Guns for Terrorists

[kmack]

Now I think most of you know about the countries who supply weapons to suspected terrorists and terrorist organizations, and you know that the government frowns upon this.

Now meet the newest supplier of weapons to suspected terrorists:
The United States of America.​

Under current law, belonging to a suspected terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from owning a gun, the Government Accountability Office noted in its study.

More than 40 terror suspects on federal watch lists were allowed to buy firearms in the United States last year
​

47 of 58 suspected terrorists who attempted to buy firearms, were allowed to do so.

Currently, records related to gun purchases must be destroyed within 24 hours as mandated by Congress last year
"When the Justice Department destroys these records in 24 hours, they are essentially aiding and abetting terrorist organizations," Sen. Lautenberg said. "It's time to end this nonsensical and dangerous policy."

"For the last four years, the Bush White House and Republican leaders in Congress have been pursuing gun policies that are on the wish list of the National Rifle Association despite repeated warnings form law enforcement leaders," Paul Hamm (Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence) said. "These policies benefit terrorists and benefit criminals."

So we prevent armed, suspected terrorists from entering the U.S. well who cares, just come over unarmed, and buy a gun here! Perhaps we are being to lenient with laws allowing terrorists to purchase firearms.(that seems kinda ridiculous to even have to say.)

What can we do to correct this problem? Any other thoughts comments or concerns?

And for all you haters out there, here's the source:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=561547
please keep all discussions on topic ​

 

[Calanen]

You actually cannot buy a gun in the USA on a visa. You can if you are a permanent resident, or citizen of course. But you are subject to pretty strict Federal background tests. So I am assuming that if you appeared on the Federal watchlist, that your application for a gun would be denied. This was in California though. It may vary from State to State.

And btw - terrorists don't need to go to Walmart to buy guns. To say that the USA supplies guns to terrorists, is a very different thing from, they came to America and under US gun laws can purchase firearms. The sort of stuff you would want as a terrorist, is probably not as easily available on the legalised market.

 

[bliink]

You actually cannot buy a gun in the USA on a visa.

Isn't it possible to use a fake ID at a gunshow to buy weapons? or did they fix that...

 

[kmack]

You actually cannot buy a gun in the USA on a visa. You can if you are a permanent resident, or citizen of course. But you are subject to pretty strict Federal background tests. So I am assuming that if you appeared on the Federal watchlist, that your application for a gun would be denied. This was in California though. It may vary from State to State.

And permanent residents cannot be terrorists? source?

And btw - terrorists don't need to go to Walmart to buy guns. To say that the USA supplies guns to terrorists, is a very different thing from, they came to America and under US gun laws can purchase firearms. The sort of stuff you would want as a terrorist, is probably not as easily available on the legalised market.

The simple fact of this is that 48 suspected terrorists are now armed because of U.S. Laws. I know they do not need to go to wal-mart, but 48 did, don't you think we should make it a little harder for them to obtain weapons? Do you think that the laws are fine and we should continue to supply these people with weapons?

 

[kmack]

Isn't it possible to use a fake ID at a gunshow to buy weapons? or did they fix that...

Because of the Bush Administrations ties to the NRA, and their continual support of laws that help them, chances are not much has been fixed. In fact, recently, bush has supported the end to the ban on automatic weapons(http://www.rense.com/general37/surprisebushbucks.htm), so the terrorists can buy some heavy firepower, legally. So no, there is nothing important enough to prevent 48 terrorists from buying guns one way or the other.

 

[Calanen]

And permanent residents cannot be terrorists? source?

Show me where I said that? US citizens can be terrorists. John Walker Lindh is a good example. And before every1 says he was framed, transported in a CIA jet to afghanistan against his will after watching a Dodgers game, he pleaded guilty to certain charges in a plea agreement so its a fact.

I'm just saying that the gun-laws already do not permit people on visas from getting guns. So if you want to make a gun-law that stops terrorists, or potential terrorists from gettin guns, what would that law be? They get a Federal background check. If the Feds have nothing on them, why would they be terrorists? So I guess what I am saying is, what is it about US gun laws that means they are more accessible to terrorists, or that terrorists are freely let have guns? I think you are just saying that any1 can buy a gun, and that could include terrorists, therefore, the gunlaws support terrorism. Whats your law reform solution?

