That popping sound you hear is the heads of NRA loyalists exploding from massive cognitive dissonance, all because of the release this week of a video showing a spokesman for Al Qaeda, Adam Gadahn, urging would-be jihadis to go out and stock up on as many guns as they can get their hands on -- through the gun-show loophole:
America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?
Of course, we've previously discussed how the gun-show loophole is an open invitation to criminals, particularly in the context of the the drug-cartel violence along the Mexico border, which is in fact being heavily fueled by guns purchased legally in the USA, many of them at gun shows.
As Chris Brown at Media Matters observes:
At gun shows buyers can purchase guns from private sellers without passing a background check. An investigation by the City of New York showed that even buyers that identified themselves as people who "probably couldn't pass a background check" were able to purchase guns at gun shows. The investigation also showed the wide variety of guns available at gun shows.
In addition, people on terrorist watch lists are not forbidden from purchasing guns and many have done just that. Gadahn's instructions come in the wake of Associated Press reporting that showed that more than 200 people with suspected terrorist ties bought guns legally in the United States last year. Following the AP report Representative Mike Quigley introduced an amendment to the Patriot Act that would give the Attorney General the authority to block gun sales to individuals on terror watch lists. The amendment was voted down.
Of course, the NRA remains adamantly opposed to closing the gun-show loophole. Indeed, they also remain opposed to bipartisan efforts to make it tougher for terrorists to buy guns.
One can only conclude that they are objectively pro-terrorist.
All the more reason that the public should buy assault rifles and automatic weapons , gotta defend yourselves against all those terrorists in the neighborhood . Those lunatics would like to turn the USA into Yemen , can buy grenades , rocket launchers , tanks , bazookas , anything you want if you have the $ .
I think we should defend ourselves against the NRA loons. I don't like to disparage and generalize about a group of people, but they are insane, nuts, wacko. I was just on line with someone who tried to rationalize Limbaugh's version of the economy rather than a person with a Ph.D. in economics. I thought acid flashbacks were a thing of the past.
It's not acid flashbacks it's acid eating away at their brains...
A small mind is easier to lose...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsUtvOW6SR0
This Gadahn/Pearlman fellow may well be Mossad.
Kin he gits me uh Tavor TAR-21 with the 40mm M203 grenade wholesale, huh? Boo RAH! What would Jesus shoot?
"What would Jesus shoot?"
An mp-7 of coarse. He would also ride a triceratops with mounted laser cannons. pew pew pew.
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
http://s281.photobucket.com/albums/kk212/john...
erm, jesus with a laser beam attached to his head? What do you think he is, a shark?
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
Wasn't it there in Matthew somewhere? "And verily, the Lord did go forth, and did rumble with the Jets. He of the most holy did snap his fingers, and raised up his jazz-hands, and the Jets did break in rout, and flee before his moxi..." Or is my Bible-knowledge rustier than I thought?
those gun shows only admit christian caucasians
"Do you see creamed corn on that plate?"
.
....the fools do not realize,a population that can ,..... not paticipate .............in the 'economy'...,can not keep it viable!..........."we are listening,.......and we're not blind.,......this is your life....this is your time."
[EOM]
If you falsely accuse people of racism, YOU are the racist.
If you don't get sarcasm, YOU are..........
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
I dont think the OP was joking...
Doesn't make any sense.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
Those damn criminals, subverting the law!
me-oww!
only terrorists will have gun shows.
TFR
To quote Anthony Weiner, "Am I allowed to say, 'I wish?'"?
Sadly, the human mind seems to have an infinite capacity for cognitive dissonance, even Orwellian Double-think. Compartmentalization of mutually incompatible beliefs is something we all engage in on some level.
;)
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Bushes secret list of names and not people that violates due process until it comes to guns?
*Bush's*
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
they hate us because of our freedoms?
...the Second Amendment is about National Defense, not about Personal Protection. It's the Fourth Amendment that mentions personal security, and that one doesn't say they can have a gun to defend themselves.
