NRA wants Terrorists' right to be well-armed protected. (Even W disagrees with them.) Why do they do this?

turntable

i agree with them...they didn't say terrorist if you read the article...they are talking about SUSPECTED terrorist...and that term has a very broad meaning...anyone could be a suspect and that would give great control over the 2nd amendment to the government...i think a different form would be more acceptable...

N. Cognito

Because when governments infringe on rights, they always do it in an incremental fashion. The Second Amendment does not contain the words "except for".

usaf.primebeef

The key word as others have mentioned is "suspected".

That means good ole uncle sam can /could call anyone a "suspected" character, without a trial .....and no one would be able to buy a gun.

It helps if you can comprehend what you have read.........

Ronald D

Well, for one, the danger of this bill is that "terror suspects" is largely undefined. And Bush, being the great "decider" that he claims to be, has full discretion to define the word, "terrorist" in anyway that he wants.

For example, he could conclude that anyone that is against the war in Iraq is a "terror suspect" and that American would not be able to go out and buy a gun without being harrassed by the Feds.

I agree with the NRA on this one.

pwah

"Suspected Terrorists" That is racial profiling, and don't you think the government does enough to stop people because of their race. It would make this country less free, and I kind of believe if the NRA strongly believes in this that people should be able to, after all... A terrorist is unlikely to use a rifle to kill
people(not very ethical).

Bubba 'Neck

I find it very hard to believe the NRA would lobby for any terrorist. This is a misconstrued urban legend which a lib has ran with.

Don't change the facts to fit your agenda.

Voice of Liberty

Because they are only suspected terrorists NOT convicted. In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty and if we continue to make exceptions to that rule, then we will all eventually be guilty even when we are truely innocent.

Slider728

eludicate...nice word...

It looks like you are interested in thought out responses rather than just insulting the NRA, so I'll throw my hat in the ring.

Let me begin by saying that even though I am an avid shooter, I am not a fan of the NRA. The NRA can be a bit radical for my tastes, but I do feel it is a necessary organization.

On the surface, it seems like the NRA has lost their marbles. Who in their right mind would want to allow suspected terrorists to buy guns? However, if you think things through, this bill is just plain absurdity. It makes no sense.

Currently, what does it take to buy a gun?

1. A person must be an American citizen or a foreign national who is registered with the INS and is in the country with the intent of becoming a citizen of the US.

2. The purchaser must undergo a criminal background check via the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System)

While the system is imperfect, the following disqualifies a person from obtaining a firearm:

(1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;
(2) Is a fugitive from justice;
(3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
(4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
(6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship;
(8) Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; or
(9) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
(10) Cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm.

3. In addition to a federal regulations, purchasers are also subject to local and state regulations which may be more strict (the Illinois FOID system comes to mind).

So why does this bill not make sense? The current system has been designed to keep the firearms out of high risk subjects based on substantiated facts (a person has committed a felony, a person has a retraining order, a person does not have proper documentation to prove they are a citizen, the person has been committed to a loony bin by the court, etc..). Based on the criteria, most foreign terrorists would not be able to legally purchase a weapon anyway.

The current bill will allow the government to deny a person the right to bear arms based merely on a suspicion. To me, it seems like the government is acting like the Nazis and using public fear to control the population.

Because the American public is afraid of the next 9/11, it is quick to jump on this bandwagon (and like I said previously, on the surface the bill makes sense). What happens if we apply the same logic to the rest of our lives:

1. What if the government takes away your driverâ€™s license and your car because you drink beer on occasion and you might drive drunk and kill someone?

2. What if a state college kicked you out of school because they think you might cheat on a test later on and get kicked out of school anyway?

3. What if the IRS fines you $10K because eventually you might make a typo and make a mistake on your taxes? Theyâ€™ll just take the money now instead of waiting until later.

In todayâ€™s society, the three examples I gave are absurd. I am only in my mid 30â€™s and I would bet that almost every single person I know (90% +) has driven drunk in their life. In the 8 years I have spent in undergrad and graduate schools, a huge majority of students I know (Iâ€™d estimate over 75%) have cheated in some form. I have no idea how many people make mistakes on their taxes or just plain cheat, but I bet it is a lot (how many people actually fill out that box on the state tax form where they are supposed to pay sales tax on items purchased out of state or how many people â€œguessâ€ at the value of items they donated to Goodwill). Iâ€™d say that every person I know would fall into one of these three categories alone. However, I have yet to meet a terrorist in my life.

The three examples that I gave would never fly in society because people are innocent until proven guilty. The IRS can not fine you in advance for something you havenâ€™t done yet, a school canâ€™t kick you out because you might commit an offense, and the government canâ€™t take your car because of a crime you hadnâ€™t committed yet.

Firearms are an instrument of death and I feel that they should be heavily regulated like they currently are. However, this bill is trying to take away an American right based on who a person associates with and unsubstantiated evidence of what a person might do. This bill is as UnAmerican as it gets, yet fear has driven people to agree to it.

Look at the regulations and restrictions currently put in place by the ATF. How many terrorists are going to slip through the cracks and be able to legally purchase a weapon? Not many if any at all.

One could argue that if this bill prevents 1 attack but denies 1000 other individuals from purchasing a gun, it will be worth it. I probably would agree. However, the government seems to be tapping into fear to pursue their own agenda. Today a terrorist might be a member of al Qaeda, tomorrow a terrorist might be a hunter, it might be a minority race, or it might be poor people. If we donâ€™t fight to keep American rights for ALL Americans today, tomorrow they might be gone.

So what does this bill accomplish that isn't being checked for already? Other than circumventing the judicial system, it doesn't seem to do much else.

bravozulu

It is just a guess, but maybe they are afraid it is some sort of incremental step. Otherwise it makes no sense.

Â¡NÃ¼Â¢Âµlar ReÃ„Ã§â€ or!â„¢

Because it wouldn't be just Arabs and Middle Easterner terrorists being affected; a lot of predominately rural white anti-government, gun toting domestic extremists would also be affected (the kind of support the NRA wants to keep apparantly).

Evan B

Well, if they all objected to warrantless wiretapping of terror suspect then at least they're being consistent. Somehow, I doubt that was their position, however.

Nort

They may be innocent until proven guilty, but so are indicted murderers and they get locked up till trial.
The NRA doesn't care about terriorists, dead students, murdered children. As long as they keep the membership going up.

YungWeezyWayne

Even the best among us can be stupid.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: