NRA opposes bill to stop gun sales to terror suspects

[Enigma]

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.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/04/nra.terror.ap/index.html

[elite_hunter_sh3]

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

do they get any more stupid????:nope::nope:

[August]

"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.


To law enforcement community:


I suspect elite_hunter_sh3 (if that is his real name) is a terrorist. If he enters the US please withhold all consitutional rights from him. Then we'll see how stupid he thinks it is...

[MadMike]

Have any of you bothered to read the bill? :nope:


NRA-ILA Opposes Justice Department Proposal "Friday, May 04, 2007 Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a legislative proposal, along with a letter of support, to Congressional leaders. The legislative proposal would allow this - or any future - Attorney General to deny a firearm purchase to individuals on terrorist "watch lists" without due process of law. Anti-gun Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has already introduced the legislation (S. 1237)."

Yours, Mike

[JetSnake]

Alot of names on a terrorist watch list are similar sounding names/ shouldn't be there/ etc. So even though this seems like a great bill, it does in fact prohibit people whose god-given rights will be trampled. Besides, if a terrorist isn't allowed to legally buy a firearm, do you think that will stop them from illegally buying one?:)

[Etienne]

Alot of names on a terrorist watch list are similar sounding names/ shouldn't be there/ etc. So even though this seems like a great bill, it does in fact prohibit people whose god-given rights will be trampled.

And God said, "Let them have guns." And man had guns, and God saw that it was good.

I'm paraphrasing, I don't have a copy of Genesis handy.

[RedMenace]

Alot of names on a terrorist watch list are similar sounding names/ shouldn't be there/ etc. So even though this seems like a great bill, it does in fact prohibit people whose god-given rights will be trampled.
And God said, "Let them have guns." And man had guns, and God saw that it was good.

I'm paraphrasing, I don't have a copy of Genesis handy.

:rotfl:

[August]

Alot of names on a terrorist watch list are similar sounding names/ shouldn't be there/ etc. So even though this seems like a great bill, it does in fact prohibit people whose god-given rights will be trampled.
And God said, "Let them have guns." And man had guns, and God saw that it was good.

I'm paraphrasing, I don't have a copy of Genesis handy.

You're from Canada, we wouldn't expect you to understand.

[darius359au]

You do realize that the right to keep and bear arms was a misprint - it was supposed to be the right to keep and arm Bears...be a lot less problems if you had a grizzly with an AK :cool:;)

[Nostromo]

I'd be for the the bill, I can't see whats so bad as to denying terrorist's the privilege to buy weapons.

At least legally. Not much you can do about Ilegally:hmm:

[joea]

[quote=August
To law enforcement community:


I suspect elite_hunter_sh3 (if that is his real name) is a terrorist. If he enters the US please withhold all consitutional rights from him. Then we'll see how stupid he thinks it is...[/quote]

To be serious for a moment, a foreigner (ie. non-American citizen, not sure about legal immigrants green card holders etc.) would not have the same Constitutional rights as an American? To everyone, this isn't so much about gun control, as the fact of withholding Constitutional rights (whether we agree with the particular right or not ;) ) from someone with a "suspicious" name.

[Tchocky]

I don't like the idea of public gun ownership, but I like the idea of summary discrimination even less

[wireman]

I occasionally fly with a guy who has the exact same name as someone on the "Terrorist watch list". I dread going through customs with him as I become a target due to "guilt by association". It has gotten so bad that I have called in sick to avoid the hassle if we have a trip that requires going through customs and immigration. The idea of public gun ownership is one facet that keeps us from becomming like the rest of the world. It is part of our "Checks and balences". So there,Naaaa.

[fatty]

The bill would work if the terror list itself wasn't so asinine. My dad is flagged to such an end that he is taken aside whenever he travels outside of the U.S. and is questioned in a private room in front of a video camera. We think this is because he was outside of the country during 9/11 and his citizenship is technically British, but of course we will never be sure. If they won't take his word that he's not a terrorist, maybe his position as a chapter director of the American Red Cross would convince them, or the significant aid he has sent to survivors of Katrina and hurricanes on the Outer Banks. But I guess that's just a good cover, right? :88)

If reasonable suspicion can be raised through due process, then it's a start to fix the horrible mess that is the terror watch list.

As far as "God-given rights," well, there are over 2,000,000 incarcerated in the U.S. prison system. I don't think prisoners are allowed to have guns. I think this is a good thing. Potential terrorists - not of the 70-year-old Englishman or other arbitrarily-suspected variety - shouldn't be allowed to have guns either.

[JSLTIGER]

To law enforcement community:


I suspect elite_hunter_sh3 (if that is his real name) is a terrorist. If he enters the US please withhold all consitutional rights from him. Then we'll see how stupid he thinks it is...

To be serious for a moment, a foreigner (ie. non-American citizen, not sure about legal immigrants green card holders etc.) would not have the same Constitutional rights as an American? To everyone, this isn't so much about gun control, as the fact of withholding Constitutional rights (whether we agree with the particular right or not ;) ) from someone with a "suspicious" name.
Actually, non-US citizens are NOT protected by the Constitution. There are some very clear legal precendents regarding this.

[perisher]

I have nothing to say on this. I am not an American.

But, I will just say why I have nothing to say. This subject is far more complex than most non-Americans realise, the gun ownership issue has cultural, legal, historical and geographical factors that are not found in other societies.

[Sailor Steve]

I'd be for the the bill, I can't see whats so bad as to denying terrorist's the privilege to buy weapons.

At least legally. Not much you can do about Ilegally:hmm:
I would agree, but they're not talking about denying a privilege (or a right) to terrorists; they're talking about denying it to anyone whom they think might possibly be a terrorist.

[micky1up]

they would wouldnt they madmen the lot "from my cold dead heart and brain"

[joea]

To be serious for a moment, a foreigner (ie. non-American citizen, not sure about legal immigrants green card holders etc.) would not have the same Constitutional rights as an American? To everyone, this isn't so much about gun control, as the fact of withholding Constitutional rights (whether we agree with the particular right or not ;) ) from someone with a "suspicious" name.
Actually, non-US citizens are NOT protected by the Constitution. There are some very clear legal precendents regarding this.[/quote]

Well that's what I meant to say but it didn't come across very well. :oops:

[kurtz]

Alot of names on a terrorist watch list are similar sounding names/ shouldn't be there/ etc. So even though this seems like a great bill, it does in fact prohibit people whose god-given rights will be trampled. Besides, if a terrorist isn't allowed to legally buy a firearm, do you think that will stop them from illegally buying one?:)

Similar as in Mohamed or similar as in o'reilly:D


@Elite Hunter love your sig

[elite_hunter_sh3]

hehe the sig owns... :D... and fyi im not a terrorist u nooob.. im simply calling the NRA stupid cuz they dont want a bill to pass that keeps terrorists from getting guns... which obviously defies all logic because if the government knows who the terrorists are they would have already been arrested long before they can even get a gun!

[Letum]

I don't think it is in the best interests of the American people to own guns, however, I'm with the NRA on this one.
Any law that contains the phrase "without due process of law" is unsupportable.

[TheSatyr]

The NRA has been out of touch with reality for decades now...so this doesn't surprise me. (They fought assault weapons bans...they fought cop killer bullet bans...they fought fully automatic weapons bans...the NRA is the biggest terrorist organization in the USA if you ask me).

As for the second amendment...I ain't going there other than to say I don't care who has a gun as long as it's a muzzle loading musket. Other than that...heh.

[TteFAboB]

This is a good coherence test to those who oppose the "War on Terror", the police state, privacy, etc.

I'm not in the US terror list but I'm in Kenya's terrorist list flagged as a member of the PLO. I still can't enter Kenya through the airport. But please don't tell the Mossad!

[kurtz]

hehe the sig owns... :D... and fyi im not a terrorist u nooob.. im simply calling the NRA stupid cuz they dont want a bill to pass that keeps terrorists from getting guns... which obviously defies all logic because if the government knows who the terrorists are they would have already been arrested long before they can even get a gun!

I Never called you a terrorist so leave of the nooob stuff

[August]

The NRA has been out of touch with reality for decades now...so this doesn't surprise me. (They fought assault weapons bans...they fought cop killer bullet bans...they fought fully automatic weapons bans...the NRA is the biggest terrorist organization in the USA if you ask me).

Maybe you ought to stop taking what the opponents of the NRA say as gospel.

As for the second amendment...I ain't going there other than to say I don't care who has a gun as long as it's a muzzle loading musket. Other than that...heh.

Show me where the 2A says anything about muzzle loaders...

[elite_hunter_sh3]

wasnt directed towards u kurtz it was to the person who called me a terrorist:up: or mentioned something about me being a terrorist... which if i was id probably been arrested by now because they are probably monitoring this thread right now since we used their active trigger words such as "terrrorist,terrorism, bomb, hijack, attack on military," etc.. :up:
edit* cracked 800! :D

[August]

hehe the sig owns... :D... and fyi im not a terrorist u nooob.. im simply calling the NRA stupid cuz they dont want a bill to pass that keeps terrorists from getting guns... which obviously defies all logic because if the government knows who the terrorists are they would have already been arrested long before they can even get a gun!

Suspected terrorists. There's a difference although it's probably lost on you.

[ASWnut101]

I have nothing to say on this. I am not an American.

But, I will just say why I have nothing to say. This subject is far more complex than most non-Americans realise, the gun ownership issue has cultural, legal, historical and geographical factors that are not found in other societies.

That's go to be the smartest comment I've heard all day. I admire that. :up:

===============

I'm also with the NRA on this.



...fought cop killer bullet bans...

Could you please elaborate for us just what a "cop killer bullet" is? :roll:

[August]

...fought cop killer bullet bans...
Could you please elaborate for us just what a "cop killer bullet" is? :roll:

Oooh, I can answer that one. It's a bullet shot into a cops head instead of his body armor which all the baddies know the cops are wearing beneath their uniforms because of the media hype regarding teflon coated rounds which don't penetrate a ballistic vest any better than standard rounds.

