People on the government’s terrorist watch list tried to buy guns nearly 1,000 times in the last five years, and federal authorities cleared the purchases 9 times out of 10 because they had no legal way to stop them, according to a new government report.

In one case, a person on the list was able to buy more than 50 pounds of explosives.

The new statistics, compiled in a report from the Government Accountability Office that is scheduled for public release next week, draw attention to an odd divergence in federal law: people placed on the government’s terrorist watch list can be stopped from getting on a plane or getting a visa, but they cannot be stopped from buying a gun.

Gun purchases must be approved unless federal officials can find some other disqualification of the would-be buyer, like being a felon, an illegal immigrant or a drug addict.

“This is a glaring omission, and it’s a security issue,” Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat who requested the study, said in an interview.

Mr. Lautenberg plans to introduce legislation on Monday that would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales to people on terror watch lists.

Homeland Insecurity will fight to stop anyone who ever uttered a syllable of dissent from climbing aboard one of our overpriced airborne cattle cars. But, the NRA and the nutball Right will battle tooth and claw to protect their heaven-ordained right to kill and maim their fellows. As long as it’s done with firearms.




  1. gooddebate says:

    I don’t know what you all are worried about, doesn’t everyone know that when you put a government bureaucrat in charge of something this is what you get. Why is anyone surprised when you look at anything the government does and shock, it’s not equitable and doesn’t make sense.

    Well, it could be worse, a government bureaucrat could be in charge of your healthcare. Oh, wait…

  2. dexton7 says:

    Firstly, the no-fly list is one of the biggest mismanaged databases ever.. (next to a few others that come to mind). You can so much as sneeze in front of the TSA and get on that thing. Secondly, I think that you should be able to buy a gun even if you are on this list. The TSA’s ridiculous, unconstituional no-fly “enemies” list still has four-year-olds on it. Lastly, it is going to really hit home when you or someone you know ends up on a list… and instead of not being able to buy a hand gun – the debit and credit cards don’t work anymore. Oh we can’t let these ‘terrorists’ live or buy food! What a load of horse sh*t.

  3. Ah_Yea says:

    Back to the thread. Does anyone think using the Terrorist Watch List for ANYTHING is a good idea?

    This should scare you.
    “Terrorist watch list at airports tops 1 million names”.

    ONE MILLION NAMES, AND COUNTING!!!
    http://tinyurl.com/mqc3n4

    It’s bad enough that our social security numbers, which were originally intended to be used only by the government for our retirement, can now be used to separate us, categorize us, and deny us benefits…

    Now the government wants to use a secret list, a list without any accountability or checks and balances, to do the same thing…

    AND WE ARE OK WITH THIS??

  4. Patrick says:

    # 67 Ah_Yea said, “Back to the thread. Does anyone think using the Terrorist Watch List for ANYTHING is a good idea?”

    Yes, Eideard thinks it is a great idea.

  5. Floyd says:

    The 2nd Amendment has done a fine job of weeding out gunpowder sniffing morons over the years. Unfortunately, they often kill innocent bystanders, like little kids that accidentally get in the way of macho gangstas trying to kill the gang down the street. It seems to happen all the time, because the gangstas miss the mark when trying to wipe out the gang in the next neighborhood.

    Watch List: For some reason, my name was on the watch list a few years ago, but was mysteriously removed sometime in the last two years. I only know I no longer have any hassles flying on a plane any more.

  6. FlatAffect says:

    #68 Patty Cakes

    Um, I missed where Eideard said it was a “great idea” to use the Terrorist Watch List for anything. If he did, we should, of course, immediately string him him up from the nearest lamp post.

    Still, I’d like to have a little evidence first.

    It seems to me, he was comparing the brand new stupidity of Homeland Security to the longstanding stupidity of the NRA.

    Now, I’m willing to support you all the way in our great crusade against civilization, Patty but not if you’re just going to make things up to suit your own ugly, nasty, disgusting personal agenda.

    Now lets go get Eideard! Where exactly did he say it was a “great idea”?

