The NRA Thinks Suspected Terrorists Should Be Allowed To Buy Guns.


----------- Sponsored Links -----------
----------- Sponsored Links -----------

Now this is a fantastic idea…allowing people that the government thinks might be terrorists to buy guns. At least that is what the National Rifle Association thinks we should do. Bill S. 1237 is making its rounds through Congress, and it is meant to “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists.”

Sounds good, right?

Except the NRA says that it violates people’s Second Amendment rights because, well, everyone should have the right to bear arms…I guess. Hell, let’s give them to 6 year olds, the mentally unstable, my cat and anyone else that wants one. I mean, we all need a gun, right?

In all seriousness, I am not 100% anti-gun…I think people should be able to have one if they are properly trained and licensed. I do not think hunters need AK-47’s however, and the gun laws should be much stricter then they are. But for the NRA to get involved in trying to allow suspected terrorists to buy guns is just insane. Actually, the NRA is insane, period. It’s not just for fighting this bill!

technorati: NRA, terrorists, guns

----------- Sponsored Links -----------
----------- Sponsored Links -----------


  1. The term “suspected” is a VERY broad term, especially when you bring things like the USA PATRIOT Act into play. According to the USA PATRIOT Act even someone who speaks out against government policies can be considered a suspected terrorist. Like I said, a very broad term.

    Furthermore a terrorist is not too much different from any other criminal. In fact, if you have to equate them to something, then they’re nothing more than murderers (I guess labeling them as “terrorists” adds more of a “fear factor”). So, if we don’t allow suspected terrorists to have guns, should we keep those that may be murder suspects, robbery suspects, or any other sort of “suspect” for that matter, from having them as well? What happens when they’re no longer a suspect tomorrow? Or next week?

  2. Thanks Bill, for the comment. I agree it is very broad, but I personally have never been a suspect, so I do not know what the criteria is for those words. (Then again, I might be, as I do speak out from time to time) Whatever the case may be, and I meant to mention this in the post, but after people are cleared, I am guessing that there would be nothing stopping them from buying a gun through proper channels.

    That all being said, anyone who wants a gun can get one; it’s not really that hard I would imagine. I think the government just wants to slow down the “legal” process to make it a little more difficult. I am rarely on the side of this administration’s policies, but on this one, I am.

    And yes, I have no problem with keeping legal guns out of murder or robbery suspects until their name is clear. The system is not perfect; that kid at VA Tech bought his gun legally, even though he was deemed mentally unstable. Something has to be done to monitor those buying guns the legal way..whether it is this bill or some other way, I would imagine putting an extra barrier up can only help the situation.

  3. The problem here is that “suspect” has no legal standard. You don’t have to prove guilt or innocence – or even show reasonable cause. You can suspect someone of anything – for any period of time, without any real proof whatsoever.

    I’m not a big fan of the NRA, but this attempts to put in place a system which denies someone their legal rights without proof or legal recourse. This amounts to a presumption of guilt — not something in line with our constitution or our legal tradition.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *