What is Digg?281 Comments
- Jtheletter, on 10/12/2007, -10/+253I 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.
- 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. - inactive, 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! - 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.
- 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. - 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.
- 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." - 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. - 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.
- 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! - 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?
- 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. - 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.
- 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.
- 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. - 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.
- 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.
- inactive, 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. - 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). - rcran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+40Goddamn you are all brainwashed.
- 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. - 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. - 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
- 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. - 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.
- 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. - 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.
- 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. - 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. - 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.
- Hiki, on 10/12/2007, -9/+28The NRA's right, for once.
- 13B1303, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19How close is the NRA to being considered a "suspected terrorist organization"? I know there are quite a few in Washington just itching to slap that title on them.
- 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...
- 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. - Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19@ Entropy
I am a militia of one. - 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?
- 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.
- cclasby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17The founders of this country were suspected terrorists. What the hell are you thinking>?
- 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. - 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Is the suspected terrorist list anything like the no fly list, which is pretty much a joke.
- 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.
- macewan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14well said
- GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13@Entropy
OK, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Fixed. - 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. - 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.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 275 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is