Well apparently they don't like that that little fact, in comparison to all the 'facts' that they make up. This is funny:
6.To the people who categorized us as “gun grabbers” I suspect that you did not see the following on the home page of our website:Sane gun laws will simultaneously protect the Second Amendment right of the legal gun owner and the non-gun owner’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as written in the Declaration of Independence.
Well this is also on their site:
Any sane gun law will lead to the government being able to take your guns away.But they're not 'gun grabbers'. No, not at all. What they also are is nuts.
UPDATE: Their defense for opposing Due Process? Bush did it. I kid you not.
Breath guys:
National Gun Victims Action Council - "A Force for Sane Gun Laws" also commented on their link.National Gun Victims Action Council - "A Force for Sane Gun Laws" wrote: "Then I must asune that klike me youn were and still are oppossed to the imprionment of people at guantanomo bat and wna tto see that facikligty closed."
7 comments:
I posted this over there, but I doubt "Reasoned Discourse" will allow it through.
I call your son a wonderful patriot and defender of our nation. I call you a gun grabber, nothing more.
Why should people NOT be barred from owning guns based on a terrorist watch list? Who decides who goes on that list? How does someone get recourse from being on that list? Let's break it down...
Due Process. Perhaps you've heard of it:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Transportation is not a privilege. It is a RIGHT. As such, deprivation of travel is indeed a deprivation of liberty. If you want to do that, you'd better put that person in front of a jury charged with a crime and you'd better find him guilty. They PERSONALLY need to be found guilty.
Why they personally? How about this list of examples:
The below (and more) taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List#False_positives
Numerous children (including many under the age of five, and some under the age of one) have generated false positives
Daniel Brown, a United States Marine returning from Iraq, was prevented from boarding a flight home in April 2006 because his name matched one on the No Fly List.
Robert J. Johnson, a surgeon and a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, was told in 2006 that he was on the list, although he had had no problem in flying the month before. Johnson was running as a Democrat against U.S. Representative John McHugh, a Republican. Johnson wondered whether he was on the list because of his opposition to the Iraq War. He stated, "This could just be a government screw-up, but I don't know, and they won't tell me." Later, a 60 Minutes report brought together 12 men named Robert Johnson, all of whom had experienced problems in airports with being pulled aside and interrogated. The report suggested that the individual whose name was intended to be on the list was most likely the Robert Johnson who had been convicted of plotting to bomb a movie theater and a Hindu temple in Toronto.
Ted Kennedy was on the list because "T KENNEDY" was a terrorist's alias once in the past.
Walter F. Murphy, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, reported that the following exchange took place at Newark on 1 March 2007, where he was denied a boarding pass "because I [Professor Murphy] was on the Terrorist Watch list." The airline employee asked, "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." "I explained," said professor Murphy, "that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution." To which the airline employee responded, "That'll do it."
Jesselyn Radack, a former United States Department of Justice ethics adviser who argued that John Walker Lindh was entitled to an attorney, was placed on the No Fly List as part of what she believes to be a reprisal for her whistle-blowing.
U.S. Representative Don Young (R-AK), the third-most senior Republican in the House, was flagged in 2004 after he was mistaken for a "Donald Lee Young".
Those are ALL people that had their rights violated for no reason other than having similar or the same names as another person or for SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THEIR GOVERNMENT. They exercised their 1A and had their 5A stripped from them. And you want to add 2A to that list?
Both of the above posts were a single post on their site. Your blog only allows 4,096 characters per post, so had to split it. :)
The NGAC post about Guantanamo has only two likes--and one of them is the NGAC itself.
It does appear they've corrected their spelling. Misspelling and poor grammar seem to be common on the anti-gun side. I remember seeing a thread in newspaper comments recently in which Sebastian from (formerly) Snowflakes in Hell and Kurt Hoffman were debating an anti-gunner. The anti's sole tactic was screaming "Coward!", even though IIRC Kurt is a disabled war vet. It was hilarious as the retard would use "your" for "you're," and "their" for "they're," while Kurt was using college-level words correctly. (The words were big and sophisticated enough that, with all due respect, I doubt if Kurt uses them frequently; rather, I believe he was deliberately drawing a contrast).
The anti-rights retard also contradicted himself, going from "anyone who uses a gun instead of fists is a coward" to "I have four guns and a CCW permit." These guys are absolute retards.
I'm the other 'like'. I agree with his sentiment about GTMO. That's the difference between us and them. I'm willing to agree with things outside of party lines. I don't go off of a list of talking points that someone made that's paid to make them. In this case, it proves that their argument is invalid.
"UPDATE: Their defense for opposing Due Process? Bush did it. I kid you not."
Didn't you hear? Two wrongs make a right.
Remember that email that came out with all those misspelled words, but the first and last letters were in the right places? And the email explained that the mind can keep up with the misspelling since the letters were in the right spots?
Well, try as I might, I had a heck of a time trying to decipher the jibberish in that last part from NGAC. Looked to me like someone was trying to type on an older model phone using the letters over the numbers to type out what they wanted.
I'm still trying to figure out what a 'facikligty' is...
Post a Comment