NYT: Terror Suspects Buying Firearms, U.S. Report Finds(Legally US)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/national/08terror.html?ei=5094&en=8df93e46cb9fdf0e&hp=&ex=1110258000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&position=

Dozens of terror suspects on federal watch lists were allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States last year, according to a Congressional investigation that points up major vulnerabilities in federal gun laws.

People suspected of being members of a terrorist group are not automatically barred from legally buying a gun, and the investigation, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, indicated that people with clear links to terrorist groups had regularly taken advantage of this gap.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, law enforcement officials and gun control groups have voiced increasing concern about the prospect of a terrorist walking into a gun shop, legally buying an assault rifle or other type of weapon, and using it in an attack.

The G.A.O. study offers the first full-scale examination of the possible dangers posed by gaps in the law, Congressional officials said, and it concludes that the Federal Bureau of Investigation could "better manage" its gun-buying records in matching them against lists of suspected terrorists.

F.B.I. officials maintain that they are hamstrung by laws and policies restricting the use of gun-buying records because of concerns over the privacy rights of gun owners.

[slackmaster]

1. Replace "terrorist" with "criminal"

Gee, a person who is accused of a crime but hasn't been indicted or jailed can buy a gun. So what?

People suspected of being members of a terrorist group are not automatically barred from legally buying a gun, and the investigation, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, indicated that people with clear links to terrorist groups had regularly taken advantage of this gap.

What "gap" is that? The one that says a person is innocent until proved guilty of a crime? The one that says merely being suspected of a crime is not grounds for depriving a person of civil rights? Or the one about the freedom of association? How does one "automatically" bar a criminal suspect from buying a gun without making all other rights subject to arbitrary denial?

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, law enforcement officials and gun control groups have voiced increasing concern about the prospect of a terrorist walking into a gun shop, legally buying an assault rifle or other type of weapon, and using it in an attack.

Bull Shit.

Nobody can walk into a gun shop and buy an assault rifle. Real military selective-fire assault rifles are regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934. Buying one involves a lot of paperwork, money, a federal background check, signoff from your local chief law enforcement officer, and months of waiting. Assault rifles that are bought legally are registered with the BATFE. A wannabe terrorist or criminal who wants an assault rifle is NOT going to buy it through legal channels.

If people being able to buy guns bothers you to the point where you don't see that this could lead to a curtailment of real rights, substutute "be tried by a jury of his or her peers" or "not be subject to warrantless searches" for "buy a gun".

F.B.I. officials maintain that they are hamstrung by laws and policies restricting the use of gun-buying records because of concerns over the privacy rights of gun owners.

Police work is tough. But if someone is suspected of being a terrorist, if they really are thought to pose a threat to society, the FBI should be watching their every move and tapping their phones already.

[MrBenchley]

31. Wow...what a spurious argument

"If people being able to buy guns bothers you to the point where you don't see that this could lead to a curtailment of real rights, substutute "be tried by a jury of his or her peers" or "not be subject to warrantless searches" for "buy a gun"."
Yeah, and the papers are just full of drive-by jury trials.

[alwynsw]

64. I am impressed

Not one single asswipe, jeans creaming, fetishist, small penis, pantload, steaming pantload, or other vulgar reference in that post. Not even a riiiiiight.

I'm actually pleasantly surprised

[Lindacooks]

96. That's laughable.

If you're comparing the 'right' to own a gun to trial by jury, you're comparing apples and starfish. I'm afraid your 'slippery slope' argument is full of potholes.

[Forever Free]

2. The irony is almost too funny

Until you realize what a grave security threat this acutally poses. When will the right-wingers listen to reason?

[slackmaster]

3. "Terrorists" are the new Bogeymen

Several years ago it was child pornographers and pedophiles. Before that it was drug dealers.

The real irony is that some people still don't recognize demagoguery when it's right in front of their faces.

[AuntiBush]

95. You placed "right-wingers" and "reason" in 1 sentence.

Now, that is true irony. Agreed!

:kick:

[jody]

4. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) is a civil right

and someone wants to deny an American citizen that right just because someone in the Bush administration or another administration puts their name on a federal watch list?

Why not deny them the right to vote, drive cars, or walk on the streets?

Why not just let Bush put anyone's name on a watch list, then lock them up forever without judicial review?

[bemildred]

6. Constitutional amendments are only advisory, didn't you know?

All rights are provisional, almost like state controlled privileges.
Welcome to BushAmerica(tm).

[jody]

9. Provisional right? Sorry but the right to defend self is

a natural, inherent, inalienable right in many states. Moreover governments are not obligated to protect an individual.

Firearms are the most effective, efficient tool for self defense and that's why RKBA is a very important civil right.

[bemildred]

13. Pardon me Sir, my mistake. nt

[MrBenchley]

32. Not even close to true...

Every court ruling on the subject finds the Second Amendment confers the collective right of states to have a well regulated militia.

The closest thing there is to an exception is the Emerson case, which the most right wing court in the country found did NOT involve the Second Amendment (and still took away his guns). There, a few nutcases shoehorned reams of NRA propaganda into an addendum to their decision.

[bonito]

5. getting "s" at the airport

and then bying a gun, thats the data there talking about! its bushit for everone to see!

[jpak]

7. Why go to a gun shop

Go to a gun show with a wad of cash and you can get ANYTHING you want - no questions asked.

[slackmaster]

8. I must be going to the wrong shows

Nobody has ever offered to sell me an illegal firearm at a gun show.

[jpak]

16. Did I say illegal???

Nope.

At the last gun show I attended (last April)- 80% of the weapons for sale and most of the accessories were for military-style weapons or high-power handguns.

30 years ago you never saw anything like that - most of the guns for sale were hunting rifles and shotguns.

And you could buy every right-wing nut-case bumper sticker, t-shirt or book you could imagine - like the Turner Diaries.

I saw one Canadian guy walk out with 2 Uzis and a Thompson.

There were at least five .50 caliber sniper rifles for sale.

and every imaginable variation of the AK and US .223 and European .308 military rifles.

and an M-60 machine gun with thousands of rounds of ammo to go with it.

and everyone there (except me) was fundy freeper nut job.

It was some fucking scary shit...

[slackmaster]

19. A few comments

80% of the weapons for sale and most of the accessories were for military-style weapons or high-power handguns.

Military-"style" is not the same as military. It seems to me that the increased interest in civilian semiautomatic copies of military weapons really started with the idiotic federal "assault weapons" ban in 1994. A classic unintended consequence of prohibition that happens every time, but people still haven't gotten a clue.

And you could buy every right-wing nut-case bumper sticker, t-shirt or book you could imagine - like the Turner Diaries.

Freedom of speech can be a scary thing.

I saw one Canadian guy walk out with 2 Uzis and a Thompson.

You saw someone who was probably a legal US resident and a gun collector walk out with two semiautomatic Uzis and a semiautomatic Thompson that would be exceedingly difficult or impossible for him to buy in his own country. Good for him. Neither of those are particularly suitable for a mass murder. They shoot pistol ammunition one round at a time. Canadians are our friends, eh?

There were at least five .50 caliber sniper rifles for sale.

You saw some target rifles that were being offered for sale for thousands of dollars. Big freaking deal. No .50 caliber rifle has ever been used in a terrorist attack.

and every imaginable variation of the AK and US .223 and European .308 military rifles.

You saw some semiautomatic copies of military rifles.

and an M-60 machine gun with thousands of rounds of ammo to go with it.

No, you saw someone buy a very expensive SEMIautomatic .308 caliber belt-fed rifle built from an M60 parts kit. Nobody can buy a machine gun and walk out with it the same day, assuming we're still talking about legal weapons.

and everyone there (except me) was fundy freeper nut job.

It was some fucking scary shit...

Back during the Reagan years I had a t-shirt with a picture of RR flipping the bird. The caption said "I ain't afraid of no actor." I feel the same way about fundies and freepers and nut jobs in general.

BTW - Nothing you described was not available 30 years ago. If you go back before 1968 most of it could have been bought by mail order with no questions asked.

[alwynsw]

66. Ain't that the truth!

BTW - Nothing you described was not available 30 years ago. If you go back before 1968 most of it could have been bought by mail order with no questions asked.

I still have comic books in the attic with ads for mail order milsurp rifles for as little as $8.00 - plus shipping (postage). had to go through the mail. UPS, Fed EX, etc. weren't around back then.

[alwynsw]

65. We must have gone to different shows 30 years ago.

Most of the items offered for sale at every gun show I've attended since around 1965 have been either milsurp, milspec, or copies.

Please stop implying that one can just walk right up with the proper amount of cash and buy a select fire or full auto firearm. Can't even do that legally between private individuals without the requisite Federal investigation, license, and the $200.00 for the license.

I saw one Canadian guy walk out with 2 Uzis and a Thompson.

Had to be semi-auto versions. I also question whether he was, in fact, a Canadian citizen. Something about the Brady bill and GCA of '68 is stirring in the back of my mind on that one.

