Last week, the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee sent a loud and clear message that pandering to gun lobby insanity is far more important to them than national security. A political gift is now dangling in front of the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats. Will they grab it?
The vote occurred during Judiciary Committee consideration of legislation to extend the Patriot Act. Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) offered an amendment to give the Attorney General the authority to deny the sale of firearms by licensed dealers to known or suspected terrorists. Most Americans are surprised to learn that being a known or suspected terrorist will prevent you from getting on an airplane, but not from buying guns or explosives. Indeed, according to the General Accounting Office, since 2004, over 1,300 individuals on the terrorist watch lists have been allowed to purchase firearms or explosives.
As a matter of policy, this "terror gap" in our gun laws is intolerable. The American public agrees. A recent survey shows that 88 percent of registered voters, and an identical percentage of gun owners, want to "prohibit people on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns." An earlier survey by Republican pollster and wordsmith Frank Luntz showed that 82 percent of self-acknowledged National Rifle Association members agree.
The NRA's leadership, though, is adamantly opposed to closing the "terror gap," and the gun lobby's shadow loomed large over the Judiciary Committee vote. On the day after two suspected terrorists seeking to buy guns and explosives were arrested in New York City, the Quigley Amendment was defeated, in a straight party-line vote of 21-11. The 21 Republicans were unanimous in voting to allow known terrorists to buy as many guns as they want, even though the idea to give the Attorney General additional authority to block gun sales to terrorists originated with the Bush administration.
How can any politician pretend to be serious about protecting the nation from terrorism, while voting to allow known terrorists to buy guns, including assault weapons? Osama bin Laden is dead, but the war on terror is far from over. The threat of retaliation for bin Laden's death must be taken seriously. There also is evidence that al Qaeda's new tactical emphasis is on small-scale urban attacks with guns and explosives.
Attorney General Holder has said that the raid on bin Laden's compound is yielding intelligence that likely will add more names to the terrorist watch lists. Nevertheless, the 21 Judiciary Committee Republicans apparently have no problem allowing those individuals to buy guns and explosives. It all amounts to being "tough on terror" only if it's OK with the gun lobby.
It is one thing to pander to an intimidating special interest lobby; it is quite another to compromise national security by doing so. That the Judiciary Republicans were willing to march in lockstep to allow obeisance to the gun lobby to trump the war on terror is a political gift to the Democrats that will keep on giving, if only the Democrats will seize the issue. But will they? For too long, too many in the Democratic Party leadership have been frozen into inaction on the gun issue by their own exaggerated fear of NRA reprisal.
Only recently has the Obama administration started to publicly address the continuing tragedy of American gun violence. In the wake of the horrific Tucson shooting, as Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) courageously struggles to recover from the head wound she suffered in that shooting, there is renewed hope that Democratic leaders will begin to embrace common sense reforms and that there will be at least some in the Republican Party willing to stand up to the NRA.
The lesson of the Quigley Amendment vote is that Congressional Republicans are quite willing to follow the NRA off a political cliff. The question is: Will the Democrats offer them a safety net?
For more information, see Dennis Henigan's Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy (Potomac Books 2009).
Dennis A. Henigan: For the NRA, It's All About Fear
Loading comments…
Share your Comment:
...and the ACLU, the Constituti
The 21 Republican
The 11 Democrats were unanimous in voting to violate your constituti
Had they been indicted, arrested, charged, tried and convicted? Is there evidence that they actually performed acts of terrorism? If they are too dangerous to buy guns, why are they allowed to freely roam the streets?
Any other Authoritar
Nope. Change that to read "possible terrorists
Since WWII we have spread that violence onto foreign soil and it’s become a major part of our GNP. Then some wonder why there are countries out there that hate us, it’s sure not surprising on this end.
Other then 9/11 we sit at these keyboards in relative security (Your neighbor might have a gun and is having a bad day) of our abodes not fearing a bomb is going to come through the roof and wipe out your family.
We sanitize war; make it almost acceptable in fact. We are remiss to show the body bags that are flown in weekly. Our killed are just numbers, names get much too personal. We show our kids in action but never the specifics of those actions. We don’t see all of the innocent people that are killed or maimed, that also would be much too personal. We don’t show the pain and agony or talk about how many lives are devastated
The part that always gets me is what happens after we have these horrific shootings in out country, it goes something like, “I knew he was going to do something terrible one day.”
