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

[Nickdfresh]

NRA Says Banning Gun Sales to Terror Suspects Infringes on Civil Liberties

05-04-2007 4:55 PM
By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (Associated Press) -- 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-N.J., "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.

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.

"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.

___

On the Net:

Information on the bill, S. 1237, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/

National Rifle Association: http://www.nra.org/

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence: http://www.bradycenter.org/

[Nickdfresh]

"They can pull the glorious AKs or martyrdom from our cold, dead hands!"

[BITEYOASS]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
NRA Says Banning Gun Sales to Terror Suspects Infringes on Civil Liberties

05-04-2007 4:55 PM
By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (Associated Press) -- 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-N.J., "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.

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.

"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.

___

On the Net:

Information on the bill, S. 1237, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/

National Rifle Association: http://www.nra.org/

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence: http://www.bradycenter.org/

Hypocrisy in action! I think I'd be more worried about Arabs hanging around RadioShack than Mexicans hanging around Lowe's.

[hideyoursheep]

Great.

[Blackflag]

Not terrorists...terror "suspects." Huge difference.

Regardless whether you like the NRA or gun control, I think we can agree that a "suspected" anything shouldn't lose any rights.

As far as I know, anybody can be suspected of anything. No requirements to fit into that category.

[Nitro Express]

Originally posted by Blackflag
Not terrorists...terror "suspects." Huge difference.

Regardless whether you like the NRA or gun control, I think we can agree that a "suspected" anything shouldn't lose any rights.

As far as I know, anybody can be suspected of anything. No requirements to fit into that category.

Bingo! We must not give up our right "Incocent until proven guilty" for some suppossed margine of safety.

Laws only keep the honest people honest anyways. If you want a gun and you are a criminal or terrorist, no problem on the illegal black market and you will even have access to arms that the current gun laws will deny you.

When you are willing to die for Allah well a big fine and 30 years in Levenworth isn't a scary deterent. Some big money in Mexico will buy you anything you want and getting it here in no problemo senior.

[Nitro Express]

It's a good thing most of us don't believe in Allah's suicidal paradise and the 72 virgins. We all would have nothing to live for and nothing to lose. Holly hell, the world would be one big fireball full of brainwashed assholes killing each other for goddess pussy and a villa in Allah's subdivision.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
Not terrorists...terror "suspects." Huge difference.

Regardless whether you like the NRA or gun control, I think we can agree that a "suspected" anything shouldn't lose any rights.

As far as I know, anybody can be suspected of anything. No requirements to fit into that category.

The suspected already have lost rights...

What if they're foreign nationals? Should they still have guns?

And why can terrorist suspects not fly but yet they can buy a gun?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
Bingo! We must not give up our right "Incocent until proven guilty" for some suppossed margine of safety.

...

Tell that to the people on the "no fly list." Or the people that have the FBI abusing nat'l security letters to investigate them and invade their privacy with no real criminal acts committed...

There IS a double standard here!!

[DrMaddVibe]

Isn't Ted Kennedy on the "no fly list"?

What's the problem with that? If I'm flying 1st class, I don't want to sit next to a murderer!

[Nitro Express]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Tell that to the people on the "no fly list." Or the people that have the FBI abusing nat'l security letters to investigate them and invade their privacy with no real criminal acts committed...

There IS a double standard here!!

The double standar really hit critical mass with the Patriot Act. That disolved habious corpus in the US. It's dangerouse legislation.

The US Constitution states that a warrant must be served before your home can be entered and searched. We need warrants as a check on the potential abuse of law enforcement. Trust nobody. We need a system of checks and balances to keep tyranny at bay. Efficient govt. always turns into abusive govt.

If a someone is suspected as a terrorist, then a warrant must be obtained to search their home or business. They should stand trial and be sentanced by a court of law before being imprisoned.

We could destroy our way of life in this country in the name of keeping the country safe.

[Nickdfresh]

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

What's the problem with that? If I'm flying 1st class, I don't want to sit next to a murderer!

But you'll give 'em a gun?

And Ted is off the no fly list when they discovered that Bush is a far bigger terrorist and killer of US troops and Iraqis...

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The suspected already have lost rights...

What if they're foreign nationals? Should they still have guns?

And why can terrorist suspects not fly but yet they can buy a gun?

It sounds like you're confused about what a "suspect" is.

"Suspects" do not lose any rights. And a suspect does not have to be a foreign national, or of arabic decent.

You could be a "terror suspect" at the drop of a hat.

And there is no "right" to fly on a plane.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
It sounds like you're confused about what a "suspect" is.

"Suspects" do not lose any rights. And a suspect does not have to be a foreign national, or of arabic decent.

You could be a "terror suspect" at the drop of a hat.

And there is no "right" to fly on a plane.

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!!

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
It's a good thing most of us don't believe in Allah's suicidal paradise and the 72 virgins.

Yeah, Americans believe in "Heaven."

Doesn't it sound like the Islam post-life is way better?

[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...