Article

2007-05-05 Home Front: Politix

Terror suspects should be allowed to buy guns

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2007-05-05 00:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Has the NRA lost its fucking mind? All they need to do is push this one through and then have a terrorist equipped with American bought weapons do another Virginia Tech. You can say goodbye to your guns! Morons.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-05-05 00:23|| 2007-05-05 00:23|| Front Page Top

#2 Zen, both you and Cox have a point. Ideally, the bill would provide a clear definition of "supect".
That is, someone who has been convinced of terrorist related acivity in the past (even financial support of terrorist activity would do), or who is presently under investigation for such. I would expand the bill to cover religious/cult groups that espouse violence in their holy books, personally.

To profile or not to profile...
Profile, profile, profile!

But NRA is correct that the bill may serve as a pretext for a guns grab, as the term "suspect" can be pinned on almost anyone--with a bit of creative tweaking of the fuzzy definition.

Posted by twobyfour 2007-05-05 01:25|| 2007-05-05 01:25|| Front Page Top

#3 Anything Lautenberg is behind is anti-2nd amendment. You can count on that.

Posted by Captain America 2007-05-05 01:49|| 2007-05-05 01:49|| Front Page Top

#4 Strictly speaking, the NRA is right. Giving the government too much discretion in denying U.S. citizens a guaranteed constitutional right could serve to nullify the Second Amendment (not unlike how McCain-Feingold has served to undermine the First Amendment for an ostensibly "good" cause).

Perhaps this can best be handled with an appeals process which would force the government to provide evidence for its decision which meets a reasonable threshold.

Posted by Grumenk Philalzabod0723 2007-05-05 09:20|| 2007-05-05 09:20|| Front Page Top

#5 Yeah, you should remember that in a year there could be a Dimocrat in office. Half the country might be "suspects" if that would help them curtail gun sales.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2007-05-05 09:24|| 2007-05-05 09:24|| Front Page Top

#6 Think of President Clinton and her Atty Gen Edwards declaring that anyone listening to Limbaugh creates the climate of hate that allows McVeigh to commit his murder (which she actually did). Therefore they are all terror enablers and should be denied guns.

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2007-05-05 09:27|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2007-05-05 09:27|| Front Page Top

#7 The NRA is dead right on this one, You can't be denied your rights if only a "Suspect" only upon conviction for a felony.

It's "Backdoor" Gun Control, trying to get around the bill of rights by denying "Suspects" their rights.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2007-05-05 10:33|| 2007-05-05 10:33|| Front Page Top

#8 The NRA is absolutely right here. The MSM is once again using the threat of terrorists to enable a servere weakening in the Second Ammendment. Remember all the hoopla of "Terrorists buying assault rifles and sniper rifles at gun shows so therefore we need to ban gun shows"? According to the anti-gun people anyone who owns a firearm is either a terrorist-in-waiting, is mentally unstable, or is just itching for the chance to gun some innocent person down. We are already suspects. There is too much chance for abuse of something this broad. What other Constitutional Rights are denied "suspects"?

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2007-05-05 10:46|| 2007-05-05 10:46|| Front Page Top

#9 So many unanswered questions here.

First of all, why would the Attorney General want "a national terrorist suspect database" to be established? Does it not seem that would help the terrorists determine whose cover had been blown and whose had not?

Second of all, can a non-citizen legally purchase a gun? What about foreign visitors? Foreign visitors on a student visa?

Yes, we don't want terrorists and crazy people to be able to legally buy guns. But it just seems to me that a true "terrorist", supported by a true "terrorist organization" would not have that much trouble getting his hands on an illegal gun no matter where he was in the world.

This should be a serious discussion about limiting gun sales to specific individuals that pose a TRUE danger to society. This kind of reporting on the issue just assures that no serious discussion will take place. It puts us all in danger.

Posted by Angaiger Tojo1904 2007-05-05 11:04|| 2007-05-05 11:04|| Front Page Top

#10 As long as I can keep my railgun and battle lasers... Guns are so old school...
(^8

Oh and my grazer that can shoot right through the earth... (once it is invented)

Posted by 3dc 2007-05-05 12:04|| 2007-05-05 12:04|| Front Page Top

#11 Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

I don't really want to see an individual deprived of rights unless by due process. "Suspects" is a vague term that can mean just about anyone deemed so by the Justice Department. Safeguards have to be built into any such bills. One has to wonder why the bill is even necessary with all the firearms related legislation we presently have. Presently, non-citizens can purchase firearms if they meet certain requirements.

