NRA To Oppose Law Prohibiting Terror Suspects From Gun Purchases

[mactastic]

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."
So it's not OK to deny terror suspects their 2nd Amendment right (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18494626/), but perfectly fine to deny them their right to Habeus Corpus, violate their right to privacy in the phone conversations, emails, letters, etc., on mere 'suspicions" of a terrorist threat? WTF is wrong with these people? You can't fly on a plane, but you can buy all the guns you want? If you're going to have watch lists, then let's USE them.

This, among other reasons, is why, as a gun owner, I'll never support the NRA.

News flash to Chris Cox: Fredo doesn't give a flying fig what rights you think you have. Arbitrary denial of rights is what the Bush Justice Department is all about. In fact, considering Fredo's logic in denying Habeus Corpus, I doubt he feels the Second Amendment grants you the right to own a gun in the first place. Sure, you have the right not to have it taken from you, but that doesn't mean you have a right to it in the first place...

[Thomas Veil]

Even if I were inclined to gun ownership, I'd sure never join the NRA because they come across too much as a fringe/cuckoo operation.Thank you, mactastic, for proving my point.

[pilotError]

They are a necessary evil. A balancing force if you will.

I kind of equate them to greenpeace. I don't necessarily like their policies, but you need someone there to keep an eye on things.

The politicians have eroded the constitution in the name of "terrorism", unfortunately, they seem to use those laws against everyone but the terrorists.

That's coming from a Republican...

I'm pretty tired of everyone making up laws that make the US a police state. National ID's, Gun Law Bans, the right to search without a warrant, blatant disregard for privacy laws, illegal phone tapping, etc... When does it end?

[pseudobrit]

I'm pretty tired of everyone making up laws that make the US a police state. National ID's, Gun Law Bans, the right to search without a warrant, blatant disregard for privacy laws, illegal phone tapping, etc... When does it end?

Apparently the only freedoms or privacies the current administration cares about concern firearms. Which is probably the least important and fundamental of the rights under (potential, in the case of guns) attack.

[2jaded2care]

At risk of sounding like I've drunk the NRA Kool-Aid (actually, I hate that phrase)...

I checked out the NRA site to get their explanation. Their fear is that citizens might be denied what NRA considers to be their constitutional rights without due process. IOW, that bureaucrats might abuse such "terror suspect" lists, and put people on it without any explanation or justification. (Don't know why they might think that...)

Also, as some of the ultra-right groups point out, there has been at least one attempt by a state legislator to classify groups such as the Minutemen as "domestic terror groups".

The proposed legislation does make provision for appeal should a person be denied a gun purchase, but it also does not appear to obligate the government to provide any reason why a person might have been on that list.

Plus, the NRA's position generally has been, if someone's a danger to society, they should be investigated, prosecuted, locked up and/or shipped out, rationale being that if they're intent on doing bad things with weapons, they're going to do it one way or another.

Enough explanation already. Proceed with the potshots.

[Ugg]

The NRA has lost its marbles, let's hope its membership takes a sudden drop, maybe then they'll realize they've become irrelevent.

[NavyIntel007]

The NRA is nuts. After the VT shooting, the NRA should have crawled in a hole for a long time. I swear this crowd would argue the need for a 12 year old to own a bazooka.

As per the Stephanie Miller show...

"And Thanks for playing You're Completely Wrong!"

[mactastic]

At risk of sounding like I've drunk the NRA Kool-Aid (actually, I hate that phrase)...

I checked out the NRA site to get their explanation. Their fear is that citizens might be denied what NRA considers to be their constitutional rights without due process. IOW, that bureaucrats might abuse such "terror suspect" lists, and put people on it without any explanation or justification. (Don't know why they might think that...)

Also, as some of the ultra-right groups point out, there has been at least one attempt by a state legislator to classify groups such as the Minutemen as "domestic terror groups".

The proposed legislation does make provision for appeal should a person be denied a gun purchase, but it also does not appear to obligate the government to provide any reason why a person might have been on that list.

Plus, the NRA's position generally has been, if someone's a danger to society, they should be investigated, prosecuted, locked up and/or shipped out, rationale being that if they're intent on doing bad things with weapons, they're going to do it one way or another.

