NRA and Conservative Support of Arming Terrorists Legally

The NRA Wants To Arm Terrorists Legally
The NRA Wants To Arm Terrorists Legally

Known Or Suspected Terrorists Are Buying Guns Legally

Recent reports claim that known and suspected terrorists have been legally buying guns in the United States. Under the Bush Administration, those that are found on the terror watch list that have tried to buy guns or explosives where not stopped a majority of the time. Currently, there is no law on the books to stop them from doing so. And if the National Rifle Association had its way, they would never be stopped. And conservatives in Congress are perfectly fine with this as well, regardless of who it hurts and kills.


Terrorists Are Getting The Guns Legally
Terrorists Are Getting The Guns Legally

The Current Crisis

According to the GAO, between February 2004 and February 2009, regular background checks found numerous matches on names that appeared on the terrorist watch list.  Under current regulations, 90% of these people were allowed to purchase guns and explosives legally.   There is no way to figure out how many terrorists purchased guns and explosives illegally. 

 

Senator Frank Lautenberg Wants To Make It Harder To For Terrorists To Get Guns
Senator Frank Lautenberg Wants To Make It Harder To For Terrorists To Get Guns
Republican Peter King Wants To Make It Harder For Terrorists To Get Guns
Republican Peter King Wants To Make It Harder For Terrorists To Get Guns
The NRA Opposes Any Changes
The NRA Opposes Any Changes

New Legislation And The NRA

The GAO issued a new report based on the request of Senator Frank Lautenberg.  Lautenberg requested the report because it had not been updated since 2005.  Lautenberg is set to propose new legislation that gives the United States Attorney General the authority to stop the sale of guns and explosives to known or suspected terrorists.

 

The National Rifle Association, of course, opposes any new legislation that may limit anyone’s right to buy a gun, including those suspected of being terrorists.  Chris W. Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist, stated that “problems” with the terror watch make it unreliable and nobody should be prohibited from purchasing a gun just because their name appears on the terror watch list.

 

However, the NRA-ILA’s website provides more background to Cox’s statement.  The NRA-ILA, the NRA’s lobbying wing, likens the terror watch list to Nazi Germany and Soviet controlled Russia.  The website attacks Republican Congressman Peter King from New York for proposing legislation that would give the Attorney General more authority to stop those suspected of terrorism from obtaining guns legally.  The NRA calls the legislation a form of blacklist. 

 

We were told rights had to be limited to protect the nation
We were told rights had to be limited to protect the nation
Shouldn't We Limit Gun Rights To Ensure Terrorists Do Not Get Guns Legally?
Shouldn't We Limit Gun Rights To Ensure Terrorists Do Not Get Guns Legally?

The NRA Is Either With Or Against Us

The Bush Administration constantly made the stand that if anyone opposed what they were doing they were supporting terrorism. The Patriot Act put limits on personal freedom by invading the privacy of phone calls and bank accounts.  As Americans, we had a duty to allow these inconveniences in the name of National Security.

 

Doesn’t the NRA have the same duty?  Shouldn’t the government prohibit those who are suspected of wanting to commit terror on the United States from getting a gun through legal means?  Isn’t that the point of the background check?  Of course, we should be afraid of the man who doesn’t bother with the formal requirements of a background check, but if enough information is obtained to suspect someone to be a terrorist, shouldn’t the law make it that much harder to obtain the tools of destruction.  Or does the second amendment trump the all other amendments and the lives of ordinary Americans?

More by this Author


Comments 23 comments

Iconoclast profile image

Iconoclast 7 years ago from Chicago, IL

Ted kennedy is on the terrorist watch-list; that thing is so inaccurate and aggressive that I'll bet half the FBI agents and 80% of academics are on it. I know that I am.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Sorry to hear about that, but shouldn't there be a law to investigate further anyone on the terror watch list to make sure they are not a terrorist. Just a little more scrutiny is all I am saying. The NRA wants no scrutiny, no limit whatsoever.

I would add that the terror watch list should be constantly updated with new information as part of the new law as well. Nobody wants to take away guns from law abiding citizens.


Iconoclast profile image

Iconoclast 7 years ago from Chicago, IL

The government, regarding its watch-list, offers no scrutiny. We need that, and, until such happens, the NRA is correct. My stance is, if you can't get it right, don't do it.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

I agree, scrutiny is needed and should be part of the bill.


virginialoanpro profile image

virginialoanpro 7 years ago from Virginia

wish you quoted concrete, verifiable facts. You might get more comments. I bet the same random GAO report also states that people on the terror watch list are still buying cars after receiving DUI's. Next Post: Govt encourages terrorists to drink and drive??? If we treated abortion rights the way the current administration treats gun rights, we would ban sex. The wrong person might accidentally have sex and accidentally get pregnant, so we better step in and make sure that, for all law-abiding Americans, the government should deicde wjen, if and how we should pursue our happiness (alos guaranteed under our founding documents. catchy headline, too bad it's bogus.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Well I thank you for reading and your comment but dispute that I didn't cite facts. I noticed that you didn't bother to include any.

I provided a link to the NRA's own webpage about their thoughts on the matter. And it is a fact, that over 800 people on the terror watch list applied for and obtained guns in the past few years. Only 10% were denied. That is fact. For Republicans to defend taking away privacy rights in the name of national security but refuse to limit any gun rights whatsoever even though suspected terrorists are buying guns, only shows their real motives.


eovery profile image

eovery 7 years ago from MIddle of the Boondocks of Iowa

You go virginialoanpro!

Keep on Hubbing!


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Go where? Isn't there common ground here? Make sure the list is accurate and then if on the list you can't buy a gun legally? Why isn't that a reasonable solution?


eovery profile image

eovery 7 years ago from MIddle of the Boondocks of Iowa

bgpappa, you are putting the liberal spin on this, as you mentioned in a previous hub.

Think about it, if the guys is buying a lot of guns, this should raise a flag somewhere, and I am sure he is watched.  And guess what, it probably is a lead into a a whole cell of terrorist.  Don't think the terrorists are going unnoticed that are buying guns, it helps us distinguish them from other non-terrorist.  Big brother gets a record every time I buy a gun. If you take away this avenue, they can also acquire guns illegally, almost as easy, and there is no trackers on them. Go ahead and let them think they are fine buying guns. We have them under control.

This is nothing put politics, while the protection agencies are doing the work in the background. Why don't someone ask our security agents in the background what they want, and what will help them most. Instead of some politician, wanting to get his name in the news to impress his voters.

Keep on hubbing!


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Fair point eovery and a solid analysis. But if a known or suspected terrorist tries to buy a gun, but can't because they are on the list, won't that show up as well.

I don't want to shut things down. I don't want to limit gun owners rights (well I do but not the point of this hub). My point was the hypocracy. For years we were told to shut about the loss of privacy rights, free speech rights in the name of national security. But the moment it could become a little harder for gun owners, the right goes nuts.


eovery profile image

eovery 7 years ago from MIddle of the Boondocks of Iowa

Certain parts of the government has always been after closing down guns. I heard all the talk by Hillary and so forth on all they was going to pretty much shut guns sales down to nothing. So they have started a battle, and just like tug-a-war, the closer you get it to you side, the harder it is for the other to get it to their side. No middle point is available in such a tug-a-war. The DNR needs to clean up their act to make sure they do not over do it and get shutdown.

Keep on hubbing!


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Thanks for the comment.

I disagree that there is no middle ground on the gun issue. I think both sides have just dug in their heels and refuse to negotiate. Left is just as guilty as the right on this issue. But there is middle ground. Nobody, including me, wants to stop law abiding citizens from owning a gun for sport or protection. But do sportsman really need AK47s to hunt? Or need three of them? There is middle ground, we just need politicians who are brave enough to take on the issue on both sides.


Dimensio 7 years ago

" But do sportsman really need AK47s to hunt?"

"Need" is not relevant. Additionally, the Second Amendment does not relate to "hunting".


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Thanks for the comment.

I agree that the Second Amendment does not relate to hunting, but that is where the argument lies, with Sportsman. Sure, need is not relevent, but shouldn't advancement in the technology of guns and the ability to do so much damage be part of the argument? Further, there are no militias anymore, so does anyone need one.


Dimensio 7 years ago

"I agree that the Second Amendment does not relate to hunting, but that is where the argument lies, with Sportsman."

You are mistaken. The concept of "sportsmen" is a strawman argument often presented by individuals seeking to impose unreasonable firearms restrictions. Frequently they appeal to the claim that "sportsmen" have no use for a certain class of firearm, often ignoring that many firearms in that class are in fact popular with "sportsmen". As an example, both the AR-15 and semi-automatic rifles derived from the AK-47 action have become popular hunting and target shooting rifles -- the AR-15 in particular is the most popular centerfire target rifle in the United States -- yet organizations such as the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Center dishonestly claim that such firearms are of "no use" to sportsmen.

" Sure, need is not relevent, but shouldn't advancement in the technology of guns and the ability to do so much damage be part of the argument?"

I believe that the National Firearms Act of 1934 has addressed this very concept; firearms capable of firing more than one round in sequence per trigger pull and firearms chambered in a caliber above .50 are restricted by that Act. If you have an argument that those restrictions should be expanded, then you should explain why such an expansion is justified; merely inquiring regarding the "need" for firearms not restricted by the Act does not constitute a rational justification for further regulation.

"Further, there are no militias anymore, so does anyone need one."

As I have noted, "need" is not relevant. It is the responsibility of those who advocate increased restriction who must justify that restriction. Additionally, the credibility of any argument that you do make in that regard is suspect, given that you have already lied regarding the motives and intentions of the National Rifle Association both in your posting above and in your reference to this posting on the website digg.com.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Well, most of your argument is articulate and well reasoned and for that I thank you for the comment. Calling people liars is not appreciated. I gave the link to the NRA so people can find out for themselves the truth of what I am saying. The NRA opposes any law that restricts guns, no matter what the consequences. In this case, a law that would prohibit those found on the terror watch list from getting a gun. That is the truth and I said nothing beyond that.

As for gun use, when the law you cite is from 1934 then an update is needed. The original intent of the second amendment was to arm the militia, it says so in the text. The militia was replaced with the national guard and police forces. We no longer "need" guns for that reason. However, not even I advocate getting rid of all guns. Hunters, Sportsman and just people who like guns should be able to get them. But I disagree that automatic weapons are already banned, needed or necessary in the general public. However, to find middle ground, we should enforce laws on the books.


Dimensio 7 years ago

"Calling people liars is not appreciated. "

Then I would recommend that you refrain from making claims that are demonstrably false.

"The NRA opposes any law that restricts guns, no matter what the consequences."

The National Rifle Association remains in support of the 1934 National Firearms Act, and in support of the 1968 Gun Control Act that prohibits individuals who have been convicted of felony offenses or who have been adjuciated as mentally defective from possessing firearms, and they have supported legislation requiring that firearms retailers conduct a background investigation on firearms purchasers. They have also assisted in crafting legislation intended to improve the reliability of such instantaneous background investigations. Your assertion is therefore demonstrably false.

"In this case, a law that would prohibit those found on the terror watch list from getting a gun. That is the truth and I said nothing beyond that."

You claimed, specifically, that "The NRA Wants To Arm Terrorists Legally"; such a claim is false and dishonest. The legislation proposed by Senator Lautenberg would allow the United States Attorney General to abridge the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution with no oversight, no due process and no adequate means of appeal. Additionally, the "terror watch list" itself exists with no oversight, no due process and no means of appeal; many individuals identified on the "terror watch list", including one United States Senator, are not actually terrorists, and have been placed upon the list erroneously. As such, opposing the abridgement of a Constitutionally protected right to those identified on a "terror watch list" is not logically equivalent to "arming terrorists".

"As for gun use, when the law you cite is from 1934 then an update is needed."

