A few posts down EverBlue Stater comments on the NRA's opposition to Senator Frank Lautenberg's bill prohibiting the sale of firearms to "known or suspected terrorists." Everblue supports the NRA in this particular case, saying:
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.
To borrow from SCOTUS, I concur in part and dissent in part.
I don't think there's any real debate as to whether the bush administration has bent and twisted the concept of "suspected terrorist" out of all recognition. All we need do is look at some of the many quotes equating opposition to bush or his illegal misbegotten war in Iraq with sympathy for the terrorists. How many times have we on the left been accused of being traitors, of "hating America", "wanting the terrorists to win" and so on? The latest talking point appears to be that setting a "surrender date" emboldens the terrorists and ties the hands of Commander Guy.
The current administration has taken "guilt by accusation" to levels the Soviets and Chinese could only have dreamed of. Gitmo is proof positive of that.
My primary objection to the NRA stance lies in the rank hypocrisy of the organization. These are, after all, the same fine folks who opposed the ban on assault weapons, leaving them in the position of advocating free access to fully-automatic weapons to those who want to do us harm. The hypocrisy is heightened by the fact that the NRA is made up of bush base supporters, the very ones who advocate the total abrogation of constitutional rights and civil liberties, at least for those who disagree with them.
As a former police officer, I see absolutely no bar to banning weapon sales to suspected terrorists... IF there is a reasonably articulable basis for suspicion. Someone whose apartment is plastered with bin Laden posters, who has trained with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, who has contributed to the cause, who has been downloading the Arabic instructions for constructing weapons of mass destruction (thoughtfully posted to the Intertubes by our very own government, thank you very much, commander guy) does not need -- and should not have -- access to firearms, especially fully automatic ones.
"A reasonably articulable basis for suspicion", by the way, does NOT include having an "Arabic-sounding" name, a swarthy complection, or a Koran under the arm.
Personally, I would like to see private ownership of assault weapons completely eliminated. I think they should be manufactured only under the tightest, most stringent controls, with distribution only to law enforcement agencies and the military. Face it, no sensible hunter would go after quail with an M16.
Of course, a law like Lautenberg's would not be perfect. The bad guys -- whether al-Qaeda, the Hells Angels, or the Aryan Nations crowd -- will always be able to get their hands on heavy weapons one way or another, there's no denying that.
But why should we make it any easier?
And why... WHY, in God's name... is the NRA supporting arming terrorists?!?
