Suspected terrorists can legally buy guns in the U.S.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacNut, Nov 18, 2015.

  1. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #1
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/individual...d-legally-purchase-firearms/story?id=35264669

    Seems like a loophole we should close. But then again there are a lot of those that are still stuck in the open position.
     
  2. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #2
  3. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #3
    Why should either get a gun?
     
  4. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
  5. jkcerda, Nov 18, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2015

    jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #5
    exactly.

    /s. <<<<<< because it's obvious you guys need it.

    one of my co-workers is on the no fly list, what is the criteria to be on the FBI's list ?
     
  6. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #6
    I was wondering how long it would take for that post, either sarcastically or seriously...
     
  7. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #7
    So you're good with giving weapons to terrorists?
     
  8. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #8
    Yes. Don't suspected terrorist get to use the same excuse that we often hear from gun advocates?

    My gun's never killed anyone.

    We don't know if they actually are terrorist or not. What kind of evidence lands a person on the FBI watchlist?

    From the OP's link ...
     
  9. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #9
    Would seem so. On the record with being OK with known terrorists buying guns but afraid of vetted Syrian refugees.
     
  10. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #10
    Exactly my point. In the US, you have a constitutional right to own a gun unless you are a felon or have a mental illness. "Angry guy" doesn't fit that criteria, unfortunately. There are a whole lot of people I think shouldn't be able to buy, but in this country...that's considered a violation of rights. Which is why I asked.
     
  11. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #11
    The NRA is sharpening its knives to slash this down to the knees. cause we all know this is how it starts first terrorists then ammosexuals then everyone.then gun sales as usual will skyrocket.
     
  12. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #12
    So here is what the NRA is opposed too.
    https://www.nraila.org/articles/20110419/why-nra-opposes-gun-control-supporters

    What was Adam Lanza? Mr lets bake cookies and sing camp songs?

    If you are "angry guy" I would think you are more likely to want to cause harm to something.

    Gun shop to man, "why do you want a gun", Angry guy, "Im angry god damnit", gun shop guy, "ok sounds good to me."
     
  13. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #13
    Perhaps it is good and proper that our elected government is vulnerable to a perpetual threat of armed rebellion. If the neoliberal hegemonic despotism of the West continues it's march towards whatever Alex Jones fears, a new (Islamic) revolution can renew civilization.
     
  14. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #14
    Hopefully, you're getting that I'm on your side here. I am in favor of much stricter access.
     
  15. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #15
    Hard to tell around these parts. :p Plus i wanted to banter with myself. :D
     
  16. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #16
    wait, they are known TERRORIST? really? if they are TERRORIST, why are they not in jail? I am asking what it takes to be on the list since I do have a co-worker on the no fly list.
     
  17. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #17
    yeah, keep making crap up :rolleyes:
     
  18. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #18
    Likewise, I'm all for restricting firearms more stringently. But after hearing how sacrosanct this right is ... I can't see how it would fly to deny someone a firearm over suspicion alone.

    But perhaps we'll hear from some gun advocates. I'd be curious to hear their take on this.
     
  19. CalWizrd Suspended

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #19
    Your wish is my command...

    I'm a gun advocate. I'm also an advocate of seriously strengthening the requirements for possessing a firearm, as I have stated numerous times in other threads.

    OK?
     
  20. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #20
    They can be a known terrorist that hasn't yet committed any crime in the US. For example, US has no extradition treaty with Ethiopia. Someone who holds a US Passport can commit an act of terrorism in Ethiopia and then run back to the US prior to being prosecuted in Ethiopia. No real crime has been committed in the US that would send them to jail. This is a known terrorist, that can buy a gun at Walmart.
     
  21. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #21
    Ok, I'll toss my two cents in.

    In theory, I support this. However, the ACLU has raised some concerns that I think should be addressed. Quote is from the link in the OP.

     
  22. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #22
    so the ACLU is saying "not one more inch"? how DARE they...........
     
  23. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #23
    Interesting theory. But just because we don't have a treaty with Ethiopia, does that mean if given good evidence that the person did commit those crimes that we'd just ignore that? That's pretty hard for me to believe.

    You have made that point a number of times. It's a very reasonable stance.

    The only thing that I can't figure out ... is how JK"NOT ONE INCH MORE"Cerda can like it.
     
  24. CalWizrd Suspended

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #24
    Must be my irresistible personality (you can't discern my good looks from my avatar). :rolleyes:
     
  25. oneMadRssn, Nov 18, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2015

    oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #25
    Assuming a US court would have jurisdiction (not really sure how terrorism laws are written, but let's assume the US courts have jurisdiction over a crime committed in another country with which the US has no deals).

    Why would Etheopia give good evidence to the US? No treaty typically means no sharing of evidence and no coordinated prosecution. The burden of proof is on the government to bring enough evidence to move forward with a case, and ultimately beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. It's entirely possible that someone committed a terrorist act and there is insufficient evidence to move forward with a case in the US - e.g., the only witnesses are Ethopian nationals that cannot be brought to the US before a judge.

    This becomes especially tricky if the act of terrorism was in inchoate crime - such as attempt or conspiracy. What if, in Ethiopia again, A makes a suicide vest for B, who blows himself up but doesn't harm anyone by chance? I think that is sufficient to quality A as a terrorist. In a perfect word, we could prosecute A for conspiracy or accessory before the fact. But, that evidence is tough enough as it is get if the crime took place in the US - it's nearly impossible to get sufficient evidence of such acts in an unfriendly country.

    I'll admit that exact scenario is pretty unlikely, but it's just illustrative.

    The burden is much lower to exclude a refuge from entering the US. We don't really need any evidence, a hunch or suggestion of association with terrorism is likely enough to disqualify someone from being granted a refugee visa.

    I think it's reasonably to say that prohibiting someone from buying a gun should have a tad less resistance than sending them to jail, but more more resistance than the scrutiny we give to refugees.
     

Share This Page