Saturday, May 05, 2007


In an AP article yesterday, National Rifle Association executive director Chris Cox is quoted as saying a bill introduced by Frank Lautenberg to prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

Cox goes on to say, "the word 'suspect' has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties."

This is particularly rich, insofar as the NRA -- and the rest of bush's base -- see absolutlely nothing wrong with denying constitutional liberties based on such concrete factors as an "Arabic-sounding" name... or opposing bush's illegal and misbegotten war in Iraq.

As the NRA also opposed the assault weapons ban, it is obvious that the organization believes that terrorists have an absolute right to fully-automatic weapons.

"When I tell people that you can be on a terrorist watch list and still be allowed to buy as many guns as you want, they are shocked," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which supports Lautenberg's bill.

What is WRONG with these people?!?

1 comment:

  1. You should learn what you're talking about before spouting off. First, gun owners have never been thrilled with Bush. Hang out on some of our blogs, you won't hear us singing his praises much. Second, the assault weapons ban doesn't apply to fully automatic rifles. It applies to semi-automatic rifles that cosmetically resemble their military counterparts. It banned nothing in regards to function or lethality, but did ban certain cosmetic features.

    We oppose the Lautenburg bill because we believe American citizens ought not be deprived of their constitutional rights without due process. That applies to gun rights, as well as other things. Sure, there are gun owners that love Bush, but libertarians are more heavily represented in that demographic than hard core conservatives.