WAR: Proposed Bill will deny U.S. citizens the right to own a gun

A new Bill has been introduced in congress to deny the sale of firearms to U.S. citizens that are on Homeland Securities 'Terrorist Watch List'. The current 'No-fly' list would be given to gun store owners for mandatory background checks.



Whatever happened to that second amendment right that entitled us the right to bear arms in our country? Now we are seeing this privilege being taken away by some secretive list manifested by the government? If the government suspects people are terrorist wouldn't it be better for them to be detained then put them on a terrorist list and let them roam in our country?

On March 26th, FBI director Robert Mueller assembled a study group to review the law that lets suspected terrorist buy guns in the United States after they've cleared background checks. I'm assuming that this group came to the conclusion that the best thing to do is simply ban guns to these Americans that are on the 'Terrorist Watch List'.

I thought the "no-fly" list was primarily to screen out non-US citizens and prevent them from entering the country.
Surely the current background checks would flag someone the authorities were watching and thus prevent them from purchasing a firearm in the first place?
I know this doesn't seem to work in practice but where do you draw the line? More to the point, who actually draws the lines and says who can and cannot fly? Surely if a US citizen was a concern to the authorities to the point where they were banned from flights, they should already be in a jail somewhere and not free to possibly harm others. There again, having them free to harm others makes a good point for requesting more restrictions and tax dollars to "protect" you

The 'No-Fly' list applies to U.S. Citizens. Matter of fact...

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy,
Massachusetts Democrat;
Rep. John Lewis, Georgia Democrat; and
Rep. Don Young, Alaska Republican

...have all been detained at airports because their names are on the no-fly list.

If the government suspects people are terrorist wouldn't it be better for them to be detained then put them on a terrorist list and let them roam in our country?

NO. We cannot jail people without due process! We cannot imprison somebody who has broken no laws!

WAKE UP!

About the guns: whether you agree with it or not, EVEN these "terrorists" on the "watch lists" have the American right to protect themselves and their families from harm with firearms. Once they commit a crime or plan to commit a crime with the firearms, then they can be arrested and that right can be denied to them. UNTIL THEN, the government has NO BUSINESS saying that a man cannot have a gun because somebody put him on a meaningless list.

Most of these "terrorists" are Americans, my brothers and sisters. Americans have rights.

Zip

Zipdot
Detaining people is not the same as imprisonment. If someone is on a suspected terrorist watch list, the FBI needs to detain these people and further question them to discern if these people are terrorist or not. If they are, send them out of the country or better yet, Imprison them.

How in the hell can you determine whether someone is a "terrorist" or not by an interview? And what if they are? Having radical political ideas is not a crime, man!

I'm very adamant about imposing a certain form of gun control that would keep people both safe and secure....

But this is ludicrous, and a step backwards in my opinion....It's an abuse of power and yet further evidence of the corruption within our government.....


[edit on 4/14/2005 by EnronOutrunHomerun]

Zipdot
You are clearly not reading the context of my post. You mistaked detainment for imprisonment and now you mistake questioning for interviewing.

Radical ideas do not denote a terrorist. That is not the point.

Someone is not a "terrorist" until they have commited "an act of terrorism."

It is not illegal to be a gangster in California.

As a gangster, you haven't broken the law until you've broken the law.

Why should it be any different for "terrorists"? Just because a person has shady friends in Al-Qaeda or the IRA or whatever doesn't automatically make them a "terrorist". They've not committed any "acts of terrorism" yet! The only thing wrong with them at that point is that they have shady friends.

Zip

you think these crooks should have guns???

"Sen. Edward M. Kennedy,
Massachusetts Democrat;
Rep. John Lewis, Georgia Democrat; and
Rep. Don Young, Alaska Republican "

why, to shoot up capitol hill??

just kidding...

but, well, the title is a little misleading. they don't want to deny US Citizens the right to own guns, just those who they feel shouldn't have them, based on whatever facts they decide are important.


does this go against the geneva convention? I mean if cutting down a diseased fruit tree is, why wouldn't this be....we use our guns to hunt our food. or will be as soon as their economy totally collapses and there no money to buy from the stores which happen to be empty because all the truckers decided the gas was too high.


