McCain's Terror Gap
[McCain speaking in front of the NRA in May, 2008]
John McCain's campaign won't say whether he's for or against allowing suspected terrorists to buy guns, as he tries to pander to his lobbyist pals and the Republican pro-gun base but wanders into the "War On Some Terror" minefield by mistake.
Sen. John McCain portrays himself as a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights. But does that extend to gun rights for suspected terrorists? His campaign won't say where he stands on a bill to eliminate a gun-control loophole that even the Bush administration wants closed: a gap in federal law that inhibits the government from stopping people on terrorist watch lists from buying guns. The bill was inspired by an official audit covering a five-month period in 2004 which found that, because of the loophole, the Feds had to greenlight 35 out of 44 cases where a gun buyer was on a terrorist watch list. One group opposed to closing the loophole is the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun manufacturers' trade association. Until this spring, one of its congressional lobbyists was Randy Scheunemann, now a top McCain campaign adviser on foreign policy.
... Registration documents filed by Scheunemann's company, Orion Strategies, list the terror-gap bill as one of its specific lobbying objectives, and the registrations listed Scheunemann as a lobbyist until he took a leave. McCain's campaign refused to answer questions about whether the senator supports or opposes the White House plan to close the loophole, and it also declined to say if Scheunemann had ever lobbied McCain on gun-control bills. "Randy Scheunemann is a foreign-policy adviser to Senator McCain, and he is on leave from Orion Strategies. We have no further comment," says Jill Hazelbaker, a campaign spokeswoman.
Yes, we know neocon Randy got McCain in over the old guy's head on Georgia. But does McCain really want to keep dancing around issues for the paid man who seems to do all his thinking for him?
The NSSF rightly says that the current bill removes "due process" from gun owners because "anyone can be put on the list". But what about due process for all those non-flyers first? (Or maybe for those held at Gitmo after being handed in for a bounty and tortured to ellicit confessions? What about their due process?) What was that? Randy doesn't get paid to whisper in John's ear about them? Oh, that makes everything clearer.
P.S. And just to add icing on the cake, Scheunemann was himself arrested by Capitol Hill police for a gun violation back in 1997 - possession of an unregistered gun and ammunition - when he was Trent Lott's top advisor. Talk about a conflict of interests.
I think the main reason why anyone is going to vote for this guy is that he is white.
He really does not stand for believe in anything.
He certainly does not have the best interests of the citizens in mind.
A terrorist without weaponry isn't a terrorist. Since he's not a terrorist he should be allowed to buy weapons anyone else can buy. Simple!
Personally, while I'd prefer all guns to be banned, I agree with the NSSF If we're going to let virtually everyone buy a gun, discriminating by a "terrorist watch list" isn't going to do anything significant, other than perhaps increase the illegal market for gun sales in exchange for sales on the legal market.
Oh, and the do-not-fly list should be destroyed, save for people with an outstanding warrant for their arrest.
So now the government can throw away the 4th amendment and spy as much as they want on citizens without suspicion (new FBI rules), and can effectively throw away the 2nd amendment by putting a citizen on the "Terrorist" Watch list (without suspicion, identified reason, court order, or any due process to question why said person is on the list), thereby removing their ability to ever have a firearm.
Perfect combination for the final moves towards the complete totalitarian state.
And to think that there was a time in our country when people rioted because they didn't want to pay taxes on tea. Where's the outrage now over FUNDAMENTAL eliminations of liberty?
John McWeathervane believes in free enterprise. He believes paid lobbyists should "work directly" in...errr...for the White House.
That way the smoke can be blown directly up his ass, and he can be sure to bepointed in the direction of the deal that will make him the most money.
I believe that to deter hijackings, the airlines should arm the passengers.
Nothing like the comedic stylings of mcbush to start my day off with a .....ahem...."bang."
I support the second amendment strongly, but totally agree that terror suspects shouldn't be allowed to purchase weapons. The only problem with the terror watchlist however is that there's a million people on it, including 8 year old kids, and your 84 year old grandmother.
I got a feeling the the terror watch list is gonna get really big...
The reason why this is so dangerous for McCain is it disrupts the "base". It disrupts gun owners who qualify as "domestic terrorists" the Timothy McVeigh types that stay under the radar screen by living as "survivalists".
Hey, America! John McCain supports terrorists!
... Are you paying attention?
Nope. I didn't think so.
So, while we're on the topic of "domestic terroris" and gun ownership, whatever happened to the loonie right winger that shot up the school play. Is he out on bail? Is anyone on the right screaming to not allow him to vote? Why is the MSM so quiet on this. Funny, when white girls go missing, FOX is all a titter and filling hours of programming with it.
Where are all the "special investigative reports" on the nutcase that killed Bill Gwatney at the Democratic Headquarters in Arkansas? Hmmm?
Biden's first test. go after him on this. Biden has no reason to fear speaking up nor does have to have a reason.
Liberal AND Proud @ 6
Sudden decompression sucks.
The Country has much more to fear from the 20% that still support Bush than
we ever had from Al-Queda.
"....stopping people on terrorist watch lists from buying guns...."
I'll be the first one to admit that, as the list expands to include all Americans, there is bound to be a terrorist or two among them. Wouldn't it be ironic if the Republicans under Bush/McMuddled managed to enact the first universal gun ban under the guise of nation security from terrorism.
He says "Amurikans" like Bush.
#9 Milquetoast
Currently the terror watch list has over a million names and I am sure it's growing by the day.
#18 MAU
Gee, I wonder if I score in the top 10%
Well....
Whatever
New Obama campaign slogan via "The Stephanie Miller Radio Show" "Vote Obama: One House, One Spouse." LOL.
lol! "TERRORIST WATCH LIST?" that is so goddamn funny! Everyone on this planet is a potential terrorist.... looks like no guns for anyone!
hilarious.
Did anyone pry that gun away from Heston's cold dead hands?
16 jimmiraybob Says: Wouldn’t it be ironic if the Republicans under Bush/McMuddled managed to enact the first universal gun ban under the guise of nation security from terrorism.
I say, It would be no more ironic than the fact that Obama (contrary to his oath of office) voted to Re-authorise the patriot act...and give immunity to telecom companys that co-operated with Bush by voting for the FISA bill. ....under the guise of national security from terrorism!
Conservative terrorists like Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph have killed and injured scores of American civilians. The GOP platform is to make guns, bombs and ammo easier for them to aquire.
...and let's not forget about the conservative terrorist that shot up those folks in that Tennessee church recently. Conservative terrorists are McCain's base, can't upset the base!
Of course, with more than one million Americans on the terrorist watchlist, maybe we don't need the government to try to control their gun ownership until the list is whittled down to actual terrorists. Then there's no need to deny them gun ownership; all you need to do is charge them with criminal conspiracy and prosecute them in a court of law, something apparently the Bush administration hasn't thought of doing.
Love it. What's his stance on executing pregnant women?
Must be a lot of similar questions a neocon could be asked.
Everyone whose name is on the TSA watch list will now be banned from owning guns.
Just kidding!
Or--am I?
anney @ 27:
Dealing effectively with terrorists = no new anti terrorist legislation. No expanding government power & no police state.
A terrorist is a totalitarian's best friend.
How can we as progressives criticize McCain, or any other public official, for not taking a stand on this bill. Either we are for or against the Terrorist Watch list. If we are for it, then criticism is fair game. However, if we are against it, then we make it appear that we are inconsistent by criticizing McCain on this issue. If we are against this Terrorist Watch List, then criticize the bill for what it is - a sham.
Well, I think we should be careful about this. The administration is capable of suspecting a lot of people who may have nothing to do with terrorism. They even a imprisoned quite a bunch in gitmo. On the other hand not bing able to buy a gun is better than being water-boarded.
Sorry, but it's improper and unconstitutional to deny any right to someone just for being on the terrorist watch list. What does it take to get on that list? How do we even know if we're on the list? How do we challenge the list if it's wrong? Can we even challenge the list? And if so, why is that our burden? Guilty until proven innocent?
The possibility of a terrorist getting a gun doesn't scare me half as much as the things people seem to want to do with secret lists.
It's bad enough that Scheunemann was arrested for the gun; it's bad enough that he is a lobbyist, and even worse that he was a lobbyist for the country of Georgia;
But what really kills me is the fact that Scheunemann was a member of PNAC (Project for a New American Century), the Neocon group formed by William "the bloody" Kristol, the Neocon group which pushed so hard, even back in the late 1990s, to go to war in Iraq. This jerk was an advisor to Rumsfeld, and he is/was president of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. I think McCain also was a member of that Committee. I also think Scheunemann had close ties to Ahmed Chalibi.
Given that Scheunemann is chief foreign policy advisor to John McCain, what does that tell you about the direction McCain wants to take us in in terms of foreign policy???? Yes, that's right, more of the same, if not much more. Why in the world would McCain hire as his chief foreign policy advisor not only a lobbyist, but someone who pushed hard to get us into Iraq???? What kind of judgment is that???
Last Friday, Pat Buchanan wrote a scathing article about Scheunemann. He questions why McCain would hire Scheunemann, given his credentials with PNAC. He all but accuses Scheunemann of treason because he has made a lot of money sending our troops to their death in Iraq.
I'm just speculating here, but given Scheunemann's and McCain's close alliance, given Scheunemann's former ties to Chalibi, I wonder if McCain had any ties to Chalibi???
I forgot to add the following:
I think we really need to pound McCain on his strong tendency towards war mongering.
1. "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."
2. Sending cigarettes to Iran is "one way to kill them."
3. Our troops can stay "100 years in Iraq"
4. He agreed with that woman last week that we should have a military draft
5. Pat Buchanan's comment was, "Is this what McCain has on offer? Endless war?"
6. Has hired Randy Scheunemann as his TOP foreign policy advisor....member of PNAC, the preeminent Neocon organization that pushed for war in Iraq.
Yes, I do respect John McCain, and until recently, I thought he was one of the few "good" repuglicans. But, frankly, he scares the hell out of me with all of this war talk. The man has war in his blood, and at 72 years of age, that war in his blood won't go away. It will indeed be 4 more years and worse of George W. bush if McSame gets in office.
Link to Buchanans' commentary: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=73068
But he was a POW!
Randy Scheunemann is overcompensating for his small meat pistol like the rest of te gun nuts.
Let's see, McPOW was a POW in the Trojan War, so he's been campaigning for some 3000+ years and that is the best speech he can give?
They really needed to have a huge neon sign above the stage telling the audience when to applaud. It's not that the applause lines weren't transparent, but rather that McPOW has such bad rhythm and timing that he buried every one.
I realize they didn't have teleprompters back in ancient Greece, but that's no excuse. I guess the reason he has so much trouble is because, sigh, he was a POW.
I apologize. McPOW was a POW and that makes him qualified to be president. Besides if you listen to the talking heads in the media, McPOW is really responsible for what his campaign does. Maybe they're holding him prisoner (a role for which he actually is qualified).
Its Me Ya Krazy @ 22:
Yep. The sad truth is the "terrorist watch list" is utter bullshit.
Better to put some effort into generating a valid list.
Then, we'll have something to discuss.
Excuse me.
That would be...
ISN'T responsible for what his campaign does
So, I guess McCain would be in favor of some form of due process for people accused (or suspected) of terrorism?
Maybe it depends on which lobbying firm they hire.
This Scheunemann guy bothers me more than Hagee or Phil Graham.
Ruthless People @ 23:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Thanks for that.
smchris @ 28:
Depends on whether she found Jesus or not.
This creates an interesting paradox for the right wingers. Do they hate America and want terrorists getting guns? Or do they hate the Constitution and want to restrict gun rights?
At the very least they are now a little more aware of what an intrusive federal government will be like.
Cuz I think that guy with the McCain shirt is a terrorist.
Easy answer on this one. It's a bad bill (and almost certainy unconstitutional). It's actually a pretty hysterical bill too because it pits Republicans' knee-jerk support of any civil liberty eroding bill ostensibly designed to "fight terrorism" against their knee-jerk opposition to any bill that places any limits on gun ownership. I would love to see someone ask Sean Hannity what he thinks about this bill and watch his brain expolde.
I dont understand? You want to ban people on a suspected terrorist watch list from owning guns?
The same list that they use in airport screenings? Isnt that list over a million now?
You know, the more I read about Scheunemann, the more I think he could be the next Dick Cheney, if McCain wins......not as actual V.P., but rather, the insane, war-crazed, "thinker" who drives McCain to do everything he does.
Even though PNAC has "broken up," the neocon influence on repuglicans and conservatives is still very strong....William the bloody Kristol is out there very visibly touting their neocon line, but then you have the much more secretive and much more dangerous behind the scenes jerkoffs like Scheunemann whom most don't know much about...that's the way bush has operated the past 8 years....plays the bumbling fool for the most part, but lets Cheney run his madness in secret bunkers.
Hell, I think it's a pretty good idea to keep the folks on the terr'rist watch list from getting guns. I know if I ever find myself on that watch list pretty much the second thing I do will be to go out and get me a gun...
It's interesting, this has the same confounded neocon logic as the invasion of Iraq - i.e., we invade Iraq to prevent terr'rism but we end up making more terr'rists in Iraq.
The day after the January inauguration, it will be time to put the entire Bush administration on the terrorist watchlist...
what's scary is scheuneman seems to be in control of mccain.
I've been doing some thinking about guns and the second amendment lately. I've never really been big on guns and a lot of the stuff gun-rights folks push for still scares the crap out of me. For example, that school in Texas that will allow certified and trained teachers to carry firearms seems insane to me. However, at the risk of sounding like I need a tinfoil hat, I really do not trust the current government and I worry that we could find ourselves in a really bad place if we're not careful. As others have already pointed out, the ability of the government to label anyone they want a terrorist combined with the ability to disarm anyone with that label (or do pretty much whatever else they want to them, for that matter) is a very dangerous combination.
While progressive politics and gun-rights activists aren't generally considered compatible since the fringes in both groups tend to get the most attention, I feel like this is an issue where we might be able to come together over the common cause of protecting constitutional rights. It might be a good way to show the difference between those who simply believe in rights for gun owners and firearm fanatics.
That being said, of course I'd prefer not to have an actual terrorist bent on death and destruction have easy access to weapons. I just doubt an inability to acquire them legally would get in the way much.
Just in case it's not clear, I don't particularly care for guns and I think there should be a lot of restrictions on what kinds of guns and ammunition are readily available for purchase and it shouldn't be easy for someone to get one weapon designed to maim or kill, let alone a cache like some people have. I just think smarter gun control is better than simply having more gun control. If I had my way, manufacturers would have to go through a lengthy process to plead their case as to why a new feature, style, etc. is beneficial to hunting or protection and how the benefits outweigh the risks to public safety.
Sorry for the long post, but this all had been running through my mind for the past day without an outlet until now and it could still clearly use revision.
after thinkin about it at work today...This newsweek article bugs the crap out of me!
instead of Newsweek saying..."because American citizens have constitutional rights and cannot be denied the right to purchase a firearm (without due process of law...)
they (Newsweek) say there is a "loophole" in the LAW...as if congress "forgot to write an important paragraph in the statute or something.
never forget that no American can be deprived of life, liberty, property, or a constitutional right without due process of law!
Masha @ 51 wrote: "what’s scary is scheuneman seems to be in control of mccain".
Bingo! Randy and the Kagans and Kristol and the rest of their WormTongue pack.
Regards, C
The 2nd amendment is quite clear: because armed forces, a militia, or today a national guard is necessary for the nation's security, individuals in the service of that necessity cannot be denied the right to bear arms. It says nothing about individuals right to self defense or even defense against tyranny, let alone hunting, but rather under the specific conditions it lays out and only those conditions does the right to bear arms come free from restriction. Otherwise, why are you and I not allowed to carry hair gel onto airplanes. The introductory absolute phrase specifying the meaning of the main clause of the second amendment is not a relic of some distant past, but actual language with specific intent.
From "Dr. Strangelove," General Jack D. Ripper Speaking: "Your Commie has no regard for human life, not even of his own. For this reason men, I want to impress upon you the need for extreme watchfulness. The enemy may come individually, or in strength. He may even appear in the form of our own troops. But however we must stop him. We must not allow him to gain entrance to this base. Now, I'm going to give you THREE SIMPLE rules: First, trust NO one, whatever his uniform or rank, unless he is known to you personally; Second, anyone or anything that approaches within 200 yards of the perimeter is to be FIRED UPON; Third, if in doubt, shoot first then ask questions later. I would sooner accept a few casualties through accidents rather losing the entire base and its personnel through carelessness. Any variation of these rules must come from me personally. Any variation on these rules must come from me personally. Now, men, in conclusion, I would like to say that, in the two years it has been my privilege to be your commanding officer, I have always expected the best from you, and you have never given me anything less than that. Today, the nation is counting on us. We're not going to let them down. Good luck to you all. "
Gary @ 8:
So given that the terror watchlist is B.S. How can you totally agree that "terror suspects" shouldn't be allowed to purchase weapons? How would "terror suspects" be identified?
Gun control through the backdoor: eventually, everyone will be on the watchlist.
A suspect interrogated by the KGB in the old Soviet Union says they have no evidence, only suspicions. His interrogators reply: You are here because you are guilty. All of those people out there; they are under suspicion.
Comments are closed on this entry