Why is this a tough question

[Fanatical Meat]

I know guns are a divisive issue but shouldn't it be pretty obvious that someone on a terror watch list should be prevented or at least examined more for a gun purchase?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/22/politics/donald-trump-ben-carson-guns-terror-watch-list/index.html

Its a catch 22 question for our current crop of Republicans

 

[Strk]

But, you know, universal background checks are bad and stuff! Those things are worse than socialism!

 

[Venix]

The "terror watch list" is compiled in secret, without due process, and without conforming to any legal standard of evidence. No dispute process exists, so innocent people mistakenly added to the list--a common occurrence, given its nearly 40% error rate--have limited or no ability to restore their rights. I don't understand how any American could support using this list to strip people of their Constitutional rights without due process.

Also, how is that a "catch 22" question? A catch 22 situation is one in which the conditions for escaping are mutually exclusive.

 

[DrPizza]

I'll go against the grain - it would be DUMB to prevent people on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms. There are 420,000 people on the terror watch list. It's utterly impossible to keep an eye on all of them. Reportedly, only slightly more than 2000 of them have purchased a firearm. The FBI has the information that they've purchased a firearm when they do so legally. And then, the FBI can give closer scrutiny to these people who have purchased firearms. E.g., if 4 suspected terrorists in a particular city, known to associate with each other, suddenly all purchased firearms at roughly the same time, that ought to set off some red flags.

Terror WATCH list - forcing terrorists to get arms illegally impedes the ability to watch them. E.g., The Tsarnaev brothers had a gun - gotten illegally. After Boston, a lot of people were blaming the government, because "they should have known." Had those bombers gotten the guns legally, perhaps there would have been a chance to have known.

(edit: in addition to what Venix pointed out.)

 

[Subyman]

Probably because the terrorist watch list is secret. You could easily see if you are on it by simply trying to purchase a gun. We don't want the terrorists to know what we do or don't know about them.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'll go against the grain - it would be DUMB to prevent people on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms. There are 420,000 people on the terror watch list. It's utterly impossible to keep an eye on all of them. Reportedly, only slightly more than 2000 of them have purchased a firearm. The FBI has the information that they've purchased a firearm when they do so legally. And then, the FBI can give closer scrutiny to these people who have purchased firearms. E.g., if 4 suspected terrorists in a particular city, known to associate with each other, suddenly all purchased firearms at roughly the same time, that ought to set off some red flags.

Terror WATCH list - forcing terrorists to get arms illegally impedes the ability to watch them. E.g., The Tsarnaev brothers had a gun - gotten illegally. After Boston, a lot of people were blaming the government, because "they should have known." Had those bombers gotten the guns legally, perhaps there would have been a chance to have known.

(edit: in addition to what Venix pointed out.)

This is an extremely good and logical point.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'll go against the grain - it would be DUMB to prevent people on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms. There are 420,000 people on the terror watch list. It's utterly impossible to keep an eye on all of them. Reportedly, only slightly more than 2000 of them have purchased a firearm. The FBI has the information that they've purchased a firearm when they do so legally. And then, the FBI can give closer scrutiny to these people who have purchased firearms. E.g., if 4 suspected terrorists in a particular city, known to associate with each other, suddenly all purchased firearms at roughly the same time, that ought to set off some red flags.

Terror WATCH list - forcing terrorists to get arms illegally impedes the ability to watch them. E.g., The Tsarnaev brothers had a gun - gotten illegally. After Boston, a lot of people were blaming the government, because "they should have known." Had those bombers gotten the guns legally, perhaps there would have been a chance to have known.

(edit: in addition to what Venix pointed out.)

A smart answer. Why do candidates have such issues making connections like this. Mr. Carson I want to keep a list of all Muslims is fine with people on that list buying guns, why keep a list & what is the list for?

 

[DrPizza]

A smart answer. Why do candidates have such issues making connections like this. Mr. Carson I want to keep a list of all Muslims is fine with people on that list buying guns, why keep a list & what is the list for?

It seems to be a kind of catch-22 situation. You can't exactly tell the public, particularly Democrats that "hey idiots - letting terrorism suspects purchase guns legally allows us to track them better." Because you're giving the terrorists the information that they really need to purchase their guns illegally. That really puts intelligent, honest politicians who want to do what's best, in a rather difficult spot.

 

[PokerGuy]

This is an extremely good and logical point.

Yes, it is.... so it obviously has no place here!

While it's tempting to say "yeah, people on the terrorist watch list should not have guns!", one has to realize that such a watch list is not the result of any kind of due process where anything has to be proven, and is rife with error. Such a list can't possibly logically be used to deprive people of their constitutional rights.

So yes, it is a tough question, unless you're a simpleton.

 

[Genx87]

I know guns are a divisive issue but shouldn't it be pretty obvious that someone on a terror watch list should be prevented or at least examined more for a gun purchase?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/22/politics/donald-trump-ben-carson-guns-terror-watch-list/index.html

Its a catch 22 question for our current crop of Republicans

Why? Have they been convicted of a crime? How does one get themselves off this list if put on it?

The whole idea to deny people their rights based on a govt list is quite frankly insane.

