During an interview with Hillary Clinton, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos apparently agreed with a statement by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) pointing out that strict gun laws didn’t prevent recent terror attacks.
“As you know, some of your Republican rivals have also criticized you for focusing on gun control after the San Bernardino attacks,” he told Clinton Dec. 6. “Sen. Marco Rubio points out that France has some of the strictest gun control in the world – that didn’t stop the Paris attacks.”
“California has some of the strictest gun control laws here – it didn’t stop those attacks, either. So what law would have stopped this?”
Scroll to the 6:35 mark.
Clinton responded with a canned answer.
“We have to up our game against terrorists abroad and at home and we have to take account of the fact that our gun laws and the easy access to those guns by people who shouldn’t get them, mentally ill people, fugitives, felons and the Congress continuing to refuse to prohibit people on the no-fly list from getting guns, which include a lot of domestic and international terrorists, these are two parts of the same approach that I’m taking to make us safe,” she said. “…We need to have comprehensive background checks. We need to close the gun show loophole, close the online loophole, go after what’s called the ‘Charleston loophole’ and end the [defense from] liability for gun sellers.”
It’s worth mentioning, however, that the San Bernardino shooters were not on a No-Fly list preventing them from boarding a domestic airline.
“Neither Farook nor Malik were on any list of potentially radicalized people, and there are no clear ties to overseas terrorist groups as of now, officials said,” CNN reported.
But that’s not to say the No-Fly list is constitutional; in fact, it violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process by allowing the government to deprive people of their rights based only on suspicion.
Numerous law-abiding Americans have been wrongly placed on the No-Fly list due to false information, clerical errors or political persecution.
“The U.S. government maintains a massive watchlist system that risks stigmatizing hundreds of thousands of people – including U.S. citizens – as terrorism suspects based on vague, overbroad, and often secret standards and evidence,” the ACLU reported. “The consequences of being placed on a government watchlist can be far-reaching; they can include questioning, harassment, or detention by authorities, or even an indefinite ban on air travel.”
“And while the government keeps the evidence it uses to blacklist people in this manner secret, government watchdogs have found that as many as 35% of the nominations to the network of watchlists are outdated and tens of thousands of names were placed on lists without an adequate factual basis.”
And if Clinton gets her way, the government could restrict the Second Amendment by placing thousands of law-abiding Americans on the No-Fly list which is almost impossible to appeal.
What’s your take? Leave a comment below.
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube: