Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder You'd think I was overstating things here or pulling a Darkbeer, but it'd true. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/04/nra.terror.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/ 04/nra.terror.ap/index.html</a> From the link: "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-New Jersey, "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.
Originally Posted By ecdc Taking guns away from terrorists is a slippery slope to banning spitwads shot through a straw! Go NRA, continue to protect those of us with inferiority complexes from the fascist regime that is our government.
Originally Posted By SuperDry The NRA is continuing the policy that the Bush administration had early on. In particular, the Justice Department under Ashcroft very deliberately left out any restriction on gun sales from the Patriot Act, even though watch lists for all kinds of other things were established. Allow me to quote myself from another thread: <<< The Bush administration has finally come to their senses and supported a bill that would prevent people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns, but the NRA is still staunchly against this. Based on the terrorist watch list, we can deny people entry to the US, deny them the ability to travel freely on airplanes, imprison them for years without trial or legal redress, but if they walk into a gun store, well by God we must let them buy a gun without hindrance or delay. >>>
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<continue to protect those of us with inferiority complexes>> Can you rephrase this, I don't understand what you are trying to call me.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Here's the sweet irony involved. Those of us who were up in arms over the fourth amendment violations inherent in listening in on phone calls and such were met with "if ya got nothin' to hide, then you must want the terrorists to win!" and all other crap. But take away their guns, and oh boy, the NRA gets their panties in a wad.
Originally Posted By Mr X I never thought I'd quote my Grandma, but...I've lived too long. I don't even have an opinion on this. Like SD said, the whole thing is just confusing, hypocritical, and impossible to justify either way. As much as I miss my Gram, I'm pretty happy she didn't live long enough to see 9/11 and the aftermath.
Originally Posted By ecdc DVC dad, I have a good friend who's a member of the NRA. We never agree on guns - until this. Even he can acknowledge that there's simply no way to defend this. From your post, it seems that you can't either, and instead are just going for defiance ("I'm a member, take that!") But SPP is exactly right - we've heard for years now that it should be ok to read someone's mail, view their phone and library records, etc, because they should have nothing to hide. But take away guns, and let's throw a temper tantrum, according to the NRA.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I'm an NRA member. >>> Good for you. So am I (Life Member in fact). And coming from that perspective, I think it's completely ridiculous that we as a people are expected to make all sorts of compromises and surrender significant portions of the Bill of Rights back to the government (lest we be labeled as "unpatriotic" as SPPH pointed out), all in the name of guarding the nation against terrorism. Yet perhaps the most common-sense thing to be done - keeping someone that's on a terrorist watch list from passing a firearms purchase instant background check - was opposed by the very people responsible the Patriot Act and related programs. It's really quite amazing.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Here's a link to the letter the NRA sent. I think they make some good points about this bill. <a href="http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/NRA_ltr_gonzales.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.nraila.org/media/PD Fs/NRA_ltr_gonzales.pdf</a>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Douglas wants the terrorists to win. The standard for listening in on phone calls wasn't much different than suspected of being a terrorist. The irony is just killing me here.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Truth be told, the infringement on a right here isn't any different than the 4th amendment issues of a while back. Thing is, where people start taking different roads is that guns are a more volatile issue than privacy. I'm all for making guns as hard as possible to purchase. I'm all for life sentences for any crime using a gun. I'm all for parents getting jailed if their kids take the guns out of the home safe and shoot up Mr. Holst's Civics class. What I can't believe anyone from the NRA can get behind this letter with a straight face in light of the fact we knew they were going to raise the issue because we heard them talking about it on the phone.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Douglas wants the terrorists to win.> Well, no. I just think the NRA's argument has some merits.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Interesting letter. Change "NRA" to "ACLU" and change "Second Amendment" to "Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments" and the letter stays surprisingly intact.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Interesting letter. Change "NRA" to "ACLU" and change "Second Amendment" to "Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments" and the letter stays surprisingly intact." Which is what prompted me to start this thread.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Change "NRA" to "ACLU" and change "Second Amendment" to "Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments" and the letter stays surprisingly intact.> Only if you define gutting half of a letter's points as "staying surprisingly intact".
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Doug, this thread isn't even at post 20 and you're already in form. Address the issue directly- do you not see the irony here between the 4th amendment concerns previously raised and now? What's the difference between the concerns about Consitutional rights? One is not worth more than the other.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Doug, this thread isn't even at post 20 and you're already in form.> And you hit your stride by post 11. <What's the difference between the concerns about Consitutional rights?> I think the NRA guy addressed that in his letter. I haven't endorsed his view, merely said it's got some merit.
