This was actually proposed by Alberto Gonzalez.
Of course, since the 'evidence' that makes the government suspect someone is vital to national security, you will never get a trial or way to appeal the decision.
Sooooo my fellow "conservatives," do you think the government should have arbitrary power to deny the 2nd amendment without offering a shred of proof or incrimination?
2007-07-31 05:10:43 · 14 answers · asked by freedom first 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Democrats, if the Patriot Act can be used to end gun ownership once and for all, would you then support it?
2007-07-31 05:14:58 · update #1
Re your question to Democrats--FYI many of us are gun owners (including myself. You are making the mistake of assuming that advocating gun control and regulation IN ACCORdANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION--is equivalent to wanting to ban guns. And--despite the rhetoric of the NRA, it isn't.
As for your main question-you are absolutely correct. I'd add this--if there is real evidence that soemeone is a terrorist, then they don't need to deny gun permits-the authorities need to put the person under arrest--again--according to the law and the Constitution. An actual act of terrorism isn't a requirement--conspiracy to commit a serious crime is itself a felony.
But-Gonzals doesn't wnat to have to bother with little details like evidence and due process.
As for the (un)Patriot Act--donn't even get me started!
2007-07-31 05:24:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Guns are readily available on the underground market. Any gun show is an arsenal just waiting to be bought. It really seems to be a token effort to say terrorists can't legally buy guns. If they are terrorists, their sorry butts should be in the slammer.
Of course, your point is well taken: with what authority and with what evidence does the government deny weapons purchases? Do we really trust these folks in Washington?
2007-07-31 05:28:21 · answer #2 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting question, the criteria used to establish one as a "Suspected Terrorist" is the real issue. I think any real terrorist will be armed regardless of any laws that exist or new ones proposed. Any law that affects Constitutional rights should be put before the people in a National vote. The taking away of rights just because the Govt wants omnipotent power is absolutely Un-American and in stark conflict with the very reasons our founding fathers drafted a Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
2007-07-31 05:15:56 · answer #3 · answered by John S 4 · 7⤊ 1⤋
The monarch obama need no longer no longer ban weapons, they are as clever as cat toys with none ammo, and the gubbermint has, i think, 7 hollow ingredient bullets for each guy or woman in the U. S.! hollow factors are basically allowed for use interior of our borders. Me thinks the gubbermint is stocking up formerly the greenback collapses and huge civil unrest starts off. each and every gun organisation ought to flagrantly refuse sales to government companies till all orders to civilians are performed!
2016-11-10 19:45:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, and Archery supplies, and gasoline and diesel fuel, and fertilizer.
Also, knives, forks, spoons, and combs. Remember that guard who had a comb shoved through his eye into his brain? They can be sharpened!
Their nails have to be cut short also, and very short haircuts, least they strangle someone with their hair.
But only suspected terrorists, and since all terrorists are conservatives, only conservatives should be the ones who will lose these rights.
2007-07-31 05:38:23 · answer #5 · answered by Darth Vader 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Much like the entire patriot act itself, it would be unconstitutional to arbitrarily keep someone from buying a gun, or exercising any of their other rights, just because they are a so-called suspect.
2007-07-31 05:28:17 · answer #6 · answered by Jon H 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe that there should be background checks to all people trying to obtain firearms in the US. There should be denial of sales to convicted violent offenders. I feel that there should be extensive checks on non-naturalized citizens. If there's is suspect of terrorist procurators then take it to the courts. Most terrorists don't use the average firearm as they don't cause as much damage as the terrorist would like with the single squeeze of the trigger. Leave it up to the jury of American citizens instead of a biased judge.
2007-07-31 05:22:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
There are plenty of gun toting Democrats out there. I am one.. and plenty of the rest don't want all guns taken away.. they just think rational gun control.. such as not selling Uzi's.. is prudent... and even making that a part of it wouldn't cause me to overlook the warrantless wire tapping.. which is the reason most of us have never supported the Patriot Act.
2007-07-31 05:20:10 · answer #8 · answered by pip 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Arbitrary "Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle"
You assume that just because you are unaware of the reason, there is no reason. That is faulty logic.
But there do need to be some checks & balances to avoid abuses. We can't just hand the power to the government {trusting} they will not misuse that power.
But neither can we tie thier hands in their efforts to protect us.
It is truly a difficult balance!
2007-08-02 05:46:10 · answer #9 · answered by Smart Kat 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
Because "suspected terrorist" is the same as saying "someone who has committed no crime, but we don't like them anyway".
In the US, you cannot be singled out for legal reasons just because you have not yet committed a crime, but they think you might someday.
2007-07-31 05:21:07 · answer #10 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