It can be tough being both a liberal Democrat and a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. The National Rifle Association doesn’t make this any easier. A group that once concerned itself primarily with gun safety, the NRA has taken a sharp turn to the right over the last twenty years. Sometimes, the position taken by the NRA defy all common sense.
The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.
In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., “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.
NRA flacks like Cox turn into civil libertarians whenever guns are involved. But other constitutional rights? Silence from the gun rights lobby.
Gun nuts talk and talk about needing guns to protect the rights and freedoms that all Americans enjoy, but when the rights and freedoms of Americans are under siege, guns nuts are nowhere to be found. I don’t recall seeing any NRA members, for example, ever protesting an assault on the free speech rights of Americans by the feds—or the federal government’s successful efforts to undermine our constitutional protections against government surveillance and unreasonable searches, their attempts to regulate speech on the Internet, limit abortion rights…
So while gun owners are always saying that owning guns is about defending freedom, the only freedom gun owners seem interested in defending with their guns is the freedom to defend their freedom to own guns.
Pro-gun politicians who defend ALL constitutional rights can be hard to find. The only two I know are both from Montana- Gov. Brian Schweitzer and Sen. Jon Tester. Tester, who is totally pro-gun, also favors repealing the Patriot Act. Schweitzer just signed a bill that tells the federal government to go to hell over Real ID.
I’m certain the NRA will continue to be a Republican puppet organization for years to come, but with Democrats like Schweitzer and Tester on the forefront, real civil libertarians can sleep easier.
The NRA position on this particular matter “def[ies] all common sense”? You support Gonzo on this matter? Simply because Gonzo says someone shouldn’t have a gun, that should be the final word on the matter? No right for an explanation of the reason, no right to have a court review the decision of Gonzo and his henchmen? You’re hoping that in 20 months, there will be a Democrat replacing Gonzo, and you want to have this arbitrary power for your buddies instead?
How about extending this power of the Ministry of Justice into other important constitutional rights? Let them deny the right to have a passport issued, the right to fly on an airplane, the right to rent a motel room, the right to cross a state border, the right to publish a newspaper or blog, the right to use the internet, and maybe even the right to vote? And why stop with “suspected terrorists”? Why not extend such restrictions to anyone who violates the good order and political morality of our American society (in what ever manner the presidential administration in power at the time may define such good order and political morality)?
Richard @1
2nd paragraph
Isn’t that essentially the current administrations position?
Pope-a-Dope supports terrorists right to own a gun. No wonder Dickie can’t get elected dog catcher.
They’re not the National RIFLE Association. They are the “National Semi-Automatic Specially Designed People Killing Firearms Association”. And they don’t give a flying fuck about ANY amendment.
They just want to sell any goddam gun to any goddam halfwit with enough money to pay for it.
re 1: Sounds like you are describing the RNC.
I love these stories. Sometimes the NRA, goes so far right it almost comes full circle around to the left.
Now if you’re a good Republican, NOTHING means more than fighting terrorism (9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11). Fighting terrorism means the government can listen to my phone calls (without a warrant), read my email, read my physical mail, look at my library records, keep me from flying (watch list), etc, etc, etc. But does that mean that if I can’t fly, and have the CIA listening to my phone calls because I’m a terror suspect, I CAN still buy guns legally? This one is so odd.
The NRA has a valid argument, one the liberals make, that the government can just “call” anyone a terror suspect, even though it has no legal meaning and they don’t have to prove it, so they could effectively deny gun sales to anyone they want at whim. Funny, where was the NRA when liberals were arguing this was bad when it was applied to other rights (privacy) other than gun ownership? And where are the liberals when folks attack the Bill of Rights, on the 2nd Amendment. They’ll guard the 1st one with their best rhetoric, not not the 2nd. The argument goes the 2nd Amendment is there to guarantee the 1st one stays. Oh, but what good can handguns and simple weapons do against a modern army with tanks and jet planes anyway? That’s just silly to think that could work. I mean how could an armed populace full of handguns and rifles stop a government army like ours? SEE: Iraq.
Oh well…confusing anyway.
Will
I understand your premise, but the way the post reads seems to imply an approval of the proposed law that removes gun ownership rights from suspected terrorists.
Considering the problems that have been caused by innocent people finding their names on various watch lists, and considering that the people affected by the proposed law have not been found guilty of anything, I’ve got a problem with the proposal.
As to your premise that the NRA should be equally concerned with other Constitutional rights, well, they are the National Rifle Association, so I cannot be too surprised that they don’t make a lot of noise about freedom of religion.
Of course, when and if they come out against protection of other Constitutional rights, then there is a problem.
Does anyone have any references from the NRA regarding their position on the Patriot Act or other similar laws? I’m not a member, so I don’t see much of their literature.
“So while gun owners are always saying that owning guns is about defending freedom, the only freedom gun owners seem interested in defending with their guns is the freedom to defend their freedom to own guns.”
Pretty much nails it.
People who really want to protect their Bill of Rights freedoms don’t join the NRA; they break open the piggy bank and head for Butch’s Gun Shop.
Liberals must arm!
Why give Butch all the business? How about The Timid Gunshop?
I see Goldy’s hometown has taken the sloth by the horns, so to speak:
“They’ve declared war in Philadelphia. After years and years of lawmakers in Harrisburg ignoring calls from that city for stronger gun laws in Pennslyvania, Philly has finally revolted. The city council and the mayor have swiftly passed eight strong gun laws, that, because of legislation conveniently put in place by the NRA, are actually illegal. City Council unanimously passed eight … gun control bills …, deliberately picking a fight with lawmakers in Harrisburg who have consistently refused to give Philadelphia the right to enact its own gun laws.
“In addition, Council will soon file a lawsuit in Common Pleas Court against the General Assembly to win the city the authority it needs to legally pass its own firearms legislation, said Councilman Darrell Clarke …. ‘It’s utterly ridiculous where we are right now. It’s an aberration when somebody doesn’t get killed,’ Clarke said. ‘We can’t wait any longer.’ …
“Just what happens next …. Before the Council meeting, Councilman James F. Kenney asked: ‘What would they do, arrest us?’
” … The law that restricts cities from effecting stronger gun legislation then the state … keep cities from passing gun laws they need to keep themselves safe. … It’s a double-barrel blast, triggered by the rise in city shootings and homicides, often committed with illegally purchased guns. It’s also triggered by Harrisburg’s failure to consider, introduce, or let alone pass, meaningful gun-control laws. …
“A city of the first class such as Philadelphia should not be forced to suffer under gun laws more appropriate for rural jurisdictions. And Philadelphia is no longer alone, because other counties, such as Berks and Allegheny, suffer from gun violence. Clarke’s bills get to the heart of straw purchasing in which a gun is legally bought at a gun shop, then illegally sold out on the streets. …
“But Harrisburg, beholden to the gun lobby, has refused to even look at them. And while it’s unfortunate that the Philly city council had to break the law to pass them, there’s no other way around it. Legislators in Pennsylvania were ignoring the people they’re supposed to be serving. We can only hope that an action like this serves as a wake-up call that the gun violence must be stopped, and that these laws are needed to do just that. …”
Quoted under Fair Use; to read the complete original, see http://www.gunguys.com/?p=2127
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Washington has an identical law that prevents local governments from enacting more restrictive gun laws than our permissive statewide laws. In Seattle, we have the aberration that it is illegal to carry a knife (because the City Council enacted a knife-control ordinance) but not illegal to pack heat. So, if you want to avoid getting arrested and paying a fine, when you go to downtown Seattle don’t make the mistake of taking a knife to a gunfight! In more ways than one.
Last fall, running for Congress in the rural 5th district, Peter Goldmark came out in favor of gun rights. That’s not surprising. People who live in Okanagon County, and even the rural parts of Spokane County, may be an hour or more away from police assistance and feel a lot safer if they can protect themselves. Urban areas have a different situation — and different needs. This rural vs. urban conflict is at the heart of gun control disputes. For years, Seattle — saddled with a level of gang activity and urban violence unmatched by anywhere else in the state — has chafed under Washington’s permissive state law.
It’s not that difficult an issue to resolve. All the legislature has to do is retain the existing law, but engraft an exception onto it: First-class cities with a population over 150,000 will be granted leave to enact more restrictive gun legislation. The legislature could even specify how far they could go and draw a line at where the restrictions must stop. That would make Seattle and Tacoma happier and safer, and wouldn’t affect people in rural areas at all.
Until then, smart gangbangers in those cities will continue to bring guns to gunfights. And it’ll be perfectly legal right up to the moment they start shooting.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18...../newsweek/
Remember when the inbred righties were attacking the Speaker for doing the same thing?
H Y P O C R I T E S !
Will,
Your right to keep and bear arms is running all over my right to be secure in my persons, house, paper, and effects. Originally the 4th admen. was meant to keep the govm’nt out of your home without a warrant, but has been expanded over the years to include things like getting abortions and as far as I’m concerned it means I shouldn’t have to worry about getting the windows of my house shot out or getting mowed down by a madman at the mall.
I grew up around guns and had a few of my own until fairly recently, but now I wont have one in the house and I wouldn’t want to be identified as a gun owner. At this point most non-rural gun owners are crazies, neanderthals and thugs. Spend a day wandering though Seattle’s gun shops and you’ll see what I mean.
Key GOP Congressman Says Gonzo Must Go
“LAKELAND – U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should resign, Rep. Adam Putnam, the third most powerful Republican in the House said Thursday.
“Putnam is the chairman of the Republican Conference Committee and the highest-ranking Republican official in the House to urge Gonzales to quit. …
“Putnam’s call for the Gonzales’ resignation … may very well be intended as a House Republican message to the White House. … Putnam’s job as chairman of the Conference Committee is to help set policy and strategy for the Republicans in the House. He is the man out front in policy statements ….”
http://tinyurl.com/2zova7
PelletHead@9 told a major lie:
“Roger Rabbit says: I see Goldy’s hometown has taken the sloth by the horns, so to speak:” – Another Lie from the PelletHead.
Bala Cynwd is not Philadelphia. It is a ‘burb. Just like Bellevue is not Seattle.
BTW PelletHead: The Pennsylvania House is led by Donk! All committees are led by Donk. The guvnur is Donk! Remember when Lynn Swann ran against Ed Rendell and people called Swann all types of names.
So another idea floated by PelletHead is wrong!
Yep Donk, if they hate you they slime you.
Just for you PelletHead:
H. William DeWeese (Democrat)
Leadership:
Majority Floor Leader
Cuyahoga County, Ohio; Milwaukee, Wis; IF; Penn State House
And these are the 2007 ones. The tip of the iceberg in senility.
Mrs PelletHead – Seek neuropathology help now!
PelletHead, many, many family members STILL live in Phila. I know the politics of Phila and the state. More than the ‘burb boy will ever know!
I told you where the best Philly Cheesesteak sammich is many months ago! ‘Burb boy? What did he tell ya?
Will, you do know another NRA member who supports civil liberties — me. I am an NRA life member. I was also an outspoken opponent of the extreme portions of the USA PATRIOT Act, and of the REAL ID Act, and sponsored joint memorials in the legislature calling for their repeal (see HJM 4006 and HJM 4029 from 2005-2006, among others). I won the Freedom’s Light Award from the Washington Newspaper Publisher’s Association for my work in defense of first amendment rights. I could share a lot of other examples, but my point is this: your assertion is fundamentally flawed. While many individual NRA members speak out on other civil liberties issues, the NRA itself focuses on gun rights because that is its mission and purpose (although you will find that the NRA has been very outspoken about the right to political speech and against the ridiculous McCain-Feingold law).
I just wish the ACLU would defend 2nd Amendment rights along with the others.
15 Toby, agreed on all points.
And don’t think that Richard, in the first comment, was necessarily implying that either the Bush administration or the NRA has it quite right. In any case, this is basically a good thing. When sane people are confronted with what appears to be an ideological contradiction, they think and talk about it until they reach a common ground.
Hey, Puddybud
While I realize that it’s a matter of some concern to you, at this distance Bala Cynwyd might as well be within Philadelphia city limits.
Of course, to folks in Philadelphia, Belleview is part of Seattle. (Heck, for most folks in Philadelphia, Gig Harbor is part of Seattle.)
I have some family down in Pomona that get upset when people say that they live in Los Angeles, and a sweet little old aunt down in Oceanside that probably would not resort to violence if you said she lived in San Diego, but I wouldn’t be willing to risk it myself.
The NRA is simply a one issue lobbying organization. Have you ever heard for . Its mission is to educate the public about and promote the entire Bill of Rigths. They’re based in Wisconsin, too.
The second amendment can, and hopefully soon will be, overturned and sanity will return to this country regarding weapons.
It’s a little difficult to draw a connection between that whacked-out kid at Virginia Tech and a “well-regulated militia”.
I was doing a little googling around last night to check on some of the points raised herein, and happened on something distressing. There’s a friend of mine who runs a gun shop, who’s a well-respected older man, who talks about war history a lot but I wouldn’t think would personally swat a fly without some remorse, and who I’ve always felt would be very careful not to sell his wares to irresponsible people. Well, it turns out his shop sold Kurt Cobain the shotgun he used to kill himself.
@21
You can’t ‘overturn’ an inalienable right.
On the main premise of this posting – suppose I drop a dime on Will, call him a terrorist and accuse him of planning to commit all sorts of mayhem, anonymously of course. None of it is true, but Will ends up on the Government watch list anyway, under the assumption that where’s there’s smoke, there’s fire.
Will has done nothing wrong, but now he’s prevented from flying, getting a job requiring a security clearance or buying a gun. No due process, no conviction, no judical review, and no recourse. Will is hosed.
“So while gun owners are always saying that owning guns is about defending freedom, the only freedom gun owners seem interested in defending with their guns is the freedom to defend their freedom to own guns.”
Maybe I misunderstood the point but are u expecting armed Americans to threaten the Fed over violations of freedom of speech? You cannot figure out that if members of the NRA represented the criminal element or went shooting sprees, that issue would be a platform to run a president on. Criminals commit crimes and left and right wingnuts that go one rampages are usually on behavior contrioll drugs.
Free speech? I don’t think the right wants hate speech laws while the left invented them. I couldn’t find that ammendment that says your life is private and it is curious that the patriot act contains the very tools that will bust corruption in high and low places and harm no innocent person yet President Bush has to repeatedly tell everyone that it will never be used to against Americans. btw, wingnuts are leary of the patriot act also cuz none of us trust the Fed, or state for that matter but all is weighed agaist necessity. Yes I agree it is a hoot to have an open border and a patriot act but it is in tune with searching an Irish grandmother at the airport.
Chadt,
You really think the folks that brought you Gitmo, secret prisons overseas, and NSA wiretaps are really going to look out for your personal defense?
I’ll take that in my own hands, thank you.
The government will protect us:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/.....index.html
You’re entitled to self defense. My point is that repealing the 2nd will enable us to write meaningful legislation on the system of gun ownership and prevent nut case weapon lovers from shielding their excesses under a part of the constution being blatantly misused.
Goldy
How timely. Here is the first question of an NRA survey our household just received. Can you say push poll?
“Do you agree that the Second Amendment to our United States Constitution guarantees your individual right to own a gun and that the Second Amendment is just as important as your other Constitutional rights?”
The rest of the survey utilizes similarly ridiculous semantic construction.
I understood that the recent terrorists in NJ , three were illegal aliens . In this state they could buy weapons because we allow that , among other rights our Constitution allows .
They should have mandatory gun safety classes in school , every year innocent kids accidently shoot someone , sometimes ending in death . Call it comprehensive gun class .
Repealing the Second Amendment would not do much , their are so many weapons in this country , it would only serve the criminal element , its bad enough now .
I don’t get the gun deal , but it is a price we pay for freedom .