Here's the text:
Given its context (it's the second article in a Bill of Rights that limits the powers of government), why is the following not a reasonable paraphrase?:
Because it's necessary for the state to be armed to protect itself, and people have a right to protect themselves against tyrannical government, the people themselves have the right to be armed too.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
That's a reasonable paraphrase, but the amendment would need to be considered not only in the context of the document, but also the context of the times. Professional soldiers and a standing army wasn't entirely a universally accepted idea - they were viewed as a tool for government oppression more than as a protective device (which makes sense given that the British army was basically the gold standard, and they were used far more for conquering/colonizing than they were for protecting Britain itself).
Local militia volunteers had played a huge role in the Revolution, and these troops had to outfit themselves. It would have been reasonable for the founding fathers to see a small professional army augmented by volunteers as a desirable norm, and they would have had no way to foresee the innovations that would have made firearms cheap, easy to produce and to use, or how much of a crime 'staple' that guns would become.
The rest of your rant has no basis in reality.
On one hand, you've got the theoretical tyrannical government, on the other you've got a well regulated militia- and unlike the former, the latter is actually stated.
The other problem in there is an anonymous collective- "the People"- mentioned in First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, where the Fifth leads with the singular "No person" and includes the distinguishing "himself" and the Sixth uses "the accused" and another "himself". What's the deal there?
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Once you give up your arms it's too late to worry about the government being oppressive or not. Much like once your nose falls off it's kinda late to worry about leprosy.
the term "no person" seems pretty clear to me, as does "himself".
The revolutions in the middle east were non-violent. They had to be because if it came down to violence Egypt and just about any modern government would more then crush an insurrection. The only exception is Libya but in that case they have received significant defection from the Libyan military and more importantly military support from the west.
This isn't the 1700's. Shotguns, pistols, and rifles don't have a chance against tanks, helicopters, and jet fighters. This is true just about everywhere but nowhere more so then in the good old US of A where we spend more money then the rest of the world combined on "defense". So go ahead with your masturbatory fantasies of leading an armed insurrection but if you actually want to make real change it takes patience and non-violence.
"The only exception is Libya"
What about yemen, Seria, Bahrain? Lots of violence there. Not going well over there.
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
The notion that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state has been well proven to be nonsense. There are plenty of countries across Europe and the rest of the world that have just as much 'freedom' as America, and when you get down to the subtleties of it, often a lot more, where the citizens do not go around bearing arms. Nor do they feel the remotest need to. The problem is, due to a kind of brainwashed patriotism, people in the US treat the constitution as though its some kind of divinely inspired sacred text when it's really just a 230 year old anachronistic human experiment based on ideas prevalant at that time, many of which have since evolved, increased in sophistication or even been contested. It has no adaptability so is freezing the US into more primitive age when such things as bearing arms where highly relevant, whilst other parts of the world are able to move on and dwell in societies with much less crime and bloodshed.
Yes, I realize that the words "tyrannical government" are not there. I'm not sure that creates a "paradox," but you're correct.
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what the Second Amendment means. I think there is a genuine ambiguity in it. (I also think the right to personally own guns is protected by the Ninth Amendment, but that's my personal interpretation involving unenumerated rights.)
But, if we're looking at the text, I think we should all pause before asserting we know precisely what it means.
From what I can see, we can gather two things: (1) The people have a right to bear arms that shall not be infringed; and (2) The reason that the people have a right to bear arms is that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.
Somehow, we have to construe the text in a way that makes sense. Without anything but the text alone, I think there are two basic, reasonable paraphrases to make the text operable (some might be able to come up with more):
I somehow suspect that the paraphrase that appeals to a person depends on the stance s/he already has on gun rights. The amendment itself is ambiguous. And my point was not that I had figured out the one and true meaning . . . just that we shouldn't be so sure that the Constitution supports our political stances.
The ambiguity must be resolved, but I don't think our personal political or policy opinions is the place from which to start.
Heh, I wrote on this very issue in law school. Personally, I think the term "the people" means both "the people" as a collective and the individual persons that make up the collective. The term was used ambiguously that way at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted. And there's really no way to make some of the Constitution operable without reading it both ways.
How, for instance, would the collective peaceably assemble somewhere? And would that mean that individuals did not have that right?
How would it petition for a redress of grievances? Would individuals not have that right? How about small collective not large enough to be a majority? Do they have the right to petition for a redress of grievances?
