Getting your phone tapped is not violating a consitutional right. Having your financial transactions analyzed for suspicious behavior does not violate a consitutional right.

 

Can the police tap your phone or analyze your financial transactions anytime they want?

Can the police tap your phone or analyze your financial transactions anytime they want?

 

As for phone tapping - yes, with a court order. And under certain circumstances possibly without a court order under the Patriot Act.

 

As for analyzing our financial transactions. Its done everyday, for all of us. Banks use computer systems and software that is known as Anti-Money Laudering (AML) systems. Your transactions are added to the master database each night and then analyzed for changes in behavior and an pattern of unusual transactions. A report is generated of at-risk account each day that the bank then reviews.

 

http://www.actimize.com/index.aspx?page=solutionsaml

 

This is all part of the Patriot Act and the Banking Securities Act.

 

 

I do not consider either of these a direct denial of constitutional rights since the US constitution is silent on electronic communications and electronic banking. But denying the ability procure arms under the 2nd amendment does become a direct attack on constitutional liberty.

A terrorist, on a watch list, wanted list, or no list, could care less about our laws and if they want a gun, they'll get one. I'd rather they be allowed to register them. At least there'd be a start of a paper trail.

 

You're probably right. This is yet another reason why I support gun registration.

You're probably right. This is yet another reason why I support gun registration.

Yeah, because all the terrorists will register their guns. :ohbrother:

Yeah, because all the terrorists will register their guns. :ohbrother:

 

Does it matter? At some point, the gun should be registered. Whether or not the last person lawfully registered the gun won't matter, as someone, somewhere along the line, will have registered the gun, thus making it easier to trace.

 

Even if only a few terrorists register their guns, that's still better than zero. Moreover, if the terrorists don't register their guns, then the government will be able to add another charge which will be much easier to prove than being involved in some type of illegal, terrorist activity.

Does it matter? At some point, the gun should be registered. Whether or not the last person lawfully registered the gun won't matter, as someone, somewhere along the line, will have registered the gun, thus making it easier to trace.

 

Even if only a few terrorists register their guns, that's still better than zero. Moreover, if the terrorists don't register their guns, then the government will be able to add another charge which will be much easier to prove than being involved in some type of illegal, terrorist activity.

No, it shouldn't. It's another knee-jerk reaction that people have toward guns. It will only affect law abiding citizens, as always.

 

Trace it to where? Where it was stolen? Then what? It will have likely been sold in the black market, so now what?

Terrorists, the ones the government is really concerned with, won't buy guns at the local gun shop.

No, it shouldn't. It's another knee-jerk reaction that people have toward guns. It will only affect law abiding citizens, as always.

 

Trace it to where? Where it was stolen? Then what? It will have likely been sold in the black market, so now what?

Terrorists, the ones the government is really concerned with, won't buy guns at the local gun shop.

 

It will provide some accountability and will enable the government to trace the purchase back to a certain point. Sure, it may not immediately lead you to the right person, but it will provide a much better starting point than if there was no registration at all.

It will provide some accountability and will enable the government to trace the purchase back to a certain point. Sure, it may not immediately lead you to the right person, but it will provide a much better starting point than if there was no registration at all.

It will be useless.

If they are on the suspected terrorists list, they should not be allowed to purchase firearms. It would seem that some method of preventing this, like the prevention of convicted criminals, would be fairly straight forward.

If they are on the suspected terrorists list, they should not be allowed to purchase firearms. It would seem that some method of preventing this, like the prevention of convicted criminals, would be fairly straight forward.

 

How could it be "fairly straightforward?"

 

You're denying one person who has already been through the criminal process and has been convicted. With suspected terrorists, you're denying he or she their constitutional right to bear arms simply because someone thinks that they may pose a threat.

How could it be "fairly straightforward?"

 

You're denying one person who has already been through the criminal process and has been convicted. With suspected terrorists, you're denying he or she their constitutional right to bear arms simply because someone thinks that they may pose a threat.

 

If you can deny them the right to fly on a plane, why is it such a issue to deny them the right to bear arms?

 

Or to phrase it your way, if you are for them bearing arms, it would follow that you feel they should be allowed to fly and there should not be a no-fly list.

 

It seems real illogical to say ok to a no-fly list but allow them to purchase guns. Either it is no to both or yes to both.

If you can deny them the right to fly on a plane, why is it such a issue to deny them the right to bear arms?

 

Or to phrase it your way, if you are for them bearing arms, it would follow that you feel they should be allowed to fly and there should not be a no-fly list.

 

It seems real illogical to say ok to a no-fly list but allow them to purchase guns. Either it is no to both or yes to both.

 

I share your overall sentiment, but it is not that cut & dry. The right to bear arms is expressly stated in the Constitution. Although one could argue that you have a right to travel, there is no constitutional right to fly in an airplane. Also, the risk for allowing a suspected terrorist to fly is probably a little greater, thus permitting for more leeway to prevent someone from flying.