[edit on 14-4-2005 by dawnstar]

Okay, then, for whatever value any "questioning of a possible terrorist" might possibly have, I agree that a person should be either charged with a crime or not charged with a crime after questioning. If they are not charged with any crimes, they should be free to exercise their rights as Americans.

Zip

They will not be labeled as a gangster, however, if they commit a crime. They will be labeled as a terrorist. Is any crime against another person or group of people a "terrorist act"? I don't think so, but some interpretations of these new laws may lead us that direction...

See this ATS new thread

Oh right. But the first time someone on this list lights up some people, whos gonna be the first people crying about it? I say "good". Whatever they did to get themselves a spot on this list was something. They dont need guns.

I wish we had more laws. I hate guns, and think we got enough. If you've earned yourself a spot on this list, then youve done something to piss someone off. To bad.

you think these crooks should have guns???
why, to shoot up capitol hill??

It is illegal for felons to own handguns, but they may still own shotguns and I believe rifles as well.

Someone may be a "crook" without being caught and they may well legally own handguns while perpetrating their crimes until they get convicted of a felony.

Zip

oh, so they aren't talking about taking the right to own any type of gun from all citizens...just certain types of guns from certain citizens....okay.

Spliff4020
The simple fact that we have a list of 'suspected terrorist' living within the US illustrates that the FBI/CIA/Homeland Security is not doing their job. Why? Because we recognize the possible threat, but still let these people roam in America. Now when one of these people decide to commit an act of terror, then people are going to question 'Well if they knew that this person was a terrorist, then why did they do nothing about it before hand?

I'm not for guns but it is our constitutional right to bear arms. When the government begins to take that away, then something is severely wrong.


[edit on 4/14/2005 by Simulacra]

"I'm not for guns but it is our constitutional right to bear arms. When the government begins to take that away, then something is severely wrong."

so does that mean I can have a missle launcher in my back yard? to protect me from those horrible Aliens that keep zipping in with thier UFO's.

Bills are moving through Congress to ban gun sales to individuals named on terrorist watch lists, but critics question the lists' accuracy and say mistakes will deprive citizens of their Second Amendment rights.

Unless convicted of a felony, US citizens should not have their right to bear weapons because they have surrendered this right when they denied others their inalliable rights. Therefore, these "Watch List" revokations are invalid. These people have not been convicted of a crime and prove that the Bush administration of NEO-Cons have not only hijacked the republican party but also are implementing a police like state that can only lead this country to civil war.

Oh right. But the first time someone on this list lights up some people, whos gonna be the first people crying about it? I say "good". Whatever they did to get themselves a spot on this list was something. They dont need guns.

I wish we had more laws. I hate guns, and think we got enough. If you've earned yourself a spot on this list, then youve done something to piss someone off. To bad.

That's cool, I respect you opinion. Your opinions on guns and marijuana and whatever is your business. What isn't your job to decide, however, is who gets guns and who doesn't.

It's not your job.

It's not my job.

It's not these mysterious and unchecked list writers' job.

If the people on the list cannot fight their placement on the list in a court of law, that's fine. It may be libellous, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

The fact that these people are being steadfastly denied their constitutional rights because of this non-adjudicated placement on the list --- that is a big, BIG problem - not just because of the immediate consequences, but because it is a further erosion of the principle rights that the American Constitution affords us as citizens and permanent residents of America.

Granted, most people on the list are probably there for a good reason, but that is irrelevant. Obviously the reason isn't good enough to convict them of a felony, and thereby take away their right to posess handguns.

IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A GUN AWAY FROM SOMEONE, CONVICT THEM OF A CRIME.

It is a surefire way to legally take away someone's handgun ownership rights. Convict these people of felonies and the gun posession problem will take care of itself.

I will remind you all that in America, the burden of proof of a crime is on the state - you are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. So are these people on this list. Don't convict them because some propagandistic list told you that there must be a good reason for them to be considered bad people.

Zip