What would it mean to protect the collective from unreasonable searches and seizures if not to protect the individuals who are searched? Would the argument make sense that individuals are not protected from unreasonable searches and seizures? Only the states as entities? The majority?
I don't think the Second Amendment's use of "the people" is enough to undermine the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Because the key words "necessary to a free STATE," NOT to individual freedoms. Get it?
Individual right, 5-4 DC handgun ban. Get it? I doubt it.
I hope you'll forgive me if I'm inferring a frustration that is not there, but your tone strikes me as frustrated and angry. As though I'm just not seeing the obvious truth that you do.
Frankly, no, I don't get it. I honestly don't know precisely what the Second Amendment means, and I think people are too quick to say they do.
Yes, the well regulated militia is necessary to a free state. And, if you read the text of the Second Amendment, the fact that a well regulated militia is necessary to the state's security seems to be the reason "the people" have "the right" to keep and bear arms.
So, we know the state must have well regulated militias to remain free, and that therefore, the people get to keep and bear arms.
But I don't think you have the obvious answer to the ambiguity therein -- Do the people get to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from the necessary militia, or, are may they merely keep and bear arms in order to participate in the necessary militia -- anymore than I do.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Look what was going on at the time. The Continental Army was supplemented by local militias (and also very broke). Washington was put in direct charge of those State militias in order to prop up the Continental Army. When drafting the Constitution and the later BOR, they considered it imperative that those militias remain intact in order to protect the new nation. That was the original intent.
Over the years, much of the original intent has been supplanted, or at least re-interpreted by the courts. That we now have this individual “right to bear arms” is only due to court decisions that came well after the drafting of the 2nd Amendment. This isn’t wrong, just an evolution of what the wording means to current culture.
I reject Original Intent as a doctrine of Constitutional construction. Words that are enacted into law are the products of political compromises among many writers all with different subjective intents in mind. Moreover, basing judicial interpretation on legislative interpretation violates the separation of powers, essentially ceding the judicial power to the legislature.
Words have objective meanings that must be discerned. I don't dispute your history. I do, however, dispute this:
If the meaning of the words of the law can evolve over time, they don't really mean anything at all. They just mean what the people of the day want them to mean. What's the point of locking words into law if that's the case?
So, while I reject Original Intent, I do believe that the words of laws mean what they meant objectively at the time they were written.
I would rather read the words of the Constitution objectively, without regard to what it's drafters were subjectively thinking. If there are ambiguities to be resolved, the first place to look is the context of the Constitution as a whole. If there are still ambiguities to be resolved, we can look at dictionaries and writings of the times to determine what the words actually mean, but not what the writers were thinking about when they wrote them.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Glad you came back to this.
My point remains. At the time of writing, there was no differentiation between the Continental Army, the State Militias, and the private citizens with guns that made up their own militias. They were one in the same. Giving individuals the right to bear arms was intended to secure a sustained military in defense of the nation. That was the wording, and the reason for the wording.
Today there are no similar types of militias as they existed back then. The army is self-sustaining and well differentiated from private citizens. So the intent of the 2nd Amendment as it was written no longer applies. We MUST therefore re-interpret what these terms mean in modern context. And so you parse the words, and try to find modern context of words whose meanings have changed. This doesn’t mean they have no meaning at all, but that meaning is now subjective: hence your ambiguity.
I would disagree. If, in fact, the Second Amendment objectively means that individuals have a right to bear arms in order to belong to a well regulated militia and defend the country --- and historical evidence could indeed point to that meaning --- then that's what it means. It's the law unless and until it is amended.
We may have to devise different operating principles, but we don't get to reinterpret the words themselves.
For instance, if a community makes a law that says, "It shall be an offense to bring a pig into a public park," and at the time it enacts it the word "pig" means the snouted, curly-tailed animal that oinks, it doesn't matter that in later generations the word "pig" takes on the meaning, "police officer." In the law, it still means the animal -- not because of the original intent of its authors, but because that's what the word objectively meant when it was enacted.
Later, there may be no need for such a law. Maybe the community was suffering an outbreak of swine-related diseases when it passed the law, but those diseases have been cured. The law would still mean what it says, and it would not make any sense for someone to come along and say, "Under the law, police officers are not allowed to enter public parks" just because the meaning of the word had changed.