There were at least five .50 caliber sniper rifles for sale.

Sniper rifles? You either support or have been by Sarah and her pals at the VPC. Shame on you for using catch phrases coined by those who would limit our freedoms.

[doc03]

40. You must be. The ones I have gone to all an individual has

to do is be checked in and carry your gun around and you will get offers. Yes, the dealers must sell the gun by the law but you can purchase a gun from an individual with no checks. Don't get me wrong I support the right to bear arms myself. That is why people go to gun shows to buy and sell guns under the table.

[slackmaster]

53. It's a state law thing - I live in California

I live in California. Private sales of used firearms have to go through a dealer.

I've bought two guns from private parties so far this year. $45 in fees plus a 10-day wait for each one. That's why I'm getting a federal curio and relic collector's license. I'll be able to buy C&R long guns and have them mailed directly to me. No California sales tax, no dealer fees or markups, no wait.

[jody]

10. What proof do you offer for your assertion about buying "ANYTHING

you want -no questions asked" at a gun show?

[MrBenchley]

34. Gee, jody...you mean you don't know that's true?

You should look at the record of the hearings Chuck Schumer held a few years ago.

[alwynsw]

67. Nice try.

your odds of finding a weapon to purchase illegally are far better in an alley in Newark than at any gun show.

[MrBenchley]

84. Go ahead and lurk in the alleys, alwyns...

alleys and gutters are where one would expect to find "gun rights" supporters....

[alwynsw]

92. Move over.

I need room to draw.

edited to add: Or you could stand to my left. I'm right-handed.

[NickB79]

11. Yeah, except for those pesky background checks

Yes, they do carry out background checks at gunshows. What gunshow was this where you saw illegal weapons being sold without background checks?

[tuvor]

18. What guaranteed good is a background check?

Just an ignorant Canadian wondering.

[slackmaster]

20. They stop people most likely to commit a violent crime from buying guns

Most violent criminals are repeat offenders. People who have never committed a violent crime in the past only rarely do so in the future.

There are no absolute guarantees in life.

[RamboLiberal]

24. Not all states require background check at gun shows

if it's a private seller. Can't address the illegal weapons.

[NickB79]

26. Virtually no private sellers sell at gunshows anymore

At least not in the Midwest, anyways. Most gunshows nowadays won't even let you rent a space to sell guns unless you have an FFL. And if you do have an FFL, you are obligated by federal law to carry out a background check. Besides, most private sellers are simply hunters looking to get some cash for their used duck gun or deer rifle, not an AR-15 or AK clone.

[RamboLiberal]

35. In PA I see individual sellers walking around the gun show

with the gun they want to sell over their shoulder and a for sell stuck in the muzzle. But at least I think in PA they have to do the background check at the gun show. ATF has people there to do that.

[slackmaster]

36. Situation is similar in California

Unlicenced individuals cannot have booths at gun shows. A few people walk around with a long gun or two for sale. All transfers must be done through a licensed dealer, or to a licensed person.

[doc03]

42. In Ohio you just pay cash to the individual and that's it. I have

sold a gun myself at a gun show. A person could walk in there with a Bin Laden T-shirt on and walk out with a gun no questions asked.

[slackmaster]

50. If I lived there I wouldn't sell a gun to someone with a Bin Laden t-shirt

Unless it had crosshairs superimposed over Bin Laden's face.

But that's just me.

[jpak]

72. Gun show background checks are a fucking joke

The cops at the door don't care if you're a felon - all they care about is whether you are carrying a gun into the show.

You can lie like crazy to the dealers - they don't care either.

How long does the BATF keep those records????? Then what happens to them after that????.

My parents have a neighbor who got sent up on a felony narcotics rap - spent 5 years in prison.

I run into him all the time during hunting season - he's got a .308 and 2 double-barrel shot guns (12 and 20-gauge).

I asked him where he got them - he said "a gun show in Lewiston (ME)".

Why do I go to gun shows????

Cuz they're the cheapest freakshow in town...

[alwynsw]

73. Whoa!

You can lie like crazy to the dealers - they don't care either.

They may not care, but the NCIS floks do. No pass, no buy from a licensed dealer. Face to face transfers are another animal. background (NCIS) check requirements vary from state to state. It's also illegal for a private individual to sell to one legally barred from owning firearms.

How long does the BATF keep those records????? Then what happens to them after that????.

The NCIS record is supposed to disappear after 24 hours. The approval and 4473 is to be held by licensed dealers forever.

[jpak]

75. Yeah right - the asshole that sold the DC sniper his Bushmaster

kept REAL good records.

read it and weep...

http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/stbullseye.htm

<snip>

The Bushmaster XM15 had been prominently displayed last summer at Bull's Eye. Next thing Borgelt knew, federal agents were swooping in, seeking the federal sales record that would show who bought the laser-scoped rifle.

Borgelt had no sales record. Nor could he produce records for scores of other missing guns.

<more>

Like I said - a fucking joke...

[slackmaster]

77. One bad gun dealer doesn't characterize all gun dealers

What you are suggesting is like saying because John Wayne Gacy was a homicidal pedophile clown that all Democrats are homocidal pedophile clowns.

[jpak]

78. Did you read the article???

guess not...

[slackmaster]

79. Yes I read it, and I've seen it before

A large majority of gun dealers are honest and keep scrupulous records. I've dealt with many of them in my life. I've seen one flaky one run afoul of the law. He's facing prison time now.

[alwynsw]

80. Before you start; yes, I have read it and several others.

One bad dealer - yes, I'm sure there are others - who both is and will be paying the price for his improper activities, is not cause to punish all other legal dealers and their current and future customers.

Although the theft should have been reported, you conveniently fail to mention that Malvo claimed to have stolen the rifle.

You also fail to mention this part of the same article:

Long before last fall's sniper slayings, Bull's Eye was among a minuscule group of problem gun dealers that, willingly or not, "supply the suppliers" who funnel guns to the nation's criminals, the ATF says. Studies show about 1 percent of gun stores sell the weapons traced to 57 percent of gun crimes.

Odd that you see only the parts that support your misguided position.

[slackmaster]

88. I guess you've never been to one in California

The experience of buying a gun at a California gun show is almost identical to buying one at a gun store.

Just one small difference: If the seller's place of business is not close to the buyer's home, the gun gets handed to another dealer whose place of business is nearby. That transfer agent charges the buyer a small extra fee, and initiates the actual background check.

Why do I go to gun shows????

Cuz they're the cheapest freakshow in town...

Birds of a feather, eh jpak? :D

[Jester_11218]

12. Did anyone in Congress...

Did any member of Congress watch Bowling for Columbine?

Is Michael Moore the only source of information in this country?

[alwynsw]

68. Had they watched it and had any clue about gun laws

they would either have ignored his implications about how easy it is to get a firearm, especially an interstate deal such as the bank, or notified the authorities in NYC about his purported possession of a firearm in that city without the requisite permits.

The misdirection about firearms and firearms laws in that film is outrageous.

[applegrove]

14. Hello!

[billbuckhead]

15. Tim McVeigh said he rather would have used a sniper rifle than a bomb

:nuke: Why the surprise that America's weak gun regulation is a terrorist's friend?

[slackmaster]

22. Then why didn't he use a sniper rifle?

He surely could have acquired one if he really wanted to.

:shrug:

[billbuckhead]

44. McVeigh said he changed his mind

Guns could kill the exact people McVeigh wanted vs using bombs that killed pretty much indiscriminately.

[slackmaster]

54. If he changed his mind, then he actually preferred to use a bomb

:dunce:

[slackmaster]

21. The wine glass is half full

n/t

[applegrove]

39. What does that mean? n/t

[slackmaster]

59. Hello!

:nuke:

[tuvor]

17. SIGN THE PETITION

As BuzzFlash says, "NRA Threatens Americans Because They Support Laws Allowing Terrorists to Buy Guns"

http://www.50caliberterror.com/index2.html

[slackmaster]

23. The site looks like a parody

But it's really more demagoguery ahd hysteria from the Violence Policy Center.

[tuvor]

25. How did they get that reputation?

I just see a group that wants everyone to think differently about guns.

[slackmaster]

29. Hyperbolic claims about .50 caliber capabilities

Their descriptions of the rifles' power and suitability for "terrorist" acts are way over the top.

just see a group that wants everyone to think differently about guns.

I see one more in a long series of fronts for a group that seeks to perpetuate itself by frightening people into sending it money - the Violence Policy Center.

[NickB79]

27. 50caliberterror.com?

I can only think of ONE instance where a .50 BMG was used by a terrorist, and that was in Northern Ireland, if I remember correctly. Don't forget that the .50 BMG has been around since WWI, almost 90 yrs! Almost 90 yrs with one instance of a terrorist using it to shoot someone?

