GOP cares more about NRA than closing 'terrorist loophole'

[GMDino]

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/260903-reid-gop-prioritizing-nra-over-terrorism

Quote:Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) slammed Republicans Friday, suggesting they are prioritizing their support for the National Rifle Association (NRA) at the expense of national security.

“Republicans care more about kowtowing to the NRA than preventing terrorists from legally buying assault rifles and explosives like the ones used in the Paris attacks here in America," Reid said in a statement. “Shockingly, Republicans continue to preserve a loophole that allows FBI terror suspects to buy guns and explosives legally, without background checks."


Jennifer Baker, a spokeswoman for the NRA, said that it is "appalling that anti-gun politicians are exploiting the Paris terrorist attacks to push their gun-control agenda and distract from President Obama’s failed foreign policy."


"The NRA does not want terrorists or dangerous people to have firearms, any suggestion otherwise is offensive and wrong," she added. "The NRA’s only objective is to ensure that Americans who are wrongly on the list are afforded their constitutional right to due process."

Reid's remarks come as Democrats are doubling down on legislation from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would close a so-called "terrorist loophole" by blocking people on the terrorist watch list from buying firearms.


Democrats are focusing on the proposal, which doesn't have a Republican supporter in the Senate, as well as a push to bolster the Visa Waiver Program in the wake of the Paris attacks.

They point to a Government Accountability Office report that found members of terrorist groups aren't explicitly prohibited from owning guns or explosives under current federal law.

Separately, The Washington Post, citing a GAO report, found that between 2004 and 2014 suspected terrorists were successfully able to purchase a gun more than 2,000 times.

Reid on Friday called on Republicans to "immediately close the loophole that allows terrorists to legally buy assault rifles and explosives right here in America.”

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was asked about the issue earlier this week but he said that he wasn't "familiar with the legislation. "So I'll pass on it."

Asked if he would support closing the loophole, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who chairs the Armed Services Committee, told reporters on Thursday "I don't know. I have to look at it. I have not even heard about that."

Reid's remarks on Friday come after House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) touched on the same issue Thursday.

"Peter King, Republican Congressman, has a very important piece of legislation that would stop the sale of weapons to people who are on the terrorist-watch list. So averse are our colleagues to touching anything that has to do with guns. Hopefully, they will take up this bill because if we want to make the American people safer, that is one place we can start," she told reporters.

[BmorePat87]

Sounds like it's just stuck in committee. Good thing they interviewed high profile senators who are not chairs of that committee on what they thought about legislation that hasn't moved anywhere in 9 months, lol.

[StLucieBengal]

McCain, King, Reid, Feinstein..... Peas in a pod.

Just close the borders until we can track visitors so when they overstay their visa we can scoop them up.

[6andcounting]

Oh no! People who haven't been given any due process or even charged with any crime aren't being stripped of their rights. A secret list that you can be put on under a secret criteria is more than enough for a single agency to take your rights away without ever stepping into an actual court. Those unnamed, unelected officials know what is best for each and every one of us. Give them more power.

[fredtoast]

(11-21-2015, 04:05 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Oh no! People who haven't been given any due process or even charged with any crime aren't being stripped of their rights. A secret list that you can be put on under a secret criteria is more than enough for a single agency to take your rights away without ever stepping into an actual court. Those unnamed, unelected officials know what is best for each and every one of us. Give them more power.

Right, let's allow known terrorists to buy all the guns they want.

They are not the problem.  They are not going to hurt anyone.  What we really all need to be afraid of is the big scary Government.  I mean just look at how many US citizens are being held political prisoner.  Or how many US citizens are executed every year just for political beliefs.  This list that the US government has compiled is obviously just a ruse to deny innocent people their rights, and has NOTHING to do with protecting any of us from potential terrorists.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-21-2015, 05:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Right, let's allow known terrorists to buy all the guns they want.

They are not the problem.  They are not going to hurt anyone.  What we really all need to be afraid of is the big scary Government.  I mean just look at how many US citizens are being held political prisoner.  Or how many US citizens are executed every year just for political beliefs.  This list that the US government has compiled is obviously just a ruse to deny innocent people their rights, and has NOTHING to do with protecting any of us from potential terrorists.

We could just go round up the known terrorists or those with terrorist ties.    And close off the flow of immigrants until we can actually account for them.

