From the Hill we read the headline, Dems shift terror debate to guns and the words
“Democrats are seeking to limit the political fallout from the attack in San Bernardino, Calif., by pressing for legislation that would prevent terrorism suspects from buying a gun.”
“Leaders in the party think they have a winning message in pushing legislation that would ban gun sales to people on the federal terror watch list, and have made the bill a focal point of their response to the shooting.”
Simply astonishing that after 14 more innocent people have been gunned down by a couple of radicalized Muslims, Democrats are more worried about political fallout than seeking a way to limit or combat the growing threat of radical terrorists.
Since the attack, I have received several emails from Democrats and supportive groups also promoting this fallacy of relying on the “no-fly list” to block a gun purchase as a means to stop any future carnage.
OFA released this nifty image promoting what sounds like an effective means, tugging at your senses saying, “Right now, some people on the No-Fly List -- people suspected of potential terrorist activity -- can legally walk into a store and buy a gun.”
DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz sent out a plea concluding,
“It's time for us to take action -- action that the vast majority of Americans, including most law-abiding gun owners, support -- and make some commonsense reforms to our nation's gun laws that will keep guns out of dangerous hands. It may not be easy, and it may require the political courage to stand up to well-funded special interests, but it is the morally right thing to do.”
Immediately after Obama’s speech Sunday Dec 6, the White House sent out an email opening with, “Tonight, I addressed the nation from the Oval Office on my top priority as President: Keeping the American people safe.”
As we know, that address supposedly to update the country on the San Bernardino attack focused more on guns and not blaming Islam than anything else.
And that is supposed to “Keep the American people safe?”
It’s difficult to know just where to begin, but let’s begin with the cry of the “no-fly list.”
While on the surface it sounds reasonable and responsible, neither of the two that carried out the San Bernardino attacks were on the no-fly list. Additionally, they did not purchase the guns used themselves, but someone else purchased them and gave them to them. An act that is seen as questionable, if not illegal under California law already.
Not exactly bastions of conservative thought, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) posted an article on Dec. 7, 2015: Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict People’s Freedoms and where they write,
“As we will argue to a federal district court in Oregon this Wednesday, the standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error. Our lawsuit seeks a meaningful opportunity for our clients to challenge their placement on the No Fly List because it is so error-prone and the consequences for their lives have been devastating.” (emphasis added)
We also have a video of South Carolina Republican, Trey Gowdy grilling Department of Homeland Security official Kelli Ann Burriesci on due process of this no-fly list and not receiving answers.
We also have this same DHS official being questioned on visa waivers and unable to answer a single question.
This does not inspire any sense of security or confidence in this supposed “no-fly list” what with apparently no one seeming to know how someone is placed on it or seeing the headaches someone wrongfully placed on it must go through to be allowed to board an airplane again.
I can only imagine how many innocent people in need of self defense could possibly be denied that right guaranteed them because some bureaucratic snafu wrongfully placed them on this list. The odds of them being gunned down by a stalker, estranged spouse or any criminal might be very likely prior to having their right restored that never should have been taken from them.
As I said, on the surface it sounds like a good idea, but peeling back just the top layer shows the goal is more to score political points than to “Keep the American people safe.”
Also being called for once again is an “Assault Weapons Ban.”
Also pure bunk as such a ban would not have prevented the San Bernardino attacks, evidenced by a rare Geppetto Checkmark from Fact Checker on Sen. Marc Rubio’s claim, “no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws.”
Showing the futility, during the last Assault Weapons Ban, there were 15 Mass Shootings, including the horrific Columbine School shooting.
The ban did nothing of any substance, other than score some political points for Democrats to appear as if they were doing something.
We are also beginning to see more and more attacks using a knife or other sharp instrument, but the outrage has not yet risen to Democrats calling on restrictions for them as did Great Britain after they banned guns and criminals resorted to adding knives to their arsenal.
And even with their gun ban, crime committed with a gun have not gone away as the UK Mirror reports London overtaken as gun crime capital of England and Wales.
The gun is merely an instrument, an inanimate object that does nothing on its own and requires action by a human being to operate.
In the hands of a responsible person, that action can and has saved lives.
In the hands of a bad guy, be they criminal or terrorist, innocent lives are taken as they target primarily “Gun-Free Zones” where they know they will not be facing a good guy with a gun and their deed will be finished before Police arrive.
A lot is said about background checks, but what good is one if HIPAA Laws prevent relevant medical history from being included and a mentally disturbed individual passes such a background check?
I’m not wholly opposed to a background check and patiently waited for the completion of such a check on myself to obtain my Concealed Carry License.
But, some people that should not have been able to purchase a gun under our laws passed the same background check I did.
And, did not Tashfeen Malik, the female terrorist involved in the San Bernardino attack pass not one, but three background checks in order to legally enter the United States on her fiancé visa?
Yes, we do need to do something to curb gang style killings. To stop terrorists before they strike. To cut down on gun crime.
But disarming innocent, law-abiding citizens and placing scoring political points over saving innocent lives is not the answer.