This story is archived
NRA Says Terror Suspects Should Be Able To Buy Guns »
Posted by: TechnologyExpert 2 years, 6 months agoThe 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.
Read Full Story at huffingtonpost.com »
Submitted By:
TechnologyExpert
I am Editor-in-Chief at Alice Hill's RealTechNews (http://www.realtechnews.com). I also have my own blog (Tech-Ex) at http://TechnologyExpert.Blogspot.com. Finally ...
Who Also Submitted:
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 75
-
-
PsychoHosebeast
May 4, 2007, 7:03 p.m.I'd be curious what other riders may be attached to this bill that may be the true goal. Another bridge to nowhere? Maybe "round up all gun owners and shoot them?" Perhaps an end to term limits, and naming Bush the Grand Poobah of the Western Hemisphere?
If it's just what we're reading, it's crap, however, it isn't often than a bill has no riders, and they NEVER tell us the real reasons... like "The evil bastards turned down funding for body armor!!" Yeah, never mind that $800,000,000 earmarked for putting a superhighway across the property your father owns. Ol' Adrianna needs to supply a link to the entire text.
-
Reignman
May 4, 2007, 10:15 p.m.Article comes from the Huffington Post!!! Nough said.... I feel sorry for the morons that actually believe this propoganda.. nough wasted breath on this....
-
aceofspades1
May 4, 2007, 11:46 p.m.you can't fly on an airplane if you are on a watch list but you can still buy a gun? that could make traveling on a bus kind of dangerous. I guess NRA members all fly.Yup they sure are for tghe birds
-
agentX
May 4, 2007, 11:50 p.m.Wow, that's the NRA for yah. They're protecting the interests of the gun sellers, not the safety of Americans.
When will the line be crossed, when will enough be enough? When terrorists attack a mall with bootleg machineguns (which did happen)
When an Al-qaeda group shoots up the Ice Capades?
I guess even then they'll be protecting their backsides.
-
-
Macondo
May 5, 2007, 1:30 a.m.In our paranoid society we should be able to defend ourselves from our imaginary enemies.
Weapons make us feel better.
We have the right to kill out of space invaders and other intruders like roaches, mice and so on.
We need automatic guns.
One shot is not enough if you are not a sharp shooter.
Sports is a different issue. Hunting is a primitive instinct we cannot overcome.
Machine guns, explosives and so on are very effective to kill Bamby.
God bless or forgive the NRA.
-
si26
May 5, 2007, 3:18 a.m.As Im from the Uk and your crazy love of all guns I dont understand,Why If these people are on a suspect list do you not complain if they are taken of lists like flying and any sort of travel but as sone as their right to carry a gun is bought up you lot complain like hell,how many more virgina tech massacres and how more school killings can you lot take before you do something about it.
And before you start to slag me off I am currantly in my 18th year in being in the british army and not some hick from the mountains.
-
Edmar14
May 5, 2007, 7:49 a.m.Back in the days when the founding fathers were drafting the bill of rights, there was no army. All that the country had was a standing militia to protect the new republic. The second amendment was written to provide a right to own a gun only for the defense of the country. The second amendment was not and still is not a blanket right to own firearms for whatever purpose that you deem personally important. Read the bill of rights. The second amendment specifically addresses the issue of guns and a standing militia. I didn't write it, if you disagree, talk to our founding fathers who knew even back then that not everybody was responsible enough to own a gun.
-
geoffinak
May 5, 2007, 9:13 a.m.The Militia argument or the "out dated theory" has been hashed and rehashed, the second amendment is there to protect us against a tyrannical govt. One that does not serve the people. We seem to think were immune from what is going on all over the world and within our own country right now. The true understanding live in the Federalist papers as El correctly pointed out, also the court rulings have backed this up numerous times.
38 states now allow the "right " to carry a concealed weapon upon a background check and finger printing. I fear it's just a way to find the owners. Alaska has a right to carry with out a permit. Alaska law allows anyone not convicted of a Violent Misdemeanor, Felony or domestic violence, to carry concealed. It was a law passed by a Democratic Legislator who stance was. Why should a law abiding citizen have to prove anything, it's his right to carry concealed under the Constitution.
.
-
walden3
May 5, 2007, 9:15 a.m.i also don't like the idea of restricting liberties based on "suspect" status. everyday we hear horror stories from people whose names have made it on the terror watch list and get hassled at airports all the time. many of these folks have no idea how their name made it on the list and it's next to impossible to get your name removed once it's on. if someone has been adjudicated insane or they have a criminal history then deny them, otherwise no denial based on conjecture, assumption and surmise.
-
geoffinak
May 5, 2007, 9:31 a.m.When you check in at the airport, the ticket agent is given a score based on all the govt... data on you, which includes health records, work history, any dealings with law enforcement. Based on this score is how you will be treated and examined while waiting to get screened. They have no latitude. Gee they days of paying for the ticket and running to make the gate. Does anyone really think this works and will stop anyone who is determined to do harm. It's the people who work in and around the planes that are the biggest gap. Not my 80 year old Mom in her tennis shoes. It makes for a good show and does wonders for the private jet companies. Sales are piling up as corporate types can not take this kind of delay.
-
geoffinak
May 5, 2007, 9:34 a.m.Australian Gun Law Update Part 1
Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts...
From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia
Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed >> by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. First year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent ;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up >> 300 percent.
-
geoffinak
May 5, 2007, 9:35 a.m.(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
Aussie Part 2
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information
The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens
-
geoffinak
May 5, 2007, 9:50 a.m.2
(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information
The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens
-
Jaydee40
May 5, 2007, 10:06 a.m.Just how hard would it be to use the terrorist claim as a bogus tool in other cases? With the mood in the US lately it would be pretty easy to use suspicion of terrorism and have more powers than were ever meant to be used against an individual or groups. I'm not saying guns should be easily available to every one but am also afraid about laws being misused.
-
wildman6557
May 5, 2007, 11:36 a.m.I agree. Gun ownership should be legal, but if a person is a criminal, they shouldn't get a gun. That includes terrorists.
Recently the NRA sent a flyer out to its members in Tucson saying that the National Park Service was banning guns in Iron Wood National Monument. Well, I checked it out and the NPS was still allowing a person to carry a gun and to hunt, it was only target shooting that they wanted to ban and that was due to a litter issue. So instead of addressing the litter issue, the NRA sends out this wildly inaccurate flyer telling us all to defend our guns. After a while this becomes tiring.
-
-
sly0509
May 5, 2007, 11:48 a.m.The bill is per se unconstitutional (that's unconstitutional on it's face for readers with a public school education). The provision for filing suit within sixty days in order to obtain constitutional rights would be funny if it weren't an actual bill. It's the same as being denied the right to fair speech unless you file suit to obtain that right. Get it?
-
Dionys
May 5, 2007, 12:41 p.m.Everone likes to say that gun ownership is constitutionally guaranteed, but it's just another case of constitutional interpretation. Therefore *open* to interpretation.
-
Gotitright
May 5, 2007, 12:47 p.m.I am an NRA member. This post is crap. Not everyone should be able to buy a gun and the NRA is not the ACLU...
-
SS454
May 5, 2007, 2:14 p.m.George remember you Promised!....who cares about safty of the people as long as us rednecks can have our GUNS......!
-
nWoNET
May 5, 2007, 3:02 p.m.guns anybody pepole want buy guns they can ??? if they want pass law say no guns in usa that mean no freedoom ???
-
zman
May 5, 2007, 3:50 p.m.The NRA has shown their spots again - guns at all costs, they are pathetic
-
zman
May 5, 2007, 3:51 p.m.Crazy is as crazy does - in my 57 years on this Planet, this counts as the craziest idea I've ever heard of
The first 72 comments are shown. Show all 75 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
