NRA: Don't ban gun sales to suspected terrorists

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Dirt McGirt, May 4, 2007.

  1. Dirt McGirt
    Offline

    Dirt McGirt Bad Mother****er

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,773
    Thanks Received:
    503
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +503
    NRA: Don't ban gun sales to suspects

    WASHINGTON - 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.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070504/ap_on_go_co/terror_suspects_guns
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Ninja
    Offline

    Ninja Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,220
    Thanks Received:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Glorious People's Republic of California
    Ratings:
    +377
    Nice Brady Bunch fluff piece ;)

    My question, as an NRA member, is what exactly must one do to become a "suspected terrorist"?

    What criteria does Frankie suggest we use?

    The reason I ask is because based on what I've seen from Democraps in the past, their definition of a terrorist does not align with mine:

    http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53857

    I can only imagine what things will be like if this law passes and our next AG is appointed by Hitlery - there would basically be a moratorium on white heterosexual males from purchasing firearms, by decree of Attorney General Chuck Schumer.

    Dirt, you know you're my boy, but articles like this make me proud to be a member of the NRA.
     
  3. Dirt McGirt
    Offline

    Dirt McGirt Bad Mother****er

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,773
    Thanks Received:
    503
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +503
    Actually I believe they're using the FBI terrorist screening center database for determination. The article is interesting to me because I want to see the comments of people who side with the NRA but support suspected terrorists being on the no-fly list. It doesn't make sense to me that someone who supports the no-fly list would support those very same people being able to buy a gun. I'm curious as to how someone would argue that without contradicting themselves.
     
  4. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    I'm wondering what the fuss is about. A terrorist - a real one that might also be suspected of being a terrorist - isn't going to worry about this law. They'll obtain weapons easily enough if they want them.

    I am genuinely puzzled by this piece and the apparent actions of the legislators. If anyone can shine some light on this I would appreciate it, sincerely I would. I'm feeling a bit of a dill because I'm sure I've missed something here.
     
  5. actsnoblemartin
    Offline

    actsnoblemartin I love Andrea & April

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,039
    Thanks Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    La Mesa, CA
    Ratings:
    +407
    Starts imagining what that would be like.

    Bin laden walks into a gun store.

    Bin Laden: I would like to buy a gun

    Gun Owner: you look familiar, Im not sure if i should buy you a gun, but ok. :badgrin:

    couldnt anyone buy a gun for a terrorist and then just give it to them?
     
  6. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    This article demonstrates what will undoubtedly become a brazen display of conservative hypocracy.

    "Can we deny suspected terrorists the right to fly on airplanes?"

    "Of course, and it's unamerican of you to think otherwise."

    "Should we allow the government to ignore the 4th amendment through warrent-free random phone phishing?"

    "Naturally, afterall, only those who have done wrong need fear."

    "Can the President deny a US citizen his Constitutional right to due process?"

    "Are you saying you don't support our President?"

    "Can the FBI spy on me without the consent of a judge?"

    "You don't want another 9/11, right?

    "Should we deny suspected terrorists the ability to procure arms which could be used against American citizens in innumerably violent and cruel ways?"

    "WHAT!?!?! We can't do that. It's in the Constitution! Sure, we can ignore the 4th amendment, but this is the 2nd amendment were talking about. It's totally different. And whose to say who's a suspect? You can't trust the government to make that sort of decision. What if the government decides to trample the rights of innocent citizens? And this is guns we're talking about, not some bullshit like protection from unreasonable search and seizure, due process and fair trials. Sure, terrorists with weapons pose a threat to our country, but if we ignore our Constitution then we're hardly better than what we're fighting. How could you ever support such a facist idea on American soil."
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    :lol: Well Mr C you certainly pointed out the inconsistencies. We'll wait I suppose for a rebuttal.

    I'm still waiting for an expanation of the whole idea. I was tired when I read it originally but I still don't get it.
     
  8. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    And we all know just how accurate that database is. I haven't flown in a while, so I don't know if I'm on a no fly list or not for my...ahem...harsh... criticism of the administration and its policies.

    While I generally support the right of citizens to own weapons, I don't think that right extends to assault rifles, which can be converted back to full auto, some more easily than others and depending on the gun-smithing skills of the individual. Nor are assault shotguns needed for squirrel or quail hunting. It also ends where the possibility of terrorists, whether domestic or foreign, securing weapons to further their aims exists.

    Just as there are limits on free speech, one can't stand up in a crowded theater and scream "Fire!", there should also be limits on gun ownership.
     
  9. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Ahhh...the poor, downtrodden, white, heterosexual male...you forgot Christian in there. :wtf:

    Seeing as how white, heterosexual, and supposedly Christian, males have been running the country for the last two centuries or so...that argument is, how shall I put this...ridiculous to the point of irrelevancy. Listen to Michael Savage-Weiner much?
     
  10. CTRLALTDEL
    Offline

    CTRLALTDEL Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    221
    Thanks Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +40
    This law is irrelivant. TERRORISTS DON'T CARE ABOUT OUR GUN LAWS. PERIOD.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page