Obama loves talking down to people, as if they are simpletons, using such parenting phrases as: "I don't understand why we can't do just this one little 'common sense' thing".
For one, he is lying because he has studied enough of the Constitution to know exactly why we can't do this one thing. But for another, it is hardly common sense.
I get it, there are bad guys out there and we have reasonable basis to believe they mean us harm. And in a 5 year old's logic, it is 'common sense' that we should not let them have guns ... except that grown up life is more complex.
1. By the time they are on the terrorist watch list, they are on our radar, they are likely being tailed and wire-tapped. I'm sure that the NSA is in their e-mail, in their phone, in their Facebook/Linked-In, so they know all their friends, they are monitoring their travel, they know their browser history and google search terms. And I'm sure their encrypted stuff is being read too. Bottom line, they are almost certainly going to get arrested before they manage to actually carry out an attack.
2. By announcing that the no fly list is on the no gun list, any Terrorist wanna be is going to make sure they either do a private sale, or use a straw purchaser. So we just lost the ability to have a NICS check pop an alarm, just in case the Feds did not know where this guy is or what he is doing. OK, that opens a separate can of worms about if NICS data should be used to track Terror watch list people, but we just lost the opportunity.
3. If a terrorist did not know we were on to him, and gets denied, we have just tipped out hand. That's not smart.
4. By allowing the terrorist to get guns, the magnitude of the crimes just increased, so there is more to charge him with.
5. Finally, if this is so common sense, then data would have to bear it out, right? That means someone has a list of all the bad guys on the terror watch list who bought guns and used them in crimes, such that if we had had this ban in place, they would have been stopped. Right? Is there any mass shooter that anyone can come up with who was on the terror watch list or the no-fly list? Any? San Bernardino wasn't - they bought through a straw purchase. Orlando wasn't, he was removed from the watch list. Sandy Hook wasn't. Dyllann Roof wasn't. Where is the data to support that this is truly 'common sense', and not just a hypothetical with no basis in fact?
The only way I can think this could really work, to accomplish anything the Feds can't accomplish today, is if you have so many people on the terror watch list that you cannot track them all. But if that is the case, then shame on Obama for not putting more people/money towards tracking known terrorists.
Net, the simplistic slogan that suspected terrorists should not have guns is all cute and fluffy. But the logic to say that denying them gun purchase would do anything to make us safer seems counter-productive.
For one, he is lying because he has studied enough of the Constitution to know exactly why we can't do this one thing. But for another, it is hardly common sense.
I get it, there are bad guys out there and we have reasonable basis to believe they mean us harm. And in a 5 year old's logic, it is 'common sense' that we should not let them have guns ... except that grown up life is more complex.
1. By the time they are on the terrorist watch list, they are on our radar, they are likely being tailed and wire-tapped. I'm sure that the NSA is in their e-mail, in their phone, in their Facebook/Linked-In, so they know all their friends, they are monitoring their travel, they know their browser history and google search terms. And I'm sure their encrypted stuff is being read too. Bottom line, they are almost certainly going to get arrested before they manage to actually carry out an attack.
2. By announcing that the no fly list is on the no gun list, any Terrorist wanna be is going to make sure they either do a private sale, or use a straw purchaser. So we just lost the ability to have a NICS check pop an alarm, just in case the Feds did not know where this guy is or what he is doing. OK, that opens a separate can of worms about if NICS data should be used to track Terror watch list people, but we just lost the opportunity.
3. If a terrorist did not know we were on to him, and gets denied, we have just tipped out hand. That's not smart.
4. By allowing the terrorist to get guns, the magnitude of the crimes just increased, so there is more to charge him with.
5. Finally, if this is so common sense, then data would have to bear it out, right? That means someone has a list of all the bad guys on the terror watch list who bought guns and used them in crimes, such that if we had had this ban in place, they would have been stopped. Right? Is there any mass shooter that anyone can come up with who was on the terror watch list or the no-fly list? Any? San Bernardino wasn't - they bought through a straw purchase. Orlando wasn't, he was removed from the watch list. Sandy Hook wasn't. Dyllann Roof wasn't. Where is the data to support that this is truly 'common sense', and not just a hypothetical with no basis in fact?
The only way I can think this could really work, to accomplish anything the Feds can't accomplish today, is if you have so many people on the terror watch list that you cannot track them all. But if that is the case, then shame on Obama for not putting more people/money towards tracking known terrorists.
Net, the simplistic slogan that suspected terrorists should not have guns is all cute and fluffy. But the logic to say that denying them gun purchase would do anything to make us safer seems counter-productive.