Nra Supports Gun Sale To Terrorists

[HighlyIllogical]

Well, well. The NRA has noted that it supports allowing terror suspects to purchase guns.

Interesting, isn't it? Especially when their rationale is that denying terror suspects the "right" to purchase guns would "allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

Now that's just silly. When there's imminent danger, due process can and, in some cases (like this) should be thrown out the window.

[Joodah]

the problem is that if you can restrict the constitutional rights of certain citizens, what's to keep them from taking those rights from all citizens? it's a slippery slope type thingy.

[robattle]

At 5/6/07 12:15 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

Now that's just silly. When there's imminent danger, due process can and, in some cases (like this) should be thrown out the window.

Now that's full of shit. it said Terror secpects not terrorists. After all do you know what it feels like to be falsely acused by the White House. Of couse not because you're not BLACK. you need to get the WHOLE stroy next time, not this part of a whole shit. Be smart next time. OK that's my first post on this form.

[AmishGangster]

At 5/6/07 12:45 AM, robattle wrote:
Now that's full of shit. it said Terror secpects not terrorists. After all do you know what it feels like to be falsely acused by the White House. Of couse not because you're not BLACK. you need to get the WHOLE stroy next time, not this part of a whole shit. Be smart next time. OK that's my first post on this form.

Are you kidding me?
"Oh no! I'm BLaaAAACK! Bush accused me of being a terrorist! Somebody whipe my AAAAaaaaaasss! This is my only way out of an ARRrrguuMEeent!"
Get a brain Tyrone.

[AmishGangster]

You've never been accused of shit.

[troubles1]

At 5/6/07 12:45 AM, robattle wrote:

At 5/6/07 12:15 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

Now that's just silly. When there's imminent danger, due process can and, in some cases (like this) should be thrown out the window.

Now that's full of shit. it said Terror secpects not terrorists. After all do you know what it feels like to be falsely acused by the White House. Of couse not because you're not BLACK. you need to get the WHOLE stroy next time, not this part of a whole shit. Be smart next time. OK that's my first post on this form.

Are you to ignorant to read the link? it said nothing about being black. what are you the next up in coming Jesse Jackson, this had nothing to do with skin color. it is however a touchy subject, you cant just put the word suspect into a law, it would be way to easy for certain types of people to abuse that word .

let me put this into words you might understand, we-need-very-clear-guide -lines -on- why- a- person -is ineligible-for -his-right-to -bear-arms.

[MortifiedPenguins]

It does make good legal sense.

I mean, if one were allowed to lose thier second ammendment rights due to suspicion, then would would also be able to lose his 3rd ,4th or 5th ammendment rights due to suspicion.

[Draconias]

At 5/6/07 12:15 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Interesting, isn't it? Especially when their rationale is that denying terror suspects the "right" to purchase guns would "allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

That's absolutely a reasonable position on their part, if you ask me. Constitutional Rights should not be suspended simply by the command of a government official. There is no "clear and eminent" danger, simply a stated suspicion.

It's like removing Bush from office because he was investigated at one point, or throwing a man in prison for 10 years because he is a suspect in a trial-- both are suspicions, unproven, and the action taken against them would violate the constitution. This gun law is no different, and just gives an arbitrary power to government officials to "suspect" anyone they dislike, just as the FBI did do at one point in time, during the McCarthy era.

[D2Kvirus]

At 5/6/07 12:45 AM, robattle wrote:
Now that's full of shit. it said Terror secpects not terrorists. After all do you know what it feels like to be falsely acused by the White House. Of couse not because you're not BLACK.

And there was I thinking it was people of an Arabic appearance that were being rounded up and shipped off to Guantanamo without trial (which I seem to recall is in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment)...

[Proteas]

At 5/6/07 12:15 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Now that's just silly. When there's imminent danger, due process can and, in some cases (like this) should be thrown out the window.

Yet in the event when a roving wiretape would be neccessary, you would want the appropriate authorities go through a court to get a wiretap on a KNOWN terror suscpect, and publish the authorities getting the warrant in every major/minor newspaper in the area.

I would have thought you would have been all over this, you know... score one for innocent Americans everywhere, a small battle in the war to win back personal freedoms for all. But no, simply because guns are involved you take the typical leftwing stance and tow the party line on this one, "HA HA DEY IS SELLIN GUNZ TWO TEWWOWISTS!!!!"

A little bit of hypocracy, don't you think?

[HighlyIllogical]

At 5/6/07 08:40 AM, Draconias wrote: Constitutional Rights should not be suspended simply by the command of a government official.

I don't see how denying guns to suspected terrorists (assuming that there is valid evidence brought before a court) is legally problematic. Hell, when there's imminent danger, they can suspend habeas corpus ("The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Article 2, Section 9), so suspending gun ownership for those who may be dangerous is no different. If you can keep guns out of the hands of people who MIGHT commit crimes, then what's the issue?

[Dr-Worm]

At 5/6/07 07:51 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: It does make good legal sense.

I mean, if one were allowed to lose thier second ammendment rights due to suspicion, then would would also be able to lose his 3rd ,4th or 5th ammendment rights due to suspicion.

The 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendments don't essentially give you the right to something you kill people with.

[robattle]

Wow no one understode my post. It was ment to kock some sense into you after all the court system in the U.S is bullcrap, and was sighty a joke.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 5/6/07 01:01 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: The 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendments don't essentially give you the right to something you kill people with.

And they certainly haven't been applied as stupidly as the 2nd Amendment has...nor understood in such a silly manner.

[HighlyIllogical]

Oh, I found something that might be particularly piquant:

“Foreign terrorists could exploit, and appear to have exploited in limited cases, the
general availability of firearms in the United States to carry out terrorist attacks in the
United States or abroad.”
--Congressional Research Service Memorandum:
“Foreign Terrorists and the Availability of Firearms
and Black Powder in the United States,”
May 16, 2003

“In other countries, e.g. some states of USA . . . it is perfectly legal for members of the
public to own certain types of firearms. If you live in such a country, obtain an assault
rifle legally, preferably an AK-47 or variations, learn how to use it properly and go and
practice in the areas allowed for such training.”
--Al Qaeda training manual, “How can I Train
Myself for Jihad”

Do these quotes tell you anything? I mean, it's not like they suggest that terrorists can easily buy guns, right? [/sarcasm]

[Proteas]

At 5/6/07 01:38 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: “Foreign terrorists could exploit, and appear to have exploited in limited cases, the
general availability of firearms in the United States to carry out terrorist attacks in the
United States or abroad.”

Last terrorist attack on American soil was committed using box cutters and hijack airplanes, last I checked.... most of the terrorist attacks I see on the news these days are being carried out with cars and crudely made bombs, now that I think about it.

preferably an AK-47 or variations, learn how to use it properly and go and
practice in the areas allowed for such training.”

Do I have to go into the whole appeal to fear thing again with you?

[HighlyIllogical]

Any reasonable possibility should be secured against. It's not hard to get a gun in this country. Why shouldn't we make it more difficult when there's a clear danger (note the congressional report's findings).

[DrBrainTrust]

I can't see how people can support a law that punishes a person who may have committed a crime. It set a dangerous precedent when the government proposes to punish undesirables on the mere suspicion of crime. If we were really worried about the 'threat' posed by suspected terrorists, then why pussyfoot around and just take their guns? We may as well go all the way and just round them up and stick them in internment camps for the duration of the 'war on terror'. Surveillance is one thing, but actually punishing a person for a crime without proof of a crime being committed doesn't really sit well with me.

[Proteas]

At 5/6/07 02:02 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Any reasonable possibility should be secured against. It's not hard to get a gun in this country. Why shouldn't we make it more difficult when there's a clear danger (note the congressional report's findings).

What's so reasonable about siding with the government on this issue, when if it was anything else related to the war on terror (deporting suspected terrorists, invasion of privacy through domestic surveilance) you would be foaming at the mouth screaming for justice? Is it just because there are guns involved or something?

[emmytee]

At 5/6/07 07:51 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: It does make good legal sense.

I mean, if one were allowed to lose thier second ammendment rights due to suspicion, then would would also be able to lose his 3rd ,4th or 5th ammendment rights due to suspicion.

Oh....wait....they already do. Might as well buy a gun then

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 5/6/07 01:01 PM, Dr-Worm wrote:

At 5/6/07 07:51 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

The 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendments don't essentially give you the right to something you kill people with.

Thats beyond the point in a legal sense.

If we throw due process out of the window and relieve individuals of Constitutional freedoms and rights due to supsicion, all freedoms are at risk.

Not individual ones.

This would be an incredibly dangerous precedent if set.

[JakeHero]

It's funny. I agree with Illogica, but he is being hypocritical. Considering in another thread he said terrorists and terrorist suspects should be granted due process (A Constitutional Right), but he's for suspending the second amendment for them. A bit strange, eh?

[HighlyIllogical]

Suspending the second amendment prevents them from committing crimes. Giving them due process does no harm, because once they're in the criminal justice system, they present little to no threat. With guns, though, as we've seen on so many occasions, a single wacko-Islamofacist or another type of fundamentalist could kill dozens of people...If we suspect that someone is a danger to others, then why do they have the right to buy something that could enable them?

[Ravariel]

At 5/6/07 04:07 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Suspending the second amendment prevents them from committing crimes.

How, exactly?

[LazyDrunk]

At 5/6/07 04:42 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 5/6/07 04:07 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Suspending the second amendment prevents them from committing crimes.

How, exactly?

"I live in an idealistic world free of worry"

[HighlyIllogical]

Ok, fine. It's not a foolproof measure, but it is certainly a logical one.

Today:
Joe is a terror suspect. He goes into a store to buy a gun. He passes the background check, fulfills the other state requirements and has his gun. It could be anything from a pistol to a .50 cal bolt action.

After the no guns for terror proviso is approved:
Let's say that Joe is a terror suspect. He goes into a store to buy a gun. He fails the background \check (though, certainly, if they're trying to conduct an investigation, they'd let him buy the gun so that he doesn't know he's being watched). He can't get a gun.

[Ravariel]

At 5/6/07 04:47 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Let's say that Joe is a terror suspect. He goes into a store to buy a gun. He fails the background \check (though, certainly, if they're trying to conduct an investigation, they'd let him buy the gun so that he doesn't know he's being watched). He can't get a gun.

Until he decides to, y'know, steal one...

[HighlyIllogical]

And here we reach the crux of it.

If I say that he can't get it, you'll say that he can steal it.

Then why do we allow people to have guns (even upstanding people), since anyone's gun can be stolen?

[Geordi-Laforge]

At 5/6/07 04:54 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: And here we reach the crux of it.

If I say that he can't get it, you'll say that he can steal it.

Then why do we allow people to have guns (even upstanding people), since anyone's gun can be stolen?

People try to steal stuff all the time. Some people get shot for it, some get away.

That's life. Looking for a blanket catch-all is childish.

[Ravariel]

At 5/6/07 04:54 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:
Then why do we allow people to have guns (even upstanding people), since anyone's gun can be stolen?

Why do we allow people to have cars, when anyone can steal them? Why do we let people have MP3s when anyone can steal them?