Terrrorist and the Constitution...

With all the talk about terrorism and terrorist retaliation due to UBL being killed this topic seems pretty interesting.

So it is said that guns don't kill people. People that pull the trigger of the gun kill people.

Just a few weeks ago a couple of men were arrested after being found to have planned to commit a terrorist attack. When they were searched many explosives were found along with guns in their vehicle. Just locally here where I live a pipe bomb was found and disposed of. No one was arrested here for the planting of that bomb. In the Middle East there are terrorist attacks seemingly everyday in retaliation to something or someone.

After reading so many head lines about all of this locally as well as on the international stage, I asked my self where do terrorists, locally and abroad, get their explosives and guns?

Well here in the United States of America our 2nd Amendment gives its citizens the right to bear arms(in short).

So does the 2nd Amendment give the right to suspected terrorists or even terrorists that are on a watch list the right to bear arms?

There are federal laws that prevent the most dangerous and deranged people among us from purchasing and possessing firearms. We know that the mentally ill and convicted felons are not allowed to purchase firearms. But what about the suspected terrorists can they purchase a gun according to the 2nd Amendment?

A government report found out that individuals on terror watch lists attempted to purchase guns and explosives over 1000 times over the last six years. In nine out of ten cases our government could not stop them from making those purchases. That's 90% folks. Wow.

In 2007 Pres. Bush attempted to fix this problem by giving our government the power to block guns and explosive sales to suspected terrorists. This concept was even backed by our Justice Department. But nothing ever came of it, the bill was not passed. Just last week an abbreviated version of that same bill was voted on by the House Judiciary Committee. The bill would have given the Justice Department discretion to block sales of guns and explosives to suspected terrorists on a case by case basis. Guess what happened. That's right the bill was voted down again.

There are some people that are under the impression that restrictions on gun rights for everyone, suspected terrorists included, is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.

The bill that was voted down last week only targeted people that are on terror watch lists and even gave the individual a chance to challenge the government blocking of their purchase. So if by accident someone is wrongfully on a watch list(yes that happens) their purchase will be delayed but not blocked once the problem was cleared. Is that a infringement on the 2nd Amendment?

Others will argue, isn't it better to sell the guns and explosives to suspected terrorists and then see what happens from there. That argument holds not water what so ever.

Criminals by definition have already committed crimes. The mentally ill have been designated so by authorities qualified to do so. Suspected terrorist are just that, suspected. They have committed no crime as of yet. But we draw up watch lists because we recognize these people may cause harm to people. Yet by the time we are sure they are terrorist it is too late.

If any person on a terrorist watch list were to walk into a licensed gun dealers store and attempt to purchase guns or explosives they most likely will not be prevented. They must still go through the process that everyone else goes through to purchase guns, except they are on a terror watch list and we know this. Still most likely they will not be prevented from making their purchase.

If we prevent criminals and the mentally ill from making such purchases, why are we allowing suspected terrorists the right to purchase them. Because of the 2nd Amendment?

There will be some that argue that if someone is arrested, tried and found guilty of a crime they lose their right/freedom to the 2nd Amendment. But to take that right/freedom away from people without forcing the government to show that they have done something wrong is against our constitution.

Our constitution was not written in the time of terrorists, foreign or local. Our founding fathers did not write our constitution we this in mind, so to say this is against the constitution is difficult because the constitution was not intended to deal with this sort of problem.

Another interesting question is, if these known suspected terrorists are purchasing guns and explosives legally, are they being used for violence? Opponents of the bill say that if there was evidence to prove that these weapons were being used for violence, the government would have released such info.
It is also know that if you are on the "watch list" and purchase guns and explosives the government steps up the surveillance on you. Whether they use these weapons for violence or not is not the issue, we are giving them the opportunity to use them for violence.

Now to say that most terrorists cannot by guns legally anyways because most of them are not American citizens is a stereotypical response. We are not just talking about foreign terrorist but home grown terrorist as well.

Arguers will say you can deny purchasing firearms to anyone engaged in effects to commit acts of terrorism - just as soon as you can prove it. Well that way of thinking is very reactive. So after they purchase the guns and explosives and kill hundreds if not thousands of people, then it is ok to deny them the right to bear arms.

We spend so much time worrying about and assisting foreign countries, I think we are missing major opportunities to protect our own country and people.

What is your thought?

Agree or disagree either way I learn what the PEOPLE think. L2