... not really. I don't actually own any firearms (oh no, better watch out; burglars will soon flock to my apartment...), but I don't have a fundamental problem with people owning them with restrictions. Assault rifles, automatic hand-guns (tech-9, Uzi, etc.), and the like are probably better left in the hands of professional... um... gun users, like the military; they don't really offer much in the way of civil purposes. Yeah, yeah, yeah, second amendment and all that - whatever, we put all kinds of restrictions on speech, property seizure, assembly, yadda yadda yadda. There's no (rational) reason why similar restrictions should not be put on the second amendment.
Anyway, Joe Sudbay over at AMERICAblog wrote a little ditty about the NRA's opposition to Sen. Frank Lautenberg's (D- New Jersey) proposed legislation 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
Sudbay writes:
Think of all the things the Bush administration has done, all the laws
they've broken, all the rights they've taken away, in order to "fight terror."
They've tapped our phones, read our emails, thrown us in jail without the right
to an attorney or even a trial, assumed that we're guilty until proven innocent.
But all of that, we are told, is necessary if we are to stop suspected
terrorists from killing another 3,000 Americans, or worse, killing 1 million
Americans with a nuke.
But God forbid a suspected terrorist isn't permitted to buy an Uzi. Oh no,
we wouldn't want to take away the constitutional rights of a suspected terrorist
to buy the weapons he needs to kill us all. No, that would be un-American.
I think he has missed point, and I think I'm with the NRA (!!!) on this one.
Here's the thing... one of the (many) problems I have with the Bush administration is their (mis)use of the words "suspected terrorist." When you start treating "suspect" people different, you are inherently assuming guilt. Of course, assuming guilt isn't always a bad thing; individuals make assumptions of guilt all the time. It is a problem, however, when the State begins to value the assumption of guilt over that of innocence. Sudbay's correct when he cites the DoJ's crimes against our rights and privacy - data mining phone records, reading e-mail, labeling people "enemy combatants" to circumvent civil liberties - so why would he support further violations of civil liberties based entirely on "suspect" status. Of course, my opposition to S. 1237 is much different from that of the NRA - mine is based on conceptions of justice, while the NRA's is drawn from their apparent desire to see a fully armed and militarized society, but yes, our substantive opposition is the same.
I can understand someone reading this and thinking Egad! I don't want a terrorist buying a gun! Why, they might... terrorize with it! Have you forgotten VIRGINIA TECH!? Of course I haven't. But here's the thing, either 1) remove the word 'suspected' from the language of the bill and simply bar 'terrorists' from purchasing firearms (???) or b) screw this bill entirely and do something about individual 'suspected terrorists' based on the evidence collected.
