Predictable from CNN
This is a discussion on CNN article makes it seem that NRA wants terrorists to be able to buy guns within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; CNN article making it seem like NRA wants terrorists to have guns Of course, they miss the whole point that it's not that NRA wants ...
CNN article making it seem like NRA wants terrorists to have guns
Of course, they miss the whole point that it's not that NRA wants terrorists to be able to have guns; it's that NRA realizes that if you give the government the power to deny rights based on suspicions, not convictions, the door's wide open for anyone to lose their rights!
Those who support the Lautenberg bill are the same types who gripe about so-called warrantless wiretapping, and any other provision of the Patriot Act, but here as long as it's directed against gun owners, they're fine with it. Makes ya sick.
Note the way that last part gives the impression that the 35 purchase attempts "slipped through." Um, what if those purchases were known and allowed by law enforcement for the purposes of continuing an investigation? As in, don't swoop in yet until you maybe know who they were going to give the guns to, etc. But no, the impression is given that the government failed to prevent these known or suspected terrorists from getting guns.WASHINGTON (AP) -- The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms.
Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.
In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."
"As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word 'suspect' has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties," Cox wrote.
In a letter supporting the measure, Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said the bill would not automatically prevent a gun sale to a suspected terrorist. In some cases, federal agents may want to let a sale go forward to avoid compromising an ongoing investigation.
Hertling also notes there is a process to challenge denial of a sale.
Current law requires gun dealers to conduct a criminal background check and deny sales if a gun purchaser falls under a specified prohibition, including a felony conviction, domestic abuse conviction or illegal immigration. There is no legal basis to deny a sale if a purchaser is on a terror watch list.
"When I tell people that you can be on a terrorist watch list and still be allowed to buy as many guns as you want, they are shocked," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which supports Lautenberg's bill. (The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence Web site)
In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, lawmakers are considering a number of measures to strengthen gun sale laws. The NRA, which usually opposes increased restrictions on firearms, is taking different positions depending on the proposal. (The National Rifle Association Web site)
"Right now, law enforcement carefully monitors all firearms sales to those on the terror watch list," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "Injecting the attorney general into the process just politicizes it."
A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office found that 35 of 44 firearm purchase attempts over a five-month period made by known or suspected terrorists were approved by the federal law enforcement officials.
I mean obviously, if they can write about the number, they know how many. If they know how many, then know about the individual purchases (have to, in order to compile the number, right?), and thus know who got what guns. That tells me that the terrorists involved probably didn't get far with them after the purchases. These were probably staked-out individuals in the first place.
But no, the NRA just wants everyone, even the insane, terrorists, and babies, to have guns. According to CNN and the MSM.
Well this is just great: the Brady Bunch and the Bush Administration have joined hands in favor of denying 2A rights to people who have committed no crimes or undergone due process.
I'm all for surveillance of suspected individuals, after all, that's why we have agencies like the FBI and NSA. But it's simply unconstitutional to deny rights to people who have not had due process.
Then that's what the NRA will use in court when it kicks the administration in the gut and sends it away whimpering.
The sick thing is that some people claim that it doesn't bother them when legislators and other politicians put forth ideas that are plainly unconstitutional. They say, "That's what we have a supreme court for."
Uh, no. The supreme court is not there to babysit and censure legislators who make bad-faith laws knowing that they are unconstitutional. The fact is, we should be recalling any and all legislators who pass laws that are unconstitutional on their face. Many times it seems obvious that they pass such laws and then look sheepishly guilty when they are struck down, as if to say, "Yeah, yeah, I got busted, but I figured I'd just see how much I could get away with."
Those kinds of legislators should face treason charges.
I have heard Libeals screech about how "unfair" and "unConstitutional" it is when they are put under survilance by Secret Service when they go to protest where Bush is, but they have no problems with people having their 2nd Admendment rights taken without due process of law. As usual, they are select in their outrage. This is a spin job done to discredit the oldest Civil Rights Organization in the country. The "sheep" will buy it....the reasonable will know better.
A woman must not depend on protection by men. A woman must learn to protect herself.
Susan B. Anthony
A armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one has to back it up with his life.
CNN is a "terrorist organization". Steve48