NRA, Standing Up for the Gun Rights OF TERRORISTS!?!?!?!

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Isn't Ted Kennedy on the "no fly list"?

What's the problem with that? I don't want to sit next to a murderer!

Ted on the 'no fly', eh? Did you get this tid bit from the same person that told you Tenat couldn't get security clearance?

You would much rather cuddle up with your main man Clay! Maybe sneak off into the bathroom to join the "mile high" club.

Oh, SaddBawls! You're naughty!

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I'm "confused?"

Really?

Nice oxymoronic post. So a 'suspect' can buy a gun, but cannot fly on a plane? The "terrorist watchlist" only applies to planes? Really?

Um, yeah, mmm'kay. You have no "right" to travel, but you can buy a .50 caliber sniper rifle! Wooooohoooooh!!

I don't know what you're arguing, and I don't think you do, either.

Are you saying suspects should lose their right to buy a gun, or are you saying there should not be a terrorist watch list at the airport?

The one really doesn't have anything to do with the other.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
I don't know what you're arguing, and I don't think you do, either.

How ironically condescending of you. Very rich...

I'm not "arguing" anything, merely asking a question (albiet indirectly) that you apparently will not answer...

Are you saying suspects should lose their right to buy a gun, or are you saying there should not be a terrorist watch list at the airport?

The one really doesn't have anything to do with the other.

So you do know what I'm arguing?

Yes yes! what I am asking is why do certain people (on the terror watch list) lose the right to fly, despite the fact that a successful act of air piracy such as a "coup de main" 911 style terror suicide mission is now very remote due to many reasons. But yet, they have the right to buy a .50 caliber sniper rifle that could conceivably be used to commit terrorist acts?

So you defend the right of the gov't to prevent people from flying, but the same people can threaten my security by purchasing assault rifles?

Is that not an internal contradiction? They have nothing to do with one-another? Really? Both have to do with "homeland security" do they not?

And BTW, the NRA has a long history of inhibiting law enforcement agencies such as the ATF, effectively bribing legislators to intimidate such agencies from even enforcing the "laws on the books" which is my main beef with them...

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
what I am asking is why do certain people (on the terror watch list) lose the right to fly, . . .

If that is really your question...the answer is that nobody has challenged the no-fly list in court and Congress has not done anything to stop it (as far as I know).

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
. . . But yet, they have the right to buy a .50 caliber sniper rifle

Because courts have already said that the 2nd amendment is a "fundamental" right.

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
So you defend the right of the gov't to prevent people from flying

I don't remember saying that.

I don't think a "suspect" should lose any rights, but you're trying to argue it both ways.

---

You're trying to confuse two different questions, and it's not working for you. Yes, a "suspect" has to be inconvenienced in some ways. For example, they might be detained and questioned by police. But it's a whole different question when you're talking about something in the Bill of Rights.

Apples and oranges. You can't say your "right" to watch "General Hospital" at noon is being infringed when police want to question you about a crime. . . . and compare that to, say, the right to habeas corpus.

---

Right to fly on a plane? Please. Go to the airport without a shirt and see how "fundamental" your right to fly is.

Not saying there should be a "no fly list." Just saying you're talking about two completely different issues.

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And BTW, the NRA has a long history of . . . which is my main beef with them...

Finally, whether you like the NRA or not should be irrelevant when it comes to the government suspending the Bill of Rights for "suspects." My enemy is my friend if they're speaking out against that.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
If that is really your question...the answer is that nobody has challenged the no-fly list in court and Congress has not done anything to stop it (as far as I know).

Oh, so it's okay then to have retarded, double standard policies because Congress only recently took Bush's dick out of their collective mouths?

Oh, okay, never fix anything and maintain the ineffectual status quo. Got'cha.

Because courts have already said that the 2nd amendment is a "fundamental" right.

And courts have also allowed restrictions on firearms such as the National Firearms Act of 1934 and onward, including the conduct of background checks and the like. And also the severe restrictions of automatic weapons and so forth...

I don't remember saying that.

I don't think a "suspect" should lose any rights, but you're trying to argue it both ways.

---

Oh contraire. I'm the one calling for some consistency actually..

You're trying to confuse two different questions, and it's not working for you.

No. I am trying to make a point. And you fail to grasp it...

Yes, a "suspect" has to be inconvenienced in some ways. For example, they might be detained and questioned by police. But it's a whole different question when you're talking about something in the Bill of Rights.

So who gets to pick and choose in which way suspects rights are infringed? Biased lobbying groups with an agenda?

Because it sure isn't about the truth or good public policy.

Apples and oranges. You can't say your "right" to watch "General Hospital" at noon is being infringed when police want to question you about a crime. . . . and compare that to, say, the right to habeas corpus.

---

WTF does that have to do with anything?

Right to fly on a plane? Please. Go to the airport without a shirt and see how "fundamental" your right to fly is.

Again, go into a gun store and take a shit on the counter, and see how fundamental your right to purchase arms to "bear" (in a well REGULATED militia) is...

A gun dealer has no more compulsion to sell you a gun than the airlines do to fly you. So again, you're throwing out senseless analogies...

Not saying there should be a "no fly list." Just saying you're talking about two completely different issues.

How are issues of nat'l security "unrelated?" What happens when terrorists, or criminals, obtain weapons and use them in an attack? Will we have a no gun sale list then?

Or will NRA lobbying save the day and enable those lawbreakers to sell firearms to those that should not have them with virtual impunity....

Finally, whether you like the NRA or not should be irrelevant when it comes to the government suspending the Bill of Rights for "suspects." My enemy is my friend if they're speaking out against that.

Actually, the NRA has a long history of knee jerk gun lobbying intended to subvert the laws already on the books. And despite the Bill of Rights mentioning of firearms, in a questionable context no less, there is also sanctioned legislation and restrictions "regulating" the sale and possession of firearms.

I'm just saying, maybe the NRA should have some other priorities like insuring only sane, honest, law-abiding, American citizens can buy firearms --and teaching kids to not shoot their toes off...

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
insuring only sane, honest, law-abiding, American citizens can buy firearms

You're too emotional about this subject to listen rationally.

I'll just reiterate my point that "sane, honest, law-abiding citizens" can be suspected of anything at any time with no due process required - and leave it at that.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag
I'll just reiterate my point that "sane, honest, law-abiding citizens" can be suspected of anything at any time with no due process required - and leave it at that.

Yeah.

It's called The Patriot Act.

Ironic, isn't it?

The OCCUPIERS of The White House for the last years are the biggest bunch of Human Rights Violators we've seen in some time.

Mission Accomplished.

[Blackflag]

No dispute about that. I just wonder if the next douche will be just as bad.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag
No dispute about that. I just wonder if the next douche will be just as bad.

count on it.


Meet the New Boss........

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
You're too emotional about this subject to listen rationally.

I'll just reiterate my point that "sane, honest, law-abiding citizens" can be suspected of anything at any time with no due process required - and leave it at that.

I'm "emotional?"

And, I think that that was my point. Funny thing is, people only notice when guns are involved...