So what's the story with the NRA saying that suspected terrorists have the right to have guns?

[AndyA]

I mean, are we serious in this country about fighting terrorism, or not?

Bush wants to spy on us, listen in to our phone calls, read our E-mails, search our homes without warrants, but they aren't going to draw the line with suspected terrorists having guns?

OK. :eyes:

Yes, I know in this country you're innocent until proven guilty, but if you've done something that flags you as a possible terrorist, I think it's stupid to allow you to carry a gun around.

How fucking ridiculous!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/04/national/main2762113.shtml

[Fresh_Start]

1. MUST APPEAL TO SINGLE ISSUE VOTERS

MUST APPEAL TO SINGLE ISSUE VOTERS
NO INTELLIGENCE OR RATIONALE ARGUMENT REQUIRED

[slackmaster]

2. Sad to see DUers wanting to give Alberto Gonzales the power to deny civil rights

Based on a person's name appearing on a secret government enemies list, like they did to Senator Kennedy.

Related threads:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x823576

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x824446

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x807229

[karlrschneider]

5. Just like salad bar 'christians'...they pick which of the Bill of Rights they like

Fuckin' hypocrites.

[Worst Username Ever]

6. Salad bar christians?

I have never heard that one. I like it. Lol. Pick and choose.

[karlrschneider]

8. We used the term for years in the old Fido network before Gore invented the internets

:D

[Paladin]

46. Nice To See You Gun Militants Finally Discovering.....

...that Gonzales isn't very nice. Better late than never. Guess he finally got around to threatening the one part of the Bill of Rights you seem to give a shit about....

[karlrschneider]

47. Oh that's right. We never ever critisized him before today.

There are some sadly amusing little pricks on DU from time to time.

[SteveM]

48. How do YOU feel about it, buddy? Cut the lies, buddy.

[karlrschneider]

3. Misleading subject line. You are being very dishonest using it.

The NRA rarely gets any kudos from me but they are exactly right on this one.

[AndyA]

9. How is it misleading or dishonest?

NRA: Terror Suspects Have Gun Rights, Too
Group Says Banning Gun Sales To Suspected Terrorists Infringes On Civil Liberties

That's what CBS says.

[karlrschneider]

18. Okay, I'll give you a partial pass since the CBS headline was bullshit

and you fell for it.

n 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."

How many rights are you willing to give up? Has it occurred to you that by being a member of DU, some bureaucrat desk-jockey might decide YOU're a terrorist?

[torrentprime]

11. You're right

I already opposed this law, but your post made me realize the manipulation implicit in the title.

It's just like when the Christian right sends out emails with titles like, "Gays want sex addicts to teach our children!" and the like; completely twisting the facts to support their nightmare scenario, all with the true goal of denying equality.

[Worst Username Ever]

4. A right is a right

Being a suspect in something does not mean you should be denied a right. Whether that be a right to competent legal counsel or a right to own a gun, the constitution still provides you your rights. Being flagged should not prevent your from traveling (a fundamental right, according to the courts) or owning a firearm. And no, I am not pro-gun. Just pro-rights.

[AndyA]

12. Yeah, OK. And the guy who is arrested for lining up fast food restaurant

employees in the back room and killing them execution style should have a gun too, I suppose?

After all, it is his right until he's been proven guilty, eh?

What about the rights of the dead people?

[Worst Username Ever]

15. That depends. Was he a felon before he bought the gun?

If so, his civil rights, including his right to vote and his right to own a gun have been suspended. Is he merely a SUSPECT of a crime? Then yes, he has a right to own a gun. And to vote. And everything else. And yes, he is innocent until proven guilty. It is called due process, and it is in the bill of rights.

Last I checked, dead people do not have rights.

[AndyA]

16. Last I checked, dead people do not have rights.

They had rights before they were shot dead by an idiot who shouldn't have had a gun.

So much for protecting their rights.

[Worst Username Ever]

28. Nope, dead people don't have rights.

Unless you have a differenet copy of the constitution than I do. But my copy DOES say you are not allowed to be stripped of your rights by the government without due process of the law. It says it more than once, actually. Once in the 5th amendment, applicable to federal law, and once in the 14th, applicable to state law. That includes the right to own a gun as much as it includes the right to associate or the right to freedom of expression. If someone is not a convicted felon, they most certainly are not "an idiot who shouldn't have a gun." They are an American citizen, and the constitution applies to them as it does anyone else.

[AndyA]

38. They did have rights before they were dead though.

Don't ignore that. They had their rights taken away from them without due process, without the law.

[karlrschneider]

39. A person killed by a falling meteor is in precisely the same situation.

...

[AndyA]

40. No, a falling meteor is an act of God, or nature.

Executing someone is not. Big difference.

[karlrschneider]

42. You said:

"Don't ignore that. They had their rights taken away from them without due process, without the law."

Nothing in what you wrote had anything to do with the proximate cause. You might want to call
1-800-ABCDEFG

[Worst Username Ever]

41. And, assuming the person who killed them was not a convicted felon,

those rights were upheld fully. The Constitution only protects from infringement of right by the government. Private entities and individuals infringing on our rights is not a Constitutional argument; deprivation of rights by those arise in tort. The 2nd amendment issue and the attempt by Bushco to infringe on the 2nd amendment is an act by the government to deprive Americans of a civil right without due process of the law.

I am certainly sorry if someone dies as a result of a lawfully purchased gun. If that is the case, the it is the law that needs to be changed; this happens with via due process. Votes, checks, balances, etc. Not by a president arbitraily adding names to a list.

[torrentprime]

17. Are you serious?

So being arrested for multiple murders is the same burden as mere "suspicion" to get on a government watch list? Remember that anti-Bush speech giver who got dumped on the no-fly list? How hard do you think it is to make those lists?

And forget your issues with guns for a second. Hate it or not, the right to bear arms exists in this country. A constitutional right, called out in bright letters in the Bill of Rights. When you support that right's removal from citizens who have committed no crime, you support the concept of a unitary executive as well as "national security" exceptions to all our rights. Sad.

[karlrschneider]

22. I guess we can just arrest everyone on the chance they might break the law

at some future time. Marvelous idea.

[slackmaster]

23. No, because he'd either be in jail or under indictment

Which would make him ineligible to buy a gun.

[krispos42]

44. Too many variables to determine

If the person was a career felon, he was probably already prohibited from owning or even touching a gun for the rest of his life.

If the person had a clean criminal and mental health record, then he did nothing illegal until minutes before the shooting started.

The crime may have started the minutes he left the house with a handgun (like in New Jersey), or it might not have occurred until he pulled it out of his pocket (Vermont) and pointed it at the cashier. In either case, there was no reason for this hypothetical person to be denied at the time he began shooting people in the back of the head in the rear of a Wendy's.

To give you a better example...

I have a deer rifle, legally. I have patio doors. There is no legal reason I cannot sit on my couch with a loaded deer rifle and one of my neighbors across the street centered in my crosshairs, aiming through the open patio doors and hidden from view. Up until the MOMENT I pull the trigger, no crime has been committed.
If I never pull the trigger (and assuming nobody ever sees me aiming at them), no crime has been committed and there is no legal cause for my right to own a gun to be stripped away with due process.

If somebody sees me, of course, they can rightly call the police and report some nutjob aiming a rifle at them, and I'd likely be arrested and convicted for some crime or another. Threatening or some such.

And if I pull the trigger, even if the gun fails to fire, then I've committed, at minimum, attempted murder.

[SteveM]

50. Get a hold of yourself. This is another GOPer infringement. You agree?

[torrentprime]

7. Rather than kneejerking this one

It might be wiser to analyze the issues here. What the NRA is protesting against is a bill that would allow the AG to ban gun sales to anyone s/he chooses, based on their presence on the much-discussed terrorist watch list (you know, the one we can't see, don't know the contents of and can't be removed from). So the Bush Admin is once again claiming the right to, in their sole discretion, remove citizen's rights.

Let that sink in for a second.

Just because you may not care about the 2nd Amendment, don't you think this is a case to use a critical issue against the GOP and not mindlessly support the power play just because it may stop a handful of guns from being sold to people? Think! And do you really think an honest to god terrorist would be stopped by a federal law on the sale? If 15 year olds can get guns by the hundreds, I fail to see how you can possibly expect that this law will harm anyone other than suspects without the power to challenge their status.

And this:
but if you've done something that flags you as a possible terrorist, I think it's stupid to allow you to carry a gun around.
Right. Of course, if someone is flagged as a possible terrorist, don't you think it's stupid not to tap their phones or search their homes without a warrant? I mean, they're on the terrorist watch list, for god's sake? Shouldn't they lose their rights already? </sarcam>

By backing this law, you support the Bush admin's efforts to deny citizens their rights, in the name of national security. Good job!

[karlrschneider]

14. And how many "suspected terrorists" are still sitting in Gitmo, NEVER CHARGED

let alone 'proven' to be criminals?

[torrentprime]

20. Exactly!

Removal of due process harms us all.

[Worst Username Ever]

19. Well articulated, thank you

[mudesi]

10. The NRA cares about one thing: Profit for gun manufacturers

That's it. Anyone who holds any other illusions about the NRA is blissfully misguided.