[ASWnut101]

...fought cop killer bullet bans...
Could you please elaborate for us just what a "cop killer bullet" is? :roll:

Oooh, I can answer that one. It's a bullet shot into a cops head instead of his body armor which all the baddies know the cops are wearing beneath their uniforms because of the media hype regarding teflon coated rounds which don't penetrate a ballistic vest any better than standard rounds.

Uh oh! I guess I have to even get rid of my Air Rifle!

[Skybird]

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.

What a queer place. When it comes to selling rifles, the above marked arguments are all of a sudden oh so precious and valid , but when it comes to something unprofitable like sending a terror suspect to Guantanamo or treating all visitors (potential suspects as well) to the US on the basis of a 180° reversed principle of "assumed potentially guilty as long as not proven innocent", nobody cares a dime.

The eagle as America's emblem is choosen wrong. The official national emblem should be a cold fist holding a rifle over the head. :cool:

[August]

The eagle as America's emblem is choosen wrong. The official national emblem should be a cold fist holding a rifle over the head. :cool:

We considered it but Ben Franklins suggestion of the turkey forced us to find a compromise somewhere in between and thus the Eagle won by default.

[Skybird]

:lol: Good return!

[robbo180265]

The eagle as America's emblem is choosen wrong. The official national emblem should be a cold fist holding a rifle over the head. :cool:

We considered it but Ben Franklins suggestion of the turkey forced us to find a compromise somewhere in between and thus the Eagle won by default.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[waste gate]

The NRA seems to branching out into ACLU territory. Protecting the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Come to think of it, where is the ACLU on this issue?

[Yahoshua]

Funny that the media was mad as a hatter when they found out the CIA was doing wiretaps without a warrant, so why won't they rail against this legislation just the same?

[Tchocky]

Isn't the very first post from CNN?

[Enigma]

I posted this article here last night without my opinion attched, knowing it would create conversation. I did'nt attach my opnion because I was having trouble formulating one. On the surface, fighting for the ability to arm suspected terrorists sounds moronic, treasonous almost. But all it takes is a few minutes of thought that, like me, in this case (And I usually despise the NRA) these guys are working to protect our rights. I'm among those who feel out rights have been trampled, or at least taken advantage of and abused, by our government under the false notion that it "protects" us. i'm one of those who believes in my rights and freedoms despite the cost. I think the idea of america is an incredible one, and I dont believe we should quit being willing to die for something that truly threatens our rights, way of life, and culture. So, in fact, I'd like for a suspect to continue to be a suspect. I'd like them to share the same rights as any other suspect in this country of the criminal kind. "Innocent until proven guilty". That is supposedly the back bone of American justice. I, for one, would prefer to keep that right alive in this country, than bend the rule and prevent a terrorist from buying a 9mm. Personally, I've concluded that that is an acceptable risk in order to protect the integrity of our rights as American citizens.


I would, however, like bullets for hand guns and assault rifles to cost $675,000. Each. :lol:

[Yahoshua]

Paragraphs my friend, paragraphs.......

[waste gate]

I posted this article here last night without my opinion attched, But all it takes is a few minutes of thought that, like me, in this case (And I usually despise the NRA) these guys are working to protect our rights. I'm among those who feel out rights have been trampled, or at least taken advantage of and abused, by our government under the false notion that it "protects" us. i'm one of those who believes in my rights and freedoms despite the cost. I think the idea of america is an incredible one, and I dont believe we should quit being willing to die for something that truly threatens our rights, way of life, and culture. So, in fact, I'd like for a suspect to continue to be a suspect. I'd like them to share the same rights as any other suspect in this country of the criminal kind. "Innocent until proven guilty". That is supposedly the back bone of American justice. I, for one, would prefer to keep that right alive in this country, than bend the rule and prevent a terrorist from buying a 9mm. Personally, I've concluded that that is an acceptable risk in order to protect the integrity of our rights as American citizens.



So what you are saying is that the second amendment is the insurance for all other amendments? I agree with that. That is why it is so important to preserve our right to bear arms under any circumstance, regardless the price at the hands of a few.

Gun control is not crime control.

The right of citizens to keep and bear arms is fundamental in preserving true freedom, so much so that subversive forces in sundry and subtle ways first move to disarm the citizens of a nation which they later plan to dominate. We have witnessed such moves in the past while states which have already passed laws violating the Second Amendment of our Constitution did so under the pretext: of disarming the criminal, or terrorist. The states which have violated this fundamental principle of the protection of its citizens against armed violence have not only failed to reduce crime but have contributed to the increase in violence and crime. The criminal, who never disarms, knows he is dealing with law-abiding unarmed citizens. Honest men and leaders never fear an armed, law-abiding civilian population.

[Tchocky]

So what you are saying is that the second amendment is the insurance for all other amendments? I agree with that. That is why it is so important to preserve our right to bear arms under any circumstance, regardless the price at the hands of a few.i don't think that was the main thrust of his point. Enigma, help?

Gun control is not crime control.
Agreed
The right of citizens to keep and bear arms is fundamental in preserving true freedom, so much so that subversive forces in sundry and subtle ways first move to disarm the citizens of a nation which they later plan to dominate. We have witnessed such moves in the past while states which have already passed laws violating the Second Amendment of our Constitution did so under the pretext: of disarming the criminal, or terrorist. The states which have violated this fundamental principle of the protection of its citizens against armed violence have not only failed to reduce crime but have contributed to the increase in violence and crime. The criminal, who never disarms, knows he is dealing with law-abiding unarmed citizens. Honest men and leaders never fear an armed, law-abiding civilian population. Ah, Howard Rand strikes again :lol:

[waste gate]

So what you are saying is that the second amendment is the insurance for all other amendments? I agree with that. That is why it is so important to preserve our right to bear arms under any circumstance, regardless the price at the hands of a few.

i don't think that was the main thrust of his point. Enigma, help?

That is why I place a question mark at the end. Later in Enigma's post he wants ammunition costing an outragous amount. It has the same effect as banning what he seems to endorse in his earlier statement. Too much of a qualification to take his original statement seriously. He'll have to get off the fence and either believe in all the constitution or watch it die because he is not willing to allow others to defend it.

Either believe and fight for the entire Constitution or let the whole thing wither.

[Tchocky]

I don't believe that the 2nd amendment insures the rest of it :?

anyways, i think that no matter what your feelings are on guns ownership, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is more important, and not to be violated.

Strange that this seems to be OK for foreigners but not for US citizens. ah, off-topic

[waste gate]

I don't believe that the 2nd amendment insures the rest of it :?


Of course it does. Without the ability to defend ones self against the government one becomes a subject, not a citizen. You should know that.

[Tchocky]

Na, my rights of free assembly/expression etc are not dependent on my owning a firearm. I just don't understand the fear of government that seems to exist.

Often, as a reason for gun ownership, people mention "excesses of federal government" or similiar phrases. I don't see any excess that needs to be fought off with gunfire.
Except possibly banning gun ownership, which seems to be a wet dream for a small percentage of gun owners.

edit - this kind of language "defend ones self against the government"

I just don't understand it. Governments are necessary, but not evil. Through democracy you get the government you deserve. maybe this fear is a product of an electorate that has decided to arm itself against its government. I don't know. Weird.

[waste gate]

Na, my rights of free assembly/expression etc are not dependent on my owning a firearm. I just don't understand the fear of government that seems to exist.

Often, as a reason for gun ownership, people mention "excesses of federal government" or similiar phrases. I don't see any excess that needs to be fought off with gunfire.
Except possibly banning gun ownership, which seems to be a wet dream for a small percentage of gun owners.

edit - this kind of language "defend ones self against the government"

I just don't understand it. Governments are necessary, but not evil. Through democracy you get the government you deserve. maybe this fear is a product of an electorate that has decided to arm itself against its government. I don't know. Weird.

You've never known a government that has turned on its citizens? Please. You seem to be the poster boy for: those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

[Tchocky]

I didnt say that, waste :-?

Of course governments turn on their citizens. It seems that these days, in a Western democracy, it won't happen with boots and clubs. Wiretaps, rendition, all these buzzwords. They're not fought with guns.
Violence, especially internal violence, rarely makes things better. Dialogue and negotiation are civilised ways of resolving disputes. Not .45ACP.

(And how about an answer instead of an over-used quote? The lesson of that sentence stands, but it doesnt help communication here)

[waste gate]

I didnt say that, waste :-?

Of course governments turn on their citizens. It seems that these days, in a Western democracy, it won't happen with boots and clubs. Wiretaps, rendition, all these buzzwords. They're not fought with guns.
Violence, especially internal violence, rarely makes things better. Dialogue and negotiation are civilised ways of resolving disputes. Not .45ACP.

(And how about an answer instead of an over-used quote? The lesson of that sentence stands, but it doesnt help communication here)

The lesson should not be forgotten. That is why I used it. Germany in the 1933-1945 was and is considered a 'western democracy', by the standards of the day. It is only in hind sight that we see NAZI Germany for what it was.

[waste gate]

I didnt say that, waste :-?

Of course governments turn on their citizens. It seems that these days, in a Western democracy, it won't happen with boots and clubs. Wiretaps, rendition, all these buzzwords. They're not fought with guns.
Violence, especially internal violence, rarely makes things better. Dialogue and negotiation are civilised ways of resolving disputes. Not .45ACP.

(And how about an answer instead of an over-used quote? The lesson of that sentence stands, but it doesnt help communication here)

I just don't understand the fear of government that seems to exist.

Yes you did.

[wireman]

I would prefer to have my government wonder about me instead of the other way around.

[Heibges]

If you are on the TWL, you shouldn't be able to get in the country, therefore buying guns in this country shouldn't really be an issue.

[Ishmael]

As I read the second amendment, it doesn't specifiy or define what constitutes "arms". so we must leave it open to interpretation.

A strict constructionist view of the amendment, to my mind, would mean only the arms available to the framers would be available now. That is, flintlock rifles & muskets and muzzle-loading cannon using black powder.

An expansive or judicially activist view would mean any US citizen should be able to buy, own & possess any weapon available in any military inventory, including artillery, tanks and weapons of mass destruction. Methinks that the NRA's interpretation is closer to the latter than the former.

So, in answer to the thread's title, Could the NRA be nuts?

[Yahoshua]

As I read the second amendment, it doesn't specifiy or define what constitutes "arms". so we must leave it open to interpretation.

A strict constructionist view of the amendment, to my mind, would mean only the arms available to the framers would be available now. That is, flintlock rifles & muskets and muzzle-loading cannon using black powder.

But then the 1st Amendment would only apply to town criers and news outlets that use ye olde printing block presses (hey, I could live with that.......I wouldn't have to listen to news rants about gaudy celebrities anymore!!).



An expansive or judicially activist view would mean any US citizen should be able to buy, own & possess any weapon available in any military inventory, including artillery, tanks and weapons of mass destruction. Methinks that the NRA's interpretation is closer to the latter than the former.

It's not an activist stance to say that the citizens should be able to purchase small-arms equivalent to the military. As the 2nd amendment states that the militia (the militia being the law-abiding citizens of the U.S.) and the people (citizens of the U.S.) have the right to keep and bear arms.

With the muzzleloading musket being the military firearm of the age, the militia had the right to keep arms equal to that of the military.

Militiamen were required to provide their own arms unless provided for by the local populace and they were often calibered between the ranges of .50 to .75.

Each militiaman was expected to provide his own firelock, cartridge box, one pound of powder, and four pounds of ball. Men too poor to provide these materials would be supplied at public expense.

Sources:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/virg_rev.htm (http://www.constitution.org/mil/virg_rev.htm)

http://www.doublegv.com/ggv/battles/tactics.html (http://www.doublegv.com/ggv/battles/tactics.html)

While not everyone needs to have a 240 Golf or MG3, the militia must be capable of fielding small-arms equal to that of our current military, namely the M-16 or M4 that are manufactured to military specifications. I'm unsure as to whether grenades or field artillery or mortars and the likes are also covered under the second amendment, so that's a gray area for the moment since it's basically what the average citizen is able to purchase on their own or is provided to them (although various courts have banned the common ownership of such items, I'm broken in both directions on this part of the issue not because of fear of malicious intent, but because certain people do DUMB things and end up earning Darwin Awards for it).

As for the militia themselves, they are comported of organized (State) or "unorganized" (a misnomer for Private Militias).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia)

(small section in here about constitutional duties in regards to the states and militia) http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm (http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm)




So, in answer to the thread's title, Could the NRA be nuts?

I'm divided on this since the NRA has and still; does work for Gun-owners, and against gun-owners.

Eg. The NRA helped write:

-The 1934 National Firearms Act (ban on Machineguns, sound suppressors, and short barreled rifles),
-The 1968 Gun Control act (Only firearms judged by ATF to have feasible sporting applications can be imported for civilian use)
-The 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (This bill contained a provision that banned the import of firearms).

And the NRA has also passed various other Pro-gun bills, but for the most part has done little or nothing in recent years to repeal opressive firearms ordinances that are illegally imposed.

More info here in Wikipedia on various firearms acts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

[wireman]

Truely nice post Yahashua.

[robbo180265]

Yes nice post.
Balanced,informative and impartial. And best of all even I could understand it!

[Yahoshua]

I was impartial?

[baggygreen]

yeh,, you divided it imto parts!!!!!:rotfl:

As for the OP, well how precisely are they intending on implementing the law even if it was hypothetically deemed to not breach the constitution?? What will they do, give every gunshop in the country a copy of the terror watch list???

i dont think its been thought through fully those proposing and supporting it. As i recall, i read an article in a paper here talking about the number of massacres etc in the states, and i believe almost all weapons used were bought (or kept) illegally anyways.

Anyone who thinks a true terrorist doesnt or wont have access to illegal firearms is off the planet

[Heibges]

Luckily, although I do believe firearms are our final line of defense against a tyranical government, our Founding Fathers put in enough safeguards, that it is highly unlikely the People will need to overthrow the government.

In Roman times, a tyrant was the worst criticism you could make of a man in politics, and if an individual was declared a tyrant, it was the duty of every Roman citizen to do extreme bodily harm to that individual.

But in America we can impeach them or vote them out of office, so you would need a lot of guys to go along with the "tyrant" before the citizenry would need to take action.

I don't think there would be a chance of the military trying to take power. Officers learn they are subserviant to the civilian government from day one.

Saddest of all, today guns just aren't that terrifying.

[baggygreen]

Saddest of all, today guns just aren't that terrifying.
Until you've been on the receiving end..

[Tchocky]

So.....if you're on the watch list you won't be able to buy a gun.

At least it's only suspected terrorists who are on that list

oh no, hang on, political enemies too (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Professor_who_criticized_Bush_added_to_0409.html)

[August]

So.....if you're on the watch list you won't be able to buy a gun.

At least it's only suspected terrorists who are on that list

oh no, hang on, political enemies too (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Professor_who_criticized_Bush_added_to_0409.html)

Now we start to see the NRA's reservations with this bill.

[Sailor Steve]

It's not an activist stance to say that the citizens should be able to purchase small-arms equivalent to the military. As the 2nd amendment states that the militia (the militia being the law-abiding citizens of the U.S.) and the people (citizens of the U.S.) have the right to keep and bear arms.

