you are suspected of a crime that hasn’t occurred yet can’t be legal. Reminds me of the movie “Minority Report” where the government would arrest you for crimes you are about to commit.

    I would think even the ACLU would have problems with this legislation.

  3. Steverino

    Like the GOP/Teapots are really interested in fixing anything that might prevent a gun sale to a saboteur. What a huge laugh that is.

  4. Craig Knauss

    “…let’s be sure to ban every single one of these people from exercising their Constitutional rights just because some mope in government suspects you might be a [communist].”

    Does that sound any better, Nefti? In case you forgot, one of your far-right heroes tried it back in the 1950s.

    Personally, I suspect those 9,000 Americans probably have some pretty questionable ties that resulted in them being on the list. It’s legal to be a communist, as long as one doesn’t attempt to overthrow the government. Same for being a Nazi. A terrorist, by definition, is taking it a big step farther.

  5. Robert

    Wasn’t Senator Ted Kennedy on the no fly list? Might be a different list than noted in this story, but it still proved to be an intrusion into Kennedy’s freedoms to travel without further hassle and annoyance and why?

    I can see how that T error Watch list can be abused and used as a weapon for personal vendettas against political adversaries, grass roots movements and activists just to start with. I’m in agreement with the Republicans and the NRA on this.

    There’s just too many lists and other forms of data out there on all of us, that can be used against us to negatively impact our freedoms, in ways that this particular instance is just one example of.

    How about the ones we haven’t thought about yet like when all our ID information is up that “cloud” server? Even our money will be accessed through the cloud some day. How about the times when all someone will have to do is turn off our electronic identity and we won’t even be able to buy breakfast. Take away a person’s money and they’re basically powerless. There was a movie made where something like I just noted was the theme.

    All this data being collected on us can and will be used against us in the future if in the hands of the wrong person or government officials. It amazes me how willingly, especially liberals, are to give up such information or enable its collection, and all because you believe its all about thwarting terrorism. It’s not. It’s about keeping a tab on all of us. We’re all being profiled. That’s what this information gathering is all about. Why do you buy so easily that its about catching terrorist? It’s not. Terrorism is just the ruse for the corporations and the government that acts on their behalf to have a thumb on all of us and our activities. All this data collection will come back to haunt us if in the hands of the wrong entity.

    Just for example, why do you all these opposition research firms exists? The ones political opponents use to demonize their opponents? Where do you think they get all their information? Information is money and we’re all being milked for that data that equals money. Why is it so hard for people to look out that far?

  6. Craig Knauss

    Collecting data and analyzing it are two entirely different things. Reams of data are totally useless unless you know what to look for. It’s like looking in a NYC phone directory. Suppose you want the phone number for “John”. So go ahead. Find it. It’s in there someone, if it’s even listed. But you need more than John’s first name to find his phone number.

    I used to look at data from research laboratories. The reports could be hundreds of pages long. Just having the report was useless unless you knew what to look for.

    Are they collecting information on me? Probably. So what? If I have nothing to hide, I don’t care. Besides, I have the personal satisfaction of knowing that the more data they collect, the more crap they have to wade through to find something. Heh, heh. It’s their problem, not mine.

  7. Robert

    Craig, “If I have nothing to hide, I don’t care.” I can’t imagine you would want everything about you in a data base. We all have private lives. There’s two way radio’s in cars now. Of course its for our protection. But that’s how it starts. One of the cable providers is advertising how they can install cams in your house so you can observe the inside when your gone (and then you can turn them off when you’re home, yeah right).

    I think the right to privacy is being severely breached and most people haven’t got a clue its happening to the extent it is. It’s creepy. Like I said, at some point, that data can and will be used against you should you become a threat to someone in power or some corporation you’re challenging in a court for instance or you become involved in some very public event (Zimmerman/Martin) and these are just a few of hundreds of examples of how information can become a weapon.

    Look at how much we know about Zimmerman and Martin now. Should any one of us become some public figure like they are, just think of all the data that can be resurrected and used to smear you or make you look like something you’re not, then it’s your job and the cost involved to change those perceptions. It’s all about how its slanted and edited.

    This collection of mega data, in the troves that its being collected in, is wrong in the most ultimate of senses. I don’t understand how people can not be at least somewhat disgusted by it.

    In a prior post on a different story, but on Applesauce, I kiddingly noted that I didn’t want to look up what some forms of drugs that Trayvon was using, because that search would be under my identity and that someday I might want to run for president and then I’d have to explain why I was looking up such things (If I could remember). That’s how data can be used against you in the future. You never know how they’re going to spin something that was done in the most innocent of intents and then see it turned into some sordid story that derails whatever your pursuing. This collection of data is wrong. It’s going to change how we act and relate to each other. People are going to think is this something I want recorded. If you think it doesn’t change how you will speak, look at the smart politicians in how they speak in sound bites, so things like “waves his magic wand” can’t be turned into some sound bite to make you look like a fool.

    People really need to look at what’s happening to our sense of privacy and the freedoms we have to be safe in our private moments and papers. They’re going away. Just wait till that data is breached. Then you’re going to realize how much you do have to hide. Think about this the next time you say something you wouldn’t say to just anybody because its personal or something not everybody needs to know about.

    By the way, our public buses have recording devices that record the conversations of the riders as well as our images. Eventually, nothing is going to escape the ears and eyes of big brother (aka-the NSA and the private companies that manage the collection and distribution of that data). I read a short article about how much the telecom companies get paid for responding to NSA search warrants on their clients. It’s quite lucrative. Is Patrick Cunningham and his employers going to some day sell our data from this blog?

    People think its all about protecting us from those big bad terrorists but it’s really all about money and the sales of data. Data that will be used to in the “P” word, profile us. We all have one now and profiling is done all the time. It’s not going away.

  8. Craig Knauss

    Robert,

    I repeat, if I have nothing to hide, I don’t care. Like I said, data mining isn’t that easy. Try this, for example. I’m thinking of a guy named John who’s in the NYC phone directory. Get me his phone number. Everything you need is in there – somewhere. You just have to find it.

    We know a bunch about Zimmerman and Martin because they were both involved in a crime that resulted in a violent act. So their information was targeted. Yours and mine wasn’t.

  9. Molon Labe

    Another anti Second Amendment OP authored by a clueless lib…
    “You can go down to a gun show at a local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, most likely without having to show an identification card.”

    No stupid, you can’t do that. Fully automatic rifles are strictly regulated:

    “It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

    To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of “reasonable necessity,” and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant “would be consistent with public safety.” The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant’s residence.

    Since the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act’s passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.”

    (Sources: talk.politics.guns FAQ, part 2, “FAQ on National Firearms Act Weapons”, and from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms,and Explosives (ATF) National Firearms Act FAQ. See also, “The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act: A Historical and Legal Perspective” [Hardy, 1986]) )

  10. Robert

    Craig, apparently you don’t believe there is need for the 4th amendment any longer in this new age of information. I suspect you will be the first to tell your elected reps begin the process to do away with and amend the constitution, because you have nothing to hide. What a silly concept anyway, the right to privacy in our personal lives and papers. Sheesh.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

  11. Craig Knauss

    That’s a stupid assumption, Robert. Really stupid.

    BTW, do you have John’s phone number yet? I’m still waiting.

  12. Robert

    Why is it a stupid assumption. What good is the 4th amendment if you claim you got nothing to hide in these vast sweeps of data they’re collecting on all of us? Why was the 4th amendment ever created if you got nothing to hide? Why is it necessary now if you and other say they got nothing to hide. Shouldn’t we set our politicians to good use and do away with 4th amendment protections and the bureaucracy that’s in place for something not many people care about, if nobody has anything to hide or to be secure in…

    ” The 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.”

    And – Why would I have this or that John’s phone #. I don’t have access to the NSA files and search defining capabilities. I’m sure the NSA would have no problem refining a search for it though, and be able to find the targeted “John” with great ease.

  13. Craig Knauss

    I said it was in the NYC phone directory. That’s a data file. You couldn’t find it. Could you?

    That’s an example of data mining. Just having all the data doesn’t mean squat unless you know how to target the search. It’s like grains of sand in a desert. Do you understand now?

  14. Robert

    No. Your point makes no sense to me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>