|
"getting as many guns as they want." Let's look at what a lobbyist for the NRA had to say. Guns and the terrorist watch list Monday, May 10, 2010 In 1950, Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.) waved his infamous "enemies" list. Innocent Americans were imprisoned and many more "blacklisted." McCarthyites exploited the buzzword "communism" to intimidate. Today's McCarthy? New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Today's buzzword? "Terrorism." Today's list? The secret terrorist watch list, with a million names or more. No one knows who's on it, but we've heard the names of, among others, the late senator Edward M. Kennedy and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.). Eight-year-old Boy Scout Mikey Hicks has been singled out for aggressive airport screening. Ridiculous. These new McCarthyites demand that everyone on the terrorist list surrender his Second Amendment rights, due process be damned. Never mind the Supreme Court's affirmation that the Second Amendment is a constitutional right. To them, everyone on the list is a convicted terrorist, period. And those who disagree? Terrorist sympathizers. History repeats itself. Those suspected of terrorist activity to the level that they should lose a constitutional right shouldn't be roaming our streets. And if they should lose one right, they should lose all. Americans have rejected denying constitutional rights based on suspicion and secret lists. But not Dana Milbank. emphasis added We stand on principle. So Mr. Milbank asked if we are "a terrorist organization." Rest assured, hundreds of thousands of military and law-enforcement NRA members who fought, and continue to fight, terrorism at home and abroad understand what sort of a McCarthyite smear that is. Chris W. Cox, Fairfax The writer is chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislation Action in Washington. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/09/AR2010050902611.html Does he have a point? I believe so. I was very upset with how the Bush administration reacted to 9-11. One of the biggest threats of any terrorist attack has often been predicted as a move by our government to take away the rights honest citizens have under our Constitution. Bush proved these worries to be accurate. Unfortunately, Obama hasn't changed the Bush policies. We lose the freedoms granted by our Constitution and move towards the type of government our enemies have. Soon many people will be afraid to speak their views as allowed under the First Amendment as they will end up on some list and lose many of their rights. Governments always hope to gain control over free speech. If you can squash your critics, you can rule and profit longer. Lets look at recent history. How about Richard Nixon. (Recent history to me means in my lifetime.) Articles of Impeachment Adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary ***snip*** Article 2 Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies. This conduct has included one or more of the following: 1. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
2. He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.
3. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial. emphasis added 4. He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavoured to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President. 5. In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office. http://watergate.info/impeachment/impeachment-articles.shtml The Bush administration did as much or more to take away the rights of citizens as the Nixon administration. NSA warrantless surveillance controversy All wiretapping of American citizens by the National Security Agency requires a warrant from a three judge court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. After the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Patriot Act which granted the President broad powers to fight a war against terrorism. The George W. Bush administration used these powers to by-pass the FISA court and directed the National Security Agency to spy directly on American citizens on American soil. This action was challenged by a number of groups including the United States Congress as unconstitutional. This article examines the scope, nature and result of those challenges. NSA warrant-less surveillance controversy concerns surveillance of persons within the United States incident to the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the war on terror. Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the "terrorist surveillance program",<1> part of the broader President's Surveillance Program, the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor phone calls, e-mails, Internet activity, text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S., without warrants. The exact scope of the program is not known, but the NSA is or was provided total, unsupervised access to all fiber-optic communications going between some of the nation's major telecommunication companies' major interconnect locations, including phone conversations, email, web browsing, and corporate private network traffic. <4> . Critics stated that such "domestic" intercepts required FISC authorization under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.<2> The Bush administration maintained that the authorized intercepts are not domestic but rather foreign intelligence integral to the conduct of war and that the warrant requirements of FISA were implicitly superseded by the subsequent passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF).<3> FISA makes it illegal to intentionally engage in electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act or to disclose or use information obtained by electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act knowing that it was not authorized by statute; this is punishable with a fine of up to $10,000 or up to five years in prison, or both.<4> In addition, the Wiretap Act prohibits any person from illegally intercepting, disclosing, using or divulging phone calls or electronic communications; this is punishable with a fine or up to five years in prison, or both.<5> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
How hard is it to get off the terrorist watch list?
Dangers of (and to) liberty
By David Rittgers | Published: 11:04 AM 07/13/2010The Supreme Court’s invalidation of Chicago’s handgun ban in McDonald v. City of Chicago will prove a landmark victory for gun rights. The Second Amendment, considered a dead letter for much of the twentieth century, now applies to the states as well as the federal government. Some have yet to come to grips with what the decision will mean for the scope of permissible gun laws and regulation. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg responded that the decision makes it clear that: We can work to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists while at the same time respecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. The mention of “terrorists” above is a reference to proposed legislation, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Peter King, to bar anyone on the FBI’s terrorist watch list from purchasing a firearm. Bloomberg supports this legislation, calling the ability of persons on the watch list to purchase firearms the “terror gap.” Bloomberg’s proposal is to treat those placed on the watch list as if they had already been convicted of a crime. He supports this with the claim that people on the watch list have tried to purchase firearms more than 1,200 times, and 91 percent of those sales were approved by the national instant background check system.
There is plenty of reason to believe that there are a lot of names on the list that don’t belong there. The Justice Department’s internal review found that many placed on the list “were processed with little or no information explaining why the subject may have a nexus to terrorism.” This same watch list is routinely lampooned in the press for having swept up toddlers among those the government wants to treat as a danger to society. Yet the government makes it extremely difficult to get mistaken names off the list. emphasis added If this legislation passes, it sets the stage for the government to preemptively bar someone from exercising any constitutional right because they are on a double-secret probation list. This is an on/off switch for the Bill of Rights. That’s not how liberty works. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/13/dangers-of-and-to-liberty/#ixzz0vg7GnG7Y
Surely you don't believe that the NRA wants gang bangers to own firearms. Check this out.
Pelosi in sync with NRA?Chuck Todd writes:From NBC's Chuck Todd There's been plenty of speculation over the last few years that somehow Speaker Nancy Pelosi's personal views on key social issues, like guns, would cause political problems for, say, pro-gun Democrats who have been elected to Congress in the last two elections. Well, here's an example of why Pelosi is a much shrewder politician than she gets credit for and why she has more support inside her caucus, even among younger and newer members, than people around town realize. Check out this exchange from Pelosi's press briefing today. Q: "Madam Speaker, Attorney General Holder yesterday said that the Administration wants to reinstitute the assault weapons ban. Have you talked with Administration officials about that, and how quickly can you bring it to the floor?" Speaker Pelosi: No, but I think on that score, one good place to start would be to enforce the laws that are on the books right now. And I think the evidence points this out, that the Bush Administration was not enforcing law. So let's start with enforcing the law that we have now." That's right, Pelosi is using talking points which used to be standard NRA talking points http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/02/26/4436678-pelosi-in-sync-with-nra
Obviously you live in a fantasy land if you believe that the NRA wants criminals to own firearms. The NRA is one of the prominent trainers of law enforcement. The criminal misuse of firearms hurts their cause. Fights over turf between gangs is one of the prime reasons for gun related deaths in our country. The NRA is an organization that supports firearm ownership by honest people, not criminals.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