Then there is no need for this loophole closing. Rest assured if John McCain and Peter King are involved then it takes away freedoms for all. These guys should never be trusted.

[6andcounting]

(11-21-2015, 05:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Right, let's allow known terrorists to buy all the guns they want.

They are not the problem.  They are not going to hurt anyone.  What we really all need to be afraid of is the big scary Government.  I mean just look at how many US citizens are being held political prisoner.  Or how many US citizens are executed every year just for political beliefs.  This list that the US government has compiled is obviously just a ruse to deny innocent people their rights, and has NOTHING to do with protecting any of us from potential terrorists.

The people on this list are "known terrorists"? I don't think you know what "known" or "terrorist" means. Unless you are just not familiar with how an individual makes it onto this list. If the latter is the case, read up on this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/terrorist-watch-list_n_5617599.html

"Using these criteria, government officials have secretly characterized an unknown number of individuals as threats or potential threats to national security. In 2013 alone, 468,749 watch-list nominations were submitted to the National Counterterrorism Center. It rejected only 1 percent of the recommendations."


"The secretive nature of the terror watch lists has come under court scrutiny recently. A federal judge ruled in June that the government must develop a new process under which individuals can challenge their inclusion on the no-fly list. The judge found the current process "wholly ineffective.""

[fredtoast]

(11-21-2015, 05:27 PM)6andcounting Wrote: The people on this list are "known terrorists"? I don't think you know what "known" or "terrorist" means. Unless you are just not familiar with how an individual makes it onto this list. If the latter is the case, read up on this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/terrorist-watch-list_n_5617599.html

"Using these criteria, government officials have secretly characterized an unknown number of individuals as threats or potential threats to national security. In 2013 alone, 468,749 watch-list nominations were submitted to the National Counterterrorism Center. It rejected only 1 percent of the recommendations."


"The secretive nature of the terror watch lists has come under court scrutiny recently. A federal judge ruled in June that the government must develop a new process under which individuals can challenge their inclusion on the no-fly list. The judge found the current process "wholly ineffective.""

I am familiar with the current court challenges to this as well as the No-fly List.

But are you claiming that none of the people on these lists are working with terrorists?  That seems pretty naive to me.  

So it all come down to balancing interests.  I agree that the people on these lists should have more efficient ways to challenge their inclusion, but the problem is that the source of much of this information is classified for national security reasons.

Only a small percentage of the people on these lists are US citizens.  I say don't let them buy guns.  Give them a means to challenge their inclusion on the list, mbut don't be stupid enough to act like Americans are being stripped of their freedoms for no reason at all.  You know I am not into fear mongering, but I am not into just doing away with all means of protecting us from the threat of terrorists activity. 

[6andcounting]

(11-21-2015, 05:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am familiar with the current court challenges to this as well as the No-fly List.

But are you claiming that none of the people on these lists are working with terrorists?  That seems pretty naive to me.  

So it all come down to balancing interests.  I agree that the people on these lists should have more efficient ways to challenge their inclusion, but the problem is that the source of much of this information is classified for national security reasons.

Only a small percentage of the people on these lists are US citizens.  I say don't let them buy guns.  Give them a means to challenge their inclusion on the list, mbut don't be stupid enough to act like Americans are being stripped of their freedoms for no reason at all.  You know I am not into fear mongering, but I am not into just doing away with all means of protecting us from the threat of terrorists activity. 

If the government has correctly identified somebody as a terrorist, then the evidence they have should be given to a grand jury so the appropriate charges can be filed. The criteria to be on the list is "reasonable suspicion" and that is solely in the opinion of the person filling out the paperwork to add someone to the list. No court or 3rd party oversight even ensures that reasonable suspicion actually exists. 99% of people suggested for the list get added. That's the actually statistic, not a hyperbole on my part. More than 1% of inmates convicted and put on death row are eventually acquitted, and they originally got actual due process, a judge, jury and a defense counsel.

Are putting put on this list for "no reason at all"? For most people I'm sure this is some sort of reason, but that reason hardly means you're a terrorist.

A person's rights can only be taken away if they are found guilty of something. Putting the burden of proving yourself off the list is the exact opposite of how the judicial system works. There's no effective way for an innocent person to get off the list, and they shouldn't have limited rights until this inefficient and ineffective process works.

[fredtoast]

(11-21-2015, 06:07 PM)6andcounting Wrote: If the government has correctly identified somebody as a terrorist, then the evidence they have should be given to a grand jury so the appropriate charges can be filed. The criteria to be on the list is "reasonable suspicion" and that is solely in the opinion of the person filling out the paperwork to add someone to the list. No court or 3rd party oversight even ensures that reasonable suspicion actually exists. 99% of people suggested for the list get added. That's the actually statistic, not a hyperbole on my part. More than 1% of inmates convicted and put on death row are eventually acquitted, and they originally got actual due process, a judge, jury and a defense counsel.

Are putting put on this list for "no reason at all"? For most people I'm sure this is some sort of reason, but that reason hardly means you're a terrorist.

A person's rights can only be taken away if they are found guilty of something. Putting the burden of proving yourself off the list is the exact opposite of how the judicial system works. There's no effective way for an innocent person to get off the list, and they shouldn't have limited rights until this inefficient and ineffective process works.

It is a national security issue.  There have always been exceptions for national security issues because the source of the information is often classified and can not be released.

It may not be 100% efficient, but when you balance the risk against the limitation of freedoms it is better to deny the people on this lists weapons than say Abu al-Baghdadi should be allowed to buy guns and fly on commercial flights.

There currently is an appeal process to get removed from the list, and the way the courts are leaning it looks like there will be even more due process guaranteed to these people in the near future.  But as long as there is classified information dealing with national security there will be no public hearings on this subject.

[Rotobeast]

I guess my question would be.....

How many terrorists do you really think will try to buy a weapon with their real name and ID ?
Heck, I'd wager that most would pay someone else to make the purchase.
:snark:

[fredtoast]

(11-21-2015, 09:52 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I guess my question would be.....

How many terrorists do you really think will try to buy a weapon with their real name and ID ?
Heck, I'd wager that most would pay someone else to make the purchase.
:snark:

It is all silly because they can buy all the guns they want from private citizens with no background checks at all.

The most crazy, mentally-ill, violent criminal can get all the guns he wants in the United States thanks to the NRA and the rubes that swallow their BS.

Try to pass a gun registration law, and they scream bloody murder.  They don't care if mentally ill violent criminals can buy guns.  All the NRA wants to do is protect the profits of gunmakers.

[Belsnickel]

Wife is watching Meet the Press and I just saw Comm. Bratton of the NYPD trying to stir this pot and saying Congress should act on this. In his words, paraphrasing here, he is far more concerned about the thousands in this country that can legally obtain firearms and shouldn't than he is about Syrian refugees.

[Benton]

good.
everyone should have a background check before buying a firearm. On the other hand, no one should be restricted from buying one because enforcement thinks they might sometime possibly maybe have connections with someone who might get accused of a crime. I can post "I'm a terrorist" on this board and get on a watch list. I can say the wrong phrase on a phone conversation and get on a watch list. I can argue with the ticket taker at the air port and get on a watch list. None of those actions require a charge, due process or a an enforcement of rights, its just someone's opinion I might be dangerous.

[*michaelsean*]

Terrorism is such an irrational fear.

[GMDino]

(11-23-2015, 10:59 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Terrorism is such an irrational fear.

Its exactly what they want.  They want you to be so afraid it so changes your life.  "Terror"...without them having to do much at all.

[CageTheBengal]

NRA is the most propaganda fueled organization on the planet as far as I know.

Absolutely sickening the lengths they will go to make Americans believe guns are what makes that country great.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-23-2015, 11:32 AM)GMDino Wrote: Its exactly what they want.  They want you to be so afraid it so changes your life.  "Terror"...without them having to do much at all.

So why do we care about this?  Have you bought into the fear mongering?

[GMDino]

(11-23-2015, 12:54 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So why do we care about this?  Have you bought into the fear mongering?

Why do we care about the gun loophole?

Because its good when we see a place where bad people can get weapons and we stop it.  Will that stop it altogether?  Of course not.  But its not a bad idea.

I can see the argument against the terror watch list too.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-23-2015, 01:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: Why do we care about the gun loophole?

Because its good when we see a place where bad people can get weapons and we stop it.  Will that stop it altogether?  Of course not.  But its not a bad idea.

I can see the argument against the terror watch list too.

Stronger and more strict immigration rules are what's needed. Changing a loophole isn't fixing the problem. There is no loophole if we track immigrants, students, and tourists. Then when they run out of time they are removed.