  7. deowll says:

    To Eideard. Just because you are on the watch list doesn’t mean you are a terrorist. You, being a loud mouthed opinionated blowhard who shares his views on line. may well be on the list but in fact you are most likely harmless.

    Being a blowhard doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be able to do demolition work or shoot a possum in your hen house.

    What you failed to state was how many of these people actually did something that would harm another person. If the answer was few to none maybe we need a better list.

  8. Mr. Fusion, says:

    #50, faxrong,

    Sorry, YOU don’t get it. The Ninth Circuit didn’t rule
    … that the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause incorporates the Second Amendment individual right to bear arms against state and local governments. ”

    The ruling is that any State and Local laws may be challenged under Federal law.

    Because this is being appealed to the full Ninth Circuit, it is quite possible that this could be overturned as the decision makes several new assumptions about the application of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    *

    Gould, J wrote a consenting opinion. What he wrote is of academic importance only and is not the law.

    What you didn’t add was this very important part, by Justice Gould.

    … important governmental interests will justify reasonable regulation of rifles and handguns, and the problem for our courts will be to define, in the context of particular regulation by the states and municipalities, what is reasonable and permissible and what is unreasonable and offensive to the Second Amendment.

    *

    So again, where in the Court’s decision does it state
    The Court Decision clearly stated that gun ownership is a fundamental right and tradition in the United States, and that it helps to INSURE FREEDOM, and protect us from Radical Muslim attacks. That’s YOUR 9th Circuit!

    Eat that asshole. Next time, read the actual decision instead of some right wing nut’s interpretation.

  9. Mr. Fusion, says:

    #56, faxrong,

    In case you would ever like to read the decision,
    http://tinyurl.com/cenv58
    in pdf.

  10. Patrick says:

    # 72 Mr. Fusion, said, “So again, where in the Court’s decision does it state The Court Decision clearly stated that gun ownership is a fundamental right and tradition in the United States, and that it helps to INSURE FREEDOM,”

    Oh, that would be in the latest SCotUS decision. The 9th can’t overturn. Have you read the US Constitution yet?

    I know that being born and raised in Canukia it isn’t your highest priority, but, you should read it before posting about these types of matters…

  11. killer duck says:

    I don’t really like guns either, but we are going to need them for the revolution sometime in the (probably near) future.
    Of course, if a terrorist nukes DC with a dirty bomb, and our society falls into chaos, they will come in handy then too.

  12. spinnyd says:

    the second amendment protects the first. only criminals and liberals want gun control, the first group wants it so as to have easier crimes, the second group wants it for easier people control.

  13. Mr. Fusion says:

    #74, Cow-Patty,

    Oh, that would be in the latest SCotUS decision. The 9th can’t overturn. Have you read the US Constitution yet?

    Cherry picking again. You can’t answer simply because you have no idea what the Supreme Court said. What a bumbling idiot.

  14. Patrick says:

    # 77 Mr. Fusion said, “Cherry picking again.”

    Umm, how is the latest SCotUS 2nd Amend decision cherry picking? Can you even answer that simple question.

    BTW – Why did you bail from the Oberfurer thread after posting lies about his ratings?

  15. Mr. Fusion says:

    #78, Cow-Patty,

    I didn’t bail from any thread. When it reaches a point there is nothing intelligent being said I move on. Like I will shortly here. Although your accusation that I “lied” is interesting, I have no whim to chase down a long past thread, if I even knew which one you are talking about, just to see how wrong you are once again.

    You have not answered this or any other question put to you. You are just a lying sack of bull crap. You have no idea what the Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit wrote because you haven’t read either. Nor can you tie anything they wrote with the topic at hand.

    You fit the meaning of “troll” quite nicely, and I continue to fall fore it.

  16. Patrick says:

    # 79 Mr. Fusion said, “I didn’t bail from any thread. When it reaches a point there is nothing intelligent being said I move on.”

    I guess that translates to, “Once I get caught in a bold faced lie, bail fast.”

    Cool, I understand.

  17. Rick's Cafe says:

    #79-#80
    I hate it when Mommy & Daddy fight


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5024 access attempts in the last 7 days.