Bliink - don't know how hard it is to get stuff at gunshows anymore - it keeps changing. I did hear it was easy, but have never been. I was going to put an interesting story here, but decline...I always give too much away about myself while my enemies keep it all hidden...

 

[el Chi]

Meh, the CIA have been doing it for years.

 

[kmack]

Show me where I said that?

ok.

You actually cannot buy a gun in the USA on a visa. You can if you are a permanent resident, or citizen of course. .

since the topic is on suspected terrorists buying guns, and you responded with that... as a side note, it is incorrect, federal law only prohibits illigal immigrants.

 

[kmack]

I'm just saying that the gun-laws already do not permit people on visas from getting guns. So if you want to make a gun-law that stops terrorists, or potential terrorists from gettin guns, what would that law be? They get a Federal background check. If the Feds have nothing on them, why would they be terrorists? So I guess what I am saying is, what is it about US gun laws that means they are more accessible to terrorists, or that terrorists are freely let have guns? I think you are just saying that any1 can buy a gun, and that could include terrorists, therefore, the gunlaws support terrorism. Whats your law reform solution?

first off, can you show a source about the laws preventing "people on visas" from getting guns.

Now, for the fun part.

Heres a nice law reform solution:

Currently, records related to gun purchases must be destroyed within 24 hours as mandated by Congress last year. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. planned to introduce a bill Tuesday to require the Justice Department to keep records of such transactions for 10 years.

or how about?

Have attorney general clarify procedures to ensure that information from gun purchase background checks is shared with counterterrorism officials and that the FBI should either monitor such checks more frequently or oversee all checks related to terror suspects.

And if that is not enough:

MAKE A LAW THAT PREVENTS SUSPECTED TERRORISTS FROM PURCHASING FIREARMS.

Current laws prohibit convicted felons, illegal immigrants, and the mentally ill, from purchasing firearms. Just expand the legislation to cover suspected terrorists.

 

[bliink]

Currently, records related to gun purchases must be destroyed within 24 hours as mandated by Congress last year.

Why is that, btw?

 

[kmack]

Why is that, btw?

Well, it seemingly defies all logic, ill do more research on it and hopefully find a reason. It certainly seems strange to get rid of those records so soon.

 

[Calanen]

ok.



since the topic is on suspected terrorists buying guns, and you responded with that... as a side note, it is incorrect, federal law only prohibits illigal immigrants.

I meant show me where I said that all terrorists were not legal immigrants. I did not say that - while you may have thought this is what I meant, I did not. More selective editing.

I put that piece in to add to the discussion about who could and who could not. I do know for a fact that I went into a gunstore, with a friend, with passport, L1 management visa, and attempted to buy a shotgun to shoot skeet with - but was told, and shown, a law that meant it was illegal. Whether it was state or federal, I do not now remember. But the gunstore guy had the provision and had it circled on the counter for me to see.

 

[kmack]

Isn't it possible to use a fake ID at a gunshow to buy weapons? or did they fix that...

check this out , http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/17/gun.control/

that what you were thinking about?

 

[kmack]

I meant show me where I said that all terrorists were not legal immigrants. I did not say that - while you may have thought this is what I meant, I did not. More selective editing.

sorry about that, did you see the rest of my post that you selectively edited? did it help answer your questions? How do you feel about the suggested law reforms?

 

[bliink]

check this out , http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/17/gun.control/

that what you were thinking about?

Yeah

Under current law, anyone buying guns from a licensed dealer, whether at a store or gun show, must undergo background checks. But buyers from unlicensed gun show vendors are not checked

Are unlicensed gun show vendors breaking the law, or is the license just like an optional certification or are the unlicensed ones just private citizens or what?

 

[gh0st]

I'm a brick seller (yeah, I know, just pay attention). I suspect my neighbor is throwing bricks through my window at night. One day, he comes into my office and asks for some bricks. What should I do? Not sell him the bricks because I 'suspect' him of something? kmack, I think you're making the mistake of assuming you're innocent until proven suspect. It isnt fair. We have the 2nd amendment for a reason, and it should be upheld. You are innocent in this country until you are PROVEN guilty, not merely a suspect. I trust that the government wouldnt sell terrorists guns in my own country, I trust them more than ABCNews coincidentally.

At gun shows, you still must undergo a background check. At least in my state you have to.

 

[bliink]

I'm a brick seller (yeah, I know, just pay attention). I suspect my neighbor is throwing bricks through my window at night. One day, he comes into my office and asks for some bricks. What should I do? Not sell him the bricks because I 'suspect' him of something? kmack, I think you're making the mistake of assuming you're innocent until proven suspect. It isnt fair. We have the 2nd amendment for a reason, and it should be upheld. You are innocent in this country until you are PROVEN guilty, not merely a suspect. I trust that the government wouldnt sell terrorists guns in my own country, I trust them more than ABCNews coincidentally.

Heh.. bricks arent designed for shooting people though.

 

[Hazar]

I'm sure anyone that really wanted a gun could aquire one easily, terrorist or not

 

[kmack]

Why is that, btw?

well here is what i found, direct from the horses (NRA) mouth


One of the top priorities of gun owners at the end of the Clinton Administration was to end the unlawful retention (for up to 180 days) of records on lawful gun buyers, kept by the FBI's National Instant Background Check System (NICS). Though the law establishing NICS has always been clear that all records of a sale should be destroyed when the sale was completed, the Clinton Administration claimed the records were needed for "system audits."

In July 2001, the Department of Justice published a proposed regulation that would require record destruction by the beginning of the next business day. NRA, along with hundreds of concerned citizens, filed comments on the proposed rule.

More recently, the Tiahrt Amendment to the Fiscal 2004 Omnibus appropriations bill required destruction of these records within 24 hours--not perfect, but a huge improvement over the original Clinton-Reno plan. With that legislative language going into effect this week, the FBI also published a final rule implementing the same 24-hour requirement. The FBI's explanation of the rule carefully rebuts many of the arguments anti-gun groups had leveled against this critical privacy safeguard.

The new rule also makes other important changes to NICS operations. Perhaps the most significant change for the average gun buyer is the creation of a "Voluntary Appeal File." Under the new rule, a person who is wrongly rejected for a gun transfer (in a case of mistaken identity, for example) and successfully appeals the rejection to the FBI, can have the information from the appeal stored in the system, thereby avoiding the need for unnecessary appeals in the future.

I am disgusted.

this is off topic, please dont discuss (too much) just answering bliinks question

 

[kmack]

You are innocent in this country until you are PROVEN guilty, not merely a suspect. I trust that the government wouldnt sell terrorists guns in my own country, I trust them more than ABCNews coincidentally.

And yet, 48 suspected terrorists were allowed to purchase guns legally. That is a fact. Federal law allows suspected terrorists to purchase guns.

 

[gh0st]

And yet, 48 suspected terrorists were allowed to purchase guns legally. That is a fact. Federal law allows suspected terrorists to purchase guns.

Read the rest of my post pal. Dont just quote the end.

 

[kmack]

I trust that the government wouldnt sell terrorists guns in my own country, I trust them more than ABCNews coincidentally.

Government Accountability Office is the supplier of the facts.

 

[kmack]

Read the rest of my post pal. Dont just quote the end.

This thread is titled : Guns For Terrorists, not Bricks for terrorists.

Heh.. bricks arent designed for shooting people though.

 

[kmack]

I'm a brick seller (yeah, I know, just pay attention). I suspect my neighbor is throwing bricks through my window at night. One day, he comes into my office and asks for some bricks. What should I do? Not sell him the bricks because I 'suspect' him of something? kmack, I think you're making the mistake of assuming you're innocent until proven suspect. It isnt fair. We have the 2nd amendment for a reason, and it should be upheld. You are innocent in this country until you are PROVEN guilty, not merely a suspect. I trust that the government wouldnt sell terrorists guns in my own country, I trust them more than ABCNews coincidentally.

But we have FEDERAL LAWS that prevent the mentally ill from purchasing guns. They are innocent until proven guilty, so lets give em guns!

 

[gh0st]

But we have FEDERAL LAWS that prevent the mentally ill from purchasing guns. They are innocent until proven guilty, so lets give em guns!

Because they are physically incapable of wielding firearms. Not suspected of it. Its already fact, proven, not assumed. Dont get smart with me, my brick analogy was perfectly fair game. At first I thought you guys were just kidding about the brick thing... this is lunacy if you cant see the parallels. Perhaps I assumed too much. I dont even have to triple post to get my points across. Maybe you should take a look at that.

 

[GhostFox]

Perhaps we are being to lenient with laws allowing terrorists to purchase firearms

Let me get this straight. You cry foul and raise a stink when any minor civil liberty of admitted terrorists is violated, yet you now wish to strip innocent people of their constitutional rights?

The hypocrisy stuns me. Once they have been convicted of an offense, then I think you can block their firearms purchase. As long as the remain "suspects", they should have the rights of everyone else.

By your logic every person suspected of terrorism should be rounded up and tortured by the govt. After all, you are for suspending 1 constitutional right. Why stop there?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

^PWNED

Now meet the newest supplier of weapons to suspected terrorists:
The United States of America.

The shock factor died after "the". Russjia did it first!

 

[Sprafa]

You conservatives are being as hypocrite. On one side you defend Camp X-ray, where people are held until proven innocent.

On the other you're defending suspected terrorists to buy guns because they're "innocent until proven guilty". Can a convict buy a gun? Yet he has done his time, he is only suspected he will do something else.

And Kerberos, stop with the BS. Everyone did it at a point in time. Now in a country like the USA, where "terror threat" constant, why would the Federal Government allow suspected terrorists to buy guns? They've already arbitrarly arrested people in an off mainland camp before any sort of trial because they were "suspected" to be terrorists, and you tell me suspected terrorists should still have the right to buy a firearm ?

 

[Calanen]

MAKE A LAW THAT PREVENTS SUSPECTED TERRORISTS FROM PURCHASING FIREARMS.

Well sounds sensible enough - but heres the rub. Who gets to, and by what standard determine who is a suspected terrorist. It is all very well to have Suspected terrorist in an intel file, as no1 sees it but the feds. But to remove, a substantive fundamental right, ie the Second Amendment the Right to Bear Arms, on the basis that someone is a suspect - is not going to be easy? Certainly if som1 is a terrorist, and known to be, they cannot purchase firearms, but this is the least of their worries. Agreed that those who are terrorists should not have firearms, but how does one differentiate between the man in the street and the terrorist? Not easy. If you have the answer, lets hear it.

Can I trawl through the various State and Federal codes and show you where a person on a visa cannot get a gun? Not easily - but I was shown the law by the gunstore owner when I went to purchase a gun. He had no interest in lying to me, as I am sure he wanted the sale.

 

[Sieg]

What kinda ****ed up age is this?

 

[Calanen]

You conservatives are being as hypocrite. On one side you defend Camp X-ray, where people are held until proven innocent.

Its a very different thing to be in Camp X-Ray than it is to be labelled a suspected terrorist. And you know it is. Certainly those who are Camp X-ray can purchase nothing at all, let alone firearms.

People often get these things confused. They say, he was detained and they did not try him for a criminal offence! Outrageous. That is how the Geneva Convention has worked since the League of Nations.

When German fighter and bomber pilots parachuted over London, they were not 'charged' with flying a bomber/fighter in restricted air space. They were not charged with possessing unlicensed fighter and bombers, or charged with possessing and using explosives. They were detainedd under the terms of the Geneva Convention as prisoners of war, until the duration of hostilities. They do not need to be, nor should the be in most instances, be charged with anything. In addition, enemy combatants, who are not uniformed or conventional soldiers can be detained until the cessation of hostilities, and of course spies who fall into this category can be shot.

So lets be very clear about this. Who gets to decide who the terrorists or suspected terrorists for the purpose of gun laws? It seems to me its a non-issue. If you are being watched by the Feds, buying guns is the least of your worry. If you are not being watched by the Feds, how can they classify you as a suspected terrorist? It makes no practical sense.

 

[Venmoch]

I dunno, why don't you just stop selling guns to people.

Its called Gun Control, and the Europeans swear by it!

/me Ducks

 

[Calanen]

I dunno, why don't you just stop selling guns to people.

