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?