[lit-ideas] Re: Mike -- Not Real Astute
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 10:10:27 -0500
I do hate to disappoint you, Lawrence, but I did indeed read the whole article.
I didn't respond to your challenge because I was too busy Europeanizing my
neighbors with Leftist-Pacifist ideology. Sorry.
As to the right to sell guns to terrorist suspects, let me ask you, don't you
find it funny that by law you can be kept from flying on a plane because your
name is on a list of suspected terrorists? Don't you find it hilarious that
you can be sent to prison for life for giving a loan to someone suspected of
being a terrorist? Or for hiring someone who is suspected of being a
terrorist? Don't you find it marvelously droll that you can be disappeared and
sent to a secret prison and tortured because someone suspects you of being a
terrorist? But don't worry, it's still OK to sell a gun to a terrorist
suspect and the good old NRA is determined to protect that right.
Mike Geary
Memphis
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 10:59 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Mike -- Not Real Astute
What you say might be true if you like Mike, only read the headlines and not
the whole article. Notice that I asked Mike for the reasons the NRA took the
position they did and that he never answered. That should have been a clue for
the astute.
I looked up the article on CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/04/nra.terror.ap/index.html?eref=rss_us
Since the Leftist-Pacifist position afflicts its holders with the inability
to read long articles, here are a couple of brief paragraphs from the CNN
article:
'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-New Jersey, "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on
mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat. As many of our friends in law
enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word 'suspect' has no legal meaning,
particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties," Cox wrote.'
I was hoping Mike would respond. I believe he was one of those who was
outraged that the U.S. would infringe suspected terrorists first amendment
rights by tapping their phones. I was hoping to ask him why he was outraged
over the infringement of the First Amendment Right but not over the
infringement of the Second.
Lest anyone jump to the wrong conclusion about my own position, I would
restrict both first & second amendment rights of those on the Terrorist Watch
list.
Lawrence
------------Original Message------------
From: "JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx Krueger" <juliereneb@xxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, May-5-2007 7:35 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: NRA -- Not Real Astute
I find this very peculiar -- the NRA is aligned, typically, with the
political party which has seen fit to wrench huge swaths of constitutional
liberties and constitutional rights from American citizens carte blanche ...
and yet it defends the notion that suspected terrorists should be allowed to
arm themselves.
Unreal. Absolutely Mad Hatter Alice down the Rabbit Hole Humpty Dumpty
Jabberwocky unreal. Surreal. Impossible to believe.
Julie Krueger
On 5/5/07, Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My favourite bit:
>
> '"As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the
> word 'suspect' has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying
> constitutional liberties," NRA executive director Chris Cox wrote.'
Mr. Cox said that he would immediately begin a campaign to have the prison
at Guantanamo Bay shut down.
Robert Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