Enough explanation already. Proceed with the potshots.
First they came for the gun owners, eh?

It's the rank hipocrasy that gets me. I'd guess that if you polled the membership of the NRA you would find that a majority of them were quite supportive of the Bush administration trampling all over OTHER American's rights -- just as long as they stayed away from theirs. Warrantless wiretapping? Sure, no problem. Stripping Habeus Corpus from Americans designated by the President to be a "terrorist threat"? Cool with us! Torturing people deemed a "terrorist threat"? Have at it! Writing National Security Letters like they're spam emails? Denying people with scary-sounding surnames airline flights? Knock yourselves out.

But deny someone the right to purchase a gun because they're on the same list that you use to deny them a seat on an airline? Now THAT cannot stand! That's where we draw the line!

It's just stupid. It's what happens when you base your views on political expidency rather than principles.

[zimv20]

First they came for the gun owners, eh?

my thought exactly.

[yg17]

At risk of sounding like I've drunk the NRA Kool-Aid (actually, I hate that phrase)...

I checked out the NRA site to get their explanation. Their fear is that citizens might be denied what NRA considers to be their constitutional rights without due process. IOW, that bureaucrats might abuse such "terror suspect" lists, and put people on it without any explanation or justification. (Don't know why they might think that...)

So, we can deny suspect terrorists the right to habeus corpus, no cruel and unusual punishment and a fair trial, but god forbid we stop them from buying a damn assault rifle.

[sushi]

I checked out the NRA site to get their explanation. Their fear is that citizens might be denied what NRA considers to be their constitutional rights without due process.
Interesting.

While the tag line indicates something different, after visiting the NRA site, I see that they have a point.

[leekohler]

Interesting.

While the tag line indicates something different, after visiting the NRA site, I see that they have a point.

And that point would be? (BTW- I'm for gun ownership rights)

[sushi]

And that point would be? (BTW- I'm for gun ownership rights)
Probably easier to visit the site and read what they say.

Others have tried to cover it, but I think that the NRA does it better.

[leekohler]

Probably easier to visit the site and read what they say.

Others have tried to cover it, but I think that the NRA does it better.

Can you give me a link to the article?

[sushi]

Can you give me a link to the article?
Go to here (http://www.nra.org/)

Click on Browse Archives.

Select "Ludicrous Lautenberg List."

Nothing Earth shattering but I think a good point is made.

[leekohler]

Can't find "Ludicrous Lautenberg List." Where is it on the page? Sorry for being a pest.

[mactastic]

Interesting.

While the tag line indicates something different, after visiting the NRA site, I see that they have a point.It wouldn't happen to be the same point the ACLU raised regarding loss of rights under the Bushistas, would it?

[j26]

What would it take to go on this list?

[skunk]

Being from Paddyland, for a start, I'd imagine. ;)

[sushi]

Can't find "Ludicrous Lautenberg List." Where is it on the page? Sorry for being a pest.
Look for the BROWSE ARCHIVES button on the right side about halfway down.

It's blue.

Then scroll and select the "Ludicrous Lautenberg List."

[leekohler]

Look for the BROWSE ARCHIVES button on the right side about halfway down.

It's blue.

Then scroll and select the "Ludicrous Lautenberg List."

Got it. And it's correct. If someone is "suspected" of terrorism they can be denied the right to bear arms. Sorry guys, everyone should be against this- for the very same reason many people should not be imprisoned in Guantanamo. The NRA has this one right.

[solvs]

Terrorist suspect? Ok. Terrorist, convicted criminal, nut job, etc? No gun for you. I support the 2nd Amendment, don't like the NRA for the same reason I don't like GP even though I support basic environmentalism, but in principle I agree with them for once. I still think it should be harder to get a gun, but if you've done nothing wrong, I guess you have a right to one. They definitely had the wrong response after VA Tech though. Didn't help their cause. I look at other countries versions of the NRA, and wish ours was more like they are.

Dunno though, I prefer swords and my tazer. :D

[Desertrat]

mac, how do you take the NRA position on this one particular bill and add to it that the NRA ALSO believes

"(It's)...perfectly fine to deny them their right to Habeus Corpus, violate their right to privacy in the phone conversations, emails, letters, etc., on mere 'suspicions" of a terrorist threat?"

