Guns for Terrorists

kmack said:
ya, that is perfect justification for allowing them to legally purchase them in the United States. :dozey:

They are going to get them one way or another, why not let them walk into a gun store and do it legally!
Click to expand...

You are missing the point. You are asking for everyone to be restricted from gun ownership, because some terrorist somewhere may be able to purchase a firearm. You are wanting to regulate massively the civilian market to stop a category of 'suspected' terrorists however you define this, when terrorists we know thata are terrorists cannot buy guns, and how can we stop people from buying guns when we do not know they are terrorists?
 
Calanen said:
You are missing the point. You are asking for everyone to be restricted from gun ownership, because some terrorist somewhere may be able to purchase a firearm.
Click to expand...

NO, I am simply asking that people on the Federal Terrorist Watch list (not to be confused with "everybody" :dozey: ) are unable to purchase firearms using the laws which ALREADY prohibit the mentally ill, illegal immigrants, and convited felons from purchasing firearms.

Calanen said:
You are wanting to regulate massively the civilian market to stop a category of 'suspected' terrorists however you define this, when terrorists we know thata are terrorists cannot buy guns,
Click to expand...

Where do these laws "regulate massively the civilian market"? Right now they only regulate the mentally ill, convicted felons, and illegal immigrants, I am suggesting that we only add "suspected terrorists" to this list.

Calanen said:
and how can we stop people from buying guns when we do not know they are terrorists?
Click to expand...

They are on the federal terrorist watch list, we have the list for a reason. If we even suspect these people in the least, they should be stopped from purchasing firearms until any misunderstanding is cleared up. Once they are off the list, tehy can buy what they want.
 
You guys pass the Patriot Act, pre-emptively invade another country, go through a phase of running photocopied french flags under tanks in the name of patriotism and then seek to defend terrorists' rights?

good call
 
I'm not supporting the right of terrorists to buy guns, of course. Just saying it is very difficult to determine who is and who is not a terrorist.

If a person is on the terrorist watch list, which seems to get to the heart of the matter, provided there was an adequate mechanism to be removed from it, then I have no problem with them being unable to purchase a firearm.

The difficulty is moving from how one gets on the watch list, and whether being on the watch list is enough to remove a substantive right in the USA without first having a hearing to determine whether it should be lost. If I knew for a fact a person was a terrorist, I would not want them to have a water pistol. But the idea is fine in theory, but in practice it may be difficult (not impossible) to take an intel watch list and make the sole determinant of a fundamental right in the USA, ie the right to bear arms.
 
Calanen said:
The difficulty is moving from how one gets on the watch list, and whether being on the watch list is enough to remove a substantive right in the USA without first having a hearing to determine whether it should be lost. If I knew for a fact a person was a terrorist, I would not want them to have a water pistol. But the idea is fine in theory, but in practice it may be difficult (not impossible) to take an intel watch list and make the sole determinant of a fundamental right in the USA, ie the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

Completely. I agree, it's a fine line you're treading.

With a piece of legislation like the Patriot Act passed tho', it's a wonder you guys have left this hole open.
 
jondyfun said:
Completely. I agree, it's a fine line you're treading.

With a piece of legislation like the Patriot Act passed tho', it's a wonder you guys have left this hole open.
Click to expand...

The NRA owns George W. Bush.
 
1.) Due Process: You are innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around. The Gov't can't take away your right to speak your mind, throw you in jail, or restrict your right to keep and bear arms just because they "accuse" or "suspect you of something. You must be tried and convicted first, and the burden of proof is on the accuser.

Anyone can become a "suspected terrorist" in the site of the Gov't.


This is the same old, tired-out "keep guns out of the wrong hands" rutine. My views on that can be read here:

http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=76194&Disp=73


C.H.
 
I think guns and such are far too intertwined in American culture, scarily so to remove and ban just like that. Stricter measures, yes. More limits what people can and can't own, yes. Regular check ups on gun owners, yes.
 
Stay in Derby and leave our rights alone? Yes.

Oh, you know someone was going to do it. AND, it was'nt a flame. Just an honest opinion. :D
 
K e r b e r o s said:
Soon you'll also be swearing for us to change our currency to the Euro. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.
Click to expand...

it'd be nice, seeing as its worth more than our pitiful dollar.
 
Scoobnfl said:
100% outright LIE.
Click to expand...

The federal law banning the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons, known as the federal assault weapons ban, was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. President Clinton signed it into law on September 13, 1994.