Then you should identify the specific "updates" required and justify the need for such "updates".

"The original intent of the second amendment was to arm the militia, it says so in the text."

The clear and specific intent of the Second Amendment is to restrict government action from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

"The militia was replaced with the national guard and police forces. We no longer "need" guns for that reason."

As I have noted repeatedly, "need" is not relevant.

"However, not even I advocate getting rid of all guns. Hunters, Sportsman and just people who like guns should be able to get them. But I disagree that automatic weapons are already banned, needed or necessary in the general public. "

Fully automatic firearms, while not entirely prohibited to civilians, are heavily restricted and are not readily available to civilian consumers. There exists no demonstrable need for further restriction upon such firearms; that you perceive no "need" or "necessity" for such firearms is of no relevance.

"However, to find middle ground, we should enforce laws on the books. "

I have never argued against any such course of action.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

The NRA opposes both Lutenberg's bill and the Bill proposed by Rep. King. I agree, to make the law fair to all, better oversight of the terror watch list is needed and said so in the many comments. But to say I lied is false, the NRA opposes a bill that arms suspected and known terrorists legally, meaning, they oppose a law that prohibits them from getting guns legally.


Dimensio 7 years ago

"The NRA opposes both Lutenberg's bill and the Bill proposed by Rep. King."

That the National Rifle Association opposes entirely unreasonable proposals does not logically validate your position that the National Rifle Association opposes all firearms restrictions. As the National Rifle Association is demonstrably in support of existing firearms restrictions, your claim is demonstrably incorrect.

"I agree, to make the law fair to all, better oversight of the terror watch list is needed and said so in the many comments."

The "Terror Watch List" should be discarded entirely. It serves no demonstrably useful purpose. The civil liberties of an individual should be abridged only after the application of due process.

" But to say I lied is false, the NRA opposes a bill that arms suspected and known terrorists legally, meaning, they oppose a law that prohibits them from getting guns legally."

You claimed that the National Rifle Association wishes to "arm terrorists". This is not logically equivalent to stating that the National Rifle Association wishes to arm "suspected terrorists", which is also not logically equivalent to their actual position, which is the opposition of denying the right of those unjustily placed upon a "terror watch list" with no due process and with no actual demonstration of justification for suspecting them to be involved in terrorist activities and with no means of appealing such an unjustified accusation to possess firearms. Suggesting that individuals listed upon the entirely arbitrary and wholly inaccurate "terror watch list" should suffer the abridgement of any Constitutionally protected right, including the right to keep and bear arms, is entirely unreasonable and irrational, and does not equate with a desire to "arm terrorists legally". Your statement does not reflect reality.


just another day in paradise 6 years ago

OP and others, did you consider that if 800 "possible terrorists" bought guns in the last few years, but yet out of these apparent hundreds of possible terrorists roaming around the United States all this time there appears to be no attacks from them, that this "terror list" is completely bogus and probably just a list of citizens who protest in ways the government especially doesn't like?

I mean, 800 "suspected" terrorists, you said, and yet until now things have been mostly smooth water in this country regarding terrorism. That may change soon, if the government sees fit, but you don't find that odd?


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

"If the government sees fit", what does that mean. Isn't odd that nobody gives Obama credit for keeping us safe for nearly a year. Bush didn't do that his first year.

But as for the guns, the point is the stance of the NRA. Has nothing to do with safety. And if someone is on the watch list, shouldn't we at least watch them?

Thanks for the comment


Joe 6 years ago

You Americans are so close to living in the 1984-esque police state its unreal.

Dont let the media trick you into giving up your rights.

The "terrorist watch list" is unconstitutional and should be gotten rid of.

Anyone- and i mean anyone- seems to be a threat to your government now, including most of your law abiding citizens.

Disarm those on this "list" and you disarm the American public.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Law abiding citizens should be able to get guns if they want. I have no problem with that. But those on the terror watch list should have to due without. What about the terror watch list makes it unconstitutional? I would like to know your thoughts on that.

THanks for reading

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working