Posted on 05/07/2010 4:43:48 AM PDT by Second Amendment First
While the rest of the nation comes to grips with fresh concerns about terrorism, domestic and foreign, Congress is wrapped up in the peculiar obsessions of the gun lobby — most of which are certain to make Americans less safe in their homes and on the streets.
Congress, for example, is cowering before the gun lobby insistence that even terrorist suspects who are placed on the “no-fly list” must not be denied the right to buy and bear arms. Suspects on that list purchased more than 1,100 weapons in the last six years, but Congress has never summoned the gumption to stop this trade in the name of public safety and political sanity.
Legislation to close this glaring threat continues to languish with little promise of enactment because a bipartisan mass of lawmakers fear retribution by the gun lobby’s campaign machine. Firsthand pleas this week from New York City’s mayor and police commissioner — testifying after the attempted Times Square bombing attributed to a suspect who was also carrying a legally obtained gun — showed no sign of budging a timorous Congress.
It is a sign of the gun lobby’s growing confidence that if feels free to keep up the pressure, public and private, after the near-disaster in New York. Normally, the lobby goes quiet for a decent interval after a particularly heinous crime occurs.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Writers like this should remind us that our freedoms are ever in danger from emotional opportunists.
There was no need to read the rest of the article after seeing that statement. It represents a "belief" that has been PROVEN unequivocally false in state after state after commonwealth.
The NY Times opposed wiretapping international phone calls of those on the terror watch list, but wholeheartedly endorses revoking the right to posess a firearm.
WE WILL EXPOSE YOUR HYPOCRISY!!!!
...I don’t believe that the NRA is in favor of allowing “no-fly list” people to buy guns.
NYT is headed the same direction as Newsweek.
So, Mr. NYTimes Reporter, if you’re on the do-not-fly list, should we strip you of your right to appear in the paper, with no adjudication?
Isn’t it weird how the NYTimes thinks? Gun control is their issue. When in fact the terrorist was trying to bomb Times Square, all these useful idiots see is the gun.
It would be nice if the presidents terror fighting policy wasn’t based on stupid bombers, because one day, even the dumbest gets it right.
And what’s the Times obsession with the American people being armed.
And the New York Times remains obsessed with denying citizens the right to defend themselves.
Gunphobes always do this: No matter how violence is sourced, ban guns. This time, the attempted bombing is a call to ban guns.
I actually remember *uck Schumer calling for sweeping gun bans after a high profile knife attack in the early ninties.
It’s not safety they seek. It’s powerlessness and control, so socialism and tyranny cannot be resisted.
They are... and so am I.
The “No Fly List” is prepared and maintained by unelected government bureaucrats; WITHOUT due process of law.
“We the People” must not lose allow our government to infringe on a person’s constitutional rights simply because a U.S. government employee “thinks” that person belongs on a certain list. Down THAT road leads true tyranny and the end of our constitution.
There IS no specific “right to fly on an airliner” recognized in our constitution. There IS a “right to keep and bear arms”.
They damn well better be. The “no-fly” list is arbitrary at best.
Silly Congress. If a terrorist is armed and busy about being a terrorist, then an armed Citizen can shoot them. That's homeland security. (As opposed to removing them from the no-fly list, like the suspect in the Times Square attempt had been.)
I should caveat my comment by adding this minor modification:
“They are - as long as the person is otherwise legally allowed to buy a gun... and so am I.”
They had damned well BETTER be. I've got no problem with such a provision for NON-CITIZENS (those here on visa, or legal residents), but you simply do NOT remove a citizens rights "on suspicion".
Oh, and the word “lose” does not belong in the second sentence.
Bullsh*t screed from the Marxists yelp of record, the once great New York Times - now worth little more than birdcage liner.
Completely false premise.
Say you want to make an area or event safe or safer. That is "secure" it. What is the first thing you do? Bring in security, of course. That's right, to make an event safer, you add people with firearms to it. I know that simple fact makes most liberals' heads want to explode but it is the truth. Adding trained, heck, just responsible, armed non-criminals to something makes it safer.
So the whole premise of this tool's rant is a falsehood. Responsible, armed citizenry makes for a safer neighborhood. They (the left) {expletive}-well know it, they just can't bring themselves to admit it. They want the citizens dependent upon and subservient to big government. I'd rather be self-reliant and trust my neighbors.
Ban propane tanks - the weapons of choice of terrorists!
“,,,the gun lobby insistence that even terrorist suspects who are placed on the “no-fly list” must not be denied the right to buy and bear arms.”
YOU let them into the country in the first place and then you want to point to them as a danger?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.