Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Frank Lautenberg's S1237

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    428

    Post imported post

    Anyone heard of Senate bill 1237? Frank Lautenberg introduced it, supposedly at the request of the Justice Department. It would allow the US Attorney General to arbitrarily deny 2nd amendment rights to anyone SUSPECTED of being a terrorist. How long do you think it would take Hillary's attorney general to suspect the NRA or GOA membership of being terrorists?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    428

    Post imported post

    A little more information: S.1237, introduced by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007". The Second Amendment Foundation news release I got this from says that there is no clear explanation of how a person gets put on the list, and the appeal process to get off the list is weak at best. I haven't personally read the text of the bill, but I can't stand the idea of any American citizen being denied their rights because of a suspicion.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    There is an article in today's Washington Times (www.washtimes.com) where a Deputy Atty Gen. Somebody is opposed because, obviously, if a terrorist is denied a firearm, he'll know his cover is blown. Justice Dept.maynot want him to know he's under suspicion. I've stated it a little more literally than the actual objection.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    There is an article in today's Washington Times (http://www.washtimes.com) where a Deputy Atty Gen. Somebody is opposed because, obviously, if a terrorist is denied a firearm, he'll know his cover is blown. Justice Dept.maynot want him to know he's under suspicion. I've stated it a little more literally than the actual objection.
    By that logic, we should also let blacklisted people onto jetliners, too...

    Why do people who have been to law school think it is okay to deny people their rights without first convicting them of a crime?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    428

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Why do people who have been to law school think it is okay to deny people their rights without first convicting them of a crime?
    Because so many of them think that the "Washington Elite" are superior beings to the average working stiff. They also believe that it can never happen to them. If any of them thought for a second that they might accidentally end up on that list, they would fight the very idea tooth and nail.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Why do people who have been to law school think it is okay to deny people their rights without first convicting them of a crime?
    Because they have been to law school. And then associated with politicians.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •