Giving Rights to Terrorists
That has been perhaps one of the most egregious accusations leveled against those who've railed against such practices as suspending habeas corpus for terrorism suspects at Gitmo. No one as ever proposed giving "special rights" to those accused of terrorism. Of course such lack of advocation means little when there's a pre-election smear fest to be had.
Yet for all the opposition to "giving rights to terrorists", there appears to be one which shall remain sacrosanct: the right to bear arms.
In a way I can understand their argument since the term "suspect" has been so thoroughly abused by this administration to the point of being meaningless. But does anyone else get the feeling that what really has the NRA spooked is the potential for people like this and this being barred from exercising their Second Amendment rights?
Just sayin'.
(Filed at State of the Day)
Yet for all the opposition to "giving rights to terrorists", there appears to be one which shall remain sacrosanct: the right to bear arms.
The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms.
Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.
In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg , D-N.J., "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."
In a way I can understand their argument since the term "suspect" has been so thoroughly abused by this administration to the point of being meaningless. But does anyone else get the feeling that what really has the NRA spooked is the potential for people like this and this being barred from exercising their Second Amendment rights?
Just sayin'.
(Filed at State of the Day)
Post a Comment