NRA: Don't ban gun sales to suspected terrorists

[Dirt McGirt]

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

 

[Ninja]

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.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

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.

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.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

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.

couldnt anyone buy a gun for a terrorist and then just give it to them?

 

[Mr.Conley]

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."

 

[Diuretic]

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."

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.

 

[Bullypulpit]

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.

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.

 

[Bullypulpit]

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.

Ahhh...the poor, downtrodden, white, heterosexual male...you forgot Christian in there.

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?

 

[CTRLALTDEL]

This law is irrelivant. TERRORISTS DON'T CARE ABOUT OUR GUN LAWS. PERIOD.

 

[Gunny]

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.

The problem is, that even though the NRA is as extreme one way as Handguns Control Inc is the other, it is THE only lobby that fights to protect our Second Amendment Rights. The anti-gun lobby is so illogical and downright moronic, one doesn't have much choice but support the other side when the rule of thumb is "silence is inaction and/or consent."

I think suspected terrorists should be shipped one-way to Baghdad, end of story.

 

[CSM]

The problem is, that even though the NRA is as extreme one way as Handguns Control Inc is the other, it is THE only lobby that fights to protect our Second Amendment Rights. The anti-gun lobby is so illogical and downright moronic, one doesn't have much choice but support the other side when the rule of thumb is "silence is inaction and/or consent."

I think suspected terrorists should be shipped one-way to Baghdad, end of story.

I am not so sure about doing anything with persons suspected of something except thorough investigation....then send them to Baghdad.

 

[Gunny]

I am not so sure about doing anything with persons suspected of something except thorough investigation....then send them to Baghdad.

But of course. A fair trial, THEN hang them.

 

[CSM]

But of course. A fair trial, THEN hang them.

Yup. It is a sad day when this country enacts laws that make it illegal to think...oh, wait....Congress is tring to make it illegal to be anything but liberal! I get it now!

 

[Dirt McGirt]

The problem is, that even though the NRA is as extreme one way as Handguns Control Inc is the other, it is THE only lobby that fights to protect our Second Amendment Rights. The anti-gun lobby is so illogical and downright moronic, one doesn't have much choice but support the other side when the rule of thumb is "silence is inaction and/or consent."

I don't necessarily have a problem with the NRA. I support the 2nd Amendment and support a person's right to own guns. But this piece of legislation goes beyond the anti-gun lobby. It's being pushed by the Bush Administration and the DOJ.

If we allow suspected terrorists their right to bear arms, how can we justify denying them the privilege to fly based on public safety concerns? And if we have to recognize their right to bear arms because of the 2nd Amendment then we would also have to be consistent and recognize their 4th Amendment rights and stop wiretaps without a warrant. How do we apply a discriminatory law equally in this case?

I think suspected terrorists should be shipped one-way to Baghdad, end of story.

This is one of the main things that interests me about the article. How do we know that the suspected terrorist list is accurate? Ted Kennedy was on that list (obviously I'm setting someone up for a major joke here.)

 

[Diuretic]

The problem is, that even though the NRA is as extreme one way as Handguns Control Inc is the other, it is THE only lobby that fights to protect our Second Amendment Rights. The anti-gun lobby is so illogical and downright moronic, one doesn't have much choice but support the other side when the rule of thumb is "silence is inaction and/or consent."

I think suspected terrorists should be shipped one-way to Baghdad, end of story.

Cynicism warning!

Does the NRA fight for your Second Amendment rights or their gun manufacturer members right to make and sell firearms?

 

[Diuretic]

Yup. It is a sad day when this country enacts laws that make it illegal to think...oh, wait....Congress is tring to make it illegal to be anything but liberal! I get it now!

Thoughtcrime?

 

[CSM]

Thoughtcrime?

Headed that way apparently. If you don't think correctly, it's off to "conditioning camp" for you!

 

[Diuretic]

Headed that way apparently. If you don't think correctly, it's off to "conditioning camp" for you!

Surely not? Just a bit of hyperbole there CSM?

 

[Gunny]

Cynicism warning!

Does the NRA fight for your Second Amendment rights or their gun manufacturer members right to make and sell firearms?

I'm sure the NRA receives a lot of contributions from gun manufacturers, but on the whole, I think they're driven more by idealism than money.

I couldn't say anymore because I haven't been member for years, for one reason only: once you join, they hit you up for donations on a weekly basis. I'm more than willing to pay annual dues, but they're worse than "Will Work For Food" people under the interstate overpass. EVERY cry for a donation is qualified with the 'fact" that your Second Amendment Rights hinge on that very donation.

IMO, they do themselves a disservice acting in such a manner.