• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How would you vote on this bill?

Yes or no on the current legislation to block terror suspects from buying weapons?

  • Yes restrict those on terror list

    Votes: 12 38.7%

  • No gun restrictions for those on terror list

    Votes: 19 61.3%
  • Total voters
    31
  • Poll closed .
LadyMoonlight said:
From what I have seen and heard, peoples' rights can be manipulated too. It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that criminals have more rights than victims, of course, that's the same here. We don't have a Bill of Rights in Australia and I have never wanted one. Every time something happens, Americans start screaming rights this and that. You can't pray in schools (Christians at least), you can't do this or that without someone carrying on and screaming rights...just like your uni students at the moment.
Click to expand...

I could go into a whole spiel here but I'm going to shorten it for brevities sake. There are plus's and minus's to Rights. Overall though, they're good to have. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else that didn't have the same Rights.
 
LadyMoonlight said:
Ok, so the potential terrorist on the watch list buys a gun, goes on a killing spree while due process is happening. A tad late don't you think? What am I missing here, not being American and all?
Click to expand...
That the right to bear arms is a fundemental civil right in the USA (whether you agree with that concept or not is irrelevant, it IS a right here) and the 14th amendment to the US constitution prohibits the government from denying life liberty or property without "due process of law".

Plus, the terror watchlist is secret, so making a person on the watchlist a "prohibited possessor" would violate one's right to due process since they won't even be informed they're prohibited from possessing a firearm. There is no procedure for you finding out you're on the list, or for applying to remove yourself from it.

It is purely an investigative tool for the FBI, it was never intended for anything more.
 
LadyMoonlight said:
From what I have seen and heard, peoples' rights can be manipulated too. It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that criminals have more rights than victims
Click to expand...

Let's focus on that, the entire purpose of civil rights is so that you have protections against the government, since the governments primary purpose is enforcement of the public order, it is completely correct that people accused of violating that order are the ones who need to assert their rights.

I don't need to use my 5th amendment right against self incrimination unless someone is looking to incriminate me. I don't go around with a lawyer in my shadow unless I'm accused of a crime and need one.

The victims have plenty of rights, they have the full force and power of the state being brought down upon their attackers, the person accused of the attack needs a right or two to make sure s/he's being treated fairly and properly during that process.
 
X Factor said:
I think not being an American probably does make a difference. There's no way a law that that is in line with the Constitution. Think about it this way, why not just pass a bill that says anyone on the watch list could be detained and their houses searched? Maybe that would save us from the killing spree as well, but some things done in the name of safety/security aren't worth the infringement on constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

I don't often agree with you (it seems)...but I do here.

You make an excellent point...the government could stick anyone on a watch list just to remove their constitutional rights for whatever reason.

When I first read this thread, I thought they should not be allowed to buy a gun...but something stuck in my craw about it - but I knew not what.

You showed me what.

Well done.
 
Dion said:
Would you vote yes or no on a bill to restrict those on the terrorist watch list from purchasing weapons?
Click to expand...

Absolutely would vote no, as I've said repeatedly elsewhere on this board.

It is no more constitutional to bar those on the terror watch list from purchasing a firearm because some may use them to do harm, than it is to deny those on it from visiting a place of worship because some may be inspired to do harm in them. The United States should not be able to permanently, or quasi-permanently, violation a citizens constitutionally protected rights without due process.

If you want to do something with the Terror Watch List as it relates to guns, there's a simple and reasonable solution. When a background check is ran for a gun purchase, the name is checked against the Terror Watch list. If it comes up with a match, it sets off a flag at the Terrorist Screening Center. Once flagged, it is reviewed by analysts in conjunction with any and all other information they have on the individual to make a determination on how relevant of an issue it is, just as they do with other actions that may bring about suspicion to those on the list.

This would allow us to at least be aware of when these individuals are becoming armed in at least ONE fashion, it would allow the government to potentially better track the flow of these weapons if they're being purchased to flow elsewhere. It also wouldn't set off a giant red flag alerting the person that they may be on the terror watch list if they go to a store and have their purchased declined despite not filling any of the other criteria.

At the same time, it does not restrict the rights of innocent civilians who may be wrongfully placed on that list, and truly everyone on it who are not actually automatically a part of an on going investigation let alone actually convicted of any crime.

What would be rather funny is that if such a law passed, in order to be consistent, the ACLU would be one of the biggest opponents of it as they (like seemingly many liberals until now) were large critics of things like the Terror and No Fly lists, questioning their constitutionality and complaining about them being used as justification for far less pervasive and continual negative actions (such as more security at the airport).
 
X Factor said:
Hard to say, as you haven't voted.
Click to expand...

I did comment though. I don't often vote since comments have more meaning. Here is what I wrote:

Redress said:
In the US, in theory, we are willing to accept a higher level of risk in exchange for guaranteed rights. The right to own guns is enshrined in the constitution, our most basic legal document. Whether it is a good idea or not is irrelevant, it is there, and it is not going away. As long as it is there, the bar for removing that right is very, very high. Suspicion probably isn't good enough.
Click to expand...
 
Do you think there should be gun reform?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If they are American citizens IMO there should be due process before restricting an American's right to own/carry a firearm. That includes purchasing.

So I didnt vote since neither really reflected my opinion.
 
When they pulled Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam) off of his flight to add him to the terror watch list, I realized just how lost the authorities seem to be.
 
d0gbreath said:
When they pulled Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam) off of his flight to add him to the terror watch list, I realized just how lost the authorities seem to be.
Click to expand...

Um.....he WAS a member of a mosque associated with terrorism. So the list worked.
 
Lursa said:
If they are American citizens IMO there should be due process before restricting an American's right to own/carry a firearm. That includes purchasing.

So I didnt vote since neither really reflected my opinion.
Click to expand...

The constitutional right doesn't include "buying."

There's no more due process requirement for a possible terrorist than for a mentally ill person. If your name is on a terrorist list, and you have an emergency need to BUY a gun....you're probably a terrorist. Otherwise, your biggest problem in being on that list, if you are not a terrorist. You need to get your name off that list. In the meantime, you can bathe in guns, if you like. You just can't buy a new one (but can get one as a Christmas gift).

This of course should be done.
 
Zyphlin said:
Absolutely would vote no, as I've said repeatedly elsewhere on this board.

It is no more constitutional to bar those on the terror watch list from purchasing a firearm because some may use them to do harm, than it is to deny those on it from visiting a place of worship because some may be inspired to do harm in them. The United States should not be able to permanently, or quasi-permanently, violation a citizens constitutionally protected rights without due process.

If you want to do something with the Terror Watch List as it relates to guns, there's a simple and reasonable solution. When a background check is ran for a gun purchase, the name is checked against the Terror Watch list. If it comes up with a match, it sets off a flag at the Terrorist Screening Center. Once flagged, it is reviewed by analysts in conjunction with any and all other information they have on the individual to make a determination on how relevant of an issue it is, just as they do with other actions that may bring about suspicion to those on the list.

This would allow us to at least be aware of when these individuals are becoming armed in at least ONE fashion, it would allow the government to potentially better track the flow of these weapons if they're being purchased to flow elsewhere. It also wouldn't set off a giant red flag alerting the person that they may be on the terror watch list if they go to a store and have their purchased declined despite not filling any of the other criteria.

At the same time, it does not restrict the rights of innocent civilians who may be wrongfully placed on that list, and truly everyone on it who are not actually automatically a part of an on going investigation let alone actually convicted of any crime.

What would be rather funny is that if such a law passed, in order to be consistent, the ACLU would be one of the biggest opponents of it as they (like seemingly many liberals until now) were large critics of things like the Terror and No Fly lists, questioning their constitutionality and complaining about them being used as justification for far less pervasive and continual negative actions (such as more security at the airport).
Click to expand...

There is no constitutional right to buy guns.

Of course people on a terrorist list should be barred from buying guns. That's common sense.

Doing nothing about the extreme violence by domestic terrorists is not working. We have to start doing something. This is a logical, legal baby step.
 
LadyMoonlight said:
Ok, so the potential terrorist on the watch list buys a gun, goes on a killing spree while due process is happening. A tad late don't you think? What am I missing here, not being American and all?
Click to expand...

People should only be acted upon by law when they do wrong. The government suspecting someone of being this or that is not good enough.
 
JumpinJack said:
There is no constitutional right to buy guns.
Click to expand...

So how are people going to practice their rights? Are they supposed to acquire guns through the use of magic? People have to be able to buy and sell guns in order for the amendment to mean anything at all.
 
JumpinJack said:
The constitutional right doesn't include "buying."

There's no more due process requirement for a possible terrorist than for a mentally ill person. If your name is on a terrorist list, and you have an emergency need to BUY a gun....you're probably a terrorist. Otherwise, your biggest problem in being on that list, if you are not a terrorist. You need to get your name off that list. In the meantime, you can bathe in guns, if you like. You just can't buy a new one (but can get one as a Christmas gift).

This of course should be done.
Click to expand...