BTW, if anyone thinks that someone can walk into a gun store, buy a .50-caliber rifle and some ammo, and go out and shoot someone at 1000 yards with ease, then they have obviously been watching far too much TV. US military snipers fire THOUSANDS of rounds of ammo before they become proficient enough to hit targets at long range. Each one of these rounds costs $2-$4 each! The guns alone cost thousands of dollars.

The idea of a terrorist cell buying a gun for thousands of dollars, a high-quality scope for a thousand more (cheap scopes will be shaken to pieces by the recoil), and a few thousand dollars of ammo to practice with, and then actually finding a place that lets them fire at long range with a .50 BMG weekly for a year of practice, is mind-boggling.

[MrBenchley]

33. Good thing Osama's not a billionaire, or anything...oops!

"BTW, if anyone thinks that someone can walk into a gun store, buy a .50-caliber rifle and some ammo, and go out and shoot someone at 1000 yards with ease, then they have obviously been watching far too much TV."
However, I'd be willing to bet anyone can pick up one of these obscene toys and hit a tagret the size of a propane tank or chemical refinery on the first or second shot. Good thing the gun industry and the GOP makes it easy to do so.

[NickB79]

37. Really? You think they're that easy to shoot?

What range are you talking about? 50 yds? 100 yds? Or do you really believe you could hit a propane tank at 1000 yds on your second shot? They are NOT easy to shoot accurately at long ranges. If you've ever looked at an object 600-1000 yds away, you would know that even through a scope it looks tiny. Then you have to take into account bullet drop at those ranges. I just ran the ballistics of a .50 BMG load through a ballistics program I have on my computer. When zeroed at 250 yds, the bullet will drop almost 20 FEET at 1000 yds. Even at 600 yds it drops 5 feet, more than enough to miss a propane-tank-sized target. These are skills that take much training and practice to refine, even with a big, bad, unstoppable .50-caliber rifle.

You also miss the point that, inside 200 yds or so, any old .30-06 bolt-action deer rifle loaded with mil-surplus armor-piercing rounds (which can be found for far less than $2/round) will penetrate most targets. It also has far less recoil and is far more accessible, making it easier to shoot well. The only benefit of shooting a .50 BMG is for hitting vehicle-sized targets at long range, or very heavily armored targets.

[MrBenchley]

38. Yeah, I do...

"I just ran the ballistics of a .50 BMG load through a ballistics program I have on my computer. When zeroed at 250 yds, the bullet will drop almost 20 FEET at 1000 yds."
Good thing that sort of crap isn't readily available to anyone who hangs around a gun show...oops.

"inside 200 yds or so, any old .30-06 bolt-action deer rifle loaded with mil-surplus armor-piercing rounds (which can be found for far less than $2/round) will penetrate most targets."
Of course, within 200 yards any terrorist would be visible....by the way, swell logic there...because other guns are also a public menace, we ought to allow even MORE dangerous guns on the market.

[NickB79]

43. No comments on long-range shooting skills?

I asked you at what range you thought an untrained sniper could easily hit a target with 1-2 shots with a .50 BMG. Since you stated that within 200 yds a terrorist would be visible, I assume you mean that someone with minimal training could hit a target past 200 yds? Have you ever fired a .50 BMG? The largest rifle I have ever fired was a .338-caliber bear rifle, and it took me 5 shots to hit a 3ft x 3ft square piece of paper at 100 yds, simply due to the massive recoil. With my .223 Rem and it's light recoil, I can hit soda cans at 100 yds, so I had some basic firearms skills before shooting that gun. Again, to think that someone could hit even a relatively large target at 600+ yds without sufficient training is ludicrious. Why does the military throw all this money away on ammo training soldiers when these guns are so easy to shoot accurately?

"Good thing that sort of crap isn't readily available to anyone who hangs around a gun show...oops."

While ballistics programs are wonderful tools for getting a rough idea of how bullets should behave under ideal circumstances, they are not perfect. Judging something to be 900 yds, when it was really 950 yds, would put you low by 3 feet. You also don't take into account wind drift. At 1000 yds, a bullet from a .50 BMG would drift almost 4 feet off target in a 10 mph crosswind. Of course, in the real world winds are always changing speed and direction, making it even more difficult to hit targets at long range even with a print-out off a ballistics program. The only way you can truly establish how a gun will perform in varying conditions is, like I said, shoot thousands of rounds for practice, like they do to teach snipers in the military.

"Of course, within 200 yards any terrorist would be visible"

Yes, because terrorists subscribe to wearing blaze orange, just like deer hunters, right? The Beltway snipers hit over a dozen people, and never at a range of more than 100 yds. Why do you think a terrorist with a deer rifle would be visible inside 200 yds?