Posted by JohnQC 2007-05-05 12:37|| 2007-05-05 12:37|| Front Page Top

#12 I can see both sides' points, but the gummint can hassle a person as a suspect forever, denying him or her of rights for years. This idea is subject to real abuse, espec with a dem administration.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2007-05-05 13:50|| 2007-05-05 13:50|| Front Page Top

#13 This is why I enjoy Rantburg so much. Based on the posts here I've had to reconsider this. Our government's adamant refusal to correctly profile Muslims at airport security checks pretty much assures that its own definition of terrorist "suspect" will be far too vague and easily spill over into unfair denial of 2^nd amendment rights. If a well-established set of specific criteria is not forthcoming in how to identify real "suspects", then I may have to agree with the NRA.

As it stands with profiling consistently being disallowed I'm forced to agree with the NRA on this. Our 2^nd amendment rights are far too critical to allow nebulously defined government policy to intrude upon them. And, yes, the democrats could have a field day with this compared to the republicans.

Oh and my grazer that can shoot right through the earth

Somebody reads David Brin! (One of my favorite authors.) "Kiln People" really, really, needs to be made into a movie.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-05-05 15:38|| 2007-05-05 15:38|| Front Page Top

#14 Surely a great many of us read Brin? The Uplift War series is my favourite, but I haven't gotten round to Kiln People yet.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-05-05 15:41|| 2007-05-05 15:41|| Front Page Top

#15 If this database is the same one the TSA uses for airline security, and I'll bet it is, you can be placed on it simply by knowing someone who knows someone who lives next to a guy they think might be linked to something. And there is no way to get off it once you are on it.

First, prove they are guilty, then take away their rights.

Posted by Steve">Steve 2007-05-05 16:02|| 2007-05-05 16:02|| Front Page Top

#16 Here is a story in the Washington Post about the terrorist database. I'll just grab a few tidbits.

Terror Database Has Quadrupled In Four Years

Each day, thousands of pieces of intelligence information from around the world -- field reports, captured documents, news from foreign allies and sometimes idle gossip -- arrive in a computer-filled office in McLean, where analysts feed them into the nation's central list of terrorists and terrorism suspects. Called TIDE, for Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, the list is a storehouse for data about individuals that the intelligence community believes might harm the United States. It is the wellspring for watch lists distributed to airlines, law enforcement, border posts and U.S. consulates, created to close one of the key intelligence gaps revealed after Sept. 11, 2001: the failure of federal agencies to share what they knew about al-Qaeda operatives.

But in addressing one problem, TIDE has spawned others. Ballooning from fewer than 100,000 files in 2003 to about 435,000, the growing database threatens to overwhelm the people who manage it. "The single biggest worry that I have is long-term quality control," said Russ Travers, in charge of TIDE at the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean. "Where am I going to be, where is my successor going to be, five years down the road?" TIDE has also created concerns about secrecy, errors and privacy. The list marks the first time foreigners and U.S. citizens are combined in an intelligence database. The bar for inclusion is low, and once someone is on the list, it is virtually impossible to get off it. At any stage, the process can lead to "horror stories" of mixed-up names and unconfirmed information, Travers acknowledged.

The watch lists fed by TIDE, used to monitor everyone entering the country or having even a casual encounter with federal, state and local law enforcement, have a higher bar. But they have become a source of irritation -- and potentially more serious consequences -- for many U.S. citizens and visitors.

In 2004 and 2005, misidentifications accounted for about half of the tens of thousands of times a traveler's name triggered a watch-list hit, the Government Accountability Office reported in September. Congressional committees have criticized the process, some charging that it collects too much information about Americans, others saying it is ineffective against terrorists. Civil rights and privacy groups have called for increased transparency. "How many are on the lists, how are they compiled, how is the information used, how do they verify it?" asked Lillie Coney, associate director of the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center. Such information is classified, and individuals barred from traveling are not told why.

TIDE is a vacuum cleaner for both proven and unproven information, and its managers disclaim responsibility for how other agencies use the data. "What's the alternative?" Travers said. "I work under the assumption that we're never going to have perfect information -- fingerprints, DNA -- on 6 billion people across the planet. . . . If someone actually has a better idea, I'm all ears."

Every night at 10, TIDE dumps an unclassified version of that day's harvest -- names, dates of birth, countries of origin and passport information -- into a database belonging to the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center. TIDE's most sensitive information is not included. The FBI adds data about U.S. suspects with no international ties for a combined daily total of 1,000 to 1,500 new names. Between 5 and 6 a.m., a shift of 24 analysts drawn from the agencies that use watch lists begins a new winnowing process at the center's Crystal City office. The analysts have access to case files at TIDE and the original intelligence sources, said the center's acting director, Rick Kopel.

Decisions on what to add to the Terrorist Screening Center master list are made by midafternoon. The bar is higher than TIDE's; total listings were about 235,000 names as of last fall, according to Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine. The bar is then raised again as agencies decide which names to put on their own watch lists: the Transportation Security Administration's "no-fly" and "selectee" lists for airlines; Consular Lookout and Support System at the State Department; the Interagency Border and Inspection System at the Department of Homeland Security; and the Justice Department's National Crime Information Center. The criteria each agency use are classified, Kopel said.

TSA receives thousands of complaints each year, such as this one released to the Electronic Privacy Information Center in 2004 under the Freedom of Information Act: "Apparently, my name is on some watch list because everytime I fly, I get delayed while the airline personnel call what they say is TSA," wrote a passenger whose name was blacked out. Noting that he was a high-level federal worker, he asked what he could do to remove his name from the list. The answer, Kopel said, is little. A unit at the screening center responds to complaints, he said, but will not remove a name if it is shared by a terrorism suspect. Instead, people not on the list who share a name with someone listed can be issued letters instructing airline personnel to check with the TSA to verify their identity. The GAO reported that 31 names were removed in 2005.

Posted by Steve">Steve 2007-05-05 16:16|| 2007-05-05 16:16|| Front Page Top

#17 The previous post completely validates my reconsideration of this issue.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-05-05 17:25|| 2007-05-05 17:25|| Front Page Top

#18 No way in hell I want the government, state federal or local, depriving me or anyone else of our most fundamental right on the basis of mere "suspicion". And I *ESPECIALLY* don't want a bunch of liberals making decisions on who is "suspicious", or why.

If you're concerned about guns possibly being in the hands of terrorists, then make sure plenty of guns are also in the hands of NON-terrorists, and non-terrorists are trained to use them effectively and responsibly.

Posted by Jumbo Elmoter4970 2007-05-05 17:43|| 2007-05-05 17:43|| Front Page Top

#19 -An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

There is no safety for honest men
except by believing all possible evil
of evil men.

Posted by JohnQC 2007-05-05 18:40|| 2007-05-05 18:40|| Front Page Top

#20 #13 remember what kind of garbage "The Postman" was made into?

Posted by gromgoru 2007-05-05 19:04|| 2007-05-05 19:04|| Front Page Top

#21 So -er- who decides who is a terrorist? The administration? Homeland [in]security? the TSA? Congress? Some bureaucrat in Washington DC or in your local FBI office?

Hell they refuse to even profile and possible terrorists can get a 'free' pass only because they already examined 4 muslims today.

Not to mention that this may be the first step on a slippery slide.

Posted by CrazyFool 2007-05-05 20:34|| 2007-05-05 20:34|| Front Page Top

#22 Craig Livingstone under one future administration

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-05-05 20:38|| 2007-05-05 20:38|| Front Page Top

#23 I love Brin. Uplift Wars was great, whole series was great. Gamma Ray Lasers.

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2007-05-05 20:42|| 2007-05-05 20:42|| Front Page Top

#24 Brin, great SF writer, pro-collectivist moonbat.

Posted by Ernest Brown">Ernest Brown 2007-05-05 21:57|| saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]">[saturninretrograde.blogspot.com] 2007-05-05 21:57|| Front Page Top

#25 #13 remember what kind of garbage "The Postman" was made into?

Never saw the movie. Even Brin declares it to be the worst ever.

I love Brin. Uplift Wars was great, whole series was great.

The second Uplift trilogy trowled it on pretty thick. A lot of it was ancillary social fabrications that did little to advance the plot. The sole standout in the entire series was The Fractal World. That one was a breathtaking stroke of imagination. The rest of it required hip-waders. Regardless, Brin's brand of hard sci-fi writing remains pretty well unexcelled.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-05-05 22:18|| 2007-05-05 22:18|| Front Page Top

#26 Ah, A new author, I'll have to look up "David Brin"

Posted by Redneck Jim 2007-05-05 23:47|| 2007-05-05 23:47|| Front Page Top

23:56 Redneck Jim
23:48 Zenster
23:47 Redneck Jim
23:47 JosephMendiola
23:44 gorb
23:40 Redneck Jim
23:35 JosephMendiola
23:28 JosephMendiola
23:26 Redneck Jim
23:21 JosephMendiola
23:21 Zenster
23:09 JosephMendiola
23:08 Redneck Jim
23:02 gorb
23:01 OldSpook
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:56 JosephMendiola
22:55 Redneck Jim
22:53 Captain America
22:51 JosephMendiola
22:44 JosephMendiola
22:32 Zenster
22:23 Zenster
22:22 twobyfour