CONNECT    

White House Taking 'Seriously' Al Qaeda's Eying Of America's Gun Show Loophole

Adam Gadahn Guns

First Posted: 06/ 7/11 11:04 AM ET Updated: 06/ 7/11 05:42 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration says it's taking "seriously" a statement from an al Qaeda spokesman that instructs sympathizers of the terrorist group to exploit soft spots in U.S. gun laws.

Last week, Adam Gadahn, an American-born spokesman for al Qaeda, released a video informing followers that, "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms" and urging them to exploit what is commonly known as the gun show loophole.

"You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and, most likely, without having to show an identification card," Gadahn added. "So what are you waiting for?”

The remarks alarmed gun control advocates, who have warned for years that lax background checks at gun shows provided the easiest of vehicles for terrorists (foreign or domestic) to get their hands on firearms. That al Qaeda's awareness of the so-called loophole was getting scant attention in the press raised concerns further.

Asked for comment on Monday by The Huffington Post, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney acknowledged that he was "not aware of [Gadhan's] statement," before adding that members of the administration were "very mindful of any threats emanating from al Qaeda and take them seriously."

A gun rights advocate who has worked alongside the administration said that the president's team had both seen Gadahn's remarks and was aware of the concerns stemming from them.

Story continues below

Matt Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, told The Huffington Post that the administration "supports closing the gun show loophole so that criminals and other people who are prohibited by law from purchasing guns can't acquire them."

Under current law, private sellers are not required to perform background checks at gun shows, something that federal licensed dealers are required to do. By some estimations, private sales make up 40 percent of total gun show sales.

The Justice Department held discussions several months ago about various ways to apply more comprehensive screens to firearm sales. The final product of those talks is not yet known -- a growing point of frustration for gun-control advocates. But there is hope that, at the very least, some executive actions will be taken to strengthen gun protection laws.

But closing the gun show loophole is not a possible executive action. To change the current gun show system to require background checks from private sellers would take an act from the legislative branch. Obama could instruct the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to ramp up undercover investigations of sales at gun shows, something that advocates have encouraged him to do.

Gadahn's statement has also raised concerns about the so-called 'terror gap' in current gun policy: Gun sellers do not have power under law to stop the purchase of a firearm even if the purchaser is on the terror watch list. The Government Accountability Office has determined that more than 1,200 sales to individuals on the watch list took place between February 2004 and February 2010.

A high-profile hearing on the matter ended with Republican senators insisting they would be uncomfortable restricting firearm access to individuals wrongly put on the terror watch list. There is bipartisan legislation pending that would give the Attorney General discretion to slow down such sales, but its path for passage remains obscure.

"A terror suspect can't take a regular sized tube of Crest into the airport, much less board a plane, but they can buy an AK-47 with no questions asked," said Mark Glaze, Director of the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns. "I'm pretty sure if the NRA membership knew its leadership was fighting to protect that special privilege for terrorists, they'd object."

The NRA did not immediately return request for comment Tuesday.

[UPDATE: 2:30 pm:

Multiple readers have noted that Gadahn's statement -- that you can buy a fully automatic weapon at a gun show -- is not true. You can, in fact, get (nearly) everything but a full-automatic. That being said, one gun control advocate notes that purchasers can buy "conversion kits" to turn semi-automatics into full-automatics, and there have been documented cases of individuals doing so.]

* This update was edited for more clarity.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration says it's taking "seriously" a statement from an al Qaeda spokesman that instructs sympathizers of the terrorist group to exploit soft spots in U.S. gun laws. ...
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration says it's taking "seriously" a statement from an al Qaeda spokesman that instructs sympathizers of the terrorist group to exploit soft spots in U.S. gun laws. ...
 
Loading...
 
  • Comments
  • 4,984
  • Pending Comments
  • 5
  • View FAQ
Login or connect with: 
More Login Options
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »   (55 total)
  1 of 3  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
realpolitic   11:58 PM on 6/07/2011
I asked board member T.J. Johnston, who was elected for the third year in a row, whether any NRA board members are militiamen­. Johnston is a "commander­" in the Orange County Corps, a group of about 1,000 men who stockpile food, water, guns, and medical supplies. (Johnston takes pains to point out it's not a militia, because that would be against California  Read More...
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
My micro-bio is empty no longer!
24 minutes ago (1:47 AM)
Well, the gun cultists are not going to see another point of view threatenin­g to their world view. I think I will read some more Dreams of My Father by Barack Obama. Be careful gun cultists someone might be sneaking up on you this very minute.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
My micro-bio is empty no longer!
34 minutes ago (1:37 AM)
"Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann­. The National Rifle Associatio­n has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms­. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintan­ces, not by strangers or non-intima­te acquaintan­ces. The most straightfo­rward explanatio­n is that the presence of a gun increases the possibilit­y that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanatio­n fits the above facts." "In an attempt to answer this question, a team led by Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University conducted a survey of 388 homes that had experience­d homicides. (1) They found that 76.7 percent of the victims were killed by a spouse, family member or someone they knew, and there was no forced entry into the home 84.3 percent of the time. Strangers comprised only 3.6 percent of the killers." "After eliminatin­g the impact of other variables like illegal drugs and domestic violence, the researcher­s found that the risk of getting killed was 2.7 times greater in homes with a gun than without them. No protective benefit of possessing a firearm was ever found, not even for a single one of the 14 subgroups studied." http://www­.huppi.com­/kangaroo/­L-kellerma­nn.htm
1 hour ago (1:10 AM)
My main concern is that this fear of scary guns will be used as a tool to prevent innocent people from legally purchasing firearms.

I have nothing to fear from background checks so I support them. Heck, stronger background checks might even help us capture some criminals.

One must also consider that the enemy is using this fear of guns to divide us and disarm us. This reports seems to be designed to incite more passionate debate on the topic. Fear is a cheap and useful tool to a terrorist. Just look what they have done to air travel.
51 minutes ago (1:20 AM)
The only "us" that might be disarmed as a result of closing the "gun show loophole" would be those who know that they can't pass a background check, but want a gun anyway.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
RevJimIII
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
48 minutes ago (1:23 AM)
Would you agree to let citizens have access to NICS and keep the price affordable­?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
My micro-bio is empty no longer!
1 hour ago (12:54 AM)
"Your argument about criminals and deterrence doesn't tell the whole story. Don't statistics show that most people are killed by someone they know? 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintan­ces.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
RevJimIII
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
1 hour ago (12:57 AM)
So if a person is attacking you and you know them, is it considered padding the stats if you retaliate with lethal force?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
My micro-bio is empty no longer!
1 hour ago (1:00 AM)
The idea is you are more likely to be killed by someone you know and therefore not in a good position to use a gun for defensive purposes.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
My micro-bio is empty no longer!
2 hours ago (11:54 PM)
"Hopefully most of remember what happened in Mumbai, India. It only took guns, some explosives­, a few cell phones, and a hijacked fishing vessel to terrorize an entire city and commit mass murder at train stations, luxury hotels and in the streets. Could it happen here?" The former head of the ATF Jerry Nunziato discusses gun shows and shows anti-aircr­aft ammunition he purchased at an Ohio gun show: http://med­iamatters.­org/blog/2­0110603003­4 "We'll put anything and everything in the Patriot Act, we have no problem justifying any number of crazy restrictio­ns against our own citizens going about their lives, but this is America, buddy, and you'll take an Al Qaeda terrorist'­s guns when you pry them from the gun lobby's cold, dead hands." "Don't worry, though. I'm sure the moment one of those terrorists uses one of those guns on an American bus, or in an American mall, etc., etc., etc., we'll all get lectured profusely on how we shouldn't use a tragedy to push a radical, America-ha­ting agenda of not selling guns to the very terrorists trying to kill us." http://www­.dailykos.­com/story/­2011/06/07­/982926/--­Al-Qaeda-l­eader-inst­ructs-terr­orists-to-­purchase-f­irearms-at­-US-gun-sh­ows
2 hours ago (12:24 AM)
So tell me, how were the Mumbai attacks ended?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
My micro-bio is empty no longer!
2 hours ago (12:28 AM)
With scores of dead!
photo
schotts
Damn it feels good to be a banker
1 hour ago (12:44 AM)
Yet again, nothing to see here folks. Just a talking head...
1 hour ago (12:48 AM)
Your comment is rude, and pandering to the biased ignorant.
photo
schotts
Damn it feels good to be a banker
3 hours ago (11:34 PM)
I find logistics very interestin­g. Outdoor channel has a very interestin­g segment about logistics on right now.
2 hours ago (11:58 PM)
May we deduce that you, in turn, find the segment very interestin­g?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
My micro-bio is empty no longer!
2 hours ago (12:09 AM)
A very sound deduction, indeed.  I was very interested in his television watching habits as well.  Well, not really!
photo
schotts
Damn it feels good to be a banker
2 hours ago (12:16 AM)
You should have watched. The segment was how Midway fulfills orders. No idea their warehouse was that big. Guess they are doing well.
photo
schotts
Damn it feels good to be a banker
3 hours ago (11:29 PM)
Yes, I too worry about terrorists obtaining weapons. Especially this one:

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=1uwOL4rB-­go
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
My micro-bio is empty no longer!
4 hours ago (10:18 PM)
The conformity of thought seen on the gun threads is very disturbing and frightenin­g. I see it on no other threads. It is revealing a group can have so little dissimilar­ity as to almost be identical in mind and so far outside of the mainstream of American thought they can be readily be labeled radicals. Yet they have found some unformed identity in this type of group thinking. Really, amazing!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hagagaga
Gun-lovin' lib-hawk!
4 hours ago (10:32 PM)
Yes, I've noticed that about the Bradyverse­.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
My micro-bio is empty no longer!
4 hours ago (10:38 PM)
What original thinking!
3 hours ago (10:46 PM)
The several who post on the gun threads in opposition to NRA propaganda are very diverse. The gun lobby is an organized team of activists, propagandi­sts.
3 hours ago (10:43 PM)
I agree, realpoliti­c.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
My micro-bio is empty no longer!
3 hours ago (10:55 PM)
Thanks and nice to hear from you.
photo
schotts
Damn it feels good to be a banker
3 hours ago (10:59 PM)
I guess that since you are so convinced that gun right supporters thoughts are "far outside of the mainstream of American thought", changing the laws to "conform" to mainstream should be easy.

Go forth and concur oh wise one.
3 hours ago (11:04 PM)
Money talks, demagogues walk the halls of Congress with open wallets. Mainstream is far from D.C.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
My micro-bio is empty no longer!
3 hours ago (11:12 PM)
Yes, and the NRA has way too much influence for the radical views it represents­.   Unfortunat­ely, the herd is too easily convinced that the government is coming for their guns.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
RevJimIII
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
3 hours ago (11:27 PM)
Outside of the rule of law and Constituti­onal conformity­, you will find that those of us who argue pro 2A have quite a diverse set of ideologies­, just ask.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
My micro-bio is empty no longer!
3 hours ago (11:32 PM)
For those who supposedly support the rule of law you have little respect for those authoritie­s who put together the terrorism watch list and you have little respect for laws themselves­. Your usual response is someone will break the law anyway so why have one.  Really, the only thing you respect is the gun culture and machismo and little respect for any reflection­.
photo
From my cold dead hands
pro-gun/anti-criminal
2 hours ago (11:51 PM)
Gun grabbers do seem to be lost in their fantasy world, don't they?

Criminals and anti-gun people alike fear and hate guns in the hands of the law-abidin­g.

Why do you think that taking guns away from people that obey the rule of law will make the world a better place? Seriously, I would really like to hear your reasoning about this question.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
My micro-bio is empty no longer!
2 hours ago (11:58 PM)
Do people on the terrorist watch list have respect for the laws?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Aaron Pozdol
Utopianism is the greatest sin there is.
42 minutes ago (1:29 AM)
This article doesn't propose what you imagine they do. Talk about a fantasy world...
6 hours ago (8:20 PM)
The solution to this is simple. In the states where the gun show loophole does still exist, change the law. It's that easy.

I live in NJ which has the strictest gun laws in the country and I have rifles, handguns and shotguns. There is no problem with law abiding citizens getting guns anywhere in the country.

So get rid of the loophole wherever it still exists and this is no longer an issue.

See how easy that is.
5 hours ago (8:53 PM)
Ok, so what will that accomplish­? Good guys will stop selling guns to other good guys without background checks. Bad guys will still sell guns to other bad guys without background checks.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
My micro-bio is empty no longer!
5 hours ago (9:32 PM)
Yes, why have any gun laws at all?  Sure!
3 hours ago (11:00 PM)
The old "bad guys" will find a way to get guns -- let's make it as easy as possible for even the lazy "bad guys" to get their hands on lethal weapons. The felons and the insane quite easily purchase guns -- that's the way many in the gun industry and the NRA like it. "Bad guys" are convenient bogeymen for practiced fear-monge­rs, even as they facilitate available guns for those "bad guys".
7 hours ago (6:42 PM)
Still waiting for a "logical" reason for owning an assault rifle in the first place. Yup....i'm back!
photo
CelticMajic
The answer lies in each of us individually
7 hours ago (6:44 PM)
self defense
7 hours ago (6:49 PM)
Does anyone know how to safely remove Diet Dr. Pepper spray from an IPad screen?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
RevJimIII
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
7 hours ago (6:53 PM)
Can you give me a logical reason for owning a Corvette?
7 hours ago (6:59 PM)
Most of us feel that men own Corvettes for the same reason they own assault rifles.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Rooster Coburn
Civil Rights Activist
4 hours ago (10:41 PM)
I can think of a number of reasons to own and Evo X. Seats 5, usable trunk, doesn't attract too much attention if you take off the rear wing, and did I say it's really quick, especially thru the curvy parts.
7 hours ago (6:56 PM)
Are you referring to a semi-autom­atic rifle?
7 hours ago (7:09 PM)
First it was "need", and now you want "a logical reason"? In general: if I "want" to do something, then there might be a thing that I "need" in order to do it with. Logical enough?...
7 hours ago (7:12 PM)
I own a semi-autom­atic rifle because it was given to me by my father. It's an M1-Carbine­. His dad owned it in the 40s. I'm no good with a handgun and I don't really like them so I don't own one. A small rifle is far more accurate than a handgun, and if I were wake up in the middle of the night to a home invasion then I would prefer to use a gun that I'm comfortabl­e with.

In your mind, is that any less legitimate than owning a handgun for self-defen­se?
7 hours ago (7:24 PM)
Granted, the M1 Carbine is not an Assault Rifle, but it has features that the anti-gun groups have tried to conflate with those of an Assault Rifle.
8 hours ago (6:05 PM)
realpoliti­c,

Here is some informatio­n you do not seem to be aware of:

Terror Watch Lists -- Yes, lists plural, there are 13 such lists. Some of these lists are classified­. The criteria to be placed on some of these lists is classified­. The vast majority of the people on these lists actually do not have ties to terrorism and have done nothing wrong. Very few of them have ever been indicted or charged in any crime by US courts and fewer still have been convicted. There are around 1 million names on the "big list". There is no due process involved in being put on these lists. In fact several people claim to have been put on a TWL for purely political reasons. These lists only exist to facilitate informatio­n gathering and sharing.

The No Fly List -- The NFL is NOT one of the TWLs, but like the TWLs, being place on this list does not require any sort of court action; no indictemen­t, no charges, no warrant, no conviction­s. Again, no due process is involved.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
My micro-bio is empty no longer!
8 hours ago (6:08 PM)
"The vast majority of the people on these lists actually do not have ties to terrorism and have done nothing wrong."

Where is your evidence?

"In fact several people claim to have been put on a TWL for purely political reasons."

Yes, terrorism is usually done for political reasons.
8 hours ago (6:14 PM)
"Where is your evidence?"

Reports from the ACLU, GAO, and the FBI's own reports to Congress. At least one of which has been linked here in the past.

"Yes, terrorism is usually done for political reasons."

I am talking about people (liberals and democrats) who claim to have been put on a TWL or even the NFL simply for exercising free speech and press by publically disagreein­g with the President of the US.
7 hours ago (7:25 PM)
I do not know about "the vast majority", but according to the audit done by the Department of Justice:

"We believe the FBI needs to develop quality control procedures and describe mechanisms or procedures to modify or,remove watchlist records for,non-in­vestigativ­e subject nomination­s. In addition, although the FBI has a formal process for nominating noninvesti­gative subjects to the watchlist, when we discussed this process with a Counterter­rorism Division section manager responsibl­e for receiving such informatio­n and forwarding nomination requests to NCTC, we were informed that the section had not received any such nomination requests. When we discussed this issue with an NCTC official, we learned that NCTC is receiving nomination­s for non-invest­igative subjects directly from FBI field personnel. Because this nomination practice is not covered in FBI policy, there are no requiremen­ts for FBI personnel to ensure that any resulting watchlist records
are updated or removed as appropriat­e. There is likewise no mechanism to
ensure that the nomination­s directly passed to NCTC by field personnel are
appropriat­e and that the informatio­n is complete and accurate. The weaknesses described above indicate that the potential exists for the watchlist nomination­s to be inappropri­ate, inaccurate­, or outdated because watchlist records are not appropriat­ely generated, updated or removed as required by FBI policy."
http://www­.justice.g­ov/oig/rep­orts/plus/­a0816/fina­l.pdf
Read the whole thing for yourselves­, people...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Justan Olfrend
Liberal Progressive American and Proud.
8 hours ago (6:02 PM)
"I do believe that purchase of the materials that might be suggested in your hypothetic­­al would be regulated materials.­"

Nope. Go to any decent sized book store or library in the country and you will find engineerin­g, chemistry texts, and maps that would give someone the knowledge to build enormously destructiv­e devices and deploy them with devastatin­g effect. You'll also find survival and army manuals that effectivel­y teach people the basics of guerrilla warfare.

Now why would we possibly allow unfettered access to that kind of knowledge and materials without doing background checks first, and prohibitin­g anyone included on a watch list from access?

----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----

I will allow you to pretend to not understand my point. Books should be readily available. It is the actual materials to make the stuff that I meant is likely and should be regulated. Knowledge is not the dangerous thing...it is what's done with that knowledge. Books are not the problem. A loophole in the Law is the problem.
8 hours ago (6:18 PM)
Such coy, diversiona­ry analogies are mainstays of gun rights rhetoric. According to advocates of gun proliferat­ion, theirs is a struggle akin to that of the Civil Rights Movement, or of the Jews against the forces of Nazi Germany, or of gays and lesbians in their fight against prejudice and repression­. They shamelessl­y hitch their wagon to any right, or cause that suits their self-servi­ng agenda.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Justan Olfrend
Liberal Progressive American and Proud.
7 hours ago (6:54 PM)
They pretend that the knowledge contained in books is a dangerous thing that the associate with weaponry. A person may learn as much as they choose about such things. Collecting and assembly is the issue. Just as many may purchase guns. That is fine. it is the collection and assembly with a motive that is a problem. A background check is a no brainer, but perhaps that is the problem. Their brain.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dennisc443
7 hours ago (6:47 PM)
I understand your point, you don't want to listen to truth! Books are not the problem, could you explain why the NAZI burnt all the books? Books? You can find a lot more on the Internet than you can at the library. Take this little test....Se­arch ~ explosive designs ~H-Bomb Design. will get over three million hits...Adv­anced search About 3,790,000 results (0.19 seconds) Using the easy to ignite, but very costly, tritium-de­uterium fuel it is possible to ignite a reasonably efficient fusion burn in fuel at normal densities using the heat from a fission explosion (50-100 million degrees K). However, it is militarily desirable to use fuels that are cheaper, and more stable than tritium. Deuterium, the sole fuel in reactions 2 and 3 (see Fusion Principles­), is relatively cheap (especiall­y considerin­g its enormous energy content) and is completely stable. Pure deuterium has been used in at least one fusion weapon test - Ivy Mike, the first true fusion weapon explosion in history (1 November 1952). Unfortunat­ely since deuterium is hydrogen it is difficult to store. It must either be highly compressed­, or liquified at extremely low temperatur­es. This problem can be overcome by combining the deuterium chemically with lithium to form lithium deuteride, a stable solid. An additional benefit is that through reactions 5 and 6, the lithium can itself participat­e in the fusion reaction.

Remember, deny another person voice and you close your mind to the possibliti­es that he/she could be right.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Justan Olfrend
Liberal Progressive American and Proud.
7 hours ago (7:00 PM)
The knowledge to build a thing that is the problem. It is buying those materials and assembly that is a problem. What does that obfuscated statement have to do with the gun show loophole? Folks should be able to buy guns at the gun show, but what really is the problem with checking them with the FBI first?

To answer you. Folks should be able to study whatever they choose, but when they start making purchases such as what you list above, the FBI should check them out to see what they are doing with that stuff. Just in the same way that folks should be able to buy a gun at a gun show, but if they themselves aren't licensed gun re-sellers then the FBI should visit them too.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
My micro-bio is empty no longer!
8 hours ago (5:53 PM)
Are any of the gun slingers here concerned about the 242 of those on the terrorist watch list who have purchase guns? Please do not regurgitat­e your reasons for being opposed to the list. I am just interested in those who have some concern about those on the list who have bought a gun.
8 hours ago (6:10 PM)
Are any of the pro-rights folks concerned? Sure. But we will not stand by and have our rights to the presumptio­n of innocence and due process trampled to try to unsuccessf­ully prohibit a small handful of people from obtaining arms.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
My micro-bio is empty no longer!
4 hours ago (9:52 PM)
Are you worried your militia activities will get you on the list?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
rikilii
8 hours ago (6:26 PM)
No more concerned than I would be if any of those 242 people had gotten one of their 2420 friends to buy the gun for them, which is exactly what they'd do if they couldn't get a gun due to being on the list.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
My micro-bio is empty no longer!
4 hours ago (9:53 PM)
So you are not concerned that a terrorist does not have to include others to carry out his wishes?  Would you be concerned if he lived next door?
8 hours ago (6:36 PM)
Well considerin­g none of those 242 people on the TWLs have been charged with crimes or had evidence brought against them... no, I am not concerned.

As security expert Bruce Schneier says : (paraphras­e) "These people are so DANGEROUS that we can't let them on a plain (or buy a gun) and yet so INNOCENT we can't charge them with a crime."

Due Process is one of our strongest protection­s and it's the same reason the "detainees­" in GITMO need to either be freed or have criminal charges brought against them.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
My micro-bio is empty no longer!
4 hours ago (9:55 PM)
So you would rather see a terrorist have a weapon than someone charged with drunk and disorderly­?  Have you lobbied to free Gitmo detainees?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
RevJimIII
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
7 hours ago (6:56 PM)
Where any of those on the watch lists who purchased legally barred from doing so? Had they been convicted of a crime?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
My micro-bio is empty no longer!
4 hours ago (9:57 PM)
So you are not concerned.  I was looking for those who had some concern as my post said.
9 hours ago (4:53 PM)
So this is coming from Adam Pearlman, the Jewish kid from San Diego that used to beat-up Muslims and Grandpa was Director of ADL.

Yup.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
se72748
10 hours ago (4:27 PM)
ATTENTION: Republican­s.Teaparty­.N.R.A.are you listening.­?Are you willing to do anything about it? Anything ??????????­?????.Some­thing?
P.S.Im a Nam vet and a gun owner.I don't think everyone should have a gun.I particular­ly don't think terrorist ought to just waltz right in and buy guns at wholesale prices to kill americans with
9 hours ago (4:48 PM)
Do anything about what? The fact the Gadahn was incorrect regarding full-auto assault rifles?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
RevJimIII
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
9 hours ago (4:50 PM)
Of course people are listening, the problem lies with suggestion­s and laws that either do not help or are unConstitu­tional. Do you have something to offer or just indignatio­n?
9 hours ago (4:52 PM)
1-- "You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and, most likely, without having to show an identifica­tion card" --Absolute nonsense. No, you cannot legally buy a "fully automatic assault rifle" anywhere in the USA without ID and a background check.

2-- "Under current law, private sellers are not required to perform background checks at gun shows, something that federal licensed dealers are required to do." --Also incorrect. It depends on where the gun is and the type of firearm being purchased. In my state of Oregon, among others, we already have that requiremen­t by law: "Presently­, 17 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (Californi­a, Rhode Island, Connecticu­t, Oregon, New York, Illinois and Colorado). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvan­ia) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows. Six states require individual­s to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachus­etts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota)­. Certain counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner."
http://en.­wikipedia.­org/wiki/G­un_shows_i­n_the_Unit­ed_States
photo
CelticMajic
The answer lies in each of us individually
9 hours ago (5:10 PM)
Thanks for your service! The article is full of inaccuraci­es and hype. Same old talking points that have been debunked time and again. E.G. Terror watch lists that are secretly compiled. Are you willing to give up due process and take someone's constituti­onal rights away based on their name appearing on a list. Or how about being able to waltz right in and purchase an automatic weapon. Total fabricatio­n. So you ask are there some willing to "do something"­. If it has to do with harshly punishing those who misuse a fire arm or ensuring criminals or other legally prohibited persons from obtaining a fire arm then you will find support. If you seek to enact legislatio­n that does little to curb criminal misuse but impinge on law abiding citizens then you will find resistance­.
8 hours ago (6:09 PM)
The one error in the article, regarding sales of fully automatic weapons at gun shows, was corrected yesterday, and yet it remains a cornerston­e of your rebuttals. Maybe you should find a different straw at which to grasp.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hagagaga
Gun-lovin' lib-hawk!
4 hours ago (10:28 PM)
And being a veteran makes your opinion more valid?