You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
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.
wow, talk about greedy. I'm not in support of gun ban but this is just wrong
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 (news, bio, voting record), 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.
____________________________________________________________ _
If you're a terror suspect, and you've purchased a gun, do you not think that the Feds would be very far up your *** surveilling you?
I think simply being a suspect isn't enough to deny a 2nd Amendment Right. That is a line I draw in encroaching liberties.
Nobody should be for giving away any rights based on an unproven suspicion. Slippery slope and all. Next thing we're going to start doing is not letting people have children because they're a "suspected" child molester. We have a court system for a reason and that's to provide a legal basis to take away rights.
Edit: Plus, do you really think that someone who's willing to blow himself up to kill people is going to be stopped from getting a gun just because it's illegal? Come on now. In the end, the result is more restrictions on freedoms, with no improvements in safety.
Nobody should be for giving away any rights based on an unproven suspicion. Slippery slope and all. Next thing we're going to start doing is not letting people have children because they're a "suspected" child molester. We have a court system for a reason and that's to provide a legal basis to take away rights.
do we approve a suspected child abuser as a foster parent?
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 (news, bio, voting record), 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.
That's irrelevant because foster parenting is a job. It typically requires a license and background investigations.
Don't throw red herrings out there. If you want to explain why we are better off making guns illegal for "suspected" terrorists, please do.
Don't guns require the same thing?
There are things that are done for public safety, if you are going to claim you shouldn't treat him differently because he is only "suspected" of being a serious threat, than how can you justify tapping the phone of a suspected terrorist? or getting a search warrant on a suspected kid napper?
Aren't these people innocent until prov-en guilty too?
Should we just decide that being proactive is unfair, and stop trying to prevent or even solve crime? After all, most people caught having committed a crime were suspects at the start...I guess that is just unfair the way we pick on them. We tell suspects not to leave the country, is that wrong? Should we let them go because we have not convicted them yet?
Who are we to stop the suspected threat to public safety from buying a couple guns, 300 pounds of fertilizer for his garden and some home heating oil for his camper.
If he kills a couple dozen people, than we can arrest his remains.
That will show him.
Who are we to stop the suspected threat to public safety from buying a couple guns, 300 pounds of fertilizer for his garden and some home heating oil for his camper.
If he kills a couple dozen people, than we can arrest his remains.
That will show him.
Once again, terrorists don't care about the law. Making it illegal for him to get a gun isn't going to stop or dissuade him, so in the end what has it done? Nothing, other than stop law abiding "suspected terrorists" from getting a gun, but now I'm thinking maybe you're ok with that.
Kind of coincidental, but tonight (it just ended) there was an episode of 20/20 that was about commonly believed myths. One of the topics was that gun control laws reduce crime. Even John Stossel agrees with me, what more do you "It's for the public good" ***** want?
Once again, terrorists don't care about the law. Making it illegal for him to get a gun isn't going to stop or dissuade him, so in the end what has it done? Nothing, other than stop law abiding "suspected terrorists" from getting a gun, but now I'm thinking maybe you're ok with that.
So speed limits are a waste of time? along with most other laws that can easily be circumvented?
You didn't even want to try to address the main points in my post?
just because you're a suspect, doesn't mean you're guilty. they can't take away your rights just because of that. they can tap your phone and get a search warrant to gather evidence, but you still have your rights. ever heard of the 5th Amendment?
just because you're a suspect, doesn't mean you're guilty. they can't take away your rights just because of that. they can tap your phone and get a search warrant to gather evidence, but you still have your rights. ever heard of the 5th Amendment?
Of course, but my point is that being a suspect is enough to suspend your standard protections from search ect. therefore a precedent has been set that being a suspect is enough to impact your rights in the eyes of the law.
If you want to say that a terror suspect should be allowed to buy a gun because he has not been found guilty of anything, than why couldn't O.J. get on a plane to Argentina ...heck, he was even found innocent in court right? So suspects should enjoy the same freedoms you do right?
So speed limits are a waste of time? along with most other laws that can easily be circumvented?
You didn't even want to try to address the main points in my post?
I didn't address the main points of your post because they're all terrible analogies. Just like your above speed limit analogy.
Speeding is the breaking of a law just like blowing a bunch of people up in a terrorist attack is the breaking of a law. I am not advocating making terrorist attacks legal. That is the reason your analogy is terrible.
The reason your driver's license can be suspended is because driving is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, similar to your foster parent example. Even given that, your driver's license isn't suspended or revoked until you're convicted of breaking the law.
You're advocating taking away someone's constitutionally guaranteed right before they're convicted of any crime.
I didn't address the main points of your post because they're all terrible analogies. Just like your above speed limit analogy.
Speeding is the breaking of a law just like blowing a bunch of people up in a terrorist attack is the breaking of a law. I am not advocating making terrorist attacks legal. That is the reason your analogy is terrible.
The reason your driver's license can be suspended is because driving is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, similar to your foster parent example. Even given that, your driver's license isn't suspended or revoked until you're convicted of breaking the law.
You're advocating taking away someone's constitutionally guaranteed right before they're convicted of any crime.
But you said that gun laws won't stop bad people from getting guns, if speed laws don't stop speeders....what is the difference.
My analogies are just fine, they show examples of people losing freedom just by being susspects.
A convicted felon can't own a gun, why doesn't he get that right?
The NRA doesn't wan't to give the slightest ground in the gun control battle, will they own up if someone on the FBI watch list buys a gun that he uses to kill an agent a week later when they go to serve a warrent?
will they own up if someone on the FBI watch list buys a gun that he uses to kill an agent a week later when they go to serve a warrant?
Are you suggesting that if this "someone" was not allowed to buy a gun, then the hypothetical murder would have been subverted? I have a hard time believing any intelligent person could believe such nonsense.
What I want to know is why you believe that gun laws are effective. And why are you so willing to give up essential liberties for virtually zero gain in terms of safety?
Are you suggesting that if this "someone" was not allowed to by a gun, then the hypothetical murder would have been subverted? I have a hard time believing any intelligent person could believe such nonsense.
What I want to know is why you believe that gun laws are effective. And why are you so willing to give up essential liberties for virtually zero gain in terms of safety?
It just does not make any sense at all.
If I think someone is planning to kill people, I sure don't want to be the one giving him the gun.
Gun laws aren't effective enough, that is why I want at least a hand gun ban for private citizens.
If you don't think they work, you have missed our recent gun control theads.
NRA: Don't ban gun sales to terror suspects
