This news item about NRA opposing a proposed ban on sale of guns to terror suspects initially surprised me:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18494626/
But then I began to understand their logic. Simply because someone is a suspected or would-be terrorist is no reason to deny him something as essential as an assault weapon or hand gun. One should be considered innocent till proven guilty, say, by actually committing a rampage a la Cho Seung or offering other compelling evidence.
Simply appealing a refusal and clearing one's name before a terror suspect is allowed to buys firearm would cause so much hardship. Imagine living for some time without having a firearm for target practice or shooting deer, rabbits, or pesky anti-terrorism agents who come snooping around to investigate your involvement in terror activities. A day without guns is one day too many, as compared to lives lost to protect the second amendment.
NRA urges you not to overreact to the VA Tech or other campus shootings. Or to the study (http://www.athealth.com/Consumer/issues/gunviolencestats.html) that found that guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense. I don't know what the NRA stand would be on the authorities being alerted the moment a terrorism suspect buys or tries to buy a firearm. I won't be surprised if they cite the gunowner's right to privacy to oppose such notifications.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Hi Sandip,
Aha - I'm the first person to comment on this blog!
You punmeister - Things Blight and Beautiful. I think that's such a great title for a blog.
Nice start - and I hope lots of readers get the benefit of your wisdom.
Sursum Corda
David
Hi David,
Any puns I come out with (and even the idea of a personal blog) is largely inspired by my visits to your blog. I just wanted some place to pen some thoughts as they come and receive/exchange views. I don't expect to be anywhere as prolific as you are, and think it will be no more than an entry a day if that. But your help and advice is always valued. Thanks for all the warm sentiments!
I'm not running for political office and so I can question the NRA with impunity. I can understand the Constitutional right but does the 21st century change things. We needed guns to hunt and protect ourselves a few hundred years ago. But today we have supermarkets and sophisticated police force and home alarm systems. Okay there are weekend hunters who want to shoot rabbits and deer. But why would the NRA want to proliferate armor piercing bullets and semi-automatic weapons? And why can't we register these weapons like we register cars?
Can anyone explain to me why this is a conservative issue? Can conservatives from Europe, Australia, Japan or India explain that they want guns in their community? It really amazes me that only Americans are so fascinated with guns despite the statistics that one is more likely to hurt themselves than an intruder.
Well put, Jadra! I agree. Other than blather about the 2nd Amendment (we can always change or re-amend it if reason and logic as encapsulated by Jadra so dictate) is there a contrary view out there?
What is amazing is that after the Virginia Tech and Columbine incidents gun advocates suggested that if guns were readily available by students, faculty and campus workers, this situation would have been averted. The reason being someone with a gun would have shot the bad guy(s). To which I say "???????!"
Not a single politician spoke up after Virginia Tech even though polls show most Americans support some form of gun control. Are they all cowering under the shadow of the NRA? Rudy Giuliani is the only candidate with a gun control policy.
As you said, Kenrod, the NRA and its apologists don't make sense. No surprise there.
Rudy is the only Republican candidate advocating gun control. That's why he's better than the rest. Plenty of Democrats including Hillary are also for gun control.
Post a Comment