Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
NRA opposes bill that bans gun sales to suspected terrorists
huffingtonpost.com — The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Seriously...what is wrong with these people.
ate50eggs- 965 diggs
- digg it
- XtotheEON, on 10/12/2007, -78/+24we should just pass a bill that says it is illegal to sell guns to people who will use the gun to shoot innocent people.
- Battleloser, on 10/12/2007, -6/+91People might be a little more accepting of this idea if bar fights didn't lead to charges of uttering terroristic threats so often.
- plarp, on 10/12/2007, -9/+217"Seriously...what is wrong with these people."
We must protect everyones rights.. Even if we don't care for those people..
This is just like the ACLU supporting the rights of the KKK to have rallies and free speech... - computergod, on 10/12/2007, -4/+178It's not like these terrorist lists are known for accuracy. There are thousands of cases of people being denied entry onto aircraft or from getting loans because they have names that are similar to people on the list.
The worst part about the terrorist watch list is they they don't even put the real terrorists on the list because that information is too classified.
It's not like it is hard to get guns illegally anyway.
Even more fun is that I can buy/rent a reasonably large jet and fly it myself as long as I have the money and a multiple engine license. - akhomerun, on 10/12/2007, -3/+162what do you mean what's wrong with these people...the bush administration suspects everybody of being a terrorist!!
the NRA is right! - vhold, on 10/12/2007, -3/+70Publicly criticizing the administration could, or may already, get you on a terrorist watch list at some point. Banning the sale of guns to "suspected terrorists" is not even remotely going to keep guns out of terrorist hands. This is entirely an arbitrary power grab.
- sunshinemonster, on 10/12/2007, -16/+4we should also just go ahead and repeal the bill to read minds because it is so easy to differentiate between a maniac who uses a gun for murder and a sane person who uses one for self defense.
- jjesusfreak01, on 10/12/2007, -2/+60Gives the attorney general the right to decide who the terrorists are? That is stupid and ridiculous. What if the attorney general decides they dont like black people, and denies them guns?
- kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22@Plard the KKK does have a right to free speech, in Evanston(near Chicago) some of the biggest supporters of this right are Jews, why? Because when its our turn to have a rally they want the same right to speech.
- aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22The problem is the list of who they suspect to be a terrorist. Are they going to go off of the no-fly list? They can't put suspected terrorists on that one because it's too widely circulated. And then they put people on it for attending peace rallies. I don't see how their new list is going to any better.
- TRega123, on 10/12/2007, -3/+55The terrorist watch list is a joke. My friend's 4-month old infant was on a terrorist watch list and they wouldn't let the baby onto a plane. It took the government 6 months to clear the baby's name. The bill sounds good on paper, but problems occur when lazy, slow government bureaucracy is added into the mix.
- kidd3ckz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+56What is wrong with these people? ***** you.
Just because you're some white suburbian housewife doesn't mean other people don't need to defend themselves. - Cerebral, on 10/12/2007, -5/+55I logged in just to digg up the comments that explain exactly why the NRA is correct on not wanting this to pass.
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3Ummm... it already IS illegal.
- Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+60Giving 1 man the power to decide who gets to protect themselves is utter *****. Also, its not like suspected terrorists are going to walk into a gun store and try and buy a gun. They probably are going to go the illegal route, you know, BECAUSE THEY'RE TERRORISTS.
- EruLabs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32"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."
Good, I dont have to defend the NRA. Anyone can read that and see the point I would have made. - Genesee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+41"Seriously...what is wrong with these people."
what's wrong is that they don't trust politicians with the power to decide who is, and who isn't, a "terrorist"
it is encouraging to see the reasoned opposition to this latest unconstitutional attempt in the comments here. - Stewmoney, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6You guys all must hate freedom I guess.
- dawglse, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3Am I the only one who thought it said NBA instead of NRA? Maybe because I just woke up. and god do I have a headache. What a night.
- smackhero, on 10/12/2007, -19/+2i don't care that some people are being prevented from owning guns. what i care about in this instance is the fact that NRA supporters are generally fine with peace activists, animal rights advocates, environmentalists, university professors, and other progressives having their rights encroached upon by being prevented from flying and being monitored by the government, but they're complete hypocrites when it comes to making more money selling guns. anyone who thinks the NRA is concerned about the inaccuracy of these lists or the rights of these individuals is deluded. they're merely concerned about their right to sell guns to whoever they want--something that they've always adhered to.
the NRA sure aren't against racial profiling of middle easterners or a renewed COINTELPRO-like government persecution of activist groups. i guess the right to buy guns is more important than the freedom to travel and not be monitored by the government because you hold dissenting political beliefs.
i would be more convinced of the NRA's good intentions if conservatives showed some concern about others rights being encroached by the Bush administration instead of their so far apologetic and steadfast support of him regardless of what he does.
either be consistent and oppose the administration's war against civil rights or just shut up about how admirable the NRA is for defending the rights of people to own guns when prior to this you didn't care about the no-fly list and supported the war on terror. - wacki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Maybe the NRA is trying to uphold the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Besides, wasn't Ted Kennedy blocked from boarding a plane because he was on the terrorist watch list? What about that former marine and Ivy league professor?
- Rhino2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@ kingkilr,
Jews have "Rallies"? About what?
not trolling, just curious. I've never see a "Jew Rally" around these parts. - kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well not "rallies" I suppose, marches and such, for example tommorow is the Walk with Israel.
- wolferz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@Stewmoney
I'm assuming you meant that for some one other than the people here on digg pointing out repeatedly how such a bill would give the government the right to take away one of our basic freedoms without explanation.
Yes I know I know "they are on the watch list" is the explanation. That is great, but try to get an explanation for why they are on the watch list. If I'm president and I don't want guns to be sold to those who might start a revolt against me then I can just tell the attorney general to add them all to the watch list and in doing so strip them of their basic rights. That is the door to fascism and IT MUST STAY CLOSED. The moment the government can arbitrarily limit who is allowed to practice their basic rights without due process is the day USA stops being a democracy and become fascist in nature.
@smackhero
I don't claim the NRA are heros and I don't claim they aren't hypocrites. None-the-less they are an organization with an attachment to firearms. Whether they are worried about the bottom line or not is really not relevant to me. What is relevant is that one of my rights as an American citizen is in jeopardy and they are fighting that threat. don't particularly like NRA. However, politics makes strange bedfellows.