 

[WackyDan]

The shame is that it will take an innocent citizen thousands of dollars and legal representation to get off the terror watch list.

That is my biggest problem with it.

 

[shortylickens]

Its sorta like Joe McCarthy and his hunt for Communists. Its basically a load of crap. They can accuse any citizen of some bullshit and then ruin his life.

I dont want laws that make life harder for people if they've simply been accused of something. Thats how Hitler got the Jews. And its what America did to the Japanese-Americans.

There needs to be real evidence before citizens go on any kind of special list. And thanks to the freedom of information act or whatever its called, that evidence needs to be public and there needs to be a court process for having it removed.


Along the same lines I really dont like that a woman can accuse a man of rape and with no evidence his life can be ruined.

 

[glenn1]

I know guns are a divisive issue but shouldn't it be pretty obvious that someone on a terror watch list should be prevented or at least examined more for a gun purchase?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/22/politics/donald-trump-ben-carson-guns-terror-watch-list/index.html

Its a catch 22 question for our current crop of Republicans

"Examined more" is an extremely ambiguous term; you really need to define exactly that would entail before anyone could answer your question seriously. The delta between that and "prevented" could be huge or tiny depending on what was implemented.

 

[sm625]

The concept of abrogating rights because someone is on some terror watch list is grossly unconstitutional. In order to strip someone's rights, you have to charge them with a crime, and then give them a fair trial. We do not have a country if we do not follow these rules. Is it any wonder we have articles like this:

Majority of Americans Feel Like ‘Stranger in Own Country’

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Point is all the current top polling Republican nominee's want to keep some kind of database, list or surveillance of Muslims but when they are given a list of suspects they choose to do nothing. They have a strange position.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Conservatives have no problem passing laws they are not subject to.

 

[realibrad]

Probably because the terrorist watch list is secret. You could easily see if you are on it by simply trying to purchase a gun. We don't want the terrorists to know what we do or don't know about them.

This was quite funny and nobody responded.

Good job sir.

 

[blackangst1]

This:

The "terror watch list" is compiled in secret, without due process, and without conforming to any legal standard of evidence. No dispute process exists, so innocent people mistakenly added to the list--a common occurrence, given its nearly 40% error rate--have limited or no ability to restore their rights. I don't understand how any American could support using this list to strip people of their Constitutional rights without due process.

Also, how is that a "catch 22" question? A catch 22 situation is one in which the conditions for escaping are mutually exclusive.

And this:

I'll go against the grain - it would be DUMB to prevent people on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms. There are 420,000 people on the terror watch list. It's utterly impossible to keep an eye on all of them. Reportedly, only slightly more than 2000 of them have purchased a firearm. The FBI has the information that they've purchased a firearm when they do so legally. And then, the FBI can give closer scrutiny to these people who have purchased firearms. E.g., if 4 suspected terrorists in a particular city, known to associate with each other, suddenly all purchased firearms at roughly the same time, that ought to set off some red flags.

Terror WATCH list - forcing terrorists to get arms illegally impedes the ability to watch them. E.g., The Tsarnaev brothers had a gun - gotten illegally. After Boston, a lot of people were blaming the government, because "they should have known." Had those bombers gotten the guns legally, perhaps there would have been a chance to have known.

(edit: in addition to what Venix pointed out.)

 

[FerrelGeek]

Politicians have no problem passing laws they are not subject to.

ftfy.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I'm pretty pro-gun, but don't have a problem with universal background checks (even on private sales). I don't want terrorists having easy access to guns any more than anyone else. But, my question would be who decides who is on the list? Who decides if I have a what was supposed to be a guaranteed right or not?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm pretty pro-gun, but don't have a problem with universal background checks (even on private sales). I don't want terrorists having easy access to guns any more than anyone else. But, my question would be who decides who is on the list? Who decides if I have a what was supposed to be a guaranteed right or not?

Again a smart answer. Why do the candidates constantly struggle with list/surveillance/data bases of Muslims but they are afraid to use that data. Basically why keep a list if you're not going to prevent a gun purchase.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

I know guns are a divisive issue but shouldn't it be pretty obvious that someone on a terror watch list should be prevented or at least examined more for a gun purchase?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/22/politics/donald-trump-ben-carson-guns-terror-watch-list/index.html

Its a catch 22 question for our current crop of Republicans

If the person on the watch list is a US citizen they can't be deprived of their rights without due process. Period.

If they're not a US citizen then the question is why are they on a watch list and still in the USA? Send them home. Politely, of course, but send them home all the same.

This Republican wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

Its sorta like Joe McCarthy and his hunt for Communists. Its basically a load of crap.

Senator McCarthy was briefed on the VENONA Project and he was privy to a lot of information some of which has been declassified in recent years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project

Don't forget that McCarthy was close friends with the Kennedy family and that the Kennedy family to this day is known to refuse to condemn McCarthy. During his time in the US Senate JFK was also read in on the same information that McCarthy had access to and if there was a substantial reason for Democrat JFK to denounce Republican McCarthy he clearly would have as JFK's frequent defenses of McCarthy cost him politically with left-leaning Democrats.

Summary: McCarthy's hunt for communists was not crap. There were legitimate reasons for the investigation as history has revealed.