Lindsey Graham Fights for Terrorists’ Right to Buy Guns
There has been a lot of talk recently about what sorts of rights terrorists, or suspected terrorists, should have. Should they have the right to a fair trial? Should they have the right to protection from cruel and unusual punishment? Should they have the right to be informed of their rights? There has even been talk about having their citizenship stripped from them. Amidst this conservative race to the bottom to see who can deny the most rights to terrorists, there does, quite oddly, seem to be one right for terrorists that some conservatives are willing to fight for — the right to buy guns.
Last Wednesday, the Senate Homeland Security Committee held a hearing on a bill that would prevent people on the FBI’s terror watchlist from legally purchasing guns or explosives. Sounds like a slam dunk, right? Come on, not even the hardiest of gun rights activists could argue with stopping terrorists from buying guns and explosives, right? As you’ve probably already surmised, yes, they can. And in the Senate , the main, brave soul willing to stick up for those who want to kill us was the big Cock himself, Lindsey Graham.
In defending his position, Graham came very close to divulging the real reason, but quickly changed the subject:
“But we’re talking about a constitutional right here,” Graham went on. He then changed the subject, pretending the discussion was about a general ban on handguns. “The NRA — ” he began, then rephrased. “Some people believe banning handguns is the right answer to the gun violence problem. I’m not in that camp.”
I’m sure that what he was going to say was something along the lines of, “The NRA is against any restriction on gun ownership regardless of situation, and since, like most Republicans, I can’t afford to piss them off, I too am against it.” (It’s kind of a shame he didn’t say what was on his mind — it might have gotten him a few Tea Party votes back.) But Graham’s stated reason is just ridiculous. For one thing, the issue isn’t “banning handguns”. It’s preventing known or suspected terrorists from buying guns. Conflating the two is like arguing against restricting convicted pedophiles from being around children by saying, “Some people think outlawing playing with kids is a good idea. I don’t.”
Of all people, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg might have put this in the right perspective,”If society decides that these people are too dangerous to get on an airplane with other people, then it’s probably appropriate to look very hard before you let them buy a gun.” In a perverse way, I actually have a little bit of respect for the NRA and their supporters for the fact that they are so committed to their cause that they’re even willing to side with terrorists rather than admit their position makes no sense.
So, trying to bear in mind that the issue here is only whether or not known or suspected terrorists should be able to buy guns, not citizens in general, what does everyone think? Is it common sense to attempt to restrict potentially dangerous people from buying guns and explosives, or are we justified in taking away all their rights except for the right to buy stuff to kill us with?
Tags: gun laws, Lindsey Graham, Terrorism
So Scott let me see if I have this right:
You support denying rights to people on the No Fly list, correct?
Even though there is no published or known criteria for how a person gets on that list.
Even though there is no published or known criteria for a person being removed from that list.
Even though there is a presumption of innocent until proven guilty.
Even though it would violate a person’s due process.
You support it,Right?
Do you support removing their right to buy gasoline? Diesel fuel? Fertilizer?
How about chlorox?
I find it incredible to think that people are supporting this idea.
Actually, no, I don’t personally support any of those things, mostly for the reasons you listed. I think the No Fly List is one of those things that sounds much better in theory than in actual practice, but we do it because we have to do something, right? If I felt comfortable that the list was only comprised of bad guys, with no way of mistaking innocent people for ones on the list, then I would be behind the idea. In theory, no, I don’t think that people weknow are dangerous should be allowed to buy guns.
The point of the post was to highlight the irrationality of those who do think the list is right, are OK denying most other civil rights to those on it, but can’t bring themselves to the point of saying “No guns”. Whether the list itself is a good idea or not is a whole other topic.
Scott,
So what do you recommend we do?
Deny people to the right to buy firearms all together?
Make people get a license before each and every purchase?
Do we live in a totalitarian state where the government approves all travel, speech, greatly limits rights?
Leonard Pitts says it well:
So what can you do? The answer is that you do the best you can, take what precautions you can, and then you get on with it, learn to live with the risk freedom entails. You accept that risk because freedom is worth it.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-pitts_10edi.State.Edition1.231ac82.html
But trying to define what precautions we can take — and which we should take the problem.
We deny felons the right to buy guns. Why should terrorists get to buy guns? Conservatives are really weird.
Unstable Isotope,
I think we should deny terrorist the right to buy firearms, and vote, and travel….if they are terrorist they should be in jail right?
Unfortunately, the No-Fly List also consist of people suspected of being terrorist, people who share the same name as a suspected terrorist, people who for some reason — which are never disclosed– made it onto the list.
By the way, isn’t it a little ridiculous to think that someone plotting to blow up an airplane or Time Square is going to let a little law or background check stand in their way of procuring firearms?
Talk about weird — people who think that terrorist — known terrorist willing to kill people would not buy firearms because they can’t pass a background check. Isn’t that a denial of reality?
Whether or not we should stop felons from owning firearms is another argument altogether. I notice that we don’t stop felons from purchasing automobiles, from purchasing chlorox & ammonia, from purchasing gasoline — or even propane bottles….yet firearms have a magical place in gun banner’s world for some reason.
So, how do you propose we stop terrorists from purchasing firearms?
Bob S
Whether a person who is a Terrorist would buy a gun or explosives illegally if their presence on the no-fly list, or Terrorist watch, prevented the purchase altogether, or put obstacles to the purchase of explosives or weapons is a separate issue. The fact that someone could obtain a weapon or explosives illegally should not be a reason to have no restrictions. People who have been determined to have mental health problems have purchased guns illegally, does that mean there should be no restrictions for people with mental health issues to purchase guns?
The fact that someone could be on the list by mistake, or have the same or a similar name as someone rightfully on the list is also not a valid reason not to have any restrictions. If someone is on the list incorrectly presumably they would like to correct the error and be removed from the list, having regulations regarding weapons or explosive purchases would be one way a person who doesn’t fly regularly could learn of the mistake, and begin taking steps to correct the error. If a person has the same name as someone who belongs on the list presumably they would be able to show they aren’t the person (different age, address, etc.)
I don’t understand why a reasonable person would have a problem with a requirement that the terrorist list be checked before weapons or explosives are sold. If the proposal made the presence on the list a complete ban without any possibility to show you do not belong on the list, or you aren’t the same person as the person on the list, you would have an argument that the proposed law goes to far. However, the proposed law was to require that the list be checked and homeland security notified of the proposed purchase prior to completion of the purchase. The law was not a ban on anyone on the list ever purchasing a weapon or explosives, nor is it reasonable to assume that the proposed purchaser would be barred from making the purchase altogether due to his name appearing on the list.
It is amazing the number of people who resist any limitation or restrictions to the purchase of guns, but at the same time have no problem with warrant less wire taps, profiling etc.
Bob S. You ask: “So what do you recommend we do?…. Make people get a license before each and every purchase?”
What is wrong with requiring a license, or a permit for the purchase of guns?
Born a Dem,
Let’s start with the fact that the stated purpose of using the No-Fly list was to stop “terrorists” from purchasing firearms.
Showing that it would not stop them at all is a valid point and not a separate issue.
What I hear you saying is “Just because it won’t work isn’t a reason to not do it”.
You fail to address the fact that the person on the list has not been convicted of anything….nothing. That is a separate law and situation.
You are willing to deprive people of their rights because someone somewhere somehow decided that person X shouldn’t be allowed to fly.
Doesn’t it concern you that the list isn’t publicized?
That the criteria to be on the list isn’t publicized?
That there is NO method of removing a name from the list established?
Why are you so willing to deprive people of their rights?
Would you support a ban on publishing, on commenting, on speaking (not just in public buy anywhere) if a person was a Terrorist Watch list?
We are talking about exercising rights and depriving people of rights?
Do you want to get a license before you can comment on this blog or any other?
You ask why what is wrong with getting a license but the question is backwards.
Can you show that requiring the licensing of a right actually makes people safer?
No one can show that the No Fly list has made anyone safer, either. But if you are potentially dangerous enough to be told you can’t get on an airplane, it seems that you are potentially dangerous to told you can have a gun. Or explosives for that matter.
OK Bob S., you seem to be saying that the problem is that the entire watchlist idea is flawed, should be scrapped, or at least not enforced for anything. That’s a perfectly valid opinion, and as far as it goes, not far from my own. Here’s the problem, at least as far as my uninformed opinion goes: There are 4 types of people on the list. 1) Known terrorists against whom we have evidence, 2) Known terrorists against whom we have no evidence, 3) People we think are terrorists, we have no evidence, but they really are and 4) People we think are terrorists, we have no evidence, but they really are not.
Obviously, group 1 should be arrested on contact. Groups 2 and 3 should be closely monitored, and are candidates for having their actions restricted. The problem of course, is group 4, and the fact that we don’t know which ones they are. They are valid grounds for going carefully against 2 and 3.
But again, the point of the post was not whether the watchlist itself was a valid, legal tool, but whether there was a contradiction in saying those on it can’t get on a plane, but can have unfettered access to guns and explosives. I say it’s ridiculous that those who think the list is valid would be against applying it to firearm purchases.
Scott,
There are also another group of people on that list
#5 — People who are on there by mistake.
Like the Michael Winston Hicks — the 8 year old Cub Scout.
Then there is the little matter of Due Process. I’m sure you’ve heard of that, right?
Amendment 5, right?
This part :<nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
The liberty to buy firearms is a freedom to be protected. Just like the liberty to travel, to post on a blog, to be able to attend a worship service.
What I don’t get is the people who think the list is valid and would deprive people of their liberty because they are on the list.
You claim there are only those 4 — and in reality there are 5 groups but you don’t know who is on the list, do you?
Why are some comfortable with depriving people of their liberty – be it to buy firearms or to travel — without that essential element of due process?
I also want to know why firearms are so singled out. It seems to me that gasoline is more dangerous then firearms, diesel fuel and fertilizer definitely so….yet no one is recommending that we have a background check on those purchase. Why not?
but whether there was a contradiction in saying those on it can’t get on a plane, but can have unfettered access to guns and explosives
You have not seen me arguing in favor of that, have you?
Yet on this very thread, I’ve seen people demonizing firearms and ready to deprive people of their rights.
Worse yet, they do so knowing that it will not stop the criminals, the terrorist from obtaining firearms…only the law abiding people mistakenly on the list.
I say it’s ridiculous that those who think the list is valid would be against applying it to firearm purchases.
And isn’t it funny that Eric Holder — a liberal, right — Attorney General of the United States is on the record saying that we should deprive people of their rights because they might be terrorist.
Any chance in the world that could be abused??
So, again. I’ll ask; what do you purpose?