However, the assault weapons ban will expire ("sunset") in September 2004 unless Congress and President George W. Bush renew it. That means that AK47s and other semi-automatic assault weapons could begin flooding our streets again, as the weapons of choice of gang members, drug dealers and other dangerous criminals.

Guess what, it expired.

100% outright truth
 
jondyfun said:
I'd say it's more of a symbiotic relationship :)
Click to expand...

like flys on sh*t.

*edit* this is in reference to how the NRA owns Prez Bush.
 
The federal law banning the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons, known as the federal assault weapons ban, was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. President Clinton signed it into law on September 13, 1994.

However, the assault weapons ban will expire ("sunset") in September 2004 unless Congress and President George W. Bush renew it. That means that AK47s and other semi-automatic assault weapons could begin flooding our streets again, as the weapons of choice of gang members, drug dealers and other dangerous criminals.

Guess what, it expired.

100% outright truth

1.) First, it is a good thing that law expired. "The second amendment has as much to do with hunting/recreation/sporting, as the first amendment has to do with playing scrabble."

2.) The term "Assault Weapon" is a political term to desribe guns with ugly cosmetic designs. The AssaultWeaponBanof94 was symbolic because it sought to ban the further production of weapons that LOOKED like military Assault Rifles. An Assault Rifle, a true assault-weapon, is fully automatic/select-fire, and unfortunately they have been heavily restricted in this country since 1934.

The AWB94 outlawed the further PRODUCTION of certain semi-auto weapons with particular features, not their ownership. If anything, it increased the ownership, because in the weeks before the ban went into effect, people were rushing out to buy them before they couldn't get more, and the gun companys shot up their production of normal-capacity ammo magizines.

3.) The guy said "In fact, recently, bush has supported the end to the ban on automatic weapons"

If by "Automatic" he was refering to full-auto/select-fire "Machine Guns"(True assault rifles), then he is mistaken or lying(Since the ban had nothing to do with those guns). Also, there is another mistaken/lying part to what he said. He said bush supported the expiration of the ban...no he didn't, if the ban had reached Shrub's desk, he said he would sign it.

4.) The term "On the streets" is a term used by anti-gunners to describe any weapon that is in circulation or in ownership without the government's knowledge.

5.) And as for being the "weapon of choice for gang members, drug-dealers, ect..", that is demonization. I beleive their weapon of choice, what they most use, are handguns. And another thing, we have the 2ndAmd for the purpose of defence, not "sporting". The term "Sporting purposes" got introduced into our law system in the Gun Control Act of 1968...and that law was brought over from Nuremburg, Germenay(The Nazi Gun Control Act of 1932).


C.H.
 
ChareltonHest said:
1.) Due Process: You are innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around. The Gov't can't take away your right to speak your mind, throw you in jail, or restrict your right to keep and bear arms just because they "accuse" or "suspect you of something. You must be tried and convicted first, and the burden of proof is on the accuser.

Anyone can become a "suspected terrorist" in the site of the Gov't.


C.H.
Click to expand...

Well, we already have federal laws to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Are they guilty of something? NO, they should be innocent until proven guilty and given guns!

the NRA is a key example of how disgusting our country is, I am ashamed that it is such a powerful organization.

K.M. :LOL:
 
the NRA is a key example of how disgusting our country is, I am ashamed that it is such a powerful organization.

The NRA is 4,000,000 people that band together for a cause. The NRA's power is its 4,000,000 members. How many members does the Brady Campaign to Iradicate Firearm Ownership have?

Also, I am not an NRA member. I think they are a little to moderate, and compromise to much. Heston himself accutaly said that people should not be ALLOWED to own an AK-47! I am a GOA/JPFO/KABA member.

And if you are curious about how I got my "handle", it was back playing DeltaForce. I don't nessesarily agree with all of Charlton Heston's politics.


Well, we already have federal laws to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Are they guilty of something? NO, they should be innocent until proven guilty and given guns!

If someone abuses their right, they can be punished by having rights restricted. Not before. No one should have to give up their anonimity when purchasing a firearm. That is dangerious, because of the threat of getting put on a list...like a gov't gun-registration list. Read the link I posted for more info about "keeping guns out of the 'wrong hands'"...

http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/read...194&Disp=73#C73

You live in this country?? What a shame. I figured you'd like to live in a gun-free utopia....like Britian.


C.H.
 
One loophole on the whole ban thing as I understand it was, that it applied only to guns made after a certain date. Whenever that was, id be guessing but say it was 88. If you get an M-16 frame from 87, re-fit it with new barrel, stock, mags, firing mechanism, is it still a pre-assault weapon gun? I don't know. But still there were plenty of the older guns doing the rounds. And certainly the Kalishnikov family, can live forever pretty much.
 
ChareltonHest said:
the NRA is a key example of how disgusting our country is, I am ashamed that it is such a powerful organization.

The NRA is 4,000,000 people that band together for a cause. The NRA's power is its 4,000,000 members. How many members does the Brady Campaign to Iradicate Firearm Ownership have?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. No doubt the KKK had a shitload more members when segregation was legal.
 
If he turned out to be innocent and we had violated his precious rights everyone would be whining.

If they let him have the gun, everyone is whining.

They can't win.

Innocent until proven guilty, unless it can make the current administration look bad.




And it seems some of you even really know what the assualt weapon ban is anyway, You cant run around with fully automatic weapons because we dont have one.

A semi auto rifle that has more than one of these is considered an assault weapon.

* Folding/telescoping stock
* Protruding pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor

So I can buy an m4 legally, but the minute I slap a folding stock on it im in trouble.
 
the NRA is a key example of how disgusting our country is, I am ashamed that it is such a powerful organization.
Click to expand...

Think of the repercussions if such an organization fell. Not only would you soon loose the right to have a gun for protection, but then you'd also soon loose your ability to defend yourself efficiently from robbers and homicid(ers).
 
Being mentally ill, means that you are mentally incompetent of possessing and using a firearm, which is of course a prerequisite to any1 having a gun. Guns for the mentally ill! Is not a cry we are likely to hear. In the same way mental illness can preclude you from owning a car, so it can from having a gun. That said, mental illness is way understood, and most people believe that being depressed is the same thing as being a schizophrenic or psychotic. They are clearly not. Whereas if someone were to be depressed when a family member dies or they lose their job, its a very different thing than if a person is psychotic.

On the other hand, purchasing a firearm and being considered a suspected terrorist, raises some questions. Who goes on terrorist watch lists - and on what basis are these people put there? I know they need intel watch lists, but to remove a persons substantive rights on suspicion is not good enough. I heard a story of a nun who was placed on the FBI's 'No Fly' list which means she cannot board an aircraft - the reason? she was arrested aat an anti-vietnam war rally in the 60s. For a long time those who had similar names to terrorists were also on no Fly lists, you had no right of appeal, no1 to to turn to. This should not happen. The same with any terrorist watch list. It has to be properly overseen.
 
K e r b e r o s said:
Think of the repercussions if such an organization fell. Not only would you soon loose the right to have a gun for protection, but then you'd also soon loose your ability to defend yourself efficiently from robbers and homicid(ers).
Click to expand...

yes, i'll be sure to look out for homiciders. Or as i like to call em gunshooterers, or maybe murderers :rolling:

The NRA's dissolving will not destroy the second ammendment, it will destroy the ridiculous laws they lobby for.
 
Being mentally ill, means that you are mentally incompetent of possessing and using a firearm, which is of course a prerequisite to any1 having a gun. Guns for the mentally ill! Is not a cry we are likely to hear. In the same way mental illness can preclude you from owning a car, so it can from having a gun. That said, mental illness is way understood, and most people believe that being depressed is the same thing as being a schizophrenic or psychotic. They are clearly not. Whereas if someone were to be depressed when a family member dies or they lose their job, its a very different thing than if a person is psychotic.

There's always a danger when goverments decide to restrict rights based the creation of a catogory of people that they deem "mentaly unfit". Bush lately wanted all kids born in the US to undergo mandatory mental-health screening. What if you are deemed "irrelvent" when it comes to your point of view, or having rights restricted, because your are declared "menatly unfit" on some goverment bereaucrat's computer list somewhere. This is dangerious.

George Washington said the that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." I wouldn't want them deciding who is "mental ill" or not; it is not Gov't's function. In Soviet Union I beleive people were decided to be mentaly ill because they disagreed with communism...since communism was just sooo great and all, you'd have to be a ill to think down on it. (sarcasm)

And when it comes to guns in society, there is no doubt that there are people that shouldn't have them. It would be stupid to think otherwise. However, when we go about creating catagorys of people who should not have firearms and try to make laws to "keep guns out of the wrong hands" is when we run to into trouble because of the likelyhood of Gov't Abuse.

Because such laws are designed to get guns out the law-abiding's hands, and criminals get their guns anyway. So, as the restrictions progress to a point where all guns are registered, and then confiscated(that is the agenda BTW), you end up with a society where the 2 worst group of thugs have the monopoly on firepower: The Gov't and the the street thug. Each group then has a victim-saturated enviroment of "law-abiding", and thus disarmed, people to act freely upon.

Also, keep in mind that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was a restriction on Gov't...

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed..." -Noah Webster

Here is the US, and around the world, the militarization of Police is slowly becoming that "standing army" when you think about. They build up their firepower, while demanding the "pesants"(us) be disarmed. Police are now starting to out-gun the people and that isn't right.

People who think the concept behind the 2ndAmd -the idea of having an armed population acts as a barrier against tyranny and abuse- is outdated, are mistaken.

There is only one reason one group would want another disarmed: That is for the sake of control.

Back after the Civil War, "Jim Crow Laws" kept blacks from owning firearms. This made it easier for for them to be supressed through being coerced. Though at one point back, one black man lead what was known as the "Monroe branch" of the NAACP. He was sick of KKK raids, and he and others took up arms and defended against them.

No free man should be deprived of the use of arms. And the very fact that their is a movement in this country to disarm people shows that their will be a day where it will be needed...for why else would they want us disarmed?

In Nazi Germany, gun-control laws had disarmed the population. Same as in Soviet Russia. Gun Confiscation has been a prerequisit to Gov't Abuse and sometimes genocide. Hitler was able to demonize a portion of society to a point till he was able to "deal" with them...that portion of society was the Jews and we know how he "dealt" with them. And what about that portion of society, what do they do? They were helpless; they were disarmed first.

Heck, it can happen anywhere. It happend here in the US, though not on a such a grand scale as in Germany. This Gov't was able to demonize a group to the point where most people were mislead into thinking "they had it coming" when the Gov't targeted them for destruction: Think of "Wounded Knee" or "Waco". I don't know much about Wounded Knee, but I know a heck of alot about Waco. Feal free to ask.

"The beuity of the 2nd Amendment is that it will never realy be needed until they try to take it away."

"When they say you don't need it, is when you realy need it."

Or as it is put in on of my favorite quotes:

"Fortunately, our Founders saw the wisdom of backing the First Amendment up with the Second. The 'divisions' of the army of American constitutional liberty get into their cars and drive to work in this country every day to jobs that are hardly military in nature. Most of them are unmindful of the service they provide. Their arms depots may be found in innumerable closets, gunracks and gunsafes. They have no appointed officers, nor will they need any until they are mobilized by events. Such guardians of our liberty perform this service merely by existing." -Mike Vanderboegh

The problem with setting up proceedures to "keep guns out of the wrong hands" by means of things like "Background Checks" are dangerious for several reasons.

1.) They treat a Right as if it were a privilidge. Rights are God-given or "self evident". You don't not seek PERMITion to excersize them. You should not have to ask anyone, especialy not the Gov't, if you may use it.

2.) Guilty until proven innocent. That isn't right. It is not right that you have to prove yourself to the Gov't in able to excersize your right. It doesn't work that way in a free society. You have to be proven not worthy to have a right...judged, tried, and then you can have your rights restricted.

3.) The risk of "Gun Registration". Gun Registration is the proccess of where gun-owners are put on a list so the agents of the goverment will know where to go to confiscate them. Gun Registration always, always, always leads to gun-confiscation.

Here in the US we have had a law in effect since 1968 that requires all Federaly Lisceansed Dealers(FFLs) to keep records(4473 froms) of all gun sales and those who buy them. It was this regulation that was the steping-stone on wich the NICS(National Instant Check System) was passed.

We need to relize that these laws serve one purpose: To effect the law-abiding and go after their guns, while the street-thug/common-criminal get their weapons anyway with no respect for the law. These laws are part of an agenda of disarmerment for the sake of control. They do not stop crime, they often make it worse...as I pointed out above.

I would like to see people like the NRA work to repeal these laws. Less crime, more freedom.

Thank you.


C.H.
 
As i posted before 70,000 - 80,000 people in Canada defend themselves from violence using guns. In the USA it is approximately 1 million people per year.

Thats a lot of people who would be dead or injured if you took their guns away from them. A lot more than the amount that are killed from gun accidents.
 
kmack said:
The federal law banning the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons, known as the federal assault weapons ban, was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. President Clinton signed it into law on September 13, 1994.

However, the assault weapons ban will expire ("sunset") in September 2004 unless Congress and President George W. Bush renew it. That means that AK47s and other semi-automatic assault weapons could begin flooding our streets again, as the weapons of choice of gang members, drug dealers and other dangerous criminals.

Guess what, it expired.

100% outright truth
Click to expand...





kmack said:
Originally Posted by kmack
In fact, recently, bush has supported the end to the ban on automatic weapons
Click to expand...

1 is true and 1 is a lie. you can't state a lie then state the truth and claim that you didn't lie.
 
Calanen said:
As i posted before 70,000 - 80,000 people in Canada defend themselves from violence using guns. In the USA it is approximately 1 million people per year.

Thats a lot of people who would be dead or injured if you took their guns away from them. A lot more than the amount that are killed from gun accidents.
Click to expand...


so you're saying 70,000 to 80,000 incidents occur where the only saving grace was that they had firearms? please ...source
 
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=74389&page=10&pp=15&highlight=land+milk+honey

I already posted the source Stern, and you put a post about two posts below the thread that had the source in it...I'm not your secretary. So Im only going to post a direction to a source *twice* this one and only time if it relates to a comment from a recent thread. I assume that if you post a reply in a thread, to what I say, that you have in fact read what I said and can remember that i said it, at least for a couple of days.

If it was a few years ago rather than a few days ago - I'd be a little more understanding.
 
Even if the terrorist was on a visa, a watchlist .. anything like that... Guns can still be purchased in dead end streets.. gun shows... all without a second though by anyone.

Hell, I could go downtown and illegally buy a gun right now.. It's as easy as buying drugs.

That my friends, is where the crack in the system is - how we fix it, I don't know.
 
Calanen said:
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=74389&page=10&pp=15&highlight=land+milk+honey

I already posted the source Stern, and you put a post about two posts below the thread that had the source in it...I'm not your secretary. So Im only going to post a direction to a source *twice* this one and only time if it relates to a comment from a recent thread. I assume that if you post a reply in a thread, to what I say, that you have in fact read what I said and can remember that i said it, at least for a couple of days.

If it was a few years ago rather than a few days ago - I'd be a little more understanding.
Click to expand...


oh my god you cant be serious ...did you even read what you posted as your source?

"Canadians report using firearms to protect
themselves between 60,000 and 80,000 times per year from dangerous people or animals. More
importantly, between 19,000 and 37,500 of these incidents involve defense against human threats.


canadians have more of a chance of being attacked by an animal than a human :LOL:
 
So what - people used guns for self defence from humans and animals? Big deal. I don't know why u think thats a coup stern. And yes i did read it. Did you?

The statistics don't show that Canadians have more of a chance of being attacked by an animal than a human. They show that in a confrontation with an animal, they are more likely to use guns to defend themselves. Many other human confrontations, the victim has no gun, gets killed and is not represented as defending anything.

The article just shows, that a lot of people defend themselves with firearms, a hell of a lot of people. Whether from animals, aliens, or barney the dinosaur. And if you take those guns away from people, they would be seriously injured or killed.
 
ya I'm sure moose tramplings would rise exponentially

"watch out! there's a rabid squirrel! grab your gun before it kills us both!!!!"
 
Actually... the moose can be a very vicious animal... I know someone who could tell you about it.. it wasn't pretty... it could kill you without a second thought.

Best not joke about it.
 
ever seen a moose? I have many times ..on a few occasions they were not more than 10 feet away from me. they're gentle creatures till you threaten them in some way
 
They do attack people.. and it has happened to a buddy of mine. and no stern, he did not threaten to kill the moose.
 
I'm sure they do but we dont have to arm ourselves in order to be safe from Moose stampedes

btw ..out of curiosity ..how would a moose know when a person is trying to kill them? are you suggesting they know what a gun is? I meant threaten as in you get to close to their home or young
 
ever seen a moose? I have many times ..on a few occasions they were not more than 10 feet away from me. they're gentle creatures till you threaten them in some way
Click to expand...

I thought I read somewhere that moose kill more people in Canada then any other wild animal. Maybe I saw it on the discovery channel or something. Anyone else remember that?

BTW, Moose are generally regarded as vicious and ill-tempered. I have heard them regarded as one of the few wild animals that will kill for "pleasure" (being defined as the action is not for self-preservation or sustinance).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Omnomnick
The International 2015 Final to be Broadcast in Cinemas
Replies
0
Views
2K
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
katsung47
Ron Paul Defends Russia After Malaysian Plane Crash
Replies
0
Views
3K
katsung47
katsung47
Omnomnick
CS:GO Update Introduces Stickers + Overpass & Cobblestone Maps
Replies
14
Views
7K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
bluechirri
What do you want to see in L4D3?
Replies
14
Views
5K
TheWiktor
TheWiktor
Back
Top