My logic is just fine, thank you. You demonize a weapon that hasn't been used ONCE in a crime in the United States in the 80+ yrs it's been in circulation, yet when I point out that deer rifles are far more common and can be just as effective a sniper weapon, you say I support allowing more dangerous guns on the market? How is allowing a gun to be sold that has NEVER killed anyone on US soil allowing a more dangerous gun on the market? You are using scare tactics to make those uninformed of the debate believe that these are some new, horrific weapon that has a track record of killing US citizens when it does not.

[MrBenchley]

55. Really, what needs to be said?

You want to pretend this is a difficult target to hit?


or this?


"You demonize a weapon that hasn't been used ONCE in a crime in the United States in the 80+ yrs it's been in circulation"
If you don't count the times it HAS been used....in the past year alone...

In June of 2004, Marvin Heemeyer of Granby, Colorado, plowed a makeshift armored bulldozer into several buildings in response to a zoning dispute and fines for city code violations. Heemeyer armored his 60-ton bulldozer with two sheets of half-inch steel with a layer of concrete between them. He methodically drove the bulldozer through the town of Granby, damaging or leveling 13 buildings before taking his own life. Heemeyer mounted three rifles on the bulldozer, including a Barrett 82A1 50 caliber sniper rifle.

In February of 2004, Donin Wright of Kansas City, Missouri, lured police officers, paramedics, and firefighters to his home where he shot at them with several guns including a Barrett 50 caliber sniper rifle. Authorities discovered at least 20 guns, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and the makings of 20 pipe bombs inside Wright's home.

[alwynsw]

70. Heaven forbid!

Ballistics tables are public knowledge! The sky is definitely falling.

Go to a range and try some of these shots you seem to think are sooooo easy.

[slackmaster]

76. A challenge?

The Great Gungeon 1,000 yard match?

The first time I hit something at close to 1,000 yards I felt like I had accomplished something few people ever do in their lives.

[alwynsw]

81. Too true

It took me months of almost daily practice to feel reasonably comfortable with a 600 yard deer shot.

It took a couple of years more hitting the 1,000 yard range a couple of times a week to feel almost comfortable at that range.

[MrBenchley]

85. And no crime has ever been committed...oh wait, that was a LIE

That claim "no crime has ever been committed" turned out to be a lie...just like everything else in the gun rights bag of tricks.

[alwynsw]

69. Try again.

First round on the range in basic training. Only two of us hit more than 50% on a human outline target at 100 yds with an M-16. Two shot perfect scores every time - a farmboy from KY and me, another farmboy from KY. Of course, the rest of the unit was from NYC and only a couple had even touched a firearm before the first day on the range.

Try shooting sometime. You'll find it's harder to hit your target than you think.

[MrBenchley]

86. Too too funny....

"only a couple had even touched a firearm before the first day on the range."
And certainly a dedicated terrorist or obsessed loony would never practice before trying to plug a target ....(snicker)

And given the sort of raving and idiocy on display from the trigger happy, I doubt one would stand out from the usualk bunch of fuckwits. After all, Tim McVeigh spent years moping around gun shows, and nobody thought he stood out from the background noise there.

[alwynsw]

93. Now you're getting back to normal.

Twisted comments laced with profanity.

Enforce the current laws and terrorists will still get guns. pass new laws and terrorists will still get guns.

Bere's an idea! Let's restrict or ban anything a terrorist might use as a weapon. Have fun cutting that steak with your fingers.

Do chopsticks come to mind?

[R Hickey]

28. I think its ironic that Bush is making efforts to ban guns.

For years the right-wing Bush supporters have been so 'pro-gun proliferation,' and now their hero-cowboy is starting to take their guns away. Ha Ha!

And Bush is going to tax the vets, too.

It's so ironic how all of Bush's stanchest red-neck supporters are getting f*cked in the ass, (unless they're rich).

[Nimrod]

30. So it goes

If Farmer Bubbah gets to have his stockpile of teflon-coated "Cop Killer" bullets and automatic rifles that can fire 200 rounds a second, then why not everybody else?

Personally, I don't think humans should be trusted with anything more dangerous than string.

[Rex]

41. They got rid of the 1st and 4th amendments...why not the 2nd now?

Hear that freeping lurkers!?!?! Big Brother is going to come get ur guns!!!!

[RamboLiberal]

45. Anyone catch the report on Paula Zahn - cash n' carry net sale

They bought a 50 cal in a private sale over the internet. Set up a meeting and it was a cash n' carry sale - no background check. Also bought 50 cal armor piercing ammo over the internet from Cabela's.