Its called Gun Control, and the Europeans swear by it!

/me Ducks

How can you do that when the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution (not a law, the Constitution) includes the right to bear arms. And changing the constitution is F-cking hard - its not like getting out ur magic marker and crossing a sentence out. A majority of the states has to agree - and why would they.

As I've said before I am ambivalent about the whole gun control thing. But I know this, it is now too late to eliminate guns in the USA. Either no1 has them, or every1 has them. You cannot now, with the prevalence of guns, remove them from the law abiding populace. Just means the criminals still have them and the citizens dont.

 

[short recoil]

I'm sure anyone that really wanted a gun could aquire one easily, terrorist or not

You would be suprised how easy a gun is to make, after all they are very simple tools can be made by any 3rd world country.

A gun can be made with a few hand tools as well, as proven by phillip luty's gun design book aimed at nocking gun conrol.

 

[clarky003]

meh, Bin Laden has lots of money, your any gun company's friend with tonnes of cash, being able to buy them from the same country that's trying to stop terrorisim is a bit f'd up. If this was a true war on terrorist organisations, you would try your damndest to stop any uneeded selling of weapons, but the buisness men, and banker's will tell you a different story..

Its corruption at its finest, there's nothing more sacred to people these days, capitalisim has people drooling over money everyday. even if that means hundreds or thousands die as a result of their transaction. The true war if any should be against that kind of buisness.

 

[Calanen]

Is this the evil clarky of Eve ONline fame?

 

[Venmoch]

How can you do that when the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution (not a law, the Constitution) includes the right to bear arms. And changing the constitution is F-cking hard - its not like getting out ur magic marker and crossing a sentence out. A majority of the states has to agree - and why would they.

Ooo I don't know, because terrorists are getting guns?

Thing is the Second Amendment was written in case the Big Bad United Kingdom came back to invade. Which as far as I know is a bit of a redundant threat now.....

 

[Calanen]

Ooo I don't know, because terrorists are getting guns?

Thing is the Second Amendment was written in case the Big Bad United Kingdom came back to invade. Which as far as I know is a bit of a redundant threat now.....

You will not ever change it. So there is no point in speculating. It just will not happen. And terrorists will get guns whether they can buy them legally or not. Certainly terrorist item guns are more likely to not be available in any event...ie fully automatic weapons.

As to the Second Amendment being placed there was a concern about the UK, its hard to know now why it went there. There are heaps of notes for other Amendments, but not much about this one. The best we can surmise is, that it was determined that the best check against a tyrannical government is to have an armed population, so that if the government becomes tyrannical the people can overthrow it. Or so the theory went. The entire gun toting population of the USA would now get mown down in about 3 days against the US Marine Corps and US Army.

 

[kmack]

Because they are physically incapable of wielding firearms.

The mentally ill are not physically incapapble of wielding firearms. There is no factual basis for that statement (besides discriminations you hold) .

Dont get smart with me, my brick analogy was perfectly fair game. At first I thought you guys were just kidding about the brick thing... this is lunacy if you cant see the parallels.

Sorry, but like bliink said, we are talking about deadly weapons in the hands of suspected terrorists, the analogy was pretty awful.

The fact is, on one hand, we have federal laws that prevent the mentally ill, convicted felons, and illegal immigrants from getting guns, why not add suspected terrorists to the list? They are certainly JUST AS IF NOT MORE DANGEROUS that the mentally ill, convicted felons, or illegal immigrants with a weapon in their hand?

Do you also support other governments that supply suspected terrorists with weapons, or just ours?

 

[kmack]

And terrorists will get guns whether they can buy them legally or not. Certainly terrorist item guns are more likely to not be available in any event...ie fully automatic weapons.

ya, that is perfect justification for allowing them to legally purchase them in the United States. :dozey:

They are going to get them one way or another, why not let them walk into a gun store and do it legally!

How can you do that when the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution (not a law, the Constitution) includes the right to bear arms. And changing the constitution is F-cking hard

the constitution also had African-americans as only 2/3 of a citizen. It is an ever changing document (amendements maybe?)
subject to reintepretation with the changing times. If we just had the constitution, blacks would still be unable to vote (as well as women). It is changed more often than you think.