A number of people on the right side of the political spectrum (including those who blog here) have been asking how it came to be that Major Hasan escaped scrutiny and managed to remain an Army officer despite his bizarre views and terrorist sympathies.

But on the left, many -- including Senator Frank Lautenberg, whose unconstitutional legislation I discussed twice -- are saying he shouldn't have been allowed to buy a gun.

To what extent are these two views contradictory? I think he was too much of a security risk to have been allowed to remain as an officer in the Army, but I don't think that's the same standard that should be applied to denying citizens their Second Amendment rights.

Nevertheless, the terrorist incident is being used to drum up support for gun control, and for the Lautenberg bill. This article -- Alleged Fort Hood Shooter Bought Gun, Despite Ongoing Terrorism Investigation -- is typical:

Senior law enforcement officials say the Brady Law forbids them from widely sharing information about legal gun purchases.

"We need to be smarter about sharing information," said former 9/11 commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste. "It's very disturbing to see...that the FBI is precluded from sharing information."

Current federal law does not prohibit people on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns unless there is a prohibiting factor, such as being a fugitive, having a felony conviction or charge, renouncing U.S. citizenship or having been determined as mentally impaired.

Earlier this year, Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J., introduced legislation which would prevent known or suspected terror suspects from purchasing firearms.

"If someone on any terrorist watch list tries to buy a weapon, law enforcement must be informed - period," Lautenberg said in a statement Wednesday when contacted by ABC News. "If some people are being blocked from flying on an airplane, then we should certainly know when they are buying an assault weapon."

The FBI unit responsible for background checks on gun purchases does provide leads to the FBI about some high priority terrorism suspects; but that watch list is not inclusive of everyone the government may have concerns about.

In an Examiner Op Ed, Kurt Hoffman sees a disturbing pattern with the above:

The article goes on in that vein, but by now, it's pretty obvious what the bottom line is: to those lamenting that the purchase data was not shared with the terrorism investigators, a gun purchase is itself an indication of terrorist inclinations.

If the government has already conceived a suspicion of "terrorism," by virtue of such indicators as expressing opposition to more restrictive gun laws, opposition to abortion, displaying of the Gadsden flag, even following Norse mythology, then the purchase of a firearm would "seal the deal," and be seen as additional "evidence" of terrorist leanings. Remember, the FBI had already dropped the terrorism investigation into Hasan, so clearly, the idea here is that a gun purchase, by even a "suspect" who is considered pretty low on the threat list, is to be treated as a red flag.

Finally, this would be a pretty nifty way to implement an illegal federal database of gun purchases--just call everyone a "suspected terrorist," and then everyone's gun purchase data becomes open game for the feds.

(U) rightwing extremism
(U//FOUO) A movement of rightwing groups or individuals who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily hate-oriented, and those who are mainly antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.
This term also may refer to rightwing extremist movements that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
(also known as far right, extreme right)

The ACLU has sounded the alarm over the ease with which people can make it onto the various terrorist watch lists the government compiles:

Names and license numbers of peaceful demonstrators protesting NATO's bombing of Serbia

In April, 1999, JTTF agent Tom Fisher, joined by two members of the Denver Intelligence Unit, monitored two peaceful demonstrations protesting the bombing of Serbia. According to the report, detectives followed one participant to her car three blocks away, apparently to get her license number so she could be identified.

Names and license plate numbers of peaceful demonstrators

Fax dated June 25, 2002, from Colorado Springs Intelligence Unit to Kathy Miklich of the DPD Intelligence Unit. The North American Wholesale Lumber Association held its annual convention at the Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs in June, 2002. Environmentalist and conservationist groups organized a peaceful demonstration to express their concern that practices of the lumber industry pose a threat to endangered old-growth forests. The Colorado Springs police provided the Denver Intelligence Unit with a two-page list of names and license plate numbers of participants in the nonviolent protest. The cover sheet indicates that the list of names and plates would be forwarded to Tom Fisher of the JTTF, who was apparently expecting the information. An FBI spokesperson admitted that the agency requested the list of plate numbers.

Report on person promoting documentary film that criticizes FBI

Intelligence Bureau Information Summary, Oct. 19, 1999, reporting on an individual handing out flyers advertising the showing of a documentary that criticizes the FBI. A handwritten note indicates the report will be faxed to Tom Fisher at the Joint Terrorism Task Force.

While it is undeniable that in the post 9/11 climate, surveillance was increased, with new files being opened kept on citizens engaged in otherwise legal but nonetheless suspicious activities, this was not really new, as the same thing had been done in the 1960s.

But back in the 1960s, it never would have occurred to anyone that citizens whose names found their way into government files because of their political activity should be deprived of their Second Amendment rights. The idea would have been unthinkable.

Returning to Major Hasan, there is no question that many if not most Americans would want the government to keep an eye on someone like that. As Austin Bay pointed out, the man is a traitor in every sense of the word. Common sense would suggest that he should not have been an Army major (just as common sense would have suggested that Jane Fonda should not have hypothetically been made an Army major during the 1960s).

But does that mean Hasan should have just lost his Second Amendment rights? Before he committed any crime? How are we to come up with a standard? Should all members of mosques with similar views also lose their Second Amendment rights? Why? They don't lose their First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights, do they? (And I see no way to legislatively disarm radical Muslims without also disarming radical tree huggers, anti-abortion fanatics, radical skinheads, or even rabid fans of "Waco, Rules of Engagement.")

There are some risks that inhere to a free country, and one of them is that just as there are murderers and other ordinary criminals running around, there will be also be traitors, jihadists, terrorists, and other politically-deranged bad people.

It strikes me that just as the best way to combat the perils of bad speech is by countering it with good speech, the best way to fight guns in the hands of bad people is by having more guns in the hands of good people.