| About Poll | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Posted on 10/17/2002 5:43:05 AM PDT by SJackson
Now that the 11th innocent civilian has been mowed down by a sniper in northern Virginia, it's time for the Bush Administration to get serious about the war on terror.
Since September 11, the president and his attorney general have told us that we must give up some of our cherished civil liberties in order to stop the "evil ones" intent on murdering innocent American men, women and children. And while the White House has done a bang-up job of watering down the First (free speech and assembly), Fourth (search and seizure), Fifth (due process) and Eighth (excess bail and fines, cruel and unusual punishment) Amendments to the Constitution to further the war on terror, there's one Amendment they refuse to touch. It's the one that puts all those guns on the streets in the first place: the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Now, I've never been much of an anti-gun nut. I worry about crime as much as the next guy, and particularly with the latest sniper scare in the DC suburbs, I admit that there's something comforting about the prospect of having my own gun. But there's also something comforting about knowing that my government can't tap my phone simply because they don't like my politics, arrest me in secret, keep me from seeing an attorney, or hold me indefinitely without ever charging me of a crime or going before a judge. But to date, I haven't spoken out about any of the infringements on those constitutional rights because I spent September 11, 2001 watching the Pentagon burn outside my living room window, and realized I had more pressing things to worry about.
Is the Second Amendment a Suicide Pact?
It's been said too many time since 9/11, but rings no less true today: The Constitution is not a suicide pact. But this Administration seems think the Second Amendment is.
While the Bush Administration has been willing to infringe on the 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th Amendments to the Constitution, they have outright refused to do a thing about guns. Well, that's not completely true. At the same time the Administration's war on terror has been restricting constitutional rights across the board, John Ashcroft's Justice Department has actually been increasing the rights of gun owners. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) explained this past May that:
"For over sixty years, the Justice Department has interpreted the Second Amendment as applying to those with a reasonable relationship to a well regulated militia. Now, in a stunning reversal of long-held policy, the Justice Department has argued before the Supreme Court that the Constitution broadly protects the rights of individuals to own firearms."
According to Schumer, this abrupt change in policy could hamper the efforts of prosecutors in every state of the union. (You can read more about this issue here.)
Ashcroft Refuses to Search Gun Record for Terrorists
The Bush's Administration's knee-jerk fear of doing anything to restrict the Second Amendment is having real-world consequences in the war on terror. The Washington Post reports that shortly after September 11, 2001, the Justice Department began searching the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for the names of suspected terrorists (i.e., the FBI was comparing the names of suspected terrorists against federal gun purchase records). But that search was short-lived, according to the Post, as "Justice officials in mid-October (2001) ordered a halt to the effort, arguing that the search appeared to violate the federal law that set up the background check system."
But that excuse simply wasn't true. The Post goes on to report that on October 1, 2001 - a few weeks before the decision to halt the background check search - an internal Justice Department memo written by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sheldon Bradshaw concluded that "we see nothing in the NICS regulations that prohibits the FBI from deriving additional benefits from checking audit log records" in conjunction with the Sept. 11 probe. The memo goes on to note that the FBI had used the NICS before in other circumstances, and noted that the bureau had used the NICS before in this way. (Read more about this issue here).
In other words, Ashcroft lied to protect the gun-owner constituency at the expense of the war on terror.
Nukes Don't Kill People
Which begs the question: Why didn't the Attorney General use the wealth of information in the NICS database to look for potential terrorists hell-bent on killing millions of Americans? Because the Bush Administration seems to believe that every amendment to the Constitution takes a back seat to the war on terror, except the Second Amendment. Why an exception for this one particular constitutional right, in the face of the greatest threat the nation has faced in 60 years? No answer - though the letters NRA come to mind.
While driving with a friend this past weekend in suburban Maryland, and making sure we pumped our gas in DC before crossing the state line, I thought of the pro-gun adage: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." And I wondered how President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft would respond to Saddam Hussein if the Iraq dictator went before the United Nations and argued that there's no problem with rogue states having weapons of mass destruction because, after all:
"Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people."
Putting Special Interests Before National Security
The proliferation of deadly weapons is as much a problem in Alexandria, Virginia as it is in Alexandria, Egypt. I'm not saying that we need to ban all guns or repeal the entire Second Amendment, but using the defense of the Second Amendment as an excuse to not search available gun databases for terrorists? That's criminally negligent.
President Bush recently accused Senate Democrats of worrying more about special interests than the security of the American people. Here's the president's chance to prove that he doesn't suffer from the same problem.
Should Congress Repeal the Second Amendment?
Yes
No
Not sure
Yes (157) 0%
No (15947) 98%
Not sure (10) 0%
Total Votes: 16114
This dufus is a classic. Citizens are being shot by gunmen. The police are unable to halt it. The obvious liberal solution...disarm the citizens!
Species - Weirdo...Genus - Friggin' idiot!
ROTFLMAO! That pesky little Constitution hasn't stopped him before. Why should it now?
If states ban the right-to-carry and hunting, they pretty much have taken it away.
"If the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the united States is modified or repealed, or if the individual right to keep and bear arms is nullified by any Treaty, Decision of the Courts of the united States, or Exective Order, this State's membership in the Union is terminated."
It's worth a try. I can think of several states that would probably pass it.
| About Poll | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
The original ratification of the Constitution was clearly conditioned (in some cases explicitly in the ratification documents, IIRC) on the Bill of Rights. Reneging on the deal would thus undermine the legal basis on which the Constitution was ratified.
I think every person should be made to submit fingerprints and a DNA sample to a federal registry. It will make the job of law enforcement easier. We must do it, for the chilldrun!
/gun-grabbing-commie-hysterical-rant
Your doctor can do it, he's doing blood tests anyway. Maybe run a drug scan too, just for statistical purposes. No one will know who you are.
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.