With the muzzleloading musket being the military firearm of the age, the militia had the right to keep arms equal to that of the military.
I agree, but you missed a point and didn't go far enough. To the minds of the Americans of that time the militia was the military; they felt that a standing army raised and controlled by the government was the single greatest danger to liberty. The shooting started in 1775 because the Colonial Governer of Massachussetts sent government troops to confiscate the cannons from the armory at Concorde. The local citizens responded with force of arms.

When Spain ceded the Louisiana Territory to France in 1803, and Napoleon offered to sell it to the United States, the Spanish strongly objected. If there was to be a fight, President Jefferson and the Congress authorized the states of Tennessee and Kentucky to raise a militia force to do the job.

[Heibges]

It's not an activist stance to say that the citizens should be able to purchase small-arms equivalent to the military. As the 2nd amendment states that the militia (the militia being the law-abiding citizens of the U.S.) and the people (citizens of the U.S.) have the right to keep and bear arms.

With the muzzleloading musket being the military firearm of the age, the militia had the right to keep arms equal to that of the military.
I agree, but you missed a point and didn't go far enough. To the minds of the Americans of that time the militia was the military; they felt that a standing army raised and controlled by the government was the single greatest danger to liberty. The shooting started in 1775 because the Colonial Governer of Massachussetts sent government troops to confiscate the cannons from the armory at Concorde. The local citizens responded with force of arms.

When Spain ceded the Louisiana Territory to France in 1803, and Napoleon offered to sell it to the United States, the Spanish strongly objected. If there was to be a fight, President Jefferson and the Congress authorized the states of Tennessee and Kentucky to raise a militia force to do the job.

So what we are talking about is situation where the National Guard would fight it out with the Regular Army?

In the Civil War, WWI, WWII and Korea and state militias and/or National Guardsmen did most of the fighting. The Regular Army units was made up for the most part of draftees during times of conflict.

The All Volunteer Force certainly improved the overall quality of the US military, but it also makes the military less representative of the people it is meant to protect. It also in a sense makes them more expendable because you can alway say they are volunteers. Also, these Regular Army units would not in theory have any regional loyalties.

After the actions of many of our nation's most influential sons discredited the National Guard in the Vietnam era by using it as a means to keep themselves out of personal danger, and the Regular Army did not allow the National Guard to really participate in the First Gulf War, it is good see National Guard units, many with histories going back hundreds of years, to again be distinguishing themselves in combat.

So if the citizens do not have the means to protect themselves from the Federal Government if need be, are we depending on the National Guard to do it?

Also, should we be concerned as citizens if at the same time Gun Rights are under fresh attack, that combat brigades are being transferred out of the National Guard and into the Regular Army. Especially in light of un-American activity going in secret prisons located in countries belonging to our former enemies in the Cold War that President Reagan won for the Western World. This is the proverbial slippery slope.

I say hang onto your guns now more than ever.

[Tchocky]

Hang on to your guns the last resort, and let your rights slip away?
Illegal surveillance, a dishonest political system, presumption of guilt before innocence, no-fly lists for political enemies.....gah!
It seems a lot of gun owners are ready (never mind looking forward to) the government coming for their weapons, but are happy to sacrifice everything up until then.

Again, I just don't understand this fixation with defence from government

Heibges - Why should the military be representative of the people it protects? The people who give the orders sure aren't.

[waste gate]

[quote=Tchocky][quote]

Again, I just don't understand this fixation with defence from government.[quote]

I thought we discussed this.

[Tchocky]

Again, I just don't understand this fixation with defence from government.I thought we discussed this. Ha, in no way did we discuss this.
Your total response to my earlier posts on the subject.
You've never known a government that has turned on its citizens? Please. You seem to be the poster boy for: those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.The lesson should not be forgotten. That is why I used it. Germany in the 1933-1945 was and is considered a 'western democracy', by the standards of the day. It is only in hind sight that we see NAZI Germany for what it was. That's not a discussion, and doesnt answer my confusion.
I never hear quite this kind of fear of elected officials from any other country.

[robbo180265]

I'm divided on this since the NRA has and still; does work for Gun-owners, and against gun-owners.


Sorry. As this thread is about the NRA opposing a bill, and not about gun ownership I thought that the sentance quoted above made you impartial.

My bad apparently.

[waste gate]

I never hear quite this kind of fear of elected officials from any other country.

That is because they have been given enough circus (sports of all kinds)and bread (cradle to grave protection) to keep them appeased. Beyond that they have been disarmed already and have no real say in what happens to them. Look at these countires and ask; what would have happenesd if they could have defended themselves?

Rowanda
Darfur
Yugoslavia
Hungary
Kurds
Germany
Austria
Poland
Gulags under the soviets
Cambodia
South Africa

The examples are just in th last hundred years. It gets worse the farther back in time we go.

[Tchocky]

Did I mention elected officials?
Many of the disparate places you posted (Gulag aint no country) suffered from too much violence rather than an armed citizenry. And many were defeated in war by invading powers (should I bother mentioning Iraq?).

Cradle to grave.....the UK hasnt had much trouble since 1945, the start of the welfare state :-?


bread and circuses - can we stop with the cliches soon? America has a similiar if not more competitive atmosphere regarding sports and everyday life. This had nothing to do with sports :roll:

[Heibges]

Heibges - Why should the military be representative of the people it protects? The people who give the orders sure aren't.

Very true, and it is scary. Not so long ago, Clark Gable was piloting a bomber over war-torn Europe, and Teddy Roosevelt's Grandson was storming the beaches of Normandy. It should be taken for granted that Prince Harry would go and fight in Iraq.

I think we need to hold on to all our civil rights with the utmost tenacity, and not just those related to gun ownership. When I hear gunowners supporting dubious wiretapping procedures, when legal means to do the exact same thing already exist, I shudder.

The focus should be on citizens vs the government, because the 2nd Ammendment had nothing to do with citizens protecting themselves from each other. To say otherwise is be an advocate of vigilantism and anarchy.

I think the military should be representative of the population because then it will not be used thoughtlessly.

I read an article years ago by Colonel David Hackworth (God Bless his soul and his family) which suggested forming a United States Foreign Legion because it could fight in exactly the type of wars we are involved in now without the American Pubic caring.

I think it would sadden Colonel Hackworth if he realized having an All Volunteer Military, largely through economic factors, did much the same thing.

[Tchocky]

I think we need to hold on to all our civil rights with the utmost tenacity, and not just those related to gun ownership. When I hear gunowners supporting dubious wiretapping procedures, when legal means to do the exact same thing already exist, I shudder. Agreed. Except the gun ownership part, I'd let that go :)

The focus should be on citizens vs the government, because the 2nd Ammendment had nothing to do with citizens protecting themselves from each other. To say otherwise is be an advocate of vigilantism and anarchy. I have to ask, why? Isn't elected representative government a partnership?

Where the hell does "citizens vs government" come from in a democracy?

[Heibges]

hell[/I] does "citizens vs government" come from in a democracy?

From Rome I think.

Wasn't George Washington considered the Cincinnatus of his time.

Hopefully George W. Bush won't be the Sulla.

[waste gate]

Did I mention elected officials?
Many of the disparate places you posted (Gulag aint no country) suffered from too much violence rather than an armed citizenry. And many were defeated in war by invading powers (should I bother mentioning Iraq?).

Cradle to grave.....the UK hasnt had much trouble since 1945, the start of the welfare state :-?


bread and circuses - can we stop with the cliches soon? America has a similiar if not more competitive atmosphere regarding sports and everyday life. This had nothing to do with sports :roll:

You did not mention elected but it makes no difference elected officials are as corrupted by power and tyranny as the un-elected.

You are correct gulag isn't an elected gov't it is the result of an elected gov't. The soviets showed how democratic they were by the use of elections. That country was, and many would say is, a dictatorship. These people didn't have a chance. What about the others?

Cliches have there purpose like any truth.

You are correct many in the US are absorbed with circus and have become slaves to the bread. Just because many in the US don't see the problem doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. Governments which stop listening to the will of the people can only be checked by an armed populace. The circus and bread is a very subtle and nafarious slide into the coma which will deprive people of their liberty.

[Tchocky]

To me, in a thread about gun sales/ownership it sounds like spoiling for a fight. *shrug*

Nothing should be about citizens vs government. It negates the idea of democracy, drives a wedge between the people and those they elect. Maybe that's why there's the representative gap these days.

Nothing should be about citizens vs government. Least of all the use of weapons.
Obviously there are moments when this breaks down, revolutions/rebellions and the like. Talking usually helps to begin with. Until that fails, fingers off triggers.

[Heibges]

I never hear quite this kind of fear of elected officials from any other country.

That is because they have been given enough circus (sports of all kinds)and bread (cradle to grave protection) to keep them appeased. Beyond that they have been disarmed already and have no real say in what happens to them. Look at these countires and ask; what would have happenesd if they could have defended themselves?

Rowanda
Darfur
Yugoslavia
Hungary
Kurds
Germany
Austria
Poland
Gulags under the soviets
Cambodia
South Africa

The examples are just in th last hundred years. It gets worse the farther back in time we go.

In some of those countries (Yugoslavia, Hungary, Cambodia, Poland) they either had an excellent military or everyone was armed due to Civil War. Yugoslavia and Poland had great Resistance Forces and put a real hurt on the Germans. Hungary put a hurt on the Soviets and won many freedoms the other Soviet Bloc countries didn't enjoy. And Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Poland had stong Communist Parties before the War, made stonger by the fact generally they were the ones resisting the Nazi's. It is somewhat of a myth that the Soviets imposed communism on Eastern Europe. They certainly imposed Russian dominance though.

Germany and Austria welcomed the Nazi's with open arms, so guns wouldn't have helped them. Well, if Admiral Canaris had liked guns instead of bombs this probably would have helpled.

The Kurds have guns, but not the type of weaponry to take on Iraq, Iran, and Turkey.

The Europeans screwed up Africa so bad, I can't say that if the other side had guns this would mean less killing. Certainly one side would have been killed less perhaps, but there has been constant war there for 40 years. Nice going Europe on this one.

[Heibges]

Nothing should be about citizens vs government. Least of all the use of weapons.
Obviously there are moments when this breaks down, revolutions/rebellions and the like. Talking usually helps to begin with. Until that fails, fingers off triggers.

I totally agree. We have elections and impeachment procedures to make it not neccessary. But, we must be ever vigilant.

[Tchocky]

You did not mention elected Argggghhhh. Yes I did. Read my post. You quoted it.
You are correct gulag isn't an elected gov't it is the result of an elected gov't. The soviets showed how democratic they were by the use of elections. That country was, and many would say is, a dictatorship. These people didn't have a chance. What about the others? Not what I said. I said it wasn't a country. Are you reading my posts or skimming?
It's an honest question, God knows I skim over a lot of posts. But I make a point of reading the ones I reply to.

You are correct many in the US are absorbed with circus and have become slaves to the bread. Just because many in the US don't see the problem doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. Governments which stop listening the will of the people can only be checked by an armed populace. The circus and bread is a very subtle and nafarious slide into the coma which will deprive people of their liberty. Waste gate, what the hell are you talking about? Each one of these sentences makes grammatical sense, but as a whole, and taken as a response to my post.....*head explodey*

Me: "why are other countries different to the US?"
You: "because they have been appeased by bread and circuses"
Me: "US has just as much circus, and this is irrelevant."
You: "You are correct, many in the US are absorbed with circus and have become slaves to the bread"

*head explodey*

[waste gate]

To me, in a thread about gun sales/ownership it sounds like spoiling for a fight. *shrug*

Nothing should be about citizens vs government. It negates the idea of democracy, drives a wedge between the people and those they elect. Maybe that's why there's the representative gap these days.

Nothing should be about citizens vs government. Least of all the use of weapons.
Obviously there are moments when this breaks down, revolutions/rebellions and the like. Talking usually helps to begin with. Until that fails, fingers off triggers.

Firstly, the US isn't a democracy. Democracies cannot work. The US is a republic.

Secondly, if the citizens of the country is disarmed revolutions/rebellions cannot even be contemplated much less engaged.

Those firearms are the last resort to a gov't hostile to the citizenzry or to the criminals from who the government will not protect us.

One of the basic themes of gun control is that only the police and military should have handguns or any type of firearm. They must believe that the police exist to protect the citizenry from victimization. But in light of court decisions we find such is not the case. You have no right to expect the police to protect you from crime. Incredible as it may seem, the courts have ruled that the police are not obligated to even respond to your calls for help, even in life threatening situations.

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)
Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006.)
Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990)

Many states have specifically precluded claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.''


The Court in DeShaney held that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves.
``The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.'' (ability to defend ones self)

[waste gate]

Well if you change your post whenever I respond it will certainly make my arguements look unresponsive.

Don't change your posts after I respond and it will be clear to all.

[Tchocky]

Well if you change your post whenever I respond it will certainly make my arguements look unresponsive. Yeah, if I did that you would look out of place all right. :-?

[Sailor Steve]

Sorry to be so far behind the curve answering this, but my posting time is limited to two sessions at the library per day.

So what we are talking about is situation where the National Guard would fight it out with the Regular Army?
Not exactly. The several Militia Acts changed the nature of the militia, even allowing for the President to call it out. The National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933 made the Guard a part of the regular Army, negating it's 'Militia' status in the minds of many people.

In the Civil War, WWI, WWII and Korea and state militias and/or National Guardsmen did most of the fighting. The Regular Army units was made up for the most part of draftees during times of conflict.
In the Civil War, many local militia units were formed, but during the course of the war more and more of them were absorbed into a new national force, which I think was the beginning of the standing U.S. Army.

I say hang onto your guns now more than ever.

[August]

The National Guard is maintained under Congresses power to raise standing armies. That's why they wear "US Army" tags on their uniforms, get their paychecks from Uncle Sam and can be ordered into federal service outside their home states by order of the President.

As such they are not militia by any reasonable definition. Think of them as federal troops placed under the temporary control of the various state governors whenever the Federal government doesn't have a need for them.

[Platapus]

...fought cop killer bullet bans...
Could you please elaborate for us just what a "cop killer bullet" is? :roll:
Oooh, I can answer that one. It's a bullet shot into a cops head instead of his body armor which all the baddies know the cops are wearing beneath their uniforms because of the media hype regarding teflon coated rounds which don't penetrate a ballistic vest any better than standard rounds.
A very good point. The teflon coating was not designed to penetrate armour (nor does it help penetrate armour) the teflon coating was to make the round feed better without scratching the breach ramp.

These "cop killer" bullets were able to defeat some (not all) armour because they were made of a harder metal (that would etch the ramp, hence the teflon) and they were light (so they traveled a lot faster). They were also pointy which DID help in armour penetration.

If we are going to ban all "cop killer" bullets then we have to ban all light fast pointy bullets made of harder steel that are capable of penetrating level II armour.

Everyone jumped on the teflon bullet craze but how many cops were actually killed with teflon bullets as opposed to the cops killed by regular non-cop killer bullets?