I hadnt really thought of it that way but it seems like a useless point unless you have some law to support it, an example of similar?

Guns are objects, not abstract. If people have a right to own them, then they have the right to acquire them. I dont see a means for legal distinction there but perhaps you can explain?

And you didnt provide a legal foundation for why a 'possible' American terrorist does not have a right to due process. You gave opinion and I dont agree with your reasoning on 'why they need it' sine they are not even proven to be terrorists.
 
JumpinJack said:
There is no constitutional right to buy guns.

Of course people on a terrorist list should be barred from buying guns. That's common sense.

Doing nothing about the extreme violence by domestic terrorists is not working. We have to start doing something. This is a logical, legal baby step.
Click to expand...

Conversation occurring in a secret government agency's conference room:

Boss: "Records show that J. Q. Citizen has purchased multiple scary black rifles in the past few months. Could J. Q. Citizen be planning a terrorist attack?"

Agent: "I don't know, sir."

Boss: "Place j. Q. Citizen on the terror watch list and then go find out."

Agent: "If I do that then the local police will take away his guns, sir."

Boss: "Better to be safe than sorry. Do as you are told."
 
Dion said:
Would you vote yes or no on a bill to restrict those on the terrorist watch list from purchasing weapons?

Senate GOP votes down gun legislation - NY Daily News





http://www.newsweek.com/terrorist-watchlist-no-bar-buying-guns-400959


Senate blocks effort to keep guns from terrorists | TheHill
Click to expand...
The only way someone's constitutional rights should be lost is while they are locked up in jail,prison or the loony bin.After release all their rights should be restored. If a person is too dangerous to be trusted with their constitutional rights then that person should not be released in the first place.Because all the laws on the books are not going to stop someone who is hell bent on killing someone.
 
I can't vote in this poll because of the way the choices are worded. Besides, who exactly is going to be branded a "terrorist" by the government? We may think we know the answer to that question, but not even the current President of the United States can bring himself to utter the words, "Islamic terrorists".

So, just imagine for a minute that we've got a bunch of hyperliberal Leftist, Constitution-hating Socialists running the government of the United States. It seems impossible, I know, but it could happen someday.... :roll: Now, let's say that you are a Conservative, Constitution-loving, free-market advocate! What would stop the hyperlibs from branding you a "terrorist" just because they hate your guts and despise your political viewpoint...?! Now, you're defenseless, at the mercy of these people! And those in power always get to make the determinations concerning who is a "terrorist" and who is not, just because they feel like it....
 
Is this really for real? Those on terrorist watch lists are able to buy guns in the US? Now I'm against gun control in general because I don't believe that that is actually the problem. People are the problem, not guns. But, it seems kind of stupid to me to let someone on a terrorist watch list buy guns. What got them on the watch list in the first place? The second amendment should only apply to citizens, in my opinion.
 
Dion said:
Would you vote yes or no on a bill to restrict those on the terrorist watch list from purchasing weapons?

Senate GOP votes down gun legislation - NY Daily News

http://www.newsweek.com/terrorist-watchlist-no-bar-buying-guns-400959

Senate blocks effort to keep guns from terrorists | TheHill
Click to expand...

We have had this conversation in another thread, it comes down to usage of the terrorist watch list. Not just the NRA for this purpose, but also the ACLU has challenged government watch lists for years now for a variety of reasons.

Assuming these lists are used only for tracking known or suspected terrorists then that is one thing, but more often the ALCU has put forth argument that these lists end up accumulating various family members of suspects, business associates of suspects, acquaintances of suspects, like names and aliases that end up targeting the wrong person, and flat out other entries that might be more of a political nature than a matter of security.

So now the argument comes down to usage of the list itself, and if we hint that political targets can end up on the list (which is easy to argue, every so often a Congressman cannot get on a flight because of "mistake" on the "no-fly" list) then we can illustrate that using these lists to restrict 2nd Amendment exercise can become a political weapon.

If this had passed as worded, it was only a matter of time before all kinds of names ended up on it. Just the perception of right wing fundamentalist is a hot topic among the left these days as a means to show intention for terrorism. Because being on this list is a side step of due process already, it stands to reason that these lists in the right hands would include anyone they perceive as a threat thus removing their 2nd Amendment rights without trial, or judicial consideration, etc.

That is a problem, and it leads to using the list as a weapon against... whoever.

I voted no, as the bill was written. Not because the NRA is against it, but because the ACLU has made successful argument against the administration of these lists for years now. (Voting no, even though you phrased the responses in a manner the left wants you to... which becomes argumentative.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom