John Lott's latest defense of making it easy for terrorists buying guns

[billbuckhead]

Watch-list 'justice'

By John R. Lott, Jr. and Sonya D. Jones
    
    Should people lose rights because they are sympathetic to, but do not actually help, terrorist groups? Should law enforcement and not judges be the arbiter of those sympathizers who should be placed on "watch lists"?
    In Senate hearings on renewing the Patriot Act last week, Democratic Senators Ted Kennedy and Charles Schumer said the answer to both questions was "yes." Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller were grilled over a report showing that 35 gun purchases during the first half of last year were made by people on terrorist "watch lists," and the Senators called it a major public security risk.

---------snip--------

More in the Washington Times, where else? <http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050410-103542-3460r.htm>

[MrSandman]

1. And denying 35 sales out of 3.1 million would accomplish...

[Inland]

2. ........Denying 35 sales to suspected terrorists.

That there would still be a huge number of sales to non terrorists shouldn't make any difference. It's the sales to terrorists and criminals that count.

[MrSandman]

4. Not suspected terrorists, but on a watch list...

According to the article even Sen. Kennedy made the watch list. Other sources have referred to the list as "classified" and there seems to be no disclosure of how one gets on the list.

There is not any method I am aware of to get off the list. I recall reading about a young lady on the "no fly" list who has to carry a letter from TSA that she is not the person of the same name on the watch list.

I am not ready to start allowing the government to openly deny rights and privileges to citizens through super secret administrative fiat.

If anyone can show that this list is different from the ones I have heard of, then, maybe.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6067570/

http://www.nydailynews.com/04-08-2003/news/wn_report/story/73628p-68132c.html

"It is not known exactly how Kennedy became mixed up in a national terrorist database - whether by accident, or as a practical joke, or as a Republican dirty trick to keep him out of Boston during the Democratic National Convention.

In any event, the incident illustrates the preposterous susceptibility of national security databases to both snafus and deliberate abuse, though in this case it's not clear which to fault. ®"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/19/senator_on_terror_watch/

[Inland]

5. On the watch list, then. Except it's not, since they still bought guns.

As to whether the persons deserve to be on the list, we don't know--since they exercised their rights to buy guns, unchallenged.

But it seems that what you really want is a watch list that a) actually prevents the purchase of guns but b) allows for a citizen to challenge it. Seems reasonable, and I would support......

Oh, fuck it. Of course the guns rights people won't allow any such thing. Any terrorist, suspected terrorist or actual terrorist has the constitutional right to buy guns until they actually kill a bunch of us with them.

In the meantime, adminstrative fiat is good enough for me to get searched every time I want to enter a public building, fly in a plane, and the Patriot Act searches my library and the government "mines" my data--as long as it isn't data about the guns I've bought. That gets destroyed in thirty days, thanks to our freedom loveing John Ashcroft.

[MrSandman]

6. Administrative fiat shouldn't be enough for any...

of that.

That is why the WoT is so appealing to the power hungry.

[Inland]

9. It isn't the administrative fiat. It's the guns.

Not only is administrative fiat fine in lots of other situations, but no amount of process and safeguards and transparency will satisfy the gunnies. It's because unlike my person and my travel and my information, the gunnies' guns are sacrosanct, and if a few dozen terrorists are able to build an arsenal, well, that's the price I have to pay for their ability to build an arsenal.

[Mz Pip]

3. Lewis Black did

an awesome smackdown on Wayne LaPierre's criticism of the "Watch List" on the Daily Show. If someone could post the link it's worth watching. I couldn't find it on the Daily Show site.

To paraphrase:

La Pierre: "...what is a watch list?"
Black "A watch list is a LIST of Terrorists we are watching!.. Watching buying GUNS!!!!"

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Oldpals]

7. When people start comparing the

deaths of people in swimming pools, and those killed in cars, and doctors that accidentally administer an incorrect drug,and they compare all of this to gun deaths then we do not have a hope in hell of getting anything done with the gun crowd. Now they are down on the border prancing around like wannabe John Wayne's'. The gun lobby will not move.They are brainwashed into believing that their precious inanimate objects that cannot kill and that any law that might prevent a future terror attack will eventually mean their guns will be confiscated. This is the me me me mentality of the gun crowd and the NRA has them where it wants them.
Hard to believe that a country with all the laws we have since 9/11 finds nothing wrong with the sale of a .50 caliber weapon capable of grounding an airliner to a terrorist or potential terrorist and I can't bring on board a plane the smallest little swiss army knife because I may be a threat. LAUGHABLE!!!

[Jack_DeLeon]

8. I disagree with "watch" lists.

Its pretty fucked up with someone hiding somewhere behind some bueracracy can just put your name on some hidden list and strip you of your rights.

I have no problem with law enforcement investigating suspects but there is a differece between investigating someone and either arresting them when enough info has been turned up that they are involved in criminal activities.

And it is something completely different when they cant find anything wrong with you so they just put you on some random ass list and just make your life hell.

[Oldpals]

10. DeLeon

So what does law enforcement do? Seems to me as though the gun lobby feels as though they are all innocent and only criminals get their hands on guns. There are many, ie, the kid in Minnesota who was not a criminal that managed to acquire a gun and do a heck of a lot of harm. You people need to realize that there is no need for these .50 caliber guns in any persons home. None. By your reasoning, the next thing we will have are people flying around in f18 because they have cannons and afterall...it is their second amendment right.

[Jack_DeLeon]

11. Thats my name, dont wear it out....

So what does law enforcement do?

I dont know, do what it usually does best which is to investigate crimes after the fact.

To punish and restrict people who have done nothing wrong is in and of itself wrong.

There are many, ie, the kid in Minnesota who was not a criminal that managed to acquire a gun and do a heck of a lot of harm.

That is one of the prices we pay for living in a free society. Either we are a free society where everyone is innocent until they are proven guilty, or you have the reverse where every one is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. While we arent perfect in this regards atleast we are so much closer to the former than the later.

You people need to realize that there is no need for these .50 caliber guns in any persons home. None. By your reasoning, the next thing we will have are people flying around in f18 because they have cannons and afterall...it is their second amendment right.

That is one of the benefits of being free. You dont need a reason or explain yourself to any authroity for doing the things you do or owning the things you own.

FWIW there is nothing illegal with owning an F-18, one sold on eBay about a year ago. Also it could be totally legal to own the M61 minigun that it has, althought not to many are legally owned by civillians.

[Oldpals]

12. Guns ownership is why we are free???????

inal Message
"Thats my name, don't wear it out...."
Posted by Jack_DeLeon

    So what does law enforcement do?

    I dont know, do what it usually does best which is to
investigate crimes after the fact.

    To punish and restrict people who have done nothing wrong
is in and of itself wrong.

    There are many, ie, the kid in Minnesota who was not a
criminal that managed to acquire a gun and do a heck of a lot
of harm.

    That is one of the prices we pay for living in a free
society. Either we are a free society where everyone is
innocent until they are proved guilty, or you have the reverse
where every one is guilty until they prove themselves
innocent. While we aren't perfect in this regards at least we
are so much closer to the former than the later.

    You people need to realize that there is no need for these
.50 caliber guns in any persons home. None. By your reasoning,
the next thing we will have are people flying around in f18
because they have cannons and afterall...it is their second
amendment right.

    That is one of the benefits of being free. You dint need a
reason or explain yourself to any authroity for doing the
things you do or owning the things you own.

    FWIW there is nothing illegal with owning an F-18, one
sold on eBay about a year ago. Also it could be totally legal
to own the M61 minigun that it has, althought not to many are
legally owned by civillians.


Are you saying that we are free because of guns but that those
countries where there are strict laws on guns and less
violence and murder committed with firearms.... that these
people are less free?????

[Jack_DeLeon]

15. gun ownership is....

a freedom that most every citizen in these United States can take advantage of if they so choose.

I wouldnt say that a country with strict antigun laws cannot be "free," however that restriction by its very nation means they have less freedom.

Also remember that the first battle in the American revolution was started because people tried to take away guns from some individuals.

[sendero]

13. More nonsense..

.... the country is awash in guns. Stop someone from buying one, great they can pick up a freaking newspaper classified and buy one from an individual - there isn't jack shit you can do about it and pass laws and regulations until you are blue, you will not stop someone who wants a gun and doens't care about the law from getting a gun.

Some of you folks ought to climb out of your fantasy land and figure out how the world works, it isn't anything like what you seem to think.

[solinvictus]

14. Watch list...

considering the fact that many vocal political opponents of the Bushistas have made the watch list, I give it little credibility. I remember a few years back a Green Party activist from one of the Carolinas made their little list and wasn't allowed to fly. If the government would simply enforce existing laws, that should be enough.