NRA really is run by gun nuts

[BaliBabyDoc]

CNN

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.
---
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."

These people (NRA) really are dangerous. Next thing you know they will claim that people with a history of mental illness shouldn't be prohibited from buying guns . . . oh nevermind.

"Right now, law enforcement carefully monitors all firearms sales to those on the terror watch list," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "Injecting the attorney general into the process just politicizes it."

Under normal circumstances, this guy would be out to lunch. But he's made a pretty accurate assessment of Gonzales.

A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office found that 35 of 44 firearm purchase attempts over a five-month period made by known or suspected terrorists were approved by the federal law enforcement officials.

I hope these people are under surveillance. Granted, the feds are pretty busy with their porn, voter fraud, and religious liberty investigations.:roll:

 

[Aisengard]

So where's the other protection granted under the constitution to suspected terrorists?

Oh right, the second amendment is by far the most important one of all.

 

[GroundedSailor]

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.
---
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."

Sounds pretty much like the arguments against the Patriot Act. I wonder if the NRA (and its members) have any issues with similar restrictions to freedoms under that act.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
CNN

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.
---
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."

These people (NRA) really are dangerous.

Sounds extremely reasonable and correct to me. No rights should be denied to a citizen based on mere suspicion - including that scary one about guns!

Business as usual in P&N - defend the rights you like, to hell with the rest...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: yllus
Sounds extremely reasonable and correct to me. No rights should be denied to a citizen based on mere suspicion - including that scary one about guns!

QFT. A suspect is not a criminal. Innocent until proven guilty is still the foundation of our nation, even if it is being eroded by Gitmo's mere existence.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
CNN

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.
---
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."

These people (NRA) really are dangerous. Next thing you know they will claim that people with a history of mental illness shouldn't be prohibited from buying guns . . . oh nevermind.

"Right now, law enforcement carefully monitors all firearms sales to those on the terror watch list," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "Injecting the attorney general into the process just politicizes it."

Under normal circumstances, this guy would be out to lunch. But he's made a pretty accurate assessment of Gonzales.

A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office found that 35 of 44 firearm purchase attempts over a five-month period made by known or suspected terrorists were approved by the federal law enforcement officials.

I hope these people are under surveillance. Granted, the feds are pretty busy with their porn, voter fraud, and religious liberty investigations.:roll:

But I bet you are perfectly ok with the ACLU protecting NAMBLA's right to teach older men how to seduce and rape little kids?

 

[Termagant]

In all fairness these terrist watch lists are so all encompassing and ridiculous that I have to agree with the NRA. Basically Lautenberg wants to deny all American Muslims the right to bear arms because at some point everyone with a Muslim or Middle Eastern sounding name winds up on these lists.

 

[JD50]

This will be fun to watch all of the posters that constantly b1tch and moan about the rights of terrorists come in here and agree with the hypocrisy of BaliBabyDoc.

 

[Jaskalas]

So do libs support a blank check removal of Muslim?s rights cause they?re all arbitrarily on a ?watch list?? Guess racism is acceptable when it?s in your interests.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
So do libs support a blank check removal of Muslim?s rights cause they?re all arbitrarily on a ?watch list?? Guess racism is acceptable when it?s in your interests.

The 2nd amendment isn't in their version of the Bill of Rights so its ok.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

For the knuckle draggers . . .

Although the Bill of Rights outlines the fundamental freedoms of people within the United States, the Supreme Court has upheld limits on those rights . . . even the ones that appear to be rather open-ended.

Most people with common sense (naturally that excludes JD50 and his ilk) would realize there's a fundamental difference between secretive and clear violations of the Constitution in the Patriot Act and legitimate law that places limited (and subsequent to appeal) restrictions on a certain class of people.

I treat people (primarily children) with serious mental illness. Although few of them would ever be a harm to others, they are certainly a harm to themselves. It's quite prudent that they NOT have LEGAL access to firearms. I don't care that NAMI disagrees.

ACLU

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

Be happy the ACLU is out there defending the fundamental rights that ALL Americans actual need.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
For the knuckle draggers . . .

Although the Bill of Rights outlines the fundamental freedoms of people within the United States, the Supreme Court has upheld limits on those rights . . . even the ones that appear to be rather open-ended.

Most people with common sense (naturally that excludes JD50 and his ilk) would realize there's a fundamental difference between secretive and clear violations of the Constitution in the Patriot Act and legitimate law that places limited (and subsequent to appeal) restrictions on a certain class of people.

I treat people (primarily children) with serious mental illness. Although few of them would ever be a harm to others, they are certainly a harm to themselves. It's quite prudent that they NOT have LEGAL access to firearms. I don't care that NAMI disagrees.

ACLU

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

Be happy the ACLU is out there defending the fundamental rights that ALL Americans actual need.

You convieniently side stepped my comment, do you support the ACLU defending NAMBLA?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
CNN

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.
---
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."

These people (NRA) really are dangerous. Next thing you know they will claim that people with a history of mental illness shouldn't be prohibited from buying guns . . . oh nevermind.

"Right now, law enforcement carefully monitors all firearms sales to those on the terror watch list," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "Injecting the attorney general into the process just politicizes it."

Under normal circumstances, this guy would be out to lunch. But he's made a pretty accurate assessment of Gonzales.

A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office found that 35 of 44 firearm purchase attempts over a five-month period made by known or suspected terrorists were approved by the federal law enforcement officials.

I hope these people are under surveillance. Granted, the feds are pretty busy with their porn, voter fraud, and religious liberty investigations.:roll:

But I bet you are perfectly ok with the ACLU protecting NAMBLA's right to teach older men how to seduce and rape little kids?

We support your right, we just don't support you going out and practising it.

 

[smack Down]

Hey while were at it lets also remove their right to free speech, association, and religion, all of which are much more dangerous then a gun.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
So do libs support a blank check removal of Muslim?s rights cause they?re all arbitrarily on a ?watch list?? Guess racism is acceptable when it?s in your interests.

The 2nd amendment isn't in their version of the Bill of Rights so its ok.

How about you cram it with walnuts? I'm a liberal (at least compared to you jokers) and I don't support taking away the rights (from the 1st amendment on down) of anyone who's simply suspected of being a terrorist (or suspect of anything else). Our system of justice is based on being innocent until proven guilty, and I think your continued rights under our constitution is fundamental to that principle.

But while I know you guys can't pass up an opportunity to bitch about "libs", you might want to be careful. While it might be broadly true that some liberals don't like the 2nd amendment, you righties seem to argue at every possible opportunity for taking away the REST of the rights guarenteed in the constitution when it comes to suspected terrorists or even Muslims in general. I don't know how many threads I've seen on here with righties, including you two, suggesting that freedom of religion might not apply to practicing Islam, and that "but he might be a terrorist" is a valid argument for bypassing the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments.

I might admire your fight in favor of the 2nd amendment if I thought it was about standing up for what makes this country great instead of an opportunity to take a cheap shot at the left.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
So do libs support a blank check removal of Muslim?s rights cause they?re all arbitrarily on a ?watch list?? Guess racism is acceptable when it?s in your interests.

The 2nd amendment isn't in their version of the Bill of Rights so its ok.

How about you cram it with walnuts? I'm a liberal (at least compared to you jokers) and I don't support taking away the rights (from the 1st amendment on down) of anyone who's simply suspected of being a terrorist (or suspect of anything else). Our system of justice is based on being innocent until proven guilty, and I think your continued rights under our constitution is fundamental to that principle.

But while I know you guys can't pass up an opportunity to bitch about "libs", you might want to be careful. While it might be broadly true that some liberals don't like the 2nd amendment, you righties seem to argue at every possible opportunity for taking away the REST of the rights guarenteed in the constitution when it comes to suspected terrorists or even Muslims in general. I don't know how many threads I've seen on here with righties, including you two, suggesting that freedom of religion might not apply to practicing Islam, and that "but he might be a terrorist" is a valid argument for bypassing the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments.

I might admire your fight in favor of the 2nd amendment if I thought it was about standing up for what makes this country great instead of an opportunity to take a cheap shot at the left.

Really? Could you show me some proof please?

 

[fskimospy]

I support 100% the ACLU defending NAMBLA. I also 100% support NAMBLA's right to organize, speak, and petition the government. Of course neither I, nor the ACLU supports any sexual offenses that NAMBLA might commit, by organization or by individual members. The ACLU's whole point, which every American should agree with is that everyone's views, freedoms of speech, and rights to assemble are protected under the constitution, even groups we find repugnant like NAMBLA and the KKK. It's a cornerstone of our democracy... and thank god for the ACLU.

That being said, I haven't seen many leftists here at all agreeing with taking the right to bear arms away from people who are only suspects. You cannot take away someones rights without convicting them of a crime... period.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
CNN

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.
---
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."

These people (NRA) really are dangerous. Next thing you know they will claim that people with a history of mental illness shouldn't be prohibited from buying guns . . . oh nevermind.

"Right now, law enforcement carefully monitors all firearms sales to those on the terror watch list," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "Injecting the attorney general into the process just politicizes it."

Under normal circumstances, this guy would be out to lunch. But he's made a pretty accurate assessment of Gonzales.

A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office found that 35 of 44 firearm purchase attempts over a five-month period made by known or suspected terrorists were approved by the federal law enforcement officials.

I hope these people are under surveillance. Granted, the feds are pretty busy with their porn, voter fraud, and religious liberty investigations.:roll:

But I bet you are perfectly ok with the ACLU protecting NAMBLA's right to teach older men how to seduce and rape little kids?

We support your right, we just don't support you going out and practising it.

So are you bashing the NRA for doing basically the same thing, which is defending the 2nd amendment for EVERYONE?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I support 100% the ACLU defending NAMBLA. I also 100% support NAMBLA's right to organize, speak, and petition the government. Of course neither I, nor the ACLU supports any sexual offenses that NAMBLA might commit, by organization or by individual members. The ACLU's whole point, which every American should agree with is that everyone's views, freedoms of speech, and rights to assemble are protected under the constitution, even groups we find repugnant like NAMBLA and the KKK. It's a cornerstone of our democracy... and thank god for the ACLU.

That being said, I haven't seen many leftists here at all agreeing with taking the right to bear arms away from people who are only suspects. You cannot take away someones rights without convicting them of a crime... period.

Ok, so it looks like you are not in agreement with the OP?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
CNN

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.
---
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."

These people (NRA) really are dangerous. Next thing you know they will claim that people with a history of mental illness shouldn't be prohibited from buying guns . . . oh nevermind.

"Right now, law enforcement carefully monitors all firearms sales to those on the terror watch list," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "Injecting the attorney general into the process just politicizes it."

Under normal circumstances, this guy would be out to lunch. But he's made a pretty accurate assessment of Gonzales.

A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office found that 35 of 44 firearm purchase attempts over a five-month period made by known or suspected terrorists were approved by the federal law enforcement officials.

I hope these people are under surveillance. Granted, the feds are pretty busy with their porn, voter fraud, and religious liberty investigations.:roll:

But I bet you are perfectly ok with the ACLU protecting NAMBLA's right to teach older men how to seduce and rape little kids?

We support your right, we just don't support you going out and practising it.

So are you bashing the NRA for doing basically the same thing, which is defending the 2nd amendment for EVERYONE?

Where am I bashing it? There must be some hallucinogens in that Kool Aid you are drinking.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
CNN

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.
---
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."

These people (NRA) really are dangerous. Next thing you know they will claim that people with a history of mental illness shouldn't be prohibited from buying guns . . . oh nevermind.

"Right now, law enforcement carefully monitors all firearms sales to those on the terror watch list," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "Injecting the attorney general into the process just politicizes it."

Under normal circumstances, this guy would be out to lunch. But he's made a pretty accurate assessment of Gonzales.

A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office found that 35 of 44 firearm purchase attempts over a five-month period made by known or suspected terrorists were approved by the federal law enforcement officials.

I hope these people are under surveillance. Granted, the feds are pretty busy with their porn, voter fraud, and religious liberty investigations.:roll:

But I bet you are perfectly ok with the ACLU protecting NAMBLA's right to teach older men how to seduce and rape little kids?

We support your right, we just don't support you going out and practising it.

So are you bashing the NRA for doing basically the same thing, which is defending the 2nd amendment for EVERYONE?

Where am I bashing it? There must be some hallucinogens in that Kool Aid you are drinking.

Did you miss the question mark at the end of my question? My original comment was directed at BaliBabyDoc who IS bashing the NRA for defending the 2nd amendment.......

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
So do libs support a blank check removal of Muslim?s rights cause they?re all arbitrarily on a ?watch list?? Guess racism is acceptable when it?s in your interests.

The 2nd amendment isn't in their version of the Bill of Rights so its ok.

How about you cram it with walnuts? I'm a liberal (at least compared to you jokers) and I don't support taking away the rights (from the 1st amendment on down) of anyone who's simply suspected of being a terrorist (or suspect of anything else). Our system of justice is based on being innocent until proven guilty, and I think your continued rights under our constitution is fundamental to that principle.

But while I know you guys can't pass up an opportunity to bitch about "libs", you might want to be careful. While it might be broadly true that some liberals don't like the 2nd amendment, you righties seem to argue at every possible opportunity for taking away the REST of the rights guarenteed in the constitution when it comes to suspected terrorists or even Muslims in general. I don't know how many threads I've seen on here with righties, including you two, suggesting that freedom of religion might not apply to practicing Islam, and that "but he might be a terrorist" is a valid argument for bypassing the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments.

I might admire your fight in favor of the 2nd amendment if I thought it was about standing up for what makes this country great instead of an opportunity to take a cheap shot at the left.

Really? Could you show me some proof please?

I know I've seen it, but with the state of the search here, I'm not sure how to go about finding those posts.

But fair enough, I'll stipulate that you two are perfect little angles who would NEVER suggest that...but your ideological peers might not agree. And let's not bullshit here, you know damn well what I'm talking about...

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: yllus
Sounds extremely reasonable and correct to me. No rights should be denied to a citizen based on mere suspicion - including that scary one about guns!

Exactly.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
So do libs support a blank check removal of Muslim?s rights cause they?re all arbitrarily on a ?watch list?? Guess racism is acceptable when it?s in your interests.

The 2nd amendment isn't in their version of the Bill of Rights so its ok.

How about you cram it with walnuts? I'm a liberal (at least compared to you jokers) and I don't support taking away the rights (from the 1st amendment on down) of anyone who's simply suspected of being a terrorist (or suspect of anything else). Our system of justice is based on being innocent until proven guilty, and I think your continued rights under our constitution is fundamental to that principle.

But while I know you guys can't pass up an opportunity to bitch about "libs", you might want to be careful. While it might be broadly true that some liberals don't like the 2nd amendment, you righties seem to argue at every possible opportunity for taking away the REST of the rights guarenteed in the constitution when it comes to suspected terrorists or even Muslims in general. I don't know how many threads I've seen on here with righties, including you two, suggesting that freedom of religion might not apply to practicing Islam, and that "but he might be a terrorist" is a valid argument for bypassing the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments.

I might admire your fight in favor of the 2nd amendment if I thought it was about standing up for what makes this country great instead of an opportunity to take a cheap shot at the left.

Really? Could you show me some proof please?

I know I've seen it, but with the state of the search here, I'm not sure how to go about finding those posts.

But fair enough, I'll stipulate that you two are perfect little angles who would NEVER suggest that...but your ideological peers might not agree. And let's not bullshit here, you know damn well what I'm talking about...

Yes, I know exactly what you are talking about, but I have never said that people should not be allowed to practice Islam, no matter how disfunctional I may think the religion is. My problem comes in when they start blowing people up in the name of their religion and people saying that it doesn't have anything to do with the religion, or the people that insist that we search 80 year old women for explosives in airports. Practice your religion all you want, but when it becomes violent that changes things just a bit.

Every gun thread you say the same thing, you label people that defend the 2nd amendment as gun nuts and make the same argument you did in this thread, about them not defending the other amendments with as much passion. That goes both ways, I don't see the liberals that b1tch about the patriot act and warrantless wiretapping fervently defending the 2nd amendment, why aren't you calling them out?

Everyone has their hot button issues, you only seem to have a problem with people that passionately defend the 2nd amendment, why?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
CNN

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.
---
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."

These people (NRA) really are dangerous. Next thing you know they will claim that people with a history of mental illness shouldn't be prohibited from buying guns . . . oh nevermind.

"Right now, law enforcement carefully monitors all firearms sales to those on the terror watch list," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "Injecting the attorney general into the process just politicizes it."

Under normal circumstances, this guy would be out to lunch. But he's made a pretty accurate assessment of Gonzales.

A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office found that 35 of 44 firearm purchase attempts over a five-month period made by known or suspected terrorists were approved by the federal law enforcement officials.

I hope these people are under surveillance. Granted, the feds are pretty busy with their porn, voter fraud, and religious liberty investigations.:roll:

But I bet you are perfectly ok with the ACLU protecting NAMBLA's right to teach older men how to seduce and rape little kids?

We support your right, we just don't support you going out and practising it.

So are you bashing the NRA for doing basically the same thing, which is defending the 2nd amendment for EVERYONE?

Where am I bashing it? There must be some hallucinogens in that Kool Aid you are drinking.

Did you miss the question mark at the end of my question? My original comment was directed at BaliBabyDoc who IS bashing the NRA for defending the 2nd amendment.......

And my statement was that I support the ACLU fighting for your right to free speech no matter how disgusting it is.