Interesting. With all the publicity on this gun I think it's only a matter of time till some nutcase buys and uses one. Interesting that Gov Arnold banned their sales in California.

[MrBenchley]

57. In fact, there were two such nutcases last year alone

A goon in Colorado made a homemade tank out of a bulldozer and welded one of these public menaces on it...the only reason he didn't blow up a propane tank was that he welded it at the wrong angle.

And an idiot in Kansas set fire to his own house and then used his .50 caliber to shoot at paramedics and firefighters who responded.

And let's not forget that the gun nuts' little tin messiah, David Koresh, killed law enforcement personnel with a .50 caliber.

[alwynsw]

71. 2 out of nearly 300,000,000

Damn! Let's ban air. Criminals and terrorists breathe the stuff, too.

[MrBenchley]

83. So now there's not enough to suit you, alwyns?

How many hijacked airplanes were flown into skyscrapers? Shall we wait until there's thirty or forty incidents before we beef up airport security?

[alwynsw]

90. Actually, 4 planes were hijacked.

Apples and oranges. Typical straw man and everyone knows it.

[NewHampshireDem]

46. We can stop them from getting on an airplane, but not from buying a gun

:wtf:

[slackmaster]

51. Getting on an airplane is not a protected civil right

Buying a gun is.

[MrBenchley]

56. Neither is buying a gun

except in NRA wet dreams.

Every court that's ruled on the Second Amendment rules it confers a collective right to states to have a well-regulated militia such as the National Guard. Despite years of lying and millions of dollars in blood money, the closest the gun lbby's gotten to overturning that is getting the most right wing bunch of loonies in the judiciary to shoehorn a bunch of NRA propaganda into a decision on Emerson (in which they ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply...and STILL took away his guns).

[NewHampshireDem]

60. Of course it is!

The government does not have the power or authority to stop you from travelling. You need to read the Bill of Rights, especially the 9th and 10th amendments. Would you stand for it if the government put checkpoints at each state border preventing you from crossing if you were on some "list"?

[slackmaster]

61. I agree in one sense, but not completely

Getting on a plane in general is subject to some conditions and regulations, as is buying a gun. Freedom of movement is a fundamental civil right.

But airplanes are owned by corporations, so your ability to board a particular one is at the pleasure of the airline and its employees (not the police). You have a right to travel, you do not have a specific right to board a particular plane at a particular time.

[slackmaster]

58. BTW, how many people have been stopped from boarding planes...

...because they were on a secret government terror suspect list? I've seen people stopped and arrested at airports for being drunk and disorderly. I've seen people stopped and arrested because they were carrying weapons.

I know Israel stops people at airport gates routinely for all kinds of arbitrary reasons, but has the TSA or any other government agency actually stopped ANYONE from boarding an airplane in the USA because they were a "terror suspect"? I've never heard of that happening.

:wtf:

People who are US citizens or legal residents have a constitutionally protected right to say, own, or do anything they please, including buying guns; except the finite set of things that have been prohibited by due process. A person who is merely suspected of a crime or criminal intent by police continues to enjoy the full range of civil rights until he or she is arrested or indicted. Our freedom of movement has not AFAIK been made subject to arbitrary curtailment by police agencies, nor has our right to buy and own firearms.

At least not yet.

[NewHampshireDem]

62. Uh, then you haven't been paying attention ...

From August 20th, 2004:"A ticket agent with US Airways tried to prevent Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, from boarding a shuttle in March because his name showed up on a Department of Homeland Security ''no-fly" terrorist watch-list, Kennedy told a committee hearing yesterday."

Also from the same day: "Rep. John Lewis is known for his nonviolent protests during the civil rights movement, but when he visits airports, he's treated like a suspected terrorist.

Lewis himself isn't on a Department of Homeland Security terrorist watch list, but airline attendants have told him his name is. That has caused him months of hassle and embarrassment, preventing him from using an electronic ticket to board a plane and subjecting him to extra identification checks and baggage searches.

But, no ... no one is every stopped :eyes:

[slackmaster]

63. Just as I said, nobody has been stopped

And the treatment of Senator Kennedy and Congressman Lewis pretty solidly proves the validity of my concern about terror suspect lists being abused.

I'll call this a Q.E.D.

:hippie:

[emad]

47. FBI looks on as terror suspects buy arms

Telegraph
By Francis Harris in Washington
(Filed: 09/03/2005)

Terrorist suspects in the United States are buying firearms with the knowledge and approval of the security forces, a congressional report revealed yesterday.

Those acquiring the weaponry included Islamists, radical militiamen and others with ties to groups with a history of using violence to advance their aims.

The investigation said that the authorities had approved weapons licences on at least 47 such occasions in a nine-month period. A further 11 requests were blocked.

All 58 were identified by the FBI as being either known or suspected terrorists and many are being watched or monitored by the agency.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/09/wfbi09.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/03/09/ixworld.html

[leveymg]

48. Telegraph UK: FBI Looks On as Terror Suspects Buy Arms

FBI looks on as terror suspects buy arms
By Francis Harris in Washington
(Filed: 09/03/2005) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/09/wfbi09.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/03/09/ixworld.html
Terrorist suspects in the United States are buying firearms with the knowledge and approval of the security forces, a congressional report revealed yesterday.
Those acquiring the weaponry included Islamists, radical militiamen and others with ties to groups with a history of using violence to advance their aims.
The investigation said that the authorities had approved weapons licences on at least 47 such occasions in a nine-month period. A further 11 requests were blocked.
All 58 were identified by the FBI as being either known or suspected terrorists and many are being watched or monitored by the agency.

NOTE: thrust of story is about lunacy of lack of enforcement of gun control laws by * Administration because of NRA pressure. However, there's a more interesting story within a story here. This post was originally put up by emad, but disappeared for some reason.

[D-Notice]

49. How long til a new

"terror incident" which'll encourage us to give up more of our rights?

[slackmaster]

52. "Weapons licenses"???

The Telegraph's writers and editors need to be edumacated about US gun laws.

A US citizen doesn't need any kind of license to buy a gun, and we don't deny people their civil rights because of their religion or the people with whom they choose to associate.

I'll write an LTTE when I have time.

[alwynsw]

74. Gotta remember. UK is the country that will lock your ass up

for having a Swiss Army pocketknife in your briefcase in your car on a public street.

I'll look for the link.

[MrBenchley]

87. While nearly everybody in Somalia has an assault weapon

Guess which one is a toilet and which is a peaceful somewhat enlightened society?

[alwynsw]

91. Golly.

You must have forgotten that organzed government thing.

You're being boorish again.

[leesa]

82. Of course the 'always right' conservative anti-christians will deny every

part of this report. I'm so sorry Americans have become such uncurious chickenshits that they believe every scare tactic used on them. Americans are armed because the American media have scared them into being armed for the benfit of the arms dealers. KaaaaChing!

[slackmaster]

89. That's a mighty broad brush you are painting with, leesa

It must take a lot of effort for you to hold on to it.

I own guns as a financial investment, and because of historical interest. It has nothing to do with fear.

I have said this many times before on these forums: The things I fear most in my life have no relationship to guns or crime or violence. I fear the things that are most likely to cause me harm, like disease and traffic accidents. Guns are useless against the things that really threaten most of us here in the USA.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=2793531&mesg_id=2793531

[alwynsw]

99. I'll not repeat slackmaster's comments, but I will add a thought

I'm so sorry Americans have become such uncurious chickenshits that they believe every scare tactic used on them.

I must agree with that portion of your statement because of the amount of spurrious VPC and Brady propaganda spewed on DU on a daily basis.

An example? The VPC website claims that a .50 BMG will penetrate a nuclear reactor. There's nothing shoulder-fired that I'm aware of thatwill penetrate a minimum of 4' of reinforced, hardened concrete. A few of hte more favorite buzzwords pushed by the Bradyites and VPC are bullet hose, spray and pray, killing machines, etc. Read an article or two on either website and you'll likely find several more.

I'm armed because I grew up with and around firearms and I use them for recreation, investment, and collector interest.

[AuntiBush]

94. They most certainly are "hamstrung!"

All the tax dollars spent to protect us from (?) us. And still this happens. They'll probably blame it on us. Even though we're not the so-called majority.

And today, I wonder... with all the hype, the military, FBI, you name it armed to the hilt all over downtown GA area looking for 1 lone guy that killing a judge and others right inside a courthouse, and they "think" the FBI could be better managed.

Where is all the money going to train, and keep our country safe from terrorist? Follow the money?? Who benefits... certainly not us.

Unreal. Jeez. At a loss for words.

[Lindacooks]

97. One thing I will never understand is WHY there are so many gun nuts.

You'd think that they'd be dying off at a higher rate than non gun nuts because of the high rate of suicides and accidental shootings in homes with guns.

[alwynsw]

98. I guess I'm a nut.

I've a fair number of firearms. I use them for recreation, investments, and collector interest.