Bloomberg 'Terror Gap' Argument Shot Down By Pro-Gun GOP Senators

[TomCADem]

Source: Huffington Post

New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's appeal to what he called "common sense" at a congressional hearing Wednesday morning failed to sway two Republican senators who said that giving the government the ability to block the purchase of guns by suspected terrorists would undermine the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.

"Shouldn't FBI agents have the authority to block sales of guns and explosives to those on the terror watchlists -- and deemed too dangerous to fly? I actually believe that they should," Bloomberg told senators. Federal law currently only allows the government to block guns sales for a very limited number of reasons, and being on that list is not one of them. (For more background, see Tuesday's article on the subject.)

* * *

Graham described the bill as an instrument of those who would ban guns altogether. "We're talking about a constitutional right here," he said, explaining that he could not support a bill that would force "innocent Americans" to "pay the cost of going to court to get their gun rights back."

Graham wasn't nearly as concerned about rights when he launched into a disquisition on the treatment of American citizens accused of terrorism. "I am all into national security," he said. "I want them to stop reading these guys Miranda rights."


Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/05/bloomberg-terror-gap-argu_n_564733.html

---

Well, there you have it! The only constitutional right that American citizens who are suspected of being involved in terrorism have is the right to carry guns! You can't board an airplane, but you can carry deadly weapons.

:crazy:

[Democat]

1. Hypocrisy!

It's great that Republicans can have two views that totally contradict each other and the right wing media won't even call them on it.

[X_Digger]

32. To be fair, hypocrisy on both sides...

Some Dems are for overturning the patriot act and warrantless wiretapping because they infringe on civil liberties. But taking guns away? Gimme some of that, right now!

[madrchsod]

2. says a lot about the majority of the citizens of south carolina...

who elected this fool. as for susan..i thought she was smarter than that

[Cha]

3. And, they can get their citizenship stripped

away but by gawd they can legally scarf up all the guns they need because republicon senators are too stupid to know the difference.

[DissedByBush]

16. That's after legal proceedings

You don't know how you get on a terror list, and there's no way to get you off if you're wrongly on it.

Such a list can not determine which rights you have or don't have.

[piedmont]

4. And you would be happy to see ANOTHER right stripped away?

Why not cut to the chase and just "disappear" everyone on the watch list?

[Iliyah]

6. It's not taking

gun rights away. For gawd sakes, if names on a list which I believe was created by the Bush excuse me the Cheney Administration - "maybe" terror list, I don't think they should be able to buy guns and exposive, ya think.

Please, stop this double standard bull shit.

[piedmont]

7. Please edit your post so I can tell what the hell you mean.

Specifically this:
"For gawd sakes, if names on a list which I believe was created by the Bush excuse me the Cheney Administration - "maybe" terror list, I don't think they should be able to buy guns and exposive, ya think."

I'm incapable of replying until I understand what you said. Thanks.

[No Elephants]

26. It's very clear. The poster does not think that people on the terror list created by Bushco

should have a right to buy guns and explosives.

Geebus, if you couldn't even make it through that, maybe you shouldn't have a gun either.

[Iliyah]

8. Take what away?

Please do tell me. The Bush excuse me the Cheney Administration instituted the terror list. What, you want those people on the list to be able to buy guns and explosives?

It's not taken your right away nor anyone else concerning the guns laws, please, read more and stop listening to lies.

[piedmont]

9. It's well understood that there are many people on the list who shouldn't be.

People who have similar names to "bad guys" or bad guy aliases, people who may have espoused views that the Bush administration didn't like, etc. The list is extra-judicial-- you don't get a trial. Now stripping people on the list of rights that normally can't be stripped without a trial is a BIG step toward authoritarianism.

[smoogatz]

20. If a person is considered too great a security risk to board a commercial flight

then please explain why it's a really great idea to let that same person legally purchase firearms. Frankly, I don't get it.

[piedmont]

21. "Considered too great a security list" by whom? Cheney? Ashcroft?

Stripping rights without a trial is ok with you?

[No Elephants]

29. Who said there would be no trial? Don't think you understood the OP, either.

Perhaps the problem is with reader, rather than with the writers?

[piedmont]

31. Alright, please produce the quote that I'm overlooking. Bloomberg or someone else...

saying that the right to buy a gun will be stripped only with a trial first.

[No Elephants]

41. Hint: It's in bold type in the OP.

[piedmont]

45. "...go to court to get their gun rights BACK." Yeah, just like I said...

the right would be stripped without first having a court proceeding.

[slackmaster]

24. You got one part right

Frankly, I don't get it.

What you don't see is that there are no checks or balances to control who gets put on the list, and there is no process to get yourself off of it or even to find out whether or not you are on it.

No habeas corpus. No due process. Massive potential for abuse of power. Unconstitutional.

[smoogatz]

36. But that's true regardless, right?

Guns or no guns, the "no-fly" list, in its current incarnation, is one big due-process nightmare. But you don't see Graham and the other Republican defenders of the Constitution complaining until one of the rights they can exploit politically goes up for grabs.

[slackmaster]

37. As I have stated numerous times, Graham and his ilk are a bunch of hypocrites

That's why I am not now and will never be a Republican.

[smoogatz]

38. Which I think was the point of the OP.

Graham and his ilk are, indeed, trying to have it both ways. Either the "no fly" list is an effective and constitutional law-enforcement tool, or it isn't. I would argue that it certainly seems to be neither effective nor constitutional, but if you argue that it's necessary to national security and therefore the constitutional issue should be overlooked, then it should also be overlooked in the matter of purchasing guns. At least Bloomberg's argument is logical, agree with it or not.

[slackmaster]

23. The secret list should be used the same way any other suspect list is used

It should not be used as a basis for depriving people of civil rights.

[No Elephants]

25. Riiiight. Because killing someone is exactly like denying him or her a gun.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[piedmont]

39. Who said anything about them being exactly alike?

It must be easy to come up with a snappy one-liner when you pretend my words mean whatever you want them to.

[No Elephants]

42. Hey, it's your false equivalency. Own it. Don't blame you for not wanting to, though

This is a copy and paste of the entire post on which I commented.

"4. And you would be happy to see ANOTHER right stripped away?
Why not cut to the chase and just "disappear" everyone on the watch list?"



As if there were some sort of equivalency between taking a person's life summarily and simply depriving that person of a right to purchase a gun (which deprivation the person can appeal, contrary to several of your posts on this thread claiming otherwise).


Fact is, the two fact patterns are not remotely similar. Yet, you posted as though they were somehow comparable. I called you on it. And you're only comeback is that you never used the word "exactly?" LOL. Well, I never said you did use the word "exactly." But your attempted comparison in Post #4 is bs and so is your Reply 39.

[piedmont]

44. If you're not capable of seeing that both actions strip rights from individuals, I can't help you.

"Yet, you posted as though they were somehow comparable."

They are comparable. One action strips the individual of the right to keep and bear arms, while the other strips him or her from the right to life. Analogies do not hinge on the things being exactly one and the same, otherwise they would not be analogous-- they would be equivalent. Thus the word "exactly" is a straw man on your part.

[jody]

54. Please explain "killing someone is exactly like denying him or her a gun". n/t

[msongs]

5. RKBA guarantees the rights of every criminal to open carry guns on airplanes doncha know nt

[jody]

19. Please cite a law supporting your assertion. n/t

[No Elephants]

27. Who shot your sense of humor? The poster was not being literal.

[jody]

47. I don't find the post humorous and it's completely without foundation. n/t

[gmpierce]

10. a plague on both your houses

So here we go again. George W. Bush declared that "the Constitution is just a god-damned piece of paper" - and most of those commenting here have just proved him right.

The Republicans and neo-cons are a pack of cowards so I'm not too surprised when they want to trash what is left of the constitution. Lieberman is an idiot who can't figure out that taking away the natural born citizenship of "traitors" might someday include anyone whose with strong loyalty to another country - and that might include him.

A very long time ago, I thought I was a conservative - until I found that I couldn't stand the company. So I decided that I must be a progressive. And that had the added advantage of pi##ing off a lot of conservatives.

I guess I can't be a progressive anymore because threads like this make me aware that I can't stand the company.

[Kurska]

11. "and that might include him." What are you implying?

I'm curious

[DFW]

13. I believe he was referring to Lieberman and Israel n/t

[Iliyah]

12. Thank you

Dems in 2010. I appreicate it.

[No Elephants]

28. That means you won't be eligible to post at DU, nor would you want to. So, bye bye, then...

[Suji to Seoul]

14. Blooms has been surprising me lately.

[old mark]

15. Bloomberg is an anti gun asshole who will take every opportunity to make a statement

advocating denial of the second amendment.
So what ever happened to the innocent till proven guilty idea, folks?
Is that not liberal enough for you all here?
Citizens are no longer citizens if they are "suspected"
of a crime?
You might as well vote for Lieberman and strip suspects of citizenship.

mark

[No Elephants]

30. "Innocent until proven guilty" refers to the presumption in a court proceeding.

It does not mean you cannot be arrested and jailed before you are proven guilty in a court. Nor does it mean you cannot be prevented from flying or from buying a gun until you provide some extra proof of your entitlement. You have a right to appeal both those decisions, just as you have a right to appeal any other administrative decision you feel deprives you of something unjustly.

I never understand why gun proponents insist that the right to bear arms should have no limits whatever on it. All our other rights do. They always deny that they do, but their posts often indicate otherwise.

[slackmaster]

50. There's the old "right to bear arms should have no limits whatever" straw man

I knew you'd whip that one out sooner or later, NE.

[av8rdave]

17. Isn't this the same party that says terror suspects shouldn't have Miranda rights?

C'mon rethugs...are you pro-constitution or not? Make up your minds!

[jody]

18. Bloomberg testimony about amending USC 922 that gives Atty Gen unilateral authority to prohibit gun

sales without explaining cause are judicial review.

That's a common practice in totalitarian governments but not in democratic republics.

[No Elephants]

33. You're wrong about judicial review. Again, re-read the OP.

BTW, there's no such federal statute as "922." That is only a section number, but the United States Code has many chapters. In order for anyone to know what you are trying to talk about, you have to give the chapter number, too.

[jody]

46. ROFL 922 to those who debate RKBA refers to 18USC922. Read the bill text to understand

unilateral authority granted to the Attorney General.

TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I—CRIMES
CHAPTER 44—FIREARMS
§ 922. Unlawful acts
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html

S. 1317: Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009

SEC. 2. GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY TO DENY THE SALE, DELIVERY, OR TRANSFER OF A FIREARM OR THE ISSUANCE OF A FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES LICENSE OR PERMIT TO DANGEROUS TERRORISTS.
(a) Standard for Exercising Attorney General Discretion Regarding Transferring Firearms or Issuing Firearms Permits to Dangerous Terrorists- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

And other statements in the bill.

[slackmaster]

22. Bloomberg is a douche nozzle

:nuke:

[No Elephants]

35. The trouble with gun threads: odd analogies, false equivalencies and the bizarre notion

that the right to purchase a gun should have fewer limitations than the right to speak. At least those are the things that I think makes them seem so dumb and tedious to me.

[slackmaster]

40. Let us know when someone proposes banning people on the no-fly list from speaking

:eyes:

[No Elephants]

43. Never remotely suggested that would happen. Anything else non-responsive you'd like to

post in a pretense of replying to what I actually did post?


ETA: BTW, thanks for proving my point.

[slackmaster]

48. Why do you support restricting peoples' civil rights without due process or any avenue of recourse?

Just curious as to what your reasoning is.

[jody]

53. It's possible your "trouble with gun threads" is hatred for the most basic right, self-defense?

On the other hand you might support the right of self-defense equally with all other natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights enumerated in our Constitution.

In that case a simple declaration to that effect would eliminate my doubt.

[NickB79]

49. Indeed. We can't have terrorists listed on the no-fly list, like the late Ted Kennedy, buying guns

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug19.html

"U.S. Sen. Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy said yesterday that he was stopped and questioned at airports on the East Coast five times in March because his name appeared on the government's secret "no-fly" list."

The no-fly list is fatally flawed. Basing ANY policies on it is moronic.

[ShortnFiery]

51. Yes, it's a "watch" not a "terrorist" list ... many people have erroneously ended up on this ...

BLACKLIST. Reminds me of the McCarthy days. No Charges? No Trial? Some "official" receives your name for whatever reason, and POOF! You're branded *a terrorist.*

This entire "list" flouts the rule of law and Bill of Rights.

[fascisthunter]

52. whack jobs

[piedmont]

55. I agree. Bloomberg and the rest of the "we don't need no stinkin' judges" Repubs are...

whack jobs.