Judiciary chairman: Al Qaeda threat no reason to change gun laws

[RamboLiberal]

A top Republican has rejected the notion that Congress should re-examine the nation's gun laws after al Qaeda urged Muslims to attack America by exploiting loose firearm rules.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said tightening gun laws to address the threat would be to surrender to terrorists at the expense of Americans' rights.

“We’ve seen time and again that terrorists will use anything, including our own rights and freedoms, to plot attacks against innocent Americans,” Smith said in an email. “But simply because terrorists abuse our liberties doesn’t mean that we should limit the rights of law-abiding Americans. On the contrary, to limit our rights is to give in to terrorists and the fear they try to spread.”

-----

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said the “chilling” new video should be a wake-up call for lawmakers on Capitol Hill to expand the list of ineligibles.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/166117-judiciary-chairman-al-qaeda-threat-no-reason-to-change-gun-laws

[Angry Dragon]

1. Just to use his words against him:

“We’ve seen time and again that terrorists will use anything, including our own rights and freedoms, to plot attacks against innocent Americans,” Smith said in an email. “But simply because terrorists abuse our liberties doesn’t mean that we should limit the rights of law-abiding Americans. On the contrary, to limit our rights is to give in to terrorists and the fear they try to spread.”

How does he explain TSA body searches at airports, FBI expanded powers, torturing US citizens, the right to kill Americans without a trial. Just to list a few rights that the government decided we did not need any more because of terrorists.


The man just oozes stupidity ............

[Euromutt]

6. I have to agree with you on that score

It's not like the various branches of the U.S. government and members of both major parties have not been more than happy to limit our rights, thereby giving in to the terrorists, for almost ten years now.

Of course, that doesn't mean Smith is wrong on this particular point; it means he's wrong on all the others.

[TheWraith]

2. Of course there is no real Al Qaeda threat, but he can't admit that. nt

[X_Digger]

3. Poor zombie lautenberg

He just hates that due process shit, doesn't he?

[slackmaster]

4. It's sad to see a member of the opposition rather than one of our leaders making that statement

:argh:

[safeinOhio]

5. Back ground checks on handgun sales

have no effect on legal, law abiding Americans being able to purchase a handgun. I've bought many handguns from dealers, legally, with a background check. It might raise the cost of buying a stolen gun.

[GreenStormCloud]

7. So you support the Bush secret terror watch list? N/T

[safeinOhio]

8. Great straw man.

I support background checks on private sales of handguns, just like anyone buying one from a store or dealer.

So, you support criminals with handguns?

[GreenStormCloud]

9. The AQ discussion is about the Bush list. N/T

[benEzra]

10. And this relates to the OP, how?

Back ground checks on handgun sales have no effect on legal, law abiding Americans being able to purchase a handgun. I've bought many handguns from dealers, legally, with a background check. It might raise the cost of buying a stolen gun.

And this relates to the OP, how?

Lautenberg et al want to ban gun ownership by people on the ex-Bush secret watch lists, which was originally a Bush administration proposal going back to 2004.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/www/depts.washington.edu/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=416121&mesg_id=416741

Those in both parties who wish to expand the lists and their impacts have been resurrecting the argument about once a year since then. That's the subject of the article in the OP.

[X_Digger]

11. Favorite hobbyhorse getting dragged out, don'cha know. n/t