Brady campaign watch: They seem to think that black lists should remove civil rights.

[lawodevolution]

The truth is that they don't care if a law abiding person is banned from owning a gun; therefore, they support banning anyone on any black list from owning a gun even if the list is flawed.

[lawodevolution]

1. one reason why I'm posting this here

is they will delete any argument on their site that is not anti-gun. This is the only way to have a balanced and reasonable debate on what they post over there.

[TheWraith]

2. Amazing the number of people who suddenly endorse the Bush "Terrorist" list...

...when the victim is someone or something they approve of targeting. It's no less hypocritical than the Republicans who think that it's a persecution if people on the list couldn't buy firearms, but keeping them from traveling is fine.

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. I thought they have been declared irrelevant.

[Bold Lib]

7. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

So how do you feel about due process being subverted and people being barred from exercising a fundamental civil right?

[TheCowsCameHome]

10. Nice quote.

Sounds like something Thomas Jefferson once said.

[Bold Lib]

11. Thank you for the compliment but you did not answer "So how do you feel about

due process being subverted and people being barred from exercising a fundamental civil right?

[SteveM]

8. The "suspect terrorist" laws? No, they're still supported, even by some in this forum.

[TheCowsCameHome]

9. No, the Brady group is what I meant.

[cleanhippie]

12. They are, right up to the point where they are not.

Arguing to strip someone of their rights without due process should make them relevant, wouldn't you agree? Or do you also support this action?

[X_Digger]

4. Due process isn't very big with them, is it?

There's a process for removing someone's right to purchase or own a firearm. It involves adjudicating someone mentally incompetent, convicting them of a crime, dishonorably discharging someone from a branch of the military service, granting a protective order against them for domestic abuse, having them admit to being a substance abuser.. things that require a court, allowing them to participate in the proceedings and face their accuser(s).

According to Brady? Screw 'em. If they protested the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4555867) or were Quakers (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_700176.html), or just happened to have a name similar to someone suspected of maybe being involved in terrorism (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/us/senator-terrorist-a-watch-list-stops-kennedy-at-airport.html).. too bad.

We don't need no stinking due process!

[spin]

5. Obviously the Brady Campaign has a history of opposing the 2nd Amendment ...

so it's not surprising that they also would favor blacklisting people based on a list known to be riddled with mistakes.

If they could have their way, I seriously believe that they would support the passage of laws that would effectively disarm the population of this country. Only the rich and powerful elite would be allowed private ownership of firearms. Over time, they would reshape the United States into a medieval society where the privileged rules the surfs and the slaves with an iron fist.

Those who feel they are smarter and better than their fellow citizens always covet power. History repeats itself.

If we are not careful, the measures launched to stop terror in our nation will eventually erode our freedoms to the point that we are no better than those who plan attacks against us. They will have won the fight and our nation will no longer stand as a beacon of hope and freedom to the world.

[PoliticAverse]

6. Does the Brady Campaign

support the right of "terror suspects" to:
Live near elementary schools?
Buy gasoline?
Rent a truck?
Publish a newspaper?
Publish a book?
Travel freely in cities?
Use a cellular phone?
Have a .org website?
<insert your favorite here>

[Euromutt]

13. Not that I had a whole of respect for the Brady Campaign...

...but this would have buried it. A organization that based itself on principles could, and should, have said something along the lines of "we support restricting private citizens' ability to acquire firearms (or something more euphemistically worded to the same effect) but subverting due process and the rule of law is not an acceptable way to go about it." The Brady Campaign, by contrast, pretends that "individuals on terrorist watch lists" are synonymous with "terrorists."

No matter how you feel about whether the ability of private citizens to keep an bear arms for self-defense is a right, if you value civil liberties, you have to concede that the Brady Campaign, by endorsing the undermining of due process, has placed itself squarely in the opposing camp.

[hendo]

14. We need our party to speak out against this nonsense! NT

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Spurious use of 'suspects'.

More like random-assed shot in the dark with no follow-up criminal investigation.

If you're not even going to bother with a criminal investigation, they aren't really suspects, are they?