How? The NRA hasn't said boo-diddly about Habeus Corpus, etc., wrt this bill for the simple reason that it's focussing on this one bill. In the past it HAS spoken against invasions of privacy and other facets of our burgeoning police state. Editorials in its magazines, mostly, educating some four million people about what's happening to their civil rights.

Overall, the NRA has repeatedly derided such things as "no fly" lists, where nobody knows why they're on them. And derided the absence of due process in many other aspects of the Patriot Act and the associated garbage.

You're attacking the NRA; in the context of "public interest", you'd be more accurate to attack the Sierra Club or AARP. I've not seen them speak out against these things to which you object, but the NRA has indeed done so.

And this isn't just a tirade at mac; several others have jumped on the wrong bandwagon as well.

Hell's bells, you've read enough of my gripes against such as Echelon, the TSA, the Patriot Act and all that garbage. And I've been NRA for over forty years.

Find a barber shop or gunstore with some back issues of The American Rifleman lying around. Read what's actually the NRA views, not what some third party says who's never read our views either.

'Rat

[Peterkro]

Being from Paddyland, for a start, I'd imagine. ;)
Having a tendency towards Anarchy will have you on it already even if they missed your Irishness.

[skunk]

Having a tendency towards Anarchy will have you on it already even if they missed your Irishness.Some of us are probably on it several times over... ;)

[Peterkro]

Some of us are probably on it several times over... ;)

I think would should be proud of it too.

[j26]

Having a tendency towards Anarchy will have you on it already even if they missed your Irishness.

"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorised, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished."

I suppose I'm on the list alright

It'll be all fine when Obama gets elected - he's part Irish.

[skunk]

It'll be all fine when Obama gets elected - he's part Irish.So are all of them as soon as they touch down in Dublin.

[j26]

So are all of them as soon as they touch down in Dublin.

A mate showed me an article suggesting that one of the reasons the Peace process in Ireland moved forward so far was that Bush has no and has never claimed any connection with Ireland, and had no interest in what was going on.

Once there was nobody interfering on either side they had no real option but to talk to each other. There's a lesson in there, I think.

[synth3tik]

well of course. If the NRA could have it their way you would get a gold plated AR 15 for your golden birthday. Oh and many other assorted firearms after completing levels of schooling.

[calculus]

well of course. If the NRA could have it their way you would get a gold plated AR 15 for your golden birthday. Oh and many other assorted firearms after completing levels of schooling.

I think that's a splendid idea. In my wet liberal European eyes there is only one valid reason to stop someone having a gun - wanting to have one.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Couldnt everyone be considered suspect? So lets see, we suspect thereby you are guilty? A slippery path to facism.

[bartelby]

Couldnt everyone be considered suspect? So lets see, we suspect thereby you are guilty? A slippery path to facism.

And thought crimes.

[mactastic]

mac, how do you take the NRA position on this one particular bill and add to it that the NRA ALSO believes

"(It's)...perfectly fine to deny them their right to Habeus Corpus, violate their right to privacy in the phone conversations, emails, letters, etc., on mere 'suspicions" of a terrorist threat?"

How? The NRA hasn't said boo-diddly about Habeus Corpus, etc., wrt this bill for the simple reason that it's focussing on this one bill. In the past it HAS spoken against invasions of privacy and other facets of our burgeoning police state. Editorials in its magazines, mostly, educating some four million people about what's happening to their civil rights.

Overall, the NRA has repeatedly derided such things as "no fly" lists, where nobody knows why they're on them. And derided the absence of due process in many other aspects of the Patriot Act and the associated garbage.

You're attacking the NRA; in the context of "public interest", you'd be more accurate to attack the Sierra Club or AARP. I've not seen them speak out against these things to which you object, but the NRA has indeed done so.

And this isn't just a tirade at mac; several others have jumped on the wrong bandwagon as well.

Hell's bells, you've read enough of my gripes against such as Echelon, the TSA, the Patriot Act and all that garbage. And I've been NRA for over forty years.

Find a barber shop or gunstore with some back issues of The American Rifleman lying around. Read what's actually the NRA views, not what some third party says who's never read our views either.

'Rat
I've talked to enough NRA members to get a feeling for how they feel about torturing terror suspects, and the Bush wiretapping stuff. If you read my second post in this thread, you'll see that I'm not including ALL members of the NRA. Get that? OBVIOUSLY NOT ALL NRA MEMBERS BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS,.

Would you be willing to guess that a majority of Sierra Club members believe one thing or another, based upon your interactions with them over the years? I bet you would feel comfortable making some broad suppositions about their members. In fact, I bet if I search long enough I can find examples on this forum of you making generalizations quite similar.

[mactastic]

mac, how do you take the NRA position on this one particular bill and add to it that the NRA ALSO believes

"(It's)...perfectly fine to deny them their right to Habeus Corpus, violate their right to privacy in the phone conversations, emails, letters, etc., on mere 'suspicions" of a terrorist threat?"

How? The NRA hasn't said boo-diddly about Habeus Corpus, etc., wrt this bill for the simple reason that it's focussing on this one bill. In the past it HAS spoken against invasions of privacy and other facets of our burgeoning police state. Editorials in its magazines, mostly, educating some four million people about what's happening to their civil rights.

Overall, the NRA has repeatedly derided such things as "no fly" lists, where nobody knows why they're on them. And derided the absence of due process in many other aspects of the Patriot Act and the associated garbage.

You're attacking the NRA; in the context of "public interest", you'd be more accurate to attack the Sierra Club or AARP. I've not seen them speak out against these things to which you object, but the NRA has indeed done so.

And this isn't just a tirade at mac; several others have jumped on the wrong bandwagon as well.

Hell's bells, you've read enough of my gripes against such as Echelon, the TSA, the Patriot Act and all that garbage. And I've been NRA for over forty years.

Find a barber shop or gunstore with some back issues of The American Rifleman lying around. Read what's actually the NRA views, not what some third party says who's never read our views either.

'Rat
'Rat, I've talked to enough NRA members to get a feeling for how they feel about torturing terror suspects, and the Bush wiretapping stuff. I've read enough "Field and Stream" and "G&A" to know how the majority of gun owners feel about "Islamofacists".

If you read my second post in this thread, you'll see that I'm not including ALL members of the NRA. Get that? OBVIOUSLY NOT ALL NRA MEMBERS BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS, JUST AS NOT ALL SIERRA CLUB MEMBERS BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS. Yes there are a minority, perhapes even a significant minority, of NRA members such as yourself that are opposed to certain things the GOP has done (although you were quite tepid in your anti-wiretapping comments, I believe you mentioned the phrase "if you've got nothing to hide" at least once). But they are the minority, certainly among those I have talked to.

Like I said, were you to poll the rank and file of the NRA you would likely have found at the time that they were quite supportive of other rights being stripped away from other people. The key being other people. That's why I have no respect for the NRA.They didn't care until it was their rights being threatened.

Again, note that I did not say ALL. Don't take it personally when a group that you are a member of does something like this. I'm not talking about you specifically.

[Desertrat]

mac, I moderate four forums on two RKBA websites. There are about 94,000 registered and some 16,000 currently active people who post there. I've been part of the deal since 1998. I know a lot of them are NRA members. Around a half, anyway.

I gotta disagree with you about any characterization beyond some relatively small percentage of the membership. I don't doubt you can find some nasty people in the NRA. I do believe from all experiences over a large amount of time that they are few.

The thing is, your phrasing, "the NRA" implied an official view on the part of our Board and Executives. That's a large part of why I erupted.

To reiterate: The NRA has editorialized against the civil rights abuses or the potential for abuse in many of these new anti-terror laws and regulations. The great majority of the membership supports those views.

The reason I popped off about Sierra and AARP is that I've not heard of any protest from their officialdom. Sure, I realize that civil rights issues aren't part of their deal, but I said it to point out that the NRA is interested in civil rights BEYOND just the gun issue.

'Rat

[hulugu]

The reason I popped off about Sierra and AARP is that I've not heard of any protest from their officialdom. Sure, I realize that civil rights issues aren't part of their deal, but I said it to point out that the NRA is interested in civil rights BEYOND just the gun issue.

'Rat

Still, I don't think it's fair to accuse an environmental organization for not dealing with constitutional issues when one that does tends to sit on its hands publically.

I'd believe the NRA had a vested interest in the rest of the Constitution if I could find one mention of other nine ammendments in any of their public statements. This may be wrong, but I don't see the NRA standing with the ACLU or Amnesty International because the NRA is narrowly focused on one specific ammendment, a special kind of myopia that I believes actually hurts the NRA's credibility.

[solvs]

Maybe not Sierra or AARP, but lots of liberals, Al Gore included, can't stand GreenPeace. For obvious reasons. Maybe not all NRA members like wiretapping and loss of civil rights, but to be fair to mac, not many of them are joining us in decrying Bush for these abuses as loudly as they do when guns are involved. After VA Tech, rather than say a crazy person like this guy shouldn't have been had such easy access to a gun, because it makes them look bad, we heard a lot of talk about them wanting there to be more guns for everybody. And remember when the UN wanted to take your guns even though they didn't?

I don't know. I'm against cruelty to animals, support religious tolerance, pro moderate and realistic environmentalism, and support the legal right for a noncriminal to own a firearm. But I'd never join PETA, the RR, GP, nor the NRA because the nuts make the debate, and it just makes the rest of us look bad by association.

[Desertrat]

hulugu, do you remember the so-called campaign finance reform law? That part where Congress said you cannot advertise anything against a candidate within a certain length of time before an election, even if you have photos of him with an axe and a victim?

The ACLU and the NRA were co-filers in federal court over that muzzling of the First Amendment. Unfortunately, SCOTUS ruled against them--and you and me and everybody else...

And don't forget the Fourth and Fifth Amendments; those are also of significant interest to the NRA.

'Rat

[it5five]

I don't know. I'm against cruelty to animals, support religious tolerance, pro moderate and realistic environmentalism, and support the legal right for a noncriminal to own a firearm. But I'd never join PETA, the RR, GP, nor the NRA because the nuts make the debate, and it just makes the rest of us look bad by association.

I'm a vegetariand and I'd never join PETA. They are nuts.

[hulugu]

hulugu, do you remember the so-called campaign finance reform law? That part where Congress said you cannot advertise anything against a candidate within a certain length of time before an election, even if you have photos of him with an axe and a victim?

The ACLU and the NRA were co-filers in federal court over that muzzling of the First Amendment. Unfortunately, SCOTUS ruled against them--and you and me and everybody else...

And don't forget the Fourth and Fifth Amendments; those are also of significant interest to the NRA.

'Rat

I don't remember hearing the NRA's objections, so I may be wrong, but I still think they could be more vocal in their objection to something like PATRIOT, for example, if they're so interested in protecting the Constitution and not their own constitutional backyard, so to speak.

[Desertrat]

If you weren't aware of the joining of the ACLU and the NRA, to me that means you were fully accepting of the McCain/Feingold bill. That says, to some extent, you don't pay attention to Congressional acts which appear to violate your civil rights. And this was one SCOTUS decision with which many people disagree--and I notice they're planning on revisiting it.

More vocal? How? Were you aware that many TV stations won't even accept an NRA ad?

Regardless, there has been way more than one editorial about the Patriot Act problems. If you don't read the publications, how ya gonna know what the NRA thinks? Four million members do, however.

:), 'Rat

[hulugu]

If you weren't aware of the joining of the ACLU and the NRA, to me that means you were fully accepting of the McCain/Feingold bill. That says, to some extent, you don't pay attention to Congressional acts which appear to violate your civil rights. And this was one SCOTUS decision with which many people disagree--and I notice they're planning on revisiting it.

More vocal? How? Were you aware that many TV stations won't even accept an NRA ad?

Regardless, there has been way more than one editorial about the Patriot Act problems. If you don't read the publications, how ya gonna know what the NRA thinks? Four million members do, however.

:), 'Rat

Sorry, 'Rat that detail slipped past me. But, thanks for kicking me in the shins for not being cognizant of every detail of the NRA's PR campaign. :rolleyes:

[Desertrat]

Aw, mostly just jerking your chain about McCain/Feingold. I don't see how retricting one's ability to buy a political ad is not an infringement on the First Amendment, particularly when the newspaper in which you can't buy an ad is NOT restricted from editorializing.

Just generalizing, but the firearms fraternity is seriously touchy about infringement or perceived infringement on any and all of the Bill of Rights.

'Rat