NRA: Is There a War on Terror or a War on Guns?

Glock 19 in black leather holster resting on swatches of exotic skins.

Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, was in New York City recently on an official visit. Commenting on the bombs that exploded while he was in town, he opined that such attacks are now simply “part and parcel” of life in major urban centers. In the last several months there’s been a great deal of talk about how to address this “new normal,” including the need for a so-called “no fly, no buy” gun sales ban, pursuant to which persons on secret federal watchlists would be ineligible to legally purchase firearms. Many groups, including the NRA, oppose such proposals for the use of “vague and overbroad criteria and secret evidence to place individuals on blacklists without a meaningful process to correct government error and clear their names,” resulting in law-abiding Americans wrongly being prohibited along with known or suspected terrorists.

Glock 19 in black leather holster resting on swatches of exotic skins. The shortcomings of these watchlists work in the other direction, too, by being under-inclusive. Law enforcement sources confirm that Ahmad Khan Rahami, the suspect charged in the recent New Jersey and New York City bombings, was not placed on any government terror watchlist, although he had been reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and flagged by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers in 2014. After conducting an “assessment,” the FBI took no additional action in his matter. But even assuming that a “no-fly” gun ban had been in effect prior to these bombings, such bans focus on gun sales and have questionable preventative value when the weapons of choice are homemade bombs and explosive devices assembled using “over the counter” materials.

In the aftermath of the Orlando nightclub shootings by homegrown jihadist Omar Mateen, both President Obama and Hillary Clinton were quick to call for greater gun control. Here, too, it’s illuminating to examine the existing allegations concerning Rahami. The FBI’s interest in Rahami was prompted by an investigation by local law enforcement. Documents show Ahmad K. Rahami was arrested in 2014 on charges related to stabbing a relative and possessing a firearm “with a purpose to use it unlawfully against… another,” in violation of New Jersey law.

The warrant contains the police officer’s conclusion that there is “reason to believe that the [arrestee] is a danger to himself [and] others.” As it happens, New Jersey is notorious for its draconian gun laws, which featured in several high-profile prosecutions of otherwise law-abiding concealed carry permit-holders like Shaneen Allen,Brian Fletcher, and many others, all of whom faced conviction on second degree felony charges with a three-year mandatory minimum prison term, for possessing legal handguns for self-defense. Like those offenses, the gun violation cited in the warrant is a second degree crime. However, it appears Rahami was not prosecuted on these charges after a grand jury declined to indict him.

It’s true that much of the facts involving Rahami remain unknown at this time. What is increasingly apparent, though, is that overbroad watchlist bans, hampering the ability of law-abiding “good guys” to possess and carry guns, is not the answer to stopping domestic terror threats. Now more than ever, our laws need to empower honest citizens to be able to fully exercise their God-given right to self-defense.

A war on terror or a war on guns? Share you opinion on the current state of the Second Amendment and gun control in the comment section.

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (21)

  1. Make no mistake, the feds are trying to use the war on terror as an excuse to take away a bunch of our rights, including gun rights. We must be ever vigilant about what some of those sleazeballs in DC and elsewhere are up to…vote wisely.

  2. It was not the military, gun owners alone, police nor our military industrial complex that through the US history that has fought against Mc Cartyism or abuses by our government bureaucrats and elected officials; No it was the mass of freedom loving people who through A free media and informed public using the electoral process and outright physical rfgorts that ended many forms of corruption from local to national.
    It was under Clinton administration during the Mecican bailout, when our Major news media objected very strenuously, Clinton using his power to grant them the largest tax breaks in perpetuity that they joined in supporting .
    By ommision and outright lies they supported it and in foing so became political mouthpieces.

  3. The answer is yes. You only need to understand the current admin to see it clearly. As far as they are conserned, WE are the terrorists that they must defeat, and at all costs!
    Obozo’s own sentiments, “I could get so much accomplished if it wasn’t for that constitution getting in the way.

  4. your blog is on point except of focusing on the NRA. They are all about Civil Rights and the main one is the right of self-defense. They advocate for an armed citizenry as that is the best defense against this all-powerful central government. Our Country was founded on diffused power starting with the individual.

  5. how many US soldiers have used service weapon to commit crimes?
    How many police officers have used service weapons to commit crimes?

    The laws were created by the people for the people.
    So, may be should ban guns from those groups too.
    I don’t understand, we don’t ban cars, trucks, trains and planes. These are used to kill also.

    Availability breeds familiarity, if people have free access, a weapon becomes a tool like anything else.

    I will give up my right to use a tool when the USA no longer exists.
    If we allow laws to govern the people by restraining their RIGHTS, well then I would agree, the USA no longer would be in existence.

    I thought I read somewhere, “The balance of power must stay with the people.”

  6. The discussion should be about is disarming the government.****** discontinue taxes, the number one reason the government needs guns and jails to enforce tax collection. Then we could discontinue welfare, SS, medicare, ect. Then, ” We the people” could become the ” militia”,( eliminating that 2nd amendment argument). Oh, yeah, you got it Scooter.

    1. ” All political power, so called, rests practically upon this matter of money. Any number of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can establish themselves as a “government”; because, with money, they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also compel general obedience to their will. It is with government, as Caesar said it was in war, that money and soldiers mutually supported each other; that with money he could hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. So these villains, who call themselves governments, well understand that their power rests primarily upon money. With money they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. And, when their authority is denied, the first use they always make of money, is to hire soldiers to kill or subdue all who refuse them more money.”


  7. The NRA is an enabler of the war on guns by supporting the police state that can & will take them from us. The discussion should be about is disarming the government. There is a massive imbalance between the power of the government and the power of the people. Not only the military but the law enforcement establishments here are overwhelmingly strong. We need to start shifting power away from the government by putting these functions back in the people’s hands where they belong. One of the lesser known Founders, Tench Coxe, explained it well:

    “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom… Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

    There is only one way to guarantee our lives and liberty. That is to be stronger than those who seek to take them are.

    This is why the Founders warned us against having a standing army. They knew that such a force would be used to oppress. Today, the “standing army” that we have to worry about domestically is the huge law enforcement establishment. I’m talking about not only state and local police but also agencies like the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and ad nauseum. Rather than deploy troops on the streets they use law enforcement to control us. While these agencies exist our liberty will always be in danger.

  8. New Jersey, Massachusetts and California are the progressive agenda bell weather. They show where we are headed as a country. We see our mission in life to raise a great family and develop a solid career . The progressive doesn’t care as much about this. They see a goal of making some utopian nirvana they imagine in their minds eye. They put much, much more time into their political causes and they are 40 years behind where Sweden and Germany are today. If we’re lucky they’ll see the error of their ways in 40 years. Until we can put as much time, energy and money into politics as the progressives do we will be losing.
    Remember Ronald Reagan was the governor of California 40 years ago.
    It’s not about the guns – it’s about the power.

  9. My current career requires my being able to travel, I also believe that Ive been placed on one of these secret watch lists yet at the age of 63 Ive never been arrested. If law enforcement had put a third of the energy into investigating false claims that got me on one of these list in the first place, this could have been all avoided, but they didn’t. Is the current administration using the federal funding of police departments to harass citizens (if you recall the recent shooter in Dallas went after cops) and insight passion in the Senate and Congress to infringe on the 2nd Amendment rights??? One can simply look at my background and see that Im not a threat, yet here I am. If anyone has ideas on what I can do about this please enlighten me.

  10. ” Black lists” harken back to the McCarthy era, days much maligned by the Left, who will say or do anything that puhes forward their agenda.

  11. Let us not forget that at times in our past the NRA membership has helped  craft reasonable Rules and Regulations that later became Law of the land.
    From a declining membership of its grouse, deer, country club clay shooters, and duck hunters came voices that were very critical of those, the earliest I remember the term with emphasis of Black Guns was in NRA writings, and NRA did little to support the owners of them.
    They championed many a restrictive policies of police and military that we had to fight against, Such as The House of un-American activities and a run away FBI cointel operations.
    The Brady Bill was DOA until Regan endorsed it, so lets not blame liberals for all our present problems.
    It was NRA leadership anf membership that began making concessions for all gun owners and they ere not and still are not a 2nd Amendment foundation due to their tax status.
    It was primarily pressure from Black Gun, civilian Waltrr Mitty types that caused NRA buddys of government to set up a seperate legal group.and
    ex military men led that pressure.
    So we must keep that pressure upon not only NRA but any and all groups who advocate reasonable concessions or else as we seen in Wa. State thosebgroups join in “Governing”.

  12. A big danger here is who decides and how getting on the no fly list is determined. Like the IRS targeting conservative organizations, I can easily imagine Clinton minions deciding that being conservative and even the fact that one supports gun ownership, is enough to consider one a potential terrorist and deserving of being on the list. It is so dangerous. The list could grow to be huge just to deny people of their rights, especially those the political people consider their enemies.

  13. Restricting someones Second Amendment Right on the word of an anonymous bureaucrat is wrong. How about if we restricted Dems right to vote because they are fools and ruining this Republic

  14. Of course it’s a war on guns, and us. If the powers that be ere interested on fighting terrorism, They wouldn’t be allowing unrestrained immigration of UN-vetted refugees, of military age. They know that these people are going to cause problems, then blame it all on the guns, instead of where it belongs.

  15. Based upon the fact that Rahami was not prosecuted on the charges after already demonstrating the desire and intent to harm another, it is clear that that the Government (not just in New Jersey) are only concerned with the ability of DECENT people with no Evil intent to harm others to DEFEND themselves from those like Rahami. “Those” include Robbers,Rapist,Murderers and the Greatest Terrorist creators and enablers of all POLITICIANS, People actually Clap for them whenever they show up at an event, WOW.

  16. The 2nd amendment is just fine as written. It is the anti gun folks who seek to change or eliminate it for their own beliefs. Eliminating the 2nd amendment would not eliminate gun violence. One has only to look South of the Border to see how well banning guns works. Only the drug cartels and criminals have guns down there, leaving the honest people defenseless. Viva La 2nd Amendment!

  17. I’d write a comment, but it would not be “politically correct” and Cheaper Than dirt has wrtten that comments cannot be harassing or abusive and any comments about allowing Muslims into our governments would be such. My belief is that any religion that has a phrase within the first pages of its “bible” that says that “all non-believers must be killed” has no place in my country!

  18. As long as Barack Obama…..or his anointed successor…..Hillary Clinton… in the White House, there will always be a war on the Second Amendment and refusal to identify the enemy as Islamic Terrorism. The Democrats have even gone so far as to formalize this ideology by making it a plank in their party platform for the general election. This upcoming election is likely going to be the most important in history for maintenance of freedom in the USA. With the next president due to appoint as many as three justices to the SCOTUS, we cannot afford to let Hillary ascend to the Oval Office. Given the choices, Donald Trump is the only viable option, and to vote for a third party candidate or abstain from voting will be a vote for Hillary. Ross Perot showed us that in the 1992 election in which he served the purpose of pulling sufficient numbers of votes away from George H.W. Bush…..thus assuring a victory for Bill Clinton.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.