About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

Nonsensical.
Author: Raine    Date: 05/06/2010 13:01:08

Yesterday, NYC Mayor Bloomberg went to capitol hill in support of closing the terror gun loophole. It seems as though one can be put on an FBI Terror watch list, and not be allowed to fly on an airplane, and yet-- purchase a gun. Here we go again -- Guns rights, National Security, Miranda rights and terror suspects all come crashing together in one big nonsensical mess.

Mayor Bloomberg, makes a compelling case, regarding guns and his city, known as one of the toughest on Gun control laws in the country. "Federal law currently only allows the government to block guns sales for a very limited number of reasons, and being on that list is not one of them. " said Bloomberg to a senate hearing. Huffington Post's Dan Froomkin reports:
Weapons sales to suspected terrorists are not hypothetical, either. According to new statistics compiled by the Government Accountability Office and exclusively obtained by the Huffington Post, individuals on the terrorist watchlist were involved in firearm or explosives background checks 1,228 times in the past six years -- and 1,119 of those transactions were allowed to proceed.

Less than 10 percent -- only 109 -- were denied.
Senator Lyndsey Graham disagreed, stating:
"We're talking about a constitutional right here," he said, explaining that he could not support a bill that would force "innocent Americans" to "pay the cost of going to court to get their gun rights back."

Graham wasn't nearly as concerned about rights when he launched into a disquisition on the treatment of American citizens accused of terrorism. "I am all into national security," he said. "I want them to stop reading these guys Miranda rights."
Funny, that is the same thing the NRA said
The NRA complains that the authorities given the attorney general are too vague, too non-transparent and too hard to appeal. "H.R. 2159 isn't about making America safe from terrorists; it's about giving the federal government new, arbitrary authority to prohibit loyal Americans from exercising their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. Cloaking it in terms of 'national security' doesn't change that fact."
Let's be clear here -- You can have your constitutional right to Miranda taken away, but not your right to a gun? Something doesn't seem quite right here. Once again, Bloomberg makes a good case:
"This is not about the Second Amendment," he said. "Our founding fathers did not write the Second Amendment to empower people who wanted to bring down a free state; they wrote it to protect people who could defend the security of a free state. Today, the security of our free state is being tested by terrorists. Congress needs to take common sense steps to strengthen law enforcement -- including closing the terror gap -- and to protect the American people from more attacks."
While Lyndsey Graham, Senator (NRA -R) claims to be concerned about innocent Americans, he is forgetting the very tenants of our justice system: Innocent until proven guilty. If someone wants a gun, fine. If they are innocent of anything, they should have no problem purchasing one-- but if they are a suspect in an ongoing investigation, or targeted as a possible terrorist -- then why should they be able to purchase firearms? That doesn't make a person guilty, btw, it just means that for whatever reason, you can't buy a gun -- right? or wrong?

Wasn't that the justification the Republicans gave for the creation of the "No Fly List'? Wasn't that what they told us when we found out our phones were being tapped in violation of the 4th amendment? We were told for nearly 8 years that if you've done nothing wrong, then you don't have to worry about anything. How is this any different? If you've done nothing wrong, then your name shouldn't be on the Watch List, right?

So, I ask this: Why should we allow people who pose a threat to national security the right to purchase a gun? The federal Government decided it could tap our phones without a FISA warrant (later changed), and violated our right to privacy given to us in the 4th, all in the name of National Security. How is what Bloomberg is asking for any different?

I don't know what the answer is. What I do know is that it seems as tho the gun lobby in this nation trumps what is best for regular "Innocent " Americans and their rights to live free from acts of terror. Our priorities are really messed up on this one. If you can't fly because you are a person of interest, then why should you be able to purchase a weapon? Graham and I agree on one this:
"There has to be balance. I am not sure this is right solution," Graham said, adding that the bill is another step toward greater gun control. "The problem I have is that the watch list ... has so many problems with it that I don't think it's appropriate for us to go down the road we're going.
Maybe we would be a whole lot safer if we fixed the problems with that watch list first. This is what many people on the left have been saying since the watch list was created. The system was built to be broken.

After all, Faisal Shahzad wasn't put on any list until just a few hours before his arrest.

and
Raine





 

30 comments (Latest Comment: 05/07/2010 01:18:46 by livingonli)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati