NYT editorial board: NRA complicit in terrorism
Source: Politico
By Nick Gass
06/16/16 11:46 AM EDT
The National Rifle Association is complicit in terrorist attacks with its failure to support gun-control restrictions with broad public and bipartisan support, The New York Times' editorial board said Thursday.
"Few places on earth make it easier than the United States for a terrorist to buy assault weapons to mow down scores of people in a matter of minutes. The horrific massacre in Orlando last weekend is only the latest example," the board wrote, after noting that Al Qaeda in a 2011 recruitment video urged would-be jihadists to take advantage of the abundance of "easily obtainable firearms."
Such attacks are "made vastly easier by a gun lobby that has blocked sensible safety measures at every turn, and by members of Congress who seem to pledge greater allegiance to the firearms industry than to their own constituencies," the editorial board continued. "There is a word for their role in this form of terrorism: complicity."
Pointing to polls that suggest an "overwhelming majority of Americans — including gun owners and even N.R.A. members — support universal background checks" as well as "strong majorities" to block gun sales to suspected terrorists and to also ban high-capacity magazines, the article noted that the NRA opposed such measures even though it has maintained that terrorists should not be able to obtain guns.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/nra-terrorism-new-york-times-224433
Politico is (click the link) reporting this as a news item about the fact that the Paper of Record has now stated the National Rifle Association has OCEANS of innocent blood on its hands!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
elljay
(1,178 posts)Time for everyone to pile on the NRA. The gun manufacturers have profited more than enough from the blood of their victims.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Now the NRA is complicit in terrorism. McCain thinks it is President Obama, Trump thinks it is all Muslims, some on DU think it is Trump. I'm getting confused. I simply thought the terrorists were mostly responsible for terrorism. Is the NRA responsible for the terrorist attacks in Belgium and France, or just the USA?
Setting all that aside, shame on the NY Times for supporting a law that would ban individuals on a secret government watch-list from exercising a constitutional right without any sort of due process. Are we going to support similar restrictions when a Republican president wants to include BLM individuals on the "terror" watch-list? This is the same type of nonsense that led to the Patriot Act. Thankfully the ACLU will sue if this abomination is ever enacted.
groundloop
(11,518 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Has nothing to do with firearms. It is a clear due process violation and I'm not a big believer in secret government lists. Sounds very much like McCarthyism.
yea it totally insane to expect people who own guns to be "reasonable" ,,, lmao
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Or a sitting federal judge on any lower court?
You're not? Then your opinion as to what constitutes a "clear due process violation" isn't worth much more than a clump of discarded toilet paper.
Only the courts can decide what is and what isn't a "clear due process violation", just as only the courts can decide what is and what isn't an infringement of the 2nd amendment.
brett_jv
(1,245 posts)I don't much like the idea of secret government lists that take away people's rights without any sort of court review or ability to challenge them. Feel the same about the no-fly list, actually. Should only be non-citizens on that list unless and until people have the right to challenge that status.
I say this as someone who believes the Heller decision got 'things' horribly wrong when it issued it's 'individual right to own firearms' interpretation of the 2A i.e. I don't feel that's what the Framers intent actually was. I really don't. So personally I feel that we're not meant as citizens to have 'the absolute RIGHT' to have as many guns of whatever type we want with no magazine restrictions or fire rate restrictions or anything like that.
BUT ... it is currently the law of the land that there's an individual Constitutional Right to own firearms, so ... I don't think the FBI should be able to just yank it from you on a whim without you having a way to challenge it in court, at minimum.
So his (and my) opinion might not be 'worth anything' ... but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)But what do we do about 30,000+ gun deaths a year and a Congress that refuses to even study the problem?
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)But not by violating due process. Have any shootings actually been committed by someone on a watch list? I know the Orlando terrorist wasn't. Not sure about the recent California shootings.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,013 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)The other is the whim of a few people who have no accountability. Which do you prefer?
FailureToCommunicate
(14,013 posts)other is an imperfect attempt to mitigate the carnage. So yeah, I'm in favor of the latter, since you asked.
*please don't respond with the 'but, but, many of those are suicides' crap.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)...and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban....which was not renewed.
I wonder why? Courts had already struck down complaints that it was unconstitutional. Someone musta lobbied hard to not get it renewed. Huh....
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)it relied on State enforcement, Only a total Federally enforced law will be effective. and secondly it was a ban , bans are never going to work,, we have to gain control of all firearms, who 's got em, where are they. are the owners "reasonable". I say a guns should be titled property and licensed and bonded.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)None of those things has anything to do with why it shouldn't be renewed.
Bans do work.... do you own any biological weapons?
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)rather the courts seems to accept "controls" more than "bans". there is a fine line between a "ban and "control" . one could argue that biological weapons are really very strictly controlled not ban since they do exist in military, gubermint and private domains
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Same type of nonsense which led to the dissolution of HUAC as well.
Huh, part II.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)No
Ignorance and propaganda and the Right Wing led to the HUAC.
These are the same things that are stopping sensible gun control, not helping it.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)unreasonable people do not have a constitutional right to buy firearms. that is established law.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)That restricts "unreasonable people" from exercising a constitutional right. Do DU members support taking away the right to vote from all felons, who have actually been convicted of a crime?
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)that place conditions on owner ship of firearms that have been confirmed by the courts as constitutional.... et al, Federal Firearm Act of 1934 has stood the test of time! In my book all small arms beside single and double barrel shotguns; single shot rifles, and 6 shot revolvers should all be amended to the 1934 law.
Darb
(2,807 posts)That's gross.
underpants
(182,773 posts)The three pillars of Lee Atwater's new Republican Party - the Reagan Revolution
Rocknrule
(5,697 posts)n/t
Skittles
(153,150 posts)that's when it started
I remember as a kid in the 60s the NRA was all about gun safety and proper use.... and that was it.
I'm not a NRA fan and not defending them. But is the NRA really responsible for terrorist attacks? None of the laws that are being proposed, and that the NRA opposes, would have prevented the Orlando tragedy.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)This...
None of the laws that are being proposed
Just shows more cosmetic lip service to what needs to be done instead of actually doing something.
And the NRA lobbying is very much part of that.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)And at the same time, the Democratic reps are at fault for taking "stands" based on proposed laws that are essentially pointless (or at least largely ineffective).
Darb
(2,807 posts)Wash your hands dude, really.
wiggs
(7,812 posts)associated departments to RESEARCH, INVESTIGATE, STUDY, AND SEE TO UNDERSTAND gun violence in the US. They passed law to prohibit money being spent on the issue. Over-turning this should be part of the common-sense bipartisan first step agreement congress considers soon.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)I agree the NRA is an influential group, but I also think that we need to hold the decision-makers responsible - the NRA doesn't have a vote, our elected representatives do. If 90% of people support universal background checks then it is our representatives' fault that such a law hasn't passed, not the NRAs.
Ford_Prefect
(7,887 posts)Politicians believe the NRA sooner than they do their own voters. We need to turn up the heat on those pols who defend them.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)that they need to stay in office...but the lobbyists do.
It's all about the money.
Ford_Prefect
(7,887 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)Not to mention drug gangs in Mexico and central america. They have blood all over them.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Let's see your proof.
Hekate
(90,645 posts)Every time they yelp that a Democratic POTUS is coming to take away The Precious, gun and ammo sales go through the roof. They don't care how many 6 year olds get mowed down in school, how many people just going about their lives in a movie theater or night club are slaughtered wholesale, how many ...
So yeah, I have no use for the NRA.
Obligatory disclaimer: I'm not a pacifist, nor do I own a gun. My brother and my son both have reasons (my brother is a small scale precious stones merchant in his spare time, and was being tailed a lot; my son used to live in a high crime area). My sister in law hunts some, taught both her sons how to hunt. None of them fetishize these tools.
rockfordfile
(8,702 posts)
calimary
(81,220 posts)This is more like it. Put those beasts on the defensive. Start calling them what they are. They're nothing less than apologists for and enablers of terrorists on our shores.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)for terrorist to buy guns and ammo, u are complicit in terrorism! That includes NRA and the GOP!
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)They oppose a law banning folks on a "watch-list" from purchasing weapons.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)
spin
(17,493 posts)Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict People’s Freedoms
By Hina Shamsi, Director, ACLU National Security Project
DECEMBER 7, 2015 | 5:30 PM
The No Fly List is in the news this week, just in time for the ACLU’s argument in federal court on Wednesday in its five-year-long challenge to the list’s redress process.
Last night, in response to last week’s tragic attack in San Bernardino, California, President Obama urged Congress to ensure that people on the No Fly List be prohibited from purchasing guns. Last week, Republicans in Congress defeated a proposal that would have done just that. "I think it’s very important to remember people have due process rights in this country, and we can’t have some government official just arbitrarily put them on a list," House Speaker Paul Ryan said
There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform. As we will argue to a federal district court in Oregon this Wednesday, the standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error. Our lawsuit seeks a meaningful opportunity for our clients to challenge their placement on the No Fly List because it is so error-prone and the consequences for their lives have been devastating.
****snip***
There’s another important aspect to the government’s case at this stage. The government has emphasized that it is making predictive judgments that people like our clients — who have never been charged let alone convicted of a crime — might nevertheless pose a threat. That’s a perilous thing for it to do. As we’ve told the court based on evidence from experts, these kinds of predictions guarantee a high risk of error. If the government is going to predict that Americans pose a threat and blacklist them, that’s even more reason for the fundamental safeguards we seek.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms
I agree with the ACLU that the terrorist watch list could be used to stop suspected terrorists from being able to legally buy firearms but the list needs some major changes and improvements.
It could be pointed out that the Orlando shooter was not on a terrorist watch list when he bought the firearms he used in the nightclub although at one time he was. The Boston bombers and the San Bernardino shooters were not on that list either. That doesn't mean that the list couldn't be used to deter a future attack but it isn't a cure all either.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)"not unconditionally"
spin
(17,493 posts)I agree that if the terrorist watch list was improved it could help stop terrorists from legally buying firearms. Of course that doesn't prevent them from buying a firearm from an private seller or getting one smuggled into our nation. Nor does it prevent them from using other means to commit mass murder. Cars, knives, explosives and gasoline come to mind.
Obviously better control of who can legally purchase firearms can help and should be done but that alone will not solve the problem with Islamic terrorism inspired by ISIS or other Muslim terrorist organizations. There are far too many ways to carry our a terrorist attack.
In passing I have met a number of Muslims I consider to be great people who add a lot to our nation from store clerks and managers to the doctor who is my Gastroenterologist. In every religion there appear to be people who are extreme and pose a significant danger. The majority of religious people do not.
but I can not go with the logic that since controlling guns is futile since it would not stop people from killing by other means, We must have reasonable gun control by Federal law. No law is absolute but its far better than no laws.
spin
(17,493 posts)Perhaps the no fly list will be improved so there has to be good reason to end up on it and a person has a way to contest the fact that he is on the list.
We will hear a lot of hot air about a new federal AWB but nothing will happen until after the election and who gets to sit in the Oval Office.
anything that makes it harder for idiots to get their hands on guns and ammo~
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)Complicit. there is blood on their hands, in other words.
Own it, wankas.
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)with blood spattered wings.
Maybe we should blame terrorists and criminals for their crimes, not lobbying bodies. But that requires that we hold individuals accountable instead of giving them a break for their anti-social actions.
ileus
(15,396 posts)eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)Worldly Traveler
(34 posts)it is time for the victims' families to sue the NRA.
Kablooie
(18,626 posts)Whenever there is a mass shooting, gun sales go up.
Mission accomplished.
