Man! It kills me to say this, but the NRA is right on this one.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18494626/
Printable View
Man! It kills me to say this, but the NRA is right on this one.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18494626/
I thought the Government gets its terror suspect list from the FBI pot-smoking list? :book:
NRA for teh win this time.
Well at least they're being consistent. It's general NRA policy to oppose ANY restrictions on firearm ownership.
It is kind of nice though. Are FBI checks required on all people who buy firearms? This would be excellent for tracking purposes. If someone on the list buys a gun he gets bumped up on the list. :2thumbsup:
Eh, the gun club is right on this one.
Starting to like Alberto Gonzoles and the senators that support him less and less. His complete lack of acknowledgement for the constitution is ubsurd. He will complete ignore some ammendments and blatently goes against the 8th and the 9th amendment.
Destroying someones constitutional rights with mere suspicion is ubsurd. More though that they see fit to ammend the constitution without going through the ammendment process.
Good job NRA.
Originally Posted by :
Seems no-one objects to depriving them of their rights to habeus corpus, protection from cruel and unusual punishment or detention without trial, but !wow! we can't stop suspected terrorists tooling up..... some very selective choices of rights to respect, IMHO.
"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,"
Originally Posted by :
Gitmo, anyone?
Destroying someones constitutional rights with mere suspicion is ubsurd.
Originally Posted by macsen rufus:
Yes, look how well those other suspensions of "quaint constitutional rights" have turned out. Kinda proves the NRA's point, no?
Seems no-one objects to depriving them of their rights to habeus corpus, protection from cruel and unusual punishment or detention without trial, but !wow! we can't stop suspected terrorists tooling up..... some very selective choices of rights to respect, IMHO.
Gitmo, anyone?
The Decider and Company has proven they can't be trusted; NRA for the block.
Originally Posted by macsen rufus:
Constitutional rights as in a citizens rights. The 2nd ammendment has nothing to do with non uniformed enemy combatants at guantonimo. Nor does the constitution cover non uniformed enemy combatants.
Gitmo, anyone?
Cruel and unusual is a cultural term. What is unusual or cruel to one nation is not to another. No need to go into the definition of interrigation on this thread, but most countries in europe use the same technique's, all be it not so openly.
Exactly, detainees at Gitmo have no constitutional rights. Nor rights under the geneva conventions for that matter, either. Now, if the freedom fighters got smart, and started wearing a special arm-band, or a funny hat, and had a real system of officers and other leaders, then sure, they'd have plenty of rights.
Even if legally they don't have any rights, it somehow doesn't seem very ... humanitarian to cackle "Mwahahaha! They have no rights! We can do anything we want!" and break out the pliers...
Originally Posted by :
Since when did any convention say that a peanut oil salesman travelling to Gambia needs a funny hat to give him rights ?
Exactly, detainees at Gitmo have no constitutional rights. Nor rights under the geneva conventions for that matter, either. Now, if the freedom fighters got smart, and started wearing a special arm-band, or a funny hat, and had a real system of officers and other leaders, then sure, they'd have plenty of rights.
Originally Posted by Goofball:
Heh, surprised and glad I agree with you.
Man! It kills me to say this, but the NRA is right on this one.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18494626/
Is it because of the huge list of possible suspects the gov't might have, like the no-fly list (and probably as accurate)?
CR
Originally Posted by Zaknafien:
Doesn't mean the USA isn't being The Great Satan about it. Discrete or not discrete, scummy behavior based on legal technicalities is just plain pathetic. :thumbsdown:
Exactly, detainees at Gitmo have no constitutional rights. Nor rights under the geneva conventions for that matter, either. Now, if the freedom fighters got smart, and started wearing a special arm-band, or a funny hat, and had a real system of officers and other leaders, then sure, they'd have plenty of rights.
I think these are separate issues, however. While it'd be nice if the average NRA member decides he wants to oppose Gitmo too, his organization isn't a watchdog group when it comes to things like that: the NRA is a 2nd Amendment extremist group; it's the ACLU that is the 1st Amendment extremist group, and them ACLU-ers are already crying foul about Gitmo since the beginning of time and space.
Personally, I'd go for responsible gun control: registers and real background checks and all that -- we register our cars after all -- with no discriminatory crap like this.
Originally Posted by Zaknafien:
No constitutional rights perhaps, but they still have human rights. My country has a national ideal of being an example to the world of freedom and advancement, and even a few instances where history bears this out. I'd much prefer if we were striving to live up to that ideal, instead of treating terror suspects like scum just because they're not citizens, and we can.
Exactly, detainees at Gitmo have no constitutional rights. Nor rights under the geneva conventions for that matter, either. Now, if the freedom fighters got smart, and started wearing a special arm-band, or a funny hat, and had a real system of officers and other leaders, then sure, they'd have plenty of rights.
Originally Posted by macsen rufus:
Seems no-one objects to depriving them of their rights to habeus corpus, protection from cruel and unusual punishment or detention without trial, but !wow! we can't stop suspected terrorists tooling up..... some very selective choices of rights to respect, IMHO.Originally Posted by AntiochusIII:
Well put, Antiochus. I don't think Americans as a whole are happy with suspension of habeus corpus or cruel and unusual punishment, either. I know I'm not. The ACLU and NRA are both right to challenge the government's actions on these issues. A suspect is not a criminal, and both human and consitutional rights deserve vigorous protection.
I think these are separate issues, however. While it'd be nice if the average NRA member decides he wants to oppose Gitmo too, his organization isn't a watchdog group when it comes to things like that: the NRA is a 2nd Amendment extremist group; it's the ACLU that is the 1st Amendment extremist group, and them ACLU-ers are already crying foul about Gitmo since the beginning of time and space.
Ajax
Originally Posted by :
You bleeding heart liberals slay me :laugh4: One of these guys worst fears is that we will send them back to their nation where they know the true meaning of human rights. In fact were accussed of being uncivilized if we do send them back.
No constitutional rights perhaps, but they still have human rights.
Originally Posted by :
He needs an american one to be covered by the constitution. Besides how many peanut oil salesmen travelling to Gambia do we have at Gitmo?
Since when did any convention say that a peanut oil salesman travelling to Gambia needs a funny hat to give him rights ?
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
Wow. I think that's the first time I've been classified as a bleeding heart liberal. I don't think it's possible to be much worse of a human being than a terrorist, and I'm all for harsh punishment for convicted terrorists. But a suspect is not a the same as a convict, and denying decent treatment or a fair trial to someone who has not been convicted of a crime feels very wrong, and very dangerous, to me. I don't care what their home nation thinks of human rights. That's not part of my responsibility. I do care what America thinks of human rights. We recognize in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights. While the rights ensured in the constitution only apply to American citizens legally, that doesn't change the broader principle we stand on of standing for the rights of all people, and it certainly doesn't make American citizens better than other people.
You bleeding heart liberals slay me :laugh4: One of these guys worst fears is that we will send them back to their nation where they know the true meaning of human rights. In fact were accussed of being uncivilized if we do send them back.
Ajax
There was a time when the NRA was nothing more than a group that intended to support hunters rights and the only "protection" they sought was to allow hunters to ask a farmer if they could hunt their land. That was it. There was no big amendment crap, when it went beyond shotguns ot a 30.06 - it didn't become an issue 'til some politicol realized it could be turned into a non-issue. Most hunters (real ones ... not the Cheneys that want their game spoon fed to them - but, those willing to walk the fields without dogs actually hunting) see no need to allow everyone the right to be armed (especially the insain - or the rightist, fascist element amongst us), but, after Waco many feel a need to allow everyone to have a gun.
I could really care less. It is a matter that it is really a non-issue. Screw it, let everypne have access to a gun instantaniously - like before the attempt on Reagone - and we solve all our problems by allowing all the nutcases to kill off any of the future JFKs, RFK's, MLK, etc.
Then again, it certainly has been a plus for the GOP since Lincoln. :book:
Before I travel to the middle east next time, I'll join the Iranian army and move around in uniform, so that in case someone catches me, I will be able to make use of my rights...:juggle2:
Originally Posted by :
:dizzy2:
You bleeding heart liberals slay me One of these guys worst fears is that we will send them back to their nation where they know the true meaning of human rights. In fact were accussed of being uncivilized if we do send them back.
That would be a statement of the bollox variety Gawain .
Originally Posted by :
more bollox....read what you quoted:idea2:
He needs an american one to be covered by the constitution.
Originally Posted by :
Errrrrr.....one example is sufficient to prove that the Gitmo set up is bollox
. Besides how many peanut oil salesmen travelling to Gambia do we have at Gitmo?
A general note to patrons prompted by the last post:
Whilst brevity and clarity of language is always appreciated in discussion, this can be taken too far. I'd appreciate it if we could do less repudiaton of other people's views using one word dismissals.