As long as our goals are the same and I don't feel like I'm about to get knifed in the back I'll gladly accept their help. - blogger1947, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@smackhero
"NRA supporters are generally fine with peace activists, animal rights advocates, environmentalists, university professors, and other progressives having their rights encroached upon by being prevented from flying and being monitored by the government..."
Please tell us which NRA publication says this, or how many "NRA Supporters" you know personally. - WhereAmI, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12SUSPECTED terrorists. This does not mean they are terrorists, you comy Digger.
Buried for lame because people are not getting it. - Konrad9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Why would they buy a semi-automatic glock or a .22 if they could illegally bring an AK-47 into the US.
This is stupid, this will only effect people wrongfully put on the "suspected terrorist" list. - pbaehr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@konrad9: For that matter, why bother with an AK-47 when you can just fly a plane into something or suicide bomb a lobby. It makes for a higher body count and more chaos and it seems to be their style. Gun control will do nothing to stop terrorism.
- Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Seriously, people bitch that so many people are wrongly being put on watch lists, suspected of terrorism without any evidence, etc. But when Bush wants to protect these people's rights (not because of some ethical belief but admittedly due to lobbying), people have a fit?
Come on. People suspected of anything shouldn't have rights removed, or we'll all be talking police state again. - signal15, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7What criteria is used to classify someone as a suspected terrorist? Is it spouting "death to america", or is it simply posting in a forum in support for impeachment?
Additionally, it's not going to solve anything. Anyone who is planning on doing bad things will simply get their weapons through illegal means. I fully support the NRA's stance on this issue. - tehkain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9At least someone is protecting out Constitutional Rights. You know how easy it is to be labeled a terrorist? Look at this slashdot article from today.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/05/1913245&threshold=1 - tituspullo71, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2huffingtonpost.com that's a real unbiased source for you.
- compaqdrew, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"The Second Amendment. That's our insurance policy if the government doesn't follow the First." - Rush Limbaugh
- stmiller, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1RE: the kkk and rally arguments:
That does not compare to the issue at hand. Having the right to have a peaceful rally is one thing, no matter what your beliefs.
Letting known sickos have access to all the guns they want is a matter life and death.
I'm all for free speech, and so forth. But I'm not all for distributing weapons that are used to kill others. Esp to known wackos.
Why not give an ax murderer a nice sharp ax? It's his 'right' to have a weapon. Let him have it, why not?
/end sarcasm - anachronaut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ smackhero
As a longstanding progressive (liberal, whatever... labels don't bother me), I don't have a terribly high opinion of the NRA or their frequently rabid supporters as a general rule. Yes, they're definitely hypocrites in some respects, but in this case, they're fighting a good fight which desperately needs to be fought. I strongly support the Constitution, and they're definitely on "our" side in this fight.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, in other words. We, the people, currently need all the help we can get to maintain and (hopefully) reclaim some of our Constitutional liberties. If an organization as powerful as the NRA is willing to step up to the plate in even one aspect of that fight, then -- no matter what their underlying motive may be -- more power to them, as far as I'm concerned. - peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I would be totally for this bill if it weren't for the fact that I no longer trust my government and it's intentions. Non-violent activists are on terrorist watch lists and many people who have peacefully spoken up are on no-fly lists. The Administration has asserted the right to spy on it's citizens. If there were ever an era where the Second Amendment might come into play in a real, practical sort of way, it would be this one. So, if I were Bush I would sign this bill, however, since I'm not involved in any sort of power grab, I am against this bill.
- partriv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3it's their newly classic 'you're scared so give us your rights' routine, and with it they are trying to disarm us at their will. ***** that.
- halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -21/+6Adds a whole new meaning to the whole "From my cold, dead hands' line, doesn't it?
- Jtheletter, on 10/12/2007, -10/+252I just made a digg account specifically to tell you why you are wrong to think there is something wrong with the NRA - or anyone - opposing this bill. You've fallen for the classic "you're with us, or you're for the terrorist's" approach the government uses to couch debates in terms that vilify any opposition. Owning a gun is a constitutional right, and as such that right cannot be revoked without DUE PROCESS. Background checks on people buying guns check to see if they are a felon, illegal alien, or convicted of domestic abuse. Except for the illegal alien claus,e the other two cases for being denied the right to buy a gun involve a LEGAL trial, in which you must be found guilty in order to have your right revoked. In the case of this legislation, you can be added to a terror watch list WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. Thus one of your constitutional rights is revoked without trial. Now do you understand? Why not simply say anyone on this or some other watch list also loses their free speech rights? Or right to trial? Or ..... etc. The point is it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to revoke rights without due process of law - innocent until PROVEN guilty. What about if there's a name on the watch list similar to yours? We have that problem all the time with the TSA flight list, people can't get their names removed even when it's obviously not them on the list, like 4 year olds being denied flying because their name is similar to one on the list. Think abotu it for a while and realize that this is simply a power grab worded to make it impossible to oppose without sounding like you support terror. If you want to deny people on the list of their rights then the list must be created under a court of law with due process and evidence presented to PROVE a person belongs on the list.
- vizerei, on 10/12/2007, -8/+70You beat me to it! This is exactly what people need to hear.
But I may be biased, I've been a card carrying NRA member since I was 22. - radu79, on 10/12/2007, -5/+84Yes, I totally agree with this.
I don't want the government to declare everyone they oppose to a potential terrorist, so they won't even be able to defend themselves in case of a revolution.
The Nazi did the same with the Jews, taking their weapons first. - brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15 Couldn't have said it better.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -58/+7I'm personally on the fence about the 2nd amendment, based mostly on the language. So it bothers me that people only seem to invoke the 2nd half of a very important sentence and ignore the first when claiming constitutionality or unconstitutionality of this or that. This is my honest take, so please read before digging one way or another. And I'd rather hear your response than just see a number.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
This says pretty clearly that people who are involved with defense or law enforcement for the country have a constitutional mandate to own guns. It is not at all clear that "defense" means "defense of your person or property" after we have a dedicated army and police force who are tasked with that job. That's reading something into the text that's not literally there. We are inferring it.
And, in fact, I wouldn't have an issue if all gun owners were, say, officially deputized and trained as part of a 'well regulated militia'. That would meet the letter of the law, IMO. But to claim that anyone could buy a gun for any purpose, other than our mutual defense, is just not in the text. And if someone is allegedly working counter to our defense (i.e., a suspected terrorist), then it's not so crazy to have a few extra checks, especially in light of the "militia" wording.
You can digg me down over this, but I think my literal interpretation of the text is correct, and especially advised for those who claim to be strict constructionists to avoid being hypocrites. I may not personally like guns, but militias owning guns are clearly allowed.
Granted, times have changed and there were no full-time police or armies back then and few militias now. So what I think we should do is craft a new constitutional amendment for today. We can fight over the limits, but this language is either prohibitive of guns for most people or woefully out of date. - Hiki, on 10/12/2007, -9/+28The NRA's right, for once.
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -4/+62@EntropyMan
You are totally wrong.
It's clear the that founding fathers envisioned a militia composed of the normal people, that fight for their right to live in a free world. And this right means that if the government becomes bad, it is their duty to overthrow that government. The second amendment is a mandate for freedom, not for a police state! - Mootabolife, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18I feel safer knowing that a few good people out there might have a gun on them when something/someone goes haywire.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -16/+9@radu, thanks for replying. If gun owners were part of "well regulated militias" today, that would NOT prevent them from opposing the government if and when the government becomes oppressive. All it would do is ensure more training, IMO.
I agree that having the people be a check on the government is a good idea, though I think the non-violent approach is more effective at enacting change. Today, if people were to rise up in modern times as they did in 1776, we'd see no end to violence, far worse than the Iraqis face right now. And I think governments have grown sophisticated enough to _use_ that violence for their own oppressive ends. - Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Also, the governmental body to over see the reinstatement of second amendment rights to people has had its funding stripped since '92, effectively being shut down. So you have people like Matt Boyd, of Mac Hall and Three Panel Soul fame, being fired and having the police investigate him for terrorism because he mentioned guns in the work place, and possibly having their constitutional rights permanently revoked with no appeals process.
@entropyman - But a militia isn't just an official governmental army. A militia can be seen as any able bodied person, capable of responding to a disaster or threat. Also, the way I've always interpreted that like is, basically "A militia is needed to maintain security in a free state, so people's abilities to own arms cannot be infringed". People need arms so they can form a militia, not that they have to be in a militia to have them. - radu79, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22@ EntropyMan
I agree that it would be better for all parties involved if a revolution would be peaceful, by exchange of ideas.
Unfortunately, that's not the case in the real world. The governments LIKE to have the power, and they are not likely to give up that power, especially if they have the army on their side.
History shows that most of the revolutions/government changes were done by force. - flygirl62, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@Hellmark
Good point and agreed
I also looked at it (though it may not have been a thought in their minds at the time) as a statement that the people owning arms will help to *regulate* the militia... i.e. keep it under control of the people. :-)
But, historical data (e.g. the federalist papers) make it clear that it was intended as an individual right so that the people have the capacity to resist a tyrannical government --- just as they did. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6I think the key elements of "militias" is that there's some internal enforcement of rules without needing law enforcement.
In other words, I'd much rather have a association where gun owners all know each other and train together, than let the government have our personal gun, medical, and criminal records.
If we can trust militias to self-regulate, that solves a huge problem of privacy for gun owners -- I wouldn't even care if the militias sold the guns and kept their records private (except perhaps in case of criminal investigations), as long as the militias were held accountable for the actions of their members.
So I think restoring organized militias actually solve a lot of problems, not the least of which is following the literal text of the constitution.
And @Radu, I think India is a great example. It's unlikely they could have overthrown Britain by force, and they might not be a democracy today if they had. - Nerys, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20""A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.""
It must be taken in CONTEXT. You fail to understand - It says the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE not the right of ONLY SOME people. The first part is IN ADDITION TO not INCLUSIVE OF. It essentially says we have the RIGHT to form a militia AND we have the right to BEAR ARMS. Not one OR the other BOTH. 250 years ago ALL CITIZENS were in the militia or potentially in the militia. ANYONE who signed on was in. THATS the very concept of a militia. A Militia is "THE CITIZENS" that means ALL of us. - Silentnite85, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Couldn't they end up just adding everyone to the watch list? Easy peezy gun control. No one would have guns except the criminals/government.
- dagamer34, on 10/12/2007, -23/+2Don't misinterprate the 2nd amendment. Frankly, today it doesn't apply in the same context. Back then when police weren't as prevalent as they are now, people had to band together and form militias in order to protect their property and towns. The 2nd amendment was created in order to prevent rogue governments from squashing entire groups of people JUST because they were armed (i.e. prevent groups that could potentially oppose you).
Today, people seem to think that the right to bear arms applies at an individual level. That's not what the founding fathers had in mind. Now that just about every city/town/state has some type of police, militias are no longer needed. But you could form one if you had to. However, the 2nd amendment applies to entire GROUPS of people (militias) and not individuals themselves. It is dangerous to have single individuals taking the law into their own hands, whereas militias are much more reliable in this case.
Don't confuse militia with vigilante. - Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19@ Entropy
I am a militia of one. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4That's fine. Anyone of age who wants to be in a militia can be. I wouldn't restrict membership. But if we have official militias once more, we can offload to them official responsibilities that are currently problematic for the government to have, especially in the privacy arena. My only restriction is that the militia takes responsibility for their members. If they allow suspected terrorists to come in and buy guns from them, they're as responsible, under the scheme I proposed. If one of their members commits a crime, they're partially responsible.
I think the internal policing would help us tremendously, and also allow everyone to own guns. - SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@dagamer34
I'll try to remember what you said when there's a guy with a knife or a gun in my house in the middle of the night. - pb4upoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3 I don't think domestic abuse should be a criteria for allowing gun ownership or purchase. Couples fighting it out all too often result in the male being dragged away in order to simply restore peace. It seems to almost always be the male that is arrested. We had a situation in Florida where quite a few cops lost their jobs as they had domestic violence charges from decades gone by and therefore found that they could not carry a gun at work. Ex Post Facto was ignored and these new laws reached way back seeking old convictions. The cops were in the appeal process the last time I heard. Because of this nonsense anyone in jeopardy of conviction for domestic violence sure as heck better forget about a plea bargain and fight it all tooth and nail as ones' rights in the future may well be affected by such a conviction. Keep in mind that these convictions have typically involved paying a small fine for the convenience of not having a trial.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2@nerys, btw, if you want to nitpick the grammar of the sentence, it doesn't say AND or OR. It's a dependent clause. The right of the people to bear arms is a consequence of the need for militias to maintain security (note: it says "security of a free state" and not "freedom from a secure state" as some claim). If anything, the comma says THEREFORE, which implies that you can't just discard the first part of the sentence, even if it's out of date.
If it's out of date, we have to fix it. We fixed slavery laws. We can fix this. - Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I'm more worried about terrorists stealing aircraft or sending dirty nukes to Long Beach in a cargo ship.
- GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13@Entropy
OK, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Fixed. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@General, If you can pass that amendment, no one would be able to complain about you owning guns. I say go for it. That's the right way to fix the problem, if the country will go along.
But if you can't, then I think we should use modern militias to live within the current language and the law. Unless anyone has better arguments for or against, I'll stop repeating myself at this point. - tazx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I'm a far-left winger, radical by some people's standards I'm sure. I'm generally in favour of controls on gun ownership: mandatory training, licensing, etc.
But I'm with the NRA here. This violates due process and constitutional protections, and is just one more step to a complete police state. - blogger1947, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@entropyman:
If you read the documents written contemporary to the Constitutional Convention (starting with the Federalist Papers), you would have no confusion over the language of the Second Amendment.
The "collective right" interpretation of that sentence is in conflict with the language and intent of the remainder of the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights. It would take a great deal of imagination to dream up a scenario in which the "collective right" WOULD have been the intention of the founders. - nene7070, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2actually, the 2nd ammendment does not mean individuals have the right to bear arms... In those days, everyone had to have a gun in order to survive (ie kill their food). It would be like saying everyone had the constitutional right to a fork and knife or plates or something.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@blogger, I doubt I'll convince anyone here, but my reading of the process by which the 2nd amendment was adopted shows a migration from it being very anti-federalist to much more federalist in the end. Language to protect conscientious objection was dropped, as was the definition of militia. I agree that keeping those would have been better and clearer, but we can't change what was actually ratified vs. what many people originally wanted to do. Well, we can, but that's the amendment process. Passing laws to add or detract from the basic right is a wasteful tug of war -- we should just sit down and hash out what the right should be, pass a new/clearer amendment, and live with it.
@macktwo, again, if anyone doesn't know your're a raging bigot, they can simply read some of your other posts on digg. Don't pretend that I'm the one that wants to around killing or enslaving anyone. No one should be fooled. - Wacer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@tazx "I'm a far-left winger, radical by some people's standards I'm sure. I'm generally in favour of controls on gun ownership: mandatory training, licensing, etc.
But I'm with the NRA here. This violates due process and constitutional protections, and is just one more step to a complete police state."
Then you can't be a far-left winger because the extreme left is for socialism/communism. The far left endorses the government getting into every affair. - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"This says pretty clearly that people who are involved with defense or law enforcement for the country have a constitutional mandate to own guns."
Actually, it says that the right of *THE PEOPLE* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The opening statement offers an explanation behind this guarantee, but nothing in the statement can logically be interpreted to mean that only those involved with defense of the country or law enforcement will not have their right abridged. Your interpretation not only defies the actual text of the amendment, but also the writings of the men who originally drafted and supported the amendment as it is written. - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Today, people seem to think that the right to bear arms applies at an individual level. That's not what the founding fathers had in mind."
Citations please.
Here's a few to get you started:
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason
"The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." -- Samuel Adams
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5" If anything, the comma says THEREFORE, which implies that you can't just discard the first part of the sentence, even if it's out of date."
No, actually, the comma was a rhetorical pause. Comma usage in that fashion was common in writings of the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Commas_in_the_Second_Amendment - FishingHole, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I logged in just to digg your comment. You put it well.
- vizerei, on 10/12/2007, -8/+70You beat me to it! This is exactly what people need to hear.
- Calann, on 10/12/2007, -83/+8It's good to know that the NRA would support the right of Osama Bin Laden to buy a gun.
- ate50eggs, on 10/12/2007, -69/+4And now that the ban on assault weapons has expired, he can buy an AK-47.
- bigdsinferno, on 10/12/2007, -3/+46yeah... because Osama is really going to be allowed to buy a gun under his name anyhow. That's why they have background checks. He is not a "suspected" terrorist, he is a terrorist.
- rcran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+40Goddamn you are all brainwashed.
- jake8689, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35You are dumb he is not a US citizen and there for can not buy a gun in the US
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16@ate50eggs, you're a fool. The ban you speak of was a ban on manufacture and importation, NOT ownership or sale.
Basically, the this bill prevents anyone suspected of being a terrorist from buying. To be suspected, no proof is required, and no actual ruling is needed. In the case of Bin Laden, there is proof he's a terrorist, there have been official rulings, so he couldn't buy one regardless of if this bill was passed or not. Not to mention the other things preventing him from buying a gun here, such as not being legally allowed here, not having citizenship (legal aliens can buy rifles, but pistols are restricted to citizens), criminal background, etc.
You guys are morons who have no clue of whats going on, and are buying into the slanted argument being fed to you without any actual thought or research being done on your part. Read the ***** bill, read the damn laws on the books now, you'd find out you are wrong. - austintxphil, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0@jake - that a fact, or just your own uninformed opinion? I'm not a US citizen and you're more than welcome to come see my legally obtained and maintained gun collection any time. Keep your 'dumb' remarks to yourself if you have no clue what you're talking about.
- 1newyorkguy, on 10/12/2007, -57/+11these are the same people who think that the way to decrease gun violence is to let everyone carry a gun.
that is STUNNINGLY stupid.- NickSpinner, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18criminals move to places where theres gun bans and theres virtually no gun crime in places where theres lots of guns. that place where all people legally have to own guns has seen no gun crime in 25 years
- Kolar, on 10/12/2007, -17/+8@nickspinner
Evidence please. - philr8, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21The only thing STUNNINGLY STUPID is your comment. Wasn't there an article on Switzerland's gun policy on digg recently?
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Kolar, Kennesaw, Georgia and Morton Grove, Illinois. Kennesaw made it so everyone who legally could had to own a gun, where as Morton Grove banned guns. Kennesaw hasn't had a murder in 25 years, despite having a population of 28,000, where as Morton Grove cannot tout the same low crime rates. Here's a link that was recently on the frontpage of digg, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288 and there are tons others if you want to google.
- TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Every mass civilian shooting in the recent past has been at a so-called "gun-free zone". The guns were banned there, so how did those people die? Oh yeah, they were killed by a criminal who broke the law. If someone is planning on murder, they don't care if they need to break the law the acheive their goal.
- EochaidRiata, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"these are the same people who think that the way to decrease gun violence is to let everyone carry a gun."
Now we know why gun shows always turn into wild west shootouts and Washington DC is the safest place on earth. Oh wait... - Wacer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@philr8
Ya I saw it and read other places about everyone in Switzerland owns guns and they are not violent.
- g2g079, on 10/12/2007, -4/+48The American People have the right to overthrow their government and have guns. The American government on the other hands believes everyone that wants to overthow there government is a terrorist. This law would make it impossible to have a another revolution in the U.S. when the times come. I wouldn't have a problem with this bill if they would stop arresting american citizens for terrorism. The War on Terror like The War on Drugs can never be won. The more you kill your enemies, the more enimies you will have.
- Kolar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3While I agree with you that the War on Terrorism can not be won or defined as a war (like all other Wars On [insert problem here] ) but in this day and age it is impossible for the general population to overthrow the United States Government. Any attempt would ensure a civilian blood bath. Does that mean I am calling for the Govnt. to take your guns away kicking and screaming? No.
This is a different issue, if someone is defined as a terrorist meaning they intend to attack civilian or military targets or otherwise use violence against YOU and YOUR people, then they should be denied the capacity and ability to do so. I wouldn't trust the Executive Branch with an ounce of responsibility right now but I think the spirit of this bill and what it intends to do is not wrong, it might be going in the wrong direction but that's American politics today. Wrong is Right and up and down. - kethraal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"The American People have the right to overthrow their government and have guns. The American government on the other hands believes everyone that wants to overthow there government is a terrorist. This law would make it impossible to have a another revolution in the U.S. when the times come."
Thank you for describing the divide perfectly! That's exactly the problem we have now -- we refuse to realize that _all_ governments become corrupt over time; so we, as the people pursuing their own happiness, should be allowed to extract themselves from the dystopian hell that their government (like all others eventually will) has plunged them into.
Americans some 200 years ago understood this -- why don't Americans now? - Nerys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15"I think the spirit of this bill and what it intends to do is not wrong"
IT has not once OUNCE of RIGHT to it. This law does NOT forbid sale of guns to terrorists. it forbids sale of guns to SUSPECTED terrorists.
PLEASE read that and TRY to comprehend what it means. TRY to comprehend the SCOPE of it.
It is EVIL. it is so wrong it can not be MORE wrong. DO you not see the CAREFUL wording of this law? it effectively allows the government to ARBITRARILY deny a gun to ANYONE they wish on a WHIM. all they have to do is "add you to the suspect list"
its that simple. Owe wait you think its hard to get on the suspect list? it simply needs to be declared. No evidence No warrant No Judges No Courts No Jury No Arrest NOTHING. they can LITERALLY go hmm I do not like that guy put him on the suspect list.
IT IS THAT EASY and who would contest it?
This law is another step in a plan. Just TRY for a moment to look at the bigger picture of how absolutely destructive this law is.
Now consider this as well. DO YOU REALLY for ONE SECOND think an ACTUAL terrorist will purchase a gun legally leaving a paper trail? think about that.
This law is SPECIFICALLY designed to target US the American Citizens. it has NOTHING at all on ANY LEVEL to do with terrorism. - pb4upoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3 The primary function of a militia is to keep the government from usurping the rights of the people. That may involve fighting local, state or the federal government. Much like the power of a jury to ignore a law the people are left with the final degree of power in deciding when the government is acting legally and correctly. Patriotism involves loyalty to the people and not loyalty to the government.
- Kolar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3While I agree with you that the War on Terrorism can not be won or defined as a war (like all other Wars On [insert problem here] ) but in this day and age it is impossible for the general population to overthrow the United States Government. Any attempt would ensure a civilian blood bath. Does that mean I am calling for the Govnt. to take your guns away kicking and screaming? No.
- hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -43/+6This is a REAL bad move by the NRA. It could alienate even some of the most hardcore Gun Rights people. Not to mention the position is stupid on its face. This is a very bad issue for them to make a stand on.
- doctechnical, on 10/12/2007, -4/+69The difference between you and a "suspected terrorist" is that you haven't been "suspected". Yet.
"Your papers, please." - Zarchon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Obviously you have not read any of the posts above yours to see a different point of view. A view, I suspect, that is shared by most gun owners. I doubt the NRA will lose even one hardcore Gun Rights advocate.
- doctechnical, on 10/12/2007, -4/+69The difference between you and a "suspected terrorist" is that you haven't been "suspected". Yet.
- schwit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+54This would be a scary law. Who defines what a terrorist is AND IS NOT? Allowing one person to have this kind of power should never be permitted in a free society.
The potential for abuse is staggering along with the potential slippery slope of more and more rights being denied. Remember, this administration already is fighting to remove terrorism suspects' access to lawyers.- doctechnical, on 10/12/2007, -2/+37"Who defines what a terrorist is AND IS NOT?"
The same people running the Post Office, the IRS, the ones who got us all that great intel on 9/11, the War on Drugs - you know, the usual bunch of useless goofs.
Which is exactly why the NRA is against this bad idea. - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28"Who defines what a terrorist is AND IS NOT?"
The US Attorney General, alone. Gun grabbers don't want to acknowledge that, because doing so would reveal that they are essentially supporting a tyrannical move by the Bush administration and the Congressional Democrats who are pushing this piece of treason. The goal of gun-grabbers is to ban all private firearm ownership, and their support of this bill shows that they are willing to employ any means necessary to accomplish this goal. Note that the number of submissions to Digg wherein submitters outright lie about the reason that this bill is opposed.
- doctechnical, on 10/12/2007, -2/+37"Who defines what a terrorist is AND IS NOT?"
- Nodaki, on 10/12/2007, -2/+42I love the alarmist...they are going to give Osama bin Laden an AK47. Osama bin Laden does not buy a gun legally.
Anyone is a "suspected terrorist". I suspect that maybe you want to buy a gun to kill people, lots of people. I don't need facts to call you a "suspected terrorist". This law is complete ***** and it is idiots like the above posters who have handed over our rights to the real terrorists (the federal govt).- macewan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14well said
- martian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21As they should. If such a bill were to pass, the government could declare anyone a "suspected terrorist", and thereby disarming the public.
- prh99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Is the suspected terrorist list anything like the no fly list, which is pretty much a joke.
- pathy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Ooh, oooh. I'm a terrorist, ya' hear? That means I'll only go through legal channels to get my weapons. Yup yup.
- k3nshady89, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Notice the word "suspected" ? that means that the person is still innocent until they are PROVING guilty. I understand NRA's stance in this...
- jmpeagle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8"terrorist" is such a broad term that government would overuse it to deny people's right to bare arms
- dave932932, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2bare arms? I'm wearing a singlet right now. That's one right Bush hasn't revoked...
- aresef, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13This is something that I'd have to agree with the NRA for once on. Also, if this watch list is the same one the airlines work with, it's going to be just as bothersome, especially for those with common names.
- KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8and who gets to decide who is a suspected terrorist?We cant decide who gets to fly on a plane.
- jnosanov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Jtheletter above is right on. Another thing that's wrong with this law is that gun bans simply don't work. If someone wants a gun, they will find one. Just like banning pot or booze or porn, the government cannot change behavior just by making a law. The most important part though is that the terrorist watch list is made by someone with no meaningful accountability or supervision.
This bill is just a sensationalist, emotionally reactive, nice-sounding idea that will only help politicians and will hurt law-abiding people who will now have yet another obstacle towards exercising their right of self defense.
Also, why is there a suspected terrorist list but no suspected murderers list? First, because murder is a state crime and terrorism is a federal crime, but also because the federal government has a huge interest in putting people on lists that strip them of this right or that, and because "Terrorism" is such broad term now that it almost anyone can be called one.
Remember, the FBI has recently been warned to watch out for "people who make frequent references to the constitution" along with people who buy large amounts of weapons and ammunition. The trend could not be more obvious, and almost nothing has more history to back it up. The US is not the first government to try to "legally" take rights away from it's citizens after its power is gone out of control. - aggrogeek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10The NRA is taking the correct stance here. It is unconstitutional to take guns away from people who are not PROVEN terrorists, as in convicted in a court for acts of terrorism. Besides, if a terrorist really wants a gun, they will look for illegal channels that would allow them to obtain a gun anyway. Convicted felons still find ways to purchase firearms, it's not like this law would make people safe from terrorists.
- Faxis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8One notation on a file from a cop who 'might have heard' something about you and you are now a suspect and should be deprived of your constitutional rights? Lets say you are getting a divorce or are in a fight with your neighbor or got into a wreck with somebody or any of a million other things that might lead someone to drop a dime on you out of the blue.... If that crap passes, thats all it would take to take away your rights. No due process. No nothing. Just the whim of the narcs.
Thank you NRA for fighting the good fight. - lpozsaki, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4Honestly, there shouldnt be a debate on this. It just shouldnt be allowed. America, your gun control laws are an absolute disgrace. Your corporations rule your government with a dollar clad fist. It is disheartening and disgusting what is allowed to take place in America.
- deadsenator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8You absolutely spot on about corporate control (and folks should complain more about it) in the US, but I am not sure what you mean about our gun control laws being an "absolute disgrace." Those that follow the laws of gun ownership are usually never involved with gun violence. Instead, it's those that ignore the laws that are. Another set of laws in place will not affect criminals in the slightest, but rather strip law abiding citizens further of their Constitutional rights. Something that has been going on with disgusting regularity in the last few years. Stand up people. This type of stuff makes me want to join the NRA.
- pb4upoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3 Small nations tend to dislike our gun laws. We live in a nation with a vast expanse of land. Many people have to wait hours and even days for a police response in an emergency. Taking away guns would expose these people as the ultimate, easy target for crime. Any little gang of monsters could take a drive out into the country to rob, rape, torture and murder. A family with a couple of assault rifles and trained to use them can hold off such attackers. We also must drive on isolated roads where having a pistol can make all the difference. This need can be so basic that I have some doubts that even convicted criminals should be limited in their right to bear arms.
- deadsenator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8You absolutely spot on about corporate control (and folks should complain more about it) in the US, but I am not sure what you mean about our gun control laws being an "absolute disgrace." Those that follow the laws of gun ownership are usually never involved with gun violence. Instead, it's those that ignore the laws that are. Another set of laws in place will not affect criminals in the slightest, but rather strip law abiding citizens further of their Constitutional rights. Something that has been going on with disgusting regularity in the last few years. Stand up people. This type of stuff makes me want to join the NRA.
- scifipirate, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Digg why are you so hypocritical, I thought you were pro freedom. Stop being so closed minded.
- acdcfanbill, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Digg's users really impress me sometimes, their ability to see through *****, like this submitter right here.
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7See through the *****? He's totally buying into the *****!
To be called a suspected terrorist requires no proof, and no judge or jury. This would basically make it guilty until proven innocent, since your rights would be stripped away before it could be proven that you are not a terrorist. - acdcfanbill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yea, apparently I cant form cohesive thoughts. I meant the submitter was full of *****, and most of the commenter's saw through it..
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7See through the *****? He's totally buying into the *****!
- implementor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Yeah, it's such a FANTASTIC idea to allow the President the ability to deny anyone's rights at his whim. How stupid you have to be to think that is a good idea? The NRA is completely right here.
- trevorsnyder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8You can have guns, or you can have your false sense of security, but you cannot have both.
I guess mere suspicion is enough to take away civil rights now? - antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Yay huffingtonpost spam!
- cclasby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17The founders of this country were suspected terrorists. What the hell are you thinking>?
- kneegarplz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Cheers to all those who posted comments in support of the NRA for this. This is a ***** move by the federal government. I BURIED this story as inaccurate, please do the same, the ***** that posted this needs to pull his head out of his ass before he inserts things such as "Seriously...what is wrong with these people."....no *****, seriously, whats wrong with you? You're a ***** tool. Reminds me of the robot chicken. ZOMG TERRORISM!!!! ZOMG NRA SUPPORTS TERROISM!!
- madmack, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0nothing is wrong with them. they want to make MORE MONEY !
- meuge, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3See, I don't understand the NRA. Why is it that they insist on pursuing these extremist policies, giving a bad name to anyone arguing for legitimate gun ownership. Instead of this ridiculous charade, the NRA should stand up and say:
"Yes, gun ownership is a constitutional right, but we also accept that it burdens the owner with a tremendous responsibility. We recognize that to ensure that people who own guns can meet this responsibility, certain rules must be imposed. To ensure that every one who meets this challenge CAN obtain a weapon legally, we agree that waiting periods and thorough background checks are a necessary measure to ensure that ALL the rights of the law-abiding americans are preserved, including the right to life."
But instead, the NRA perpetuates this image of any gun owner being an insane maniac in a Dodge Durango.- wolrah, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1No self-respecting maniac would drive a soccermom-mobile like the Durango. Your stereotypical rambo type needs a K5 Blazer or Ramcharger.
- BubbaNosferatu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Did you actually think of your response, or just take a page out of Sarah Brady's papers? What if NRA continues to look out for all of OUR rights, even the people such as YOU who don't see the bigger picture of eroding our RIGHTS as a compromise. It's not being an extremist if you, pardon my pun, stick by your guns and do what is right - not politically correct.
- meuge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@ BubbaNosferatu
Did you actually READ my post, or did you just digg it down as a kneejerk response?
I am FOR gun ownership, but in a reasonable fashion. You know, the same way that free speech is limited such that you cannot divulge national secrets on TV or shout "Fire" in a crowded theater...
Every right comes with a responsibility, and oftentimes it becomes the government's job to enforce that responsibility. I want to own and carry a firearm, and I believe I have a right to do so clearly delineated in the constitution. On the other hand, handing out firearms to convicted criminals, or certified psychotics seems like utter insanity. As for waiting periods, there is clearly something wrong if you need a gun right this minute. If you can't wait a month to buy one, then either you're in danger, or somebody else will be.
So don't come in here with your patronizing *****. - BubbaNosferatu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you mean by "certified criminals" Felons, or certified with mental problems, the NRA does not advocate that they can purchase or own firearms. There is the litmus test of reason - which you knew but pretended in your reply not to. As to waiting periods - they are *****. Anyone who really wants to get a gun, or other weapon or destructive device could buy, steal or fashion one by the end of the day. Instant background checks, without keeping the records is the way to go. Mandatory wait period? In California, when that nut-job dressed in full body armor was walking down the street literally shooting hundreds of rounds into people, property and the air, many police officers went to gun shops and puchased AR-15's and other weapons to be able to stop that maniac! They couldn't wait! Or the person who enjoys going to organized club shooting events, but finds out that the gun they own does not qualify for an event and needs to quickly go out and purchase one NOW or their entire week-long trip is forfeit. As a law-abiding citizen who is not a Felon or mental case and have not revoked your citizenship (etc.) go into a Walmart that you want to buy for protection/hunting/target practice/looks or a whim and want it now. Assuming you are not prohibited from owning a gun, and you sign and affirm all of the above requirements, plus consent to an instant background check --why have to jump through more hoops before you can walk out with one? Don't pile on useless additional things like waiting periods - they are only an inconvenience to lawful citizens. "Knee-jerk reaction," indeed! And you want "patronizing" - try the line "we're from the government and we're here to help you." Sensible gun laws? - don't patronize me!
- ownon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"extremist policies"? You don't get it yet, do you? It's the policies of the Federal Government that are extreme.
- trevorsnyder, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Legislators are reluctant to refer to the bill by its alternate name "The Jose Padilla Project, Part II"
- Misinformant, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3When the 2nd ammendment was signed, the most advanced firearms took 30 seconds to reload, were innaccurate beyond 10 yards and could scarcely pierce driftwood.
Interpret that as you like.- OprJZigworthy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7When the national army alone has advanced (modern) weaponry and is capable of sending a robotic aircraft to quell any sort of popular uprising, something has gone astray from the balance of power envisioned by the founding fathers.
Interpret that as you like. - birdman1169, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Your wrong about that my friend. Don't try and say the weapons they had back then couldn't hurt a fly from 10yards. Lies like that wont help you position.
- BubbaNosferatu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Also keep in mind the source of the article is Ariana Huffington's site. My God! "What's wrong with those people" is that NRA is looking out for OUR rights, unlike the elitist, muckraking, big-government-control-gun-grabbers who JUST DON'T GET IT!
- OprJZigworthy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7When the national army alone has advanced (modern) weaponry and is capable of sending a robotic aircraft to quell any sort of popular uprising, something has gone astray from the balance of power envisioned by the founding fathers.
- viclazlo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4the people who think this is stupid - aren't these the very same people that claim there are no terrorists being held at Club Gitmo?
after all - if there are no "suspected terrorists", then there should be no problem with the NRA's opposition of the bill...- deadsenator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6What the heck are you talking about? I want Guantanamo shut down AND I think this is stupid. I guess I am an enigma that way, huh? People really can be more complex than simple characterizations. Stop judging so simply.
- viclazlo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ dead senator
i don't seem to remember reading a lot about americans crying and boo-hooing about moving the entire west coast population of japanese into internment camps during WWII or marching on washington over putting indians on reservations during the trail of tears - where by the way, many native americans still often live in 3rd world conditions.
if bleeding hearts like you are so concerned about the "innocents" in Gitmo - why does it seem that none of you seem too concerned about the sizable number of your fellow americans that are wrongfully convicted of crimes each year by the united states justice system?
where are the fashionable marches on the mall in DC over that?
"For example, in the year 2000 there were 2.2 million arrests in the United States for index crimes alone. We also know that about 70 percent of those arrested for felonies are ultimately convicted of either a felony or a misdemeanor. This means that if we assume that the system was 99.5 percent accurate in those cases and made errors in only one-half of 1 percent (0.5 percent) of those convictions, that rate of error would have produced about 7,500 wrongful convictions among those 2.2 million arrested for index crimes. So a small error rate in a very large system can result in thousands of miscarriages of justice and allow many of the criminals who actually committed those crimes to remain free to victimize others." http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/spring2003/conviction.html
based on those calculations since 2000, there are 52,500 wrongly convicted people in the united states justice system, many of them convicted of capital crimes and many of them on death row.
there are only 490 prisoners in Gitmo. of those, "Only 5 percent of the detainees were captured by United States forces. [A total of] 86 percent of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86 percent of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were turned over to the United States at a time at which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies."
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0610,hentoff,72399,6.html
so, SPARE us your f**king morale outrage until you clean up your own damn backyard first.
- deadsenator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6What the heck are you talking about? I want Guantanamo shut down AND I think this is stupid. I guess I am an enigma that way, huh? People really can be more complex than simple characterizations. Stop judging so simply.
- smokeydbear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10How can people complain (rightly) on one hand about people being picked up and detained at Guantanamo Bay under false pretenses and then completely overlook how this bill could be abused by the same government to halt selling any type of weapon to anyone by just saying that they're a suspected terrorist?
- EyjaPia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I completely agree. I'm a huge liberal and a big fan of very strict gun control but this bill is crap. They can decide that absolutely anyone is a "suspected terrorist" and, to me, this is just going to lead to racial profiling.
That being said, I can't believe I actually agree with the NRA - member57, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@eyjapia
It maybe that now you see all our rights being violated and taken away, and quite possibly you can understand what organizations like the NRA have been doing all along.
- EyjaPia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I completely agree. I'm a huge liberal and a big fan of very strict gun control but this bill is crap. They can decide that absolutely anyone is a "suspected terrorist" and, to me, this is just going to lead to racial profiling.
- hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If you don't have guns how are you going to shot the politicians?
- Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The criteria for being seen as a terrorist is not so stringent as it used to be. I do not oppose preventing weapons from getting into the hands of terrorists, but people are going to have to accept some risk in protecting and maintaining the rights they were born with in the United States of America, that is the burden of citizenship.
- VegasM1ke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10We all can thank those who voted to pass the patriot act for giving the government the power to arrest "suspected terrorists" (aka anyone they choose) without telling them why. This power is why the NRA is opposing this ban
- codemonkeysteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I suspect that _you_ are a terrorist. Which of your Constitutionally-enumerated rights have you now lost?
- bcorder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Since we know how well the no-fly list has worked out, what's wrong with giving our freedoms over to yet another 'well managed' list. To make my point another way, what lists do work in our society? Credit Bureau? Voter Registrations? HIPAA? No Fly List? Do Not Call List?
Besides why would terrorists need to legally purchase weapons?
Need I say more. - Misinformant, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@hagbard72:
I think the only reason nobody has tried to kill Bush yet is because Cheney would just take his place.
Wouldn't accomplish much beyond wasting a bullet. - givemereplay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I couldn't agree with the NRA more here. Giving the Attorney General the right to strip one of our basic rights on suspicion (or due to a personal/political vendetta) puts more power in the hands of the Executive branch and takes it away from the Judicial. It is unhealthy, and is one step closer to totalitarianism.
- etnu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I'm not worried about "terrorists" buying guns from legitimate shops.
I'm worried about "terrorists" buying dynamite or other explosives. - gfreeman223, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Diggers, don't be hypocrites. You guys whine about Bush labeling anyone and everyone as a terrorist suspect... but now think the NRA is stupid for opposing a bill that relies on the vague label of a terrorist "suspect"
Shoot, you (aka everyone) could be a "suspect". Not only are you banned from buying guns you should have no rights, no liberties, and at the mercy of the incompetence of the police to elevate you from "suspected" terrorist to "confirmed" terrorist. - Kickboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I'm usually pretty against the NRA, but in this case I agree with them. Why you ask?
The NSA is making a habit of labeling everyone and their uncle a "suspected terrorist". Which means, at whim, the government would be able to remove your right to defend yourself with a firearm. They can remove your rights as a citizen of the US under the second amendment. The founding fathers made that amendment with the hopes that people could use their weapons in order to stage revolutions against the government when the time arose; and they knew the time would arise at some point. Now, the Bush administration is trying to prevent just that. Attend a anti-bush rally? You can't have a gun. Thats what this bill would do.
I am by no means trying to protect "terrorists", but rather our liberties as American citizens. The very liberties that this administration has spent the last 7 years trying to destroy.- member57, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This kind of crap is what the NRA has been fighting all along, I'm glad to see so many people seeing the NRA's view point, but I fear it may be too little too late. The fed has been chipping away at civil liberties by using fear for a long time. I truly fear that we might begin to understand the term "victim disarmament." I fear for this country when only the fed has guns.
- sauronlord, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@kolar
More information on the PREVENTATIVE actions guns takes Vs. ACCIDENTAL discharge.
Remember, that any "anti-gun" stats usually include the body count of the rapist, burglar, murders in the death toll to "show how dangerous" guns are.
Check out:
http://www.haciendapub.com/edcor6.html - 13B1303, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I'm so torn, the article description is 180 out of my logic but the NRA and the comments here are right on. I'll digg the NRA and diggers, and I would like to put ate50eggs under suspicion of being a terrorist :D
- faskill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wait, ate 50 eggs? isn't that a cool hand luke reference? wasn't luke a criminal? so is he condoning criminal acts? I realize I added nothing to this conversation, I just wanted to add in a cool hand luke reference
- JackOfAllGeeks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The problem is that it prevents people who are 'suspected terrorists' from buying or owning fire arms, and there's no due process or anything associated with being suspected. On a whim, anyone could be suspected of terrorism, and it's not hard to see how that could be used politically and/or to quash 2nd amendment rights.
- ummagummas08, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Modern McArthyism is what we're essentially dealing with, communists = terrorists.
- jimmarch1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7If you want to REALLY understand how our system of government is supposed to work, go find a book called "The Bill Of Rights", came out in 1999, by a very LIBERAL Yale law professor name of Akhil Reed Amar.
What's comical is that in digging into the real meanings of both the Bill Of Rights and the 14th Amendment which changed it in some pretty cool ways, he didn't actually like the gun-related implications he ran smack into. Again: he didn't enjoy writing what he ended up conclusively proving about our right to bear arms. He liked all the rest well enough.
It's not just about guns, but the gun-related parts are just incredible. For example:
Yes, the original 2nd Amendment IN PART tied the right to arms to a "political right of militia service" that was in turn very similar to the political right of jury service. Both jury service and militia service were ways of keeping elements of the government under control. Juries act as a check against times when the courts go nuts. Militias can block all sorts of nasty stuff.
But.
Under the 14th Amendment, newly freed blacks got CIVIL rights through the Bill Of Rights, but not (yet) political rights. Political rights didn't come until the 15th Amendment giving blacks the vote.
Yet the authors of the 14th Amendment, especially John Bingham (primary author) were clear that when blacks got all of the "privileges and immunities" of US citizenship, that should be read to include the whole Bill Of Rights and then some, especially as they were named in a list of rights that per the US Supreme Court in 1856, blacks did NOT have. Bingham referred specifically to this paragraph of the Dredd Scott case:
---
For if they [blacks] were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them [blacks] from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.
---
The 14th needed to overturn that horrific decision. So it uses the term "privileges and immunities" in the same way the Dred Scott court used it, to overturn the 1856 Dred Scott case -=allowing racist laws=-. Here's the opening lines of the 14th:
---
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
---
So: if the 14th is giving gun rights to blacks that don't yet have political rights, then the right to arms becomes a civil right unconnected to militia service.
Best of all: by 1868 we're no longer talking about flintlock muskets. 15-shot rifles were common. Revolvers were common, and the Gatling gun was shipping and operational. - Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5EVERYONE in America today is a suspected terrorist. Seriously, what is wrong with the poster.
More liberal sensationalist crap...- ffleming, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Come on, don't lump all liberals in with people who don't understand the constitution. I don't call all conservatives racists.
- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My bad, sorry.
- adarkmethod, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yeah, this should definitely be passed, i cant imagine anyone is even capable of being more open, honest, and fair with their judgement than ALBERTO "i don't recall" GONZALES. We should definitely give that douchbag the power to decide who can and can't have weapons.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 134 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by