[torrentprime]

13. Oh, I see

And their search for filthy lucre completely taint the 2nd Amendment and due process concerns here. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up!

[slackmaster]

24. Perhaps so, but that doesn't make them automatically wrong about everything

Does it?

[karlrschneider]

25. That is a hugh (sic) steaming pile of bovine excrement.

And I think you know it.

[mudesi]

32. I make no argument about gun rights, etc...

I only state a fact, and I think you know it.

They are a Washington lobbyist group, and their only objective is to represent the giant corporations that back them, just like every other Washington lobbyist. If you think otherwise, then I'll be tempted to use the eyeroll smiley.

They have used propaganda to instill fear and false patriotism about gun rights and many have fallen for it. Don't for a second believe that the NRA is in any way a righteous, honorable organization.

[slackmaster]

33. I have to ask you "So what?" and a very pointed question

Do you agree or disagree that Alberto Gonzales should be given the power to arbitrarily deny civil rights to a person who has not even been charged with a crime?

[karlrschneider]

34. Not all lobbying is for giant corporations and gun manufacturers are tiny

compared with oil companies, airplane builders, etc. Most high quality guns are made abroad anyway...domestic production of civilian weapons is inconsequential. I personally think the NRA is pretty much idiotic and even though I've owned guns for over 55 years I never was a member. But they do represent a LOT of people even though its membership is a small percentage of gun owners. They probably get some support from the manufacturers for obvious reasons but I know without a doubt their power comes from individuals who are at least as passionate at preserving their 2nd Amendment rights as you are about nullifying them.

[krispos42]

45. Yeah, the massive profits in gun making

Sturm, Ruger, & Co. made 1.1 million dollars last year on revenues of about three hundred million.

Wow.

[Edweird]

21. It's not about what's been done by whom. It's about these jerkoffs in control being able

to arbitrarily decide who may or may not own guns. By whatever means they deem appropriate. For example, they may decide that everyone that posts on a certain democratically themed website poses a threat and shouldn't be allowed to own guns. And nobody can say or do anything about it. No Way. These are power mad criminals reaching for dictatorship. And now they want to come for our guns. And you support that because they mention terrorist. When was the last time an actual "terrorist" used a gun in the commission of his act? Terrorism is basically about bombs, not guns.

[slackmaster]

27. Not just the guns, it's a very real slippery slope

Next they may decide that you can no longer post on that Web site.

Or board an airplane.

Or vote.

[Edweird]

30. I think we've ridden that hill to just about the valley.

All they really have left to do is take the guns and declare martial law because of some vague threat. I think they've pretty much wrapped everything up already.

[murloc]

26. You and I are proably SUSPECTED terrorist

because we post on DU

So was Ted Kennedy (when he was on the no-fly list)

Just because the result might be good (keep guns out of certain hands), doesnt mean the process is just.

[sandnsea]

29. It's just criminals and the mentally ill

they want to keep guns away from. Terrorists, abortion clinic, and federal building bombers - they're doing god's work killing liberals I guess.

This is a precise example of the incoherence of the gun lovers lobby. They will tell you to your face they want responsible gun laws - then squeal like stuck hogs every single time you try to pass, or even enforce, one.

[slackmaster]

31. So, you are on the same side as Alberto Gonzales on this one?

And by extension, George W. Bush.

:shrug:

[karlrschneider]

35. You are a liar. We gun owners have ALWAYS supported enforcing the laws.

Shame on you.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aikoaiko]

36. We shouldn't deny civil rights without due process and the suspected terror list is a mystery nt

[ContraBass Black]

37. Remember that the terrorist watchlist includes many innocent people and anti-war activists.

[meldroc]

52. Exactly! I don't agree with the NRA on a lot, but they are right on this point.

I posted in the other threads on this issue to bring this up.

The problem is that Gonzo wants use use the terror watch lists, pretty much like the terror watch lists and no-fly lists we all have come to know and love at airports.

These are the lists that have babies, anti-war activists and innocent people listed just so federal marshals could meet a quota.

Of course, I don't want a known terrorist to be able to legally buy a gun, but we have to be smarter than this.

[Edweird]

43. TERRA! TERRA! 9-11! Jesus! Quick, we have to give up our rights or the terrorists win!

I thought DU'ers were more sophisticated than that. I'm pretty sure that Gonzo's idea of gun control might not be exactly what you had in mind. I'm positive that the results will not be to your liking, no matter how anti-gun you are.

[SteveM]

51. Some RIGHTS or some SUSPICIONS are more important than others?