I have been fighting what appears to be a losing battle over the use of "crap" used in a similar way, and now we appear to have "bollox" and variants getting out of hand. I refer members to the "Foul Language" sticky.
It's my belief that when we get to the point of treating another's opinion in this cavalier fashion, not only do we diminish the quality of discussion, but our own position too.
If I'm wrong about this and members feel I am being over-zealous (since you're all adults and perfectly capable of dealing with poor language) please PM me or address it in a thread in the Watchtower (I don't want to derail this thread more than necessary).
Otherwise, we may end up with posts comprised entirely of:
:daisy: said :daisy: so I'm :daisy: right.
:bow:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus:
:dizzy2: Non-US citizens anyone?
Seems no-one objects to depriving them of their rights to habeus corpus, protection from cruel and unusual punishment or detention without trial, but !wow! we can't stop suspected terrorists tooling up..... some very selective choices of rights to respect, IMHO.
Gitmo, anyone?
Originally Posted by :
completely irrelevant
Non-US citizens anyone?
Originally Posted by :
Just stop typing....you have no clue what so ever about the NRA. When it was formed it had nothing to do with hunting.
There was a time when the NRA was nothing more than a group that intended to support hunters rights and the only "protection" they sought was to allow hunters to ask a farmer if they could hunt their land. That was it. There was no big amendment crap, when it went beyond shotguns ot a 30.06 - it didn't become an issue 'til some politicol realized it could be turned into a non-issue. Most hunters (real ones ... not the Cheneys that want their game spoon fed to them - but, those willing to walk the fields without dogs actually hunting) see no need to allow everyone the right to be armed (especially the insain - or the rightist, fascist element amongst us), but, after Waco many feel a need to allow everyone to have a gun.
To anyone who's interested.
Originally Posted by :
http://www.nrahq.org/history.asp
Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church.
After being granted a charter by the state of New York on November 17, 1871, the NRA was founded. Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who was also the former governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. Senator, became the fledgling NRA's first president.
An important facet of the NRA's creation was the development of a practice ground. In 1872, with financial help from New York state, a site on Long Island, the Creed Farm, was purchased for the purpose of building a rifle range. Named Creedmoor, the range opened a year later, and it was there that the first annual matches were held.
Political opposition to the promotion of marksmanship in New York forced the NRA to find a new home for its range. In 1892, Creedmoor was deeded back to the state and NRA's matches moved to Sea Girt, New Jersey.
The NRA's interest in promoting the shooting sports among America's youth began in 1903 when NRA Secretary Albert S. Jones urged the establishment of rifle clubs at all major colleges, universities and military academies. By 1906, NRA's youth program was in full swing with more than 200 boys competing in matches at Sea Girt that summer. Today, youth programs are still a cornerstone of the NRA, with more than one million youth participating in NRA shooting sports events and affiliated programs with groups such as 4-H, the Boy Scouts of America, the American Legion, U.S. Jaycees and others.
Due to the overwhelming growth of NRA's shooting programs, a new range was needed. Gen. Ammon B. Crichfield, Adjutant General of Ohio, had begun construction of a new shooting facility on the shores of Lake Erie, 45 miles east of Toledo, Ohio. Camp Perry became the home of the annual National Matches, which have been the benchmark for excellence in marksmanship ever since. With nearly 6,000 people competing annually in pistol, smallbore and highpower events, the National Matches are one of the biggest sporting events held in the country today.
Through the association's magazine, The American Rifleman, members were kept abreast of new firearms bills, although the lag time in publishing often prevented the necessary information from going out quickly. In response to repeated attacks on the Second Amendment rights, NRA formed the Legislative Affairs Division in 1934. While NRA did not lobby directly at this time, it did mail out legislative facts and analyses to members, whereby they could take action on their own. In 1975, recognizing the critical need for political defense of the Second Amendment, NRA formed the Institute for Legislative Action, or ILA.
Meanwhile, the NRA continued its commitment to training, education and marksmanship. During World War II, the association offered its ranges to the government, developed training materials, encouraged members to serve as plant and home guard members and developed training materials for industrial security. NRA members even reloaded ammunition for those guarding war plants. Incidentally, the NRA's call to help arm Britain in 1940 resulted in the collection of more than 7,000 firearms for Britain's defense against potential invasion by Germany (Britain had virtually disarmed itself with a series of gun control laws enacted between World War I and World War II).
After the war, the NRA concentrated its efforts on another much-needed arena for education and training: the hunting community. In 1949, the NRA, in conjunction with the state of New York, established the first hunter education program. Hunter Education courses are now taught by state fish and game departments across the country and Canada and have helped make hunting one of the safest sports in existence. Due to increasing interest in hunting, NRA launched a new magazine in 1973, The American Hunter, dedicated solely to hunting issues year round. NRA continues its leadership role in hunting today with the Youth Hunter Education Challenge (YHEC), a program that allows youngsters to build on the skills they learned in basic hunter education courses. YHECs are now held in 43 states and three Canadian provinces, involving an estimated 40,000 young hunters.
The American Hunter and The American Rifleman were the mainstays of NRA publications until the debut of The American Guardian in 1997. The Guardian was created to cater to a more mainstream audience, with less emphasis on the technicalities of firearms and a more general focus on self-defense and recreational use of firearms. The Guardian was renamed America's 1st Freedom in June of 2000.
Law enforcement training was next on the priority list for program development. Although a special police school had been reinstated at Camp Perry in 1956, NRA became the only national trainer of law enforcement officers with the introduction of its NRA Police Firearms Instructor certification program in 1960. Today, there are more than 10,000 NRA-certified police and security firearms instructors. Additionally, top law enforcement shooters compete each year in eight different pistol and shotgun matches at the National Police Shooting Championships held in Jackson, Mississippi.
In civilian training, the NRA continues to be the leader in firearms education. Over 50,000 Certified Instructors now train about 750,000 gun owners a year. Courses are available in basic rifle, pistol, shotgun, muzzleloading firearms, personal protection, and even ammunition reloading. Additionally, nearly 1,000 Certified Coaches are specially trained to work with young competitive shooters. Since the establishment of the lifesaving Eddie Eagle® Gun Safety Program in 1988, more than 12 million pre-kindergarten to sixth grade children have learned that if they see a firearm in an unsupervised situation, they should "STOP. DON'T TOUCH. LEAVE THE AREA. TELL AN ADULT." Over the past seven years, Refuse To Be A Victim® seminars have helped more than 15,000 men and women develop their own personal safety plan using common sense strategies.
In 1990, NRA made a dramatic move to ensure that the financial support for firearms-related activities would be available now and for future generations. Establishing the NRA Foundation, a 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt organization, provided a means to raise millions of dollars to fund gun safety and educational projects of benefit to the general public. Contributions to the Foundation are tax-deductible and benefit a variety of American constituencies, including youths, women, hunters, competitive shooters, gun collectors, law enforcement agents and persons with physical disabilities.
While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the NRA has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world. But our successes would not be possible without the tireless efforts and countless hours of service our nearly three million members have given to champion Second Amendment rights and support NRA programs. As former Clinton spokesman George Stephanopoulos said, "Let me make one small vote for the NRA. They're good citizens. They call their Congressmen. They write. They vote. They contribute. And they get what they want over time."
Edit the article is kinda' old I think they have 4 million members now.
Ha pwnage. Not bad for someone from Ohio. On topic. These men are being detanied by Americans and we need to treat them with respect even if we dont get any in return. The should have basic human rights and they shouldnt be beaten by saddists who get there jollies by being in a position of power. America needs to be held to a higher standard becuase of who we are and what we represent
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
Why do you hate idiots? ~;)
Ha pwnage. Not bad for someone from Ohio. On topic. These men are being detanied by Americans and we need to treat them with respect even if we dont get any in return. The should have basic human rights and they shouldnt be beaten by saddists who get there jollies by being in a position of power. America needs to be held to a higher standard becuase of who we are and what we represent
Originally Posted by Adrian II:
Some things are just retardedly obvoius.
Why do you hate idiots? ~;)
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
You are now officially a good American. If any Euroweener so much as looks at you, I kill him.
Some things are just retardedly obvoius.Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
Bollocks! :whip:
I'd appreciate it if we could do less repudiation of other people's views using one word dismissals.
Originally Posted by Adrian II:
:laugh4: :wall:
Bollocks! :whip:
OK, I give up. :surrender:
*retires to library with revolver and bottle of single malt*
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
Elves?
America needs to be held to a higher standard becuase of who we are and what we represent
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar:
Not elves. Numenorians. I mean, if you think Shire is England and Gondor Rome (Beleriand may be Ireland?)...
Elves?
We are obviously Numenorians. :yes: