Murkowski, Sullivan Vote to Arm Terrorists


Senator Lisa Murkowski, Climate Change Denier (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Senior NRA Pawn and Hypocrite (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

 

Absolutely Not John Lindauer. Really. (Photo from Juneau Empire)

Junior NRA Pawn and Hypocrite (Photo from Juneau Empire)

WC doesn’t see any reason to be polite, circumspect or even reasonable about this.

There was a vote in the U.S. Senate Monday on whether or not to bar persons on the U.S. terrorist watch list from buying firearms. Both Senator Lisa Murkowski and Senator Dan Sullivan voted against it. They voted against a law that would help keep firearms out of the hands of people the FBI deems too dangerous to be allowed to fly on commercial air flights. They voted that it is just fine for those folks to be able to buy the kinds of battlefield weapons that the lunatic used in Orlando.

The excuses they gave are lame beyond words. Senator Sullivan called the terrorist watch list “a very broad list,” noting that close to 30,000 Americans are on the watch list. What the Carpetbagger didn’t say is that there are 319 million Americans, and the list accounts of just 0.0094% of Americans. The Carpetbagger thinks that it’s more important for folks on the terrorist watch list to be able to buy assault rifles than for the rest of Americans to have some assurance they can’t. Pardon WC, Senator Sullivan, but your position is criminally insane.

Senator Murkowski didn’t offer even a flimsy excuse for her vote. Instead, the Anchorage Dispatch News reports:

This weekend, “I heard two things,” Murkowski said. First, “‘Protect my Second Amendment. I am a lawful, law-abiding gun owner.’ And then I also hear people say, ‘There must be a way to keep guns from those who are mentally unstable, those who are the criminals, those who are the terrorists.'”

Murkowski noted that there is no route for law enforcement officers to be notified if someone previously investigated for terrorist ties purchases weapons. Some sort of system like that “is being reviewed by a lot of folks right now,” she said.

The first paragraph makes no sense, unless Senator Murkowski is worried about the Second Amendment rights of her constituents who are on the terrorist watch list. So worried, in fact, that she’s willing to put those possible terrorists’ Second Amendment rights above the safety of the rest of us. As for the idiot idea in the second paragraph – that we let terrorists and lunatics purchase assault weapons and then, afterwards, warn the cops – well, it sets the idea of crime prevention back 300 years.

WC suggests to his patient readers that none of these feeble excuses, these “talking points” have anything to do with the real reason why Senators Murkowski and Sullivan voted to arm terrorists. The real reason is much more likely to be the NRA’s $3.7 million in campaign contributions to Republicans and $3.6 million in lobbying expenditures.

How much scrubbing will it take to wash off the blood of the kids at Sandy Hook, the victims at Pulse, or the next batches of innocents slaughtered by lunatics with assault weapons?

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Murkowski, Sullivan Vote to Arm Terrorists

  1. WC–

    Boy, it is extremely rare for me to disagree with you, but on this issue I must. (And the fact that it puts me on the side of our sitting Senators is even more galling.) Nonetheless…

    The watch list is not the way to do anything like this. Random people get on the list because their names are similar to those of aliases that terrorists (and terrorist wannabes) commonly use. The most famous example is Senator Ted Kennedy, who was repeatedly stopped at airports because his name was similar to one on the watch list. And I have a couple of friends here in Fairbanks who have been on it, making their traveling lives hell. So far, neither have committed any acts of terrorism, nor contemplate them, that I know of.

    Worst of all, there is little to no recourse for getting off the list if you somehow land on it. What happened to due process and all that?

    I’m all for gun control, and I look enviably to countries like Oz who have successfully and dramatically reduced the number of deaths from the use of guns. Almost every other developed country in the world has saner gun policies than the U.S., and I wish we would join them.

    I realize that this move would do SOMEthing to control guns in this country, But I think there are many other, better things we could do. IF–collectively–we were sane on the issue of guns.

    Thanks so much for all your poignant insights into the world! We miss you and Mrs. WC here!

    Don

    • Flaws in the process for putting people on the watchlists and removing them are real; no question. But the overwhelming number of folks on those lists are there for a good reason. There are mistakes, but it’s the best tool we have. Fix the processes for putting people on and taking them off.

      But don’t use flaws in the listing process as an excuse for denying those folks firearms. Do the risk/benefit calculus: erring on the side of denying someone a firearm because they are improperly list is small potatoes in comparison to letting someone who belongs on the list get their hands on a semi-automatic rifle.

Comments are closed.