Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms.
Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.
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.
The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms.
I know and the rest of you know that if this were to pass we would all become "suspected terrorist". NO GUN FOR YOU!!
Hmmm, unless I've missed something, real terrorists generally resort to things like bombs and such.
Not to mention, real terrorist typically don't have any regard for US laws and are involved in networks that are underground in nature. Denying a true terrorist the ability to walk into a US gunstore and make a purchase would be laughable. Convicted terrorist? Sure, just like any felony will cost you your second ammendment rights. But suspect? Useless law other than restricting citizens constitutional rights.
I know and the rest of you know that if this were to pass we would all become "suspected terrorist". NO GUN FOR YOU!!
Right on...very good. What the heck would they base "suspected" on...it would be interesting to see the criteria. But this is just one more example of how the government, led by liberals, may yet get around to voiding a Constitutional right that has already been corrupted.
Didn't use to believe this, folks, but I really believe it could happen, even in my beloved country. I used to be a passionate "moderate" on gun control; now I'm equally as passionate about making SURE the govnernment does not move to ban all guns/gun sales based on someone's random criteria.
But this is just one more example of how the government, led by liberals, may yet get around to voiding a Constitutional right that has already been corrupted.
Didn't use to believe this, folks, but I really believe it could happen, even in my beloved country. I used to be a passionate "moderate" on gun control; now I'm equally as passionate about making SURE the govnernment does not move to ban all guns/gun sales based on someone's random criteria.
Wait a minute, I am opposed to this as well, but your comment "..the government, led by liberals,..." is not supportable. There is nothing liberal or even liberal-leaning in this kind of underhanded totalitarianism and certainly nothing liberal about the current administration. Though I will never own a gun, it is becoming quite apparent that when government disarms its citizens, all freedoms can be removed.
Dude, the CNN article was twisted to make it sound like the NRA wants terrorists to get guns!
COME ON!! The NRA is for KILLING all terrorists in the world, specially the ones in the USA.
The problem with this bill proposed by our Democrat buddies in DC is that it is designed to put ALL gun purchases, even by law-abiding American citizens under the discretion of our incompetent US Attorney General.
Gun rights for law-abiding American citizens are a RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEDGE!! This law would make all gun purchases a "priviledge" that would be given at the mercy of an extremely incompetent attorney general!!
That is unaceptable! That is a backdoor "gun ban". Absurd and unconstitutional!
Last edited by Marka; 12-10-2007 at 05:03 AM..
Reason: edited quote
mhouse, you're right. This bill is not liberal, it's totalitarian. In fact, technically true liberals would not be for any form of gun control, as that is a social issue where the government should not be involved.
Wait a minute, I am opposed to this as well, but your comment "..the government, led by liberals,..." is not supportable. There is nothing liberal or even liberal-leaning in this kind of underhanded totalitarianism and certainly nothing liberal about the current administration. Though I will never own a gun, it is becoming quite apparent that when government disarms its citizens, all freedoms can be removed.
Sorry...bad phrasing...I should have said "IF led by liberals"...
And yes, I do think that overall, liberals are the ones that tackle this particular issue under the guise of trying to make the world safer, whether or not this particular example is truly liberal-led or not. Perhaps I mis-spoke in this instance, but whenever I see gun-control issues come up, they are almost always led by anti-hunting PETA/Greenpeace types..."ultra-liberals" might be a better way to describe.
Those people aren't liberals, Alaskagrl. Those are authoritarians trying to convince people they're something they're not. It comes from the left and the right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
