BlogShots

Jonathan Wolfman's Blog

Jonathan Wolfman

Jonathan Wolfman
Location
Maryland, Northwest of The District,
Birthday
January 26
Bio
Visit, too, please: www.talkingwriting.com www.reortergary.com (pal talk news network) www.thejewishreporter.com

JANUARY 9, 2013 9:18AM

NRA: Don't Deny Weapons to Those on Terrorist-Lists

Rate: 6 Flag

You may think that the NRA leadership's response to the murders of Connecticut children is inadequate. You may even deem it mad as well as rapacious. I do. However, the organization's sense of that high-powered mayhem may well be nowhere close to the lunacy of its stand on the issue of weapons in the hands of potential terrorists. The NRA has long stood against legislation introduced by New Jersey Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg and New York Republican Congressman and Homeland Security Committee Chair, Peter King. Their proposal would close a ridiculous gap in existing federal law about who may and may not buy or own firearms.

 

     Right now, people on terrorist watch-lists may buy and own weapons.
 
     The bill to end that has gone nowhere in the House of Representatives.
 
     For many years felons, convicted domestic abusers, as well as the certified deranged haven't been able legally to purchase or own guns. Lautenberg/King would close the terrorist-list gap tight. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report shows that people on our own terror watch-lists, since 2004, "succeeded in purchasing firearms 865 times in 963 attempts". Those who failed did so largely because they were already on no-buy lists for other reasons.

     There will be readers who will ask for the NRA leeadership's side in this. They can spend their own astonished time at its website. And while I've written before that I'm not against gun-ownership per se (my son is a champion marksman and I avidly support his efforts), I'm not a born-yesterday-naif either. The kastrationangst and base greed that compels the NRA to oppose clear-as-a-bell-sensible anti-terror (and other reasonable) legislation should be called out for what it is: the flailing of dangerous, weapons industry-enabled psychopathology.
---
---
---
For Your Interest:
This is an organization, founded by a woman whose daughter was murdered two years ago in the Tucson shootings that seriously wounded then-Congresswoman Gabby Giffords.
The organization demands that we take specific and concrete steps to put a dent in this madness.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
I don't think there is a 'low point' to be found w these guys.
I think that radio announcer who went off on Piers Morgan Monday night should be the poster boy for the psychopathology of the NRA. They are stark raving mad.

Lezlie
Some are, yes. I am betting that many NRA mbrs were embarrassed by that rabid dope.
We are not as embarrassed as Obama and his administration selling weapons to terrorists in Mexico that are killing our own American warriors or using their own deceitful hearts to lie to the American public about the lack of weaponry use to defend our diplomats in Libya. Let us not mention the liberals using the attack on Gabby Giffords as well as the deaths of children in Connecticut to further their agenda, yet approve of millions of children’s deaths through abortions. All women who have had abortions should have their names and addresses posted in the news media for all to see, right up there with gun owners, don’t you think?

GET THE PICTURE liberals about how "OUT OF CONTROL" your ideology can get and be used against you? Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Repeal abortion rights then, but I guess that would not fit UN Agenda 21 and their call for population control!!!
Isn't obvious that the NRA stands for the single unified principal of "sell as many guns as possible." That is the only conceivable explanation to any of their ideas or the gun-industry-favorable laws they have purchased in our nation in the last three decades. The NRA has lost any credibility and politicians should divest themselves of any connection to this organization of corporate lowlifes.
Isn't obvious that the NRA stands for the single unified principal of "sell as many guns as possible." That is the only conceivable explanation to any of their ideas or the gun-industry-favorable laws they have purchased in our nation in the last three decades. The NRA has lost any credibility and politicians should divest themselves of any connection to this organization of corporate lowlifes.
Isn't obvious that the NRA stands for the single unified principal of "sell as many guns as possible." That is the only conceivable explanation to any of their ideas or the gun-industry-favorable laws they have purchased in our nation in the last three decades. The NRA has lost any credibility and politicians should divest themselves of any connection to this organization of corporate lowlifes.
Isn't obvious that the NRA stands for the single unified principal of "sell as many guns as possible." That is the only conceivable explanation to any of their ideas or the gun-industry-favorable laws they have purchased in our nation in the last three decades. The NRA has lost any credibility and politicians should divest themselves of any connection to this organization of corporate lowlifes.
They can buy a gun, but can't get on a plane. Something here is just not right~
Tommy make sure your nite-lite's on.
The NRA had nothing to do with the shooting at Newtown, or with any of the other killings that have prompted the recent calls for new anti-gun legislation. Singling out the NRA for attack every time someone is shot is strictly a political tactic. The NRA contributes money to politicians who support its views, and most of those politicians are Republicans. The Democrats want to shut down the NRA, not because they give a s--- about gunshot victims, but because they want to close off this major source of political funding. They are exploiting Newton, etc., for political reasons.

Let's get at the real problem: the inept way we deal with the mentally ill in our society.
Jon,I leave a comment for A.L.here.I'm sure you'll understand why.I am with you all the way.
Arthur Louis,that is a bit too simple an answer for a safety problem in the US.The mentally ill are not the only ones who shoot.
As the saying goes:"An open door may tempt a saint".
The US have a long tradition of gun-ownership as shown in the Western movies in form of glorification of the "holy life-saving weapon".This might be true in some cases,as defense mechanism because there are too many guns circulating within the nation.
To keep a gun for traditional reasons calls for change of thinking. All the shooting and killing during the last few years has a severe effect on society,and on top of the trauma of 9/11 comes the insecurity of gun violence.
"They [terrorist watch lists] are secret lists with no way for people to petition to get off or even to know if they're on," said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

In other words, there's no due process involved with these lists. So it seems to me that it would be inappropriate to use the lists as a basis for denying people the right to purchase a gun or anything else.
The problem, though, is that the government hasn't really come clean about how they define or put people on these so-called "watch-lists."

Many innocent people have been put on watch-lists and no-fly lists, based purely on cross-reference data as non-meaningful as their buying a Howard Zinn book, participating in a protest, and taking a vacation in Peru.

I'm totally in favor of preventing terrorists and suspected terrorists from getting guns. But how do we define "suspected terrorist?"

Right now, many liberals and progressives are actually being put on watch-lists, sufficient to prevent them from buying guns. Now, this may not matter to many people, but there is currently a Supreme-Court recognized Constitutional right to individual gun ownership, as per District of Columbia v. Heller, 478 F. 3d 370, (2008).

Reasonable legal scholars differ on the origins and/or intent of the 2nd Amendment. One school, and I subscribe to this school, states that British Commonlaw feared an oppressive government, standing armies/police forces, and the utilization of military and/or quasi-military force and weaponry against citizens. Hence, the Enlightenment concept of the "Right to Revolution," Jefferson's essays on the same, and the Second Amendment.

Here, it could be seen as an ultimate check-and-balance on a tyranical government. True, there is the militia part of the clause, but the militia had all the adult males in the community, who owned their own guns, belong to it. If you study military history, you see that the Executive had no power over the militia. Since Vietnam, the modern equivalent of the militia, the National Guard, is wholly under the control of the Federal Government, and doesn't have the ability to operate independently, tactically or logistically, without funding from Washington, D.C. In a sense, they supplement the national military infrastructure. They are unable to operate independently of federal authority, which goes against original intent.

I don't want to get into a long Constitutional discussion here. I had one with Paul O'Rourke about the Second Amendment last year and it comprised 52 pages on my blog.

But I do think reasonable legal minds differ on the 2nd Amendment. And I do think the conservatives have a legitimate constitutional argument regarding the popular right to weaponry (not just hunting weapons, mind you), but self-defense weapons, too. Even shotguns and semi-automatics. And I think that to have a fair discussion, liberals shouldn't discredit, minimize or ignore these reasonable, historically based legal arguments.

And furthermore, I think we need to look at the fact that the Federal Government has too much power, and not enough oversight, in terms of who they classify "terrorists," or who they put on "watch lists." This is a power that is subject to major abuse, and is being abused as we speak. As you know, the ACLU is even involved here.

The convergence of these two issues is highly unsettling for me, because (a) I support the Second Amendment and (b) I know, full well, that the government is abusing its power and expanding the scope of police and FBI surveillance without warrants, based on an ever growing definition of "suspected terrorist."
When these guys insist that the bigger problem is the mental health problem, I say YES --- you guys are CRAAAZY! (Thanks for this post.)
I think they should be listed as a "terrorist group"!
What KS says...
........(¯`v´¯) (¯`v´¯)
☼•*¨`*•.¸.(ˆ◡ˆ).¸.•*
............... *•.¸.•* ♥⋆★•❥ Thanx & Smiles (ツ) & ♥ L☼√Ξ ☼ ♥
⋆───★•❥ ☼ .¸¸.•*`*•.♥ (ˆ◡ˆ) ♥⋯ ❤ ⋯ ★(ˆ◡ˆ) ♥⋯ ❤ ⋯ ★R