We have become sanitized to wars, period.
On this we agree. I have frequently said here that one of our big problems is the glorificat
"We sanitize war; "
On this we disagree. War is about the same or less santized now days.
Our constituti
I also park in the Blue spots, emphysema.
I in no way would feel safer with a gun in my place, doesn’t work for me. In fact I see these States that want everyone to carry. Tell you want, if you had something I wanted and I had the slightest idea you might be carrying I’d just walk up and shoot you, plain and simple.
I have absolutely no problem with your having a weapon, none what so ever just don't carry it around me.
It was eye opening to read the wording of the actual measure and to compare it to what Henigan was claiming.
Equally eye opening was to look at the surveys Henigan mentioned and look at some of the other questions. It was very obvious that these surveys contradict themselves and are worded specifical
"If you need to create the language to build support for legislatio
Either take control of the debate, or the debate will take control of you. It really is that simple. Silence is no longer an option. The news cycle never ends. Either you determine the message or someone else will.
Our focus is on language. We already know the words that work – or we’ll find them for you…fast.
Consider our record:
We changed the “estate tax” to the “death tax” and that changed the course of legislativ
We changed “global warming” to “climate change,” and while that was highly confidenti
We changed “drilling for oil” to “exploring for energy,” and that helped energy companies secure the rights to develop more energy resources right here in America.
We changed “school choice” to “parental choice” and “vouchers” to “opportuni
Time after time we have succeeded in changing the course of the debate, and the impact can be measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Remember, what matters is not what you say. It’s what people hear." (Frank Luntz', The Word Doctors http://www
"Sensible, reasonable and common-sen
Abortion to pro-choice
http://www
"Large capacity ammunition magazine" --U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy has introduced H.R. 308, Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act to prohibit civilian possession of these military style magazines"
And what is the actual definition of "large capacity"? You will only see a reference to the big 33-round magazine used by Jared Loughner. What is not mentioned is that ALL detachable magazines OF OVER 10-ROUND CAPACITY are defined as "large" and "military style". In other words, my little Taurus Millennium self-defen
[The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device'--
`(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition
The truth is also this: The designed purpose of my carry pistol is self-defen
Spot on correct, This is merely an attempt to demonize and scare people into supporting bans on magazines which hold more than a completely arbitrary number of cartridges
www.opense
I guess it's a government watch dog for only some of the government
The NRA cares about a candidate'
It's the well regulated militia that's missing.
Just who are the people who shall not be infringed?
Why do you people always leave off the last part ?
It is dishonest act to take something so important such as a law out of context.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It's the well regulated militia that's missing."
The Supremes have ruled on this.
Even those who dissented recognized the 2A as an INDIVIDUAL right.
Try to keep up.
Confused about the wording of the 2A? No sweat... do a little basic research and look at the ACTIONS of the founding fathers as our republic was being formed. Try to find examples wherein they acted in a way that would support the assertion that they intended the right to KEEP and bear as a collective right as opposed to being an individual right. Did they build community armories and require people to store their weapons in a centralize
People who are still making this silly argument marginaliz
"The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm if informatio
This amendment does not restrict the power of the AG to those people on a Terror Watch List, the TSA No Fly List, or the TSA Selectee List. It basically gives the AG carte blanche to deny people a right without first satisfying the Constituti
Every American, regardless of political party, should thank the 21 committee members who correctly rejected this amendment. It was very clearly an unconstitu
When we change our Constituti
When there are reasonable and prudent responsibi
When that is a law will the NRA leadership feel fulfilled in their mission because our Constituti
As much as the ACLU.
"When there are reasonable and prudent responsibi
Reasonable and prudent varies in the eye of the beholder. What you are proposing is neither reasonable nor prudent.
• 78% of violent crimes
• 83% of property crimes
• 77% weapon offenses
• 77% of probation or parole violations
Interestin
our divorce rate is 60-70% higher than the national average
our alcoholism rate is 2 times the national average
our domestic violence rate is among the highest of all profession
our suicide rate is 3 times the national average.
This is in reference to police officers.
hahahahaha
Good luck with that. You do realize what is required to change the Constituti
www.opense
If the people fear the government there is tyranny.
If the government fears the people there is liberty!
Thomas Jefferson.
With that kind of public consensus it seems NRA leadership and our politician
And claiming to be the protectors of our Constituti
It is time to allow our laws,cultu
In the other survey Dennis references
The problem is with the "watch list" itself-- it is inaccurate and full of innocent people:
An audit of the terror watchlist by Department of Justice Inspector General’s Audit Division found: “For 39 of the 101 subjects, the FBI still had ongoing terrorism investigat
Again: Do we deprive someone of their civil rights without due process of law? I say: "no".
With that kind of consensus, it seems the Civil Rights leadership and our politician
And by the way "...keep and bear arms..." is a Civil Right....
Former NRA insider and current lobbyist for the gun industry, Richard Feldman explains how he came to believe that the NRA is — as he writes — a "cynical, mercenary political cult."
Feldman writes that the NRA is "obsessed with wielding power while relentless
Feldman's new book, Ricochet: Confession
http://www
The NRA is a popular organizati
Too many in the NRA are simply single issue voters that allow themselves to be exploited.
I also believe that the NRA is the bigger part of the problem with the firearms debate. I wish those like Mr. Henigan would focus more on the political aspects of the NRA instead of the misinforma
It sounds like you are doing a good job of educating yourself on the lobbying aspects of the NRA.
As long as Henigan and the rest of the gun control looney tune line-up throw soft balls like this then the NRA does not need to change. The current political environmen
The NRA may be something to dislike or revile for their tactics, and those feelings are well deserved, but one can hardly argue with their success or their pitiful excuse for opposition
That depends on which of the 13 lists you are referring to. Some of the criteria is classified
According to some people, all you had to do was publically disagree with the previous administra
"Is it American citizens or foreigners
Both. Though most of the people on the TSDB list appear to be non-citize
Have a Ron Paul bumper sticker on your car. Excersize your 2A Rights. Have dark skin and wear "western clothing."
Among other offenses.
1) The Terror Watch Lists (there are 13) and the TSA No Fly List and Selectee List are NOT the same things.
2) The Quigley Amendment was not restricted to the TWLs, NFL, or SL. It gave the AG power to deny almost anyone the ability to buy firearms.
I did not say he did. The Quigley Amendment would have given him that power. Read the text of the amendment.
Here is what Quigley's own site said: "Quigley’s amendment would grant the Attorney General the authority to deny the transfer of a firearm if use of the Patriot Act provisions considered today led the AG to believe that a prospectiv
Like I said, find the text of the amendment and READ it.
Unless they have been ruled in a court of law to be a danger to themselves or others, or have been indicted, charged, or convicted of an actual crime, yes, they should be able to. You MUST use due process to deny a person their rights, liberties, or property. That is the law and it is a cornerston
"Should the list be responsibl
No doubt, the lists (13 of them) should be better than they are. But that STILL does not satisfy the Constituti
"Should sales of guns be regulated?
They already are.
http://jud
I keep hearing this. I would like a working definition of "reasonabl
Adjudicate
Obvioulsy, the violently insane have been allowed, therefore, to buy guns and have wrecked havoc. Cho. Loughner. THIS SHOULD NOT BE HAPPENING AGAIN AND AGAIN.
These important safeguards are not in place now -- there are vast lapses.
There is so much more we should do to protect ourselves and our communitie
The NRA opposes taking these actions and others. They are an impediment to public safety.
Unfortunat
"The NRA opposes taking these actions and others."
If you can find a constituti
Fine with me.
"The NRA opposes taking these actions and others. They are an impediment to public safety."
How is the NRA opposed to that?
Read this please:
[The NRA has thrown its weight behind HR 297 along with Caroline McCarthy of NY.
The bill title is H.R.297 To improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes.
Please call the NRA and voice your support or opposition to this bill
NRA Grassroots Hotline 800-392-86
https://se
H.R.297
NICS Improvemen
To improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `NICS Improvemen
(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definition
TITLE I--TRANSMI
http://www
Is it your intention that the database be unlimited?