It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: GAO: Over 40 Terror Suspects Bought Guns in U.S.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   
A Government Accountability Office study has shown that over 40 terror suspects were able to purchase firearms in the U.S. last year. They were able to do so because the background checks showed that they had no felony convictions and weren't illegal immigrants. Gun control advocates are pointing towards stricter gun control laws to keep the firearm out of terrorist hands.

 



story.news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON - More than 40 terror suspects were able to buy firearms in the United States last year because background checks showed they had no felony convictions and weren't illegal immigrants, according to a government report released Tuesday.

Gun control advocates cited the Government Accountability Office's study, "Gun Control and Terrorism," as evidence that stricter laws are needed to prevent terror suspects from buying firearms. The GAO said the FBI could do a better job overseeing checks involving terror suspects.

The report indicated that from Feb. 3 through June 20 last year, 35 known or suspected terrorists purchased guns in the United States. From July 1 to Oct. 31 last year, 12 more were allowed to buy firearms.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I am a gun owner. However, I see no reason why there should not be stricter control and more in depth background check for those wishing to purchase them. Having to submit to such a check in no way violates my right to own a gun. The constitution guarantee the right to bear arms, but not get them the instant we desire.




posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I say, ban the guns.

Is that so difficult to figure out?



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   
How many guns have been used in terrorist attacks on our soil?
Oh what none? Yeah that's right none! So what on Earth makes you think that we should all give up our rights to have guns because SUSPECTED terrorists have bought them? Do we as a people know what the criterion for being on the watch lists are? How do you know that your friends and neighbors aren't on a watch list? How do you know that by being on ATS and making a disparaging comment here or there about the way things are run that you yourself aren't already and won't be placed on a watch list?
Even if we can answer these questions restricting the civilian right to buy guns more than it already is would be a horribly bad idea. Our entire way of life is based on the idea that our elected officials have to do what we tell them to because we can oust them by force if necessary. It is a constitutional right and RESPONSIBILITY.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Some terrorists have access to Doctors.... Let's ban Doctors... Is that so tough to figure out?

terrorists have access to automobiles ... Let's ban automobiles ... Is that so tough to figure out?

Terrorists have access to ... Let's ban ....?


Sorry, but somehow, that doesn't really seem to be the answer.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I say "Ban the Terrorists"

Is that so hard to figure out?



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Gee, I can hardly buy guns here in CA. And I have no criminal record, steady employment. And as a member of the Great White Hetero American Male Conservative Conspiracy, shouldn't such purchases be a lot easier for me?

Damn, maybe I shouldn't have missed that last meeting. Pretty sure my dues are current though.

Seriously, though. If I have an investigation in my record, or a restraining order, or even civil cases with domestic violence (given or received) I would not be allowed to purchase a firearm even after the two week waiting period.

many of these guys were known, active terrorists. Had been caught committing heinous acts. Why were they not arrested the second they entered American territory? Why not simply apply the same rules applied to the rest of American citizenry, and deny them the purchase since there's a federal investingation pending with their name on it?

Once again, proving security is not the Government's job, state or federal. It should be the people's individual right and responsibility. And government should not be allowed to remove the tools and legal protections that allow us to exercise those rights.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   
It also shows that the background checks are not a in depth as we have been lead to belive. You would think that a backgound check would do a simple query to the FBI asking 'Yo, is this guy on a watch list?" :shk:



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
It also shows that the background checks are not a in depth as we have been lead to belive. You would think that a backgound check would do a simple query to the FBI asking 'Yo, is this guy on a watch list?" :shk:


I was being a bit of a smart aleck, but that is my point. We really need to have a no nonsense approach to security if it's going to work.




top topics



 
0

log in

join