:)
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Oh, what fun. Thanks again for finding your way back here.
The words ‘pig’ and ‘park’ still have the same meaning. The words ‘arms’ and ‘militia’ don’t. Because of this, we still have to re-interpret, and we do – via the courts. Arms, as in armament, no longer means musket and cannon shot, as it did back then. Nobody today arms a militia with black-powder, unless you’re doing a Civil War reenactment. The meanings have changed.
When this happens, we have to look at what the original meanings were within context. Then we must re-evaluate within modern context. This is what has happened with the 2nd Amendment. It now means that individuals have the right to possess small fire arms. It no longer means they have the right to create their own army complete with RPGs and Tanks (as they would have if the technology were the same 250 years ago).
No, what it does say is "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed."
The term "the people" has exactly the same meaning everywhere it appears in the constitution. End of argument, next story please.
so what's your point?
Maybe the impoverished Oxymorons should bring their tow-headed BGH endowed chilluns to the gun shows too, to rent by the minute? And White Lightning, HFCS endurance drinks, E.D. meds, Moon Pies and Meth? Within a couple years the whole waddling, mouth-breathing, STD dripping, inbred hate-filled mess would be mistaking their accelerants for their penis enhancers... then SHAZZAM! MISSHUN ACOMPLUSHED, no more terrorism; aside from goofball hippies spraying Krylon onto Escalades, ladies in fur and protesting injection well blow-outs in Catholic cemeteries? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiNeICuIpmA
http://video.adultswim.com/squidbillies/al-qa...
today,sat. and tomorrow,gun show.co. fairgrounds........"how much for that ak-47?" 7 hundred..."i'll take it".......it's that easy.....it's only an hour away,i'll put on my 'Obama '08' shirt and get on over there and do some investigating for you all... bring my little digital voice recorder....you won't believe the crap i catch,i did it last year,scary shit...but money talks,i can buy anything.......i'll check back in a few hours,if i'm still breathing,and not locked up.......oath keepers,nwo paranoids,alex jones libertarians("how much ammo do you need?...as much as you can get......")parolees, drug dealers from californa,and normal,honest citizens buy there...theres a show there every 3 months..wish me luck.
....the fools do not realize,a population that can ,..... not paticipate .............in the 'economy'...,can not keep it viable!..........."we are listening,.......and we're not blind.,......this is your life....this is your time."
Doesn't give a shit about gun owners. It cares about the gun industry and lobbying for it.
!
Lower the retirement age.
Wonder why this story from Tuscon hasn't been plastered all over the news since the shooting Thursday?
5 dead 1 Wounded in Arizona Shooting!
As found at:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/02/nat...
You just posted a link from CBS. Aren't they The News?
They are not "pro terrorist", they want a war, even if it's local.
Just saying.. you can't deny rights to people who are not given due process of law
Gun right nuts are pro terrorism? Is that like saying if you want less air port security you are also "Pro Terrorism"?
Its been awhile since i've read C&L. Its become quite crap.
It and Think Progress have become Fox and Free Republic left,
first day,and yea, we are JUST like free republic,don't ya know?
....the fools do not realize,a population that can ,..... not paticipate .............in the 'economy'...,can not keep it viable!..........."we are listening,.......and we're not blind.,......this is your life....this is your time."
What does it mean to be on the terrorist watch list? Who decides to put someone on that list? If your on that list and denied doing things (buying guns, no plane tix, etc), aren't your rights being taken away without a trial? If the people on that list are so dangerous, why aren't they being arrested? To get taken off the list don't you have to prove your innocence which is the opposite of how our laws work? Anyway, you CAN'T buy automatic weapons legally. Also, one of the links refers to the terrorists in NY that purchased guns and a grenade recently. They bought them from an undercover agent, not a gun store and grenades are illegal anyway.
wrap a turban around your head and speak in a phone middle-Eastern accent. With the camera rolling, walk up and buy one of these machine guns their selling. Tell them outright you intend on jihad. Do they have any ammunition? Buy in bulk! Tell them you're in the country illegally and don't have any ID. Who wants to bet they still sell you the gun?
Then, let's send the tape to CNN and see, if like every time Brietbart/O'keefe make a tape, they run with it.
Al Qaida praised Malcolm X in November 2008. He must have been rolling in his grave.
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
how big this guy's porn collection is . Bin Laden proved that these guys are nuts. Damn idiots are killing themselves while the leaders are watching porn.
Yeah, because knowing that makes such a difference.
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
never listen to anyone that tells you to kill yourself for any cause. People are killing themselves and he was jacking off to porn. Bin laden that is. I think the US government should use the fact that they found Bin laden's porn stash. Tell those terrorist wanna be's that while you are killing yourself your leaders are watching porn. Knowing that might change someone's mind that is thinking of killing themselves and lot of other people also. Are you caught up yet?
Right, so you think that terrorist might stop being terrorists when they found out that there leader(s) watch pron? Erm, ok.
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
I see that you like to comment a lot, not going to play with you.
Only on the weekends. try again on the week days. :p
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
You ignorant ,racist, shitheel ,inbred, corn nut teeth ,encephalitic headed, scrotum breath, toilet homo, forest preserve outhouse homo, Patrick McHenry humping, muslim hating, science dumbfuck, animal screwing pieces of shit. It isn't scary black guy Obama taking your guns. You stupid backwood hicks, it's the terrorists buying them right in front of your crossed eyes from your crooked gun dealing buddies. Fucking Asswipes. Wake Up.
You forgot "litle twerp garden gnome". Just saying.
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
Backwood hick? Wow your bigotry is showing. If that is all what you have to say then shut the fuck up because you have nothing to add.
Lol, u mad bro?
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
"and join Facebook-Twitter . . where we can promote our nefarious plans and the Americans will not notice cuz they are to busy playing Farmville and Mafia Wars."
Mafia wars? wasnt that a game from 2000 or something? Don't think there was facebook back there.
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
Terrorists will get guns anyway.
Fully automatic weapons are not really needed for their purposes. The improvement that fully automatic assault rifles are over bolt-action hunting rifles is rather small even for the military. Well-trained infantry prefers semi-auto fire almost all the time. Short and long bursts make only sense against exposed targets at less than 25-50 m range (depends on calibre). All other burst or cyclic fire with individual rifles is a waste of ammunition.
So basically you can modify a pistol for burst fire at short range (with steel bullets) and use a hunting rifle for longer ranges. The difference between this and a fully automatic assault rifle or battle rifle is not great tactically.
Both pistols and hunting rifles will be available on the black market, no matter what legislators do.
Ever thought about full auto crossbows? If they get there hands on that we are so fecked.
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
of the way through a quart of Old Bushmill’s Irish Whiskey at the Turnberry Club in North Miami Beach, former Iran-Contra notable Major General Richard V. Secord used to say, “Son, there’s no more heroes, and nobody makes any money without a bogeyman.”
The NRA, in defending the gun show loophole, are personally responsible for jeopardizing the personal safety of every American. Their stance EASILY puts deadly weapons in the hands to people whose only intent is to terrorize and kill, not to defend themselves. We don't have to hunt the Middle East for terrorists, THEY ARE IN OUR OWN BACKYARD.
WAY TO GO, NRA.
You have no room to knock Faux news, because you are every bit as half assed. This is almost as bad as Think Progress's. Do you people do any real research? First one can not buy automatic weapons at gun shows or anywhere else. Second if you are going to seriously discuss and issue at least research your work rather than copy and paste Brady talking points or just make crap up off the top of your heads.
The entire nonsense about the James O'Keefe style video made by Bloomburg and the "legally bought weapons fueled by legally bought guns in southwest canard" directly contradicts BATFE reports, Wikileaks, and straight news sources from abroad like BBC. Most of the cartels guns, like machine guns, rocket launchers etc go from the Southern border. Seeing such piss poor reporting and propaganda on subjects I do know about, makes me question most of your other work.
Duly noted.
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
You CANNOT buy a fully automatic assault rifle from a gun show. You need a federal license to purchase one and you would be extremely EXTREMELY hard pressed to find anyone willing to look past that at a gun show.
Well I guess some people can legally buy automatic assault weapons but those people are spending great deal of money and time to qualify to buy those guns..
Also, you have to have a spotless legal record and be investigated by the ATF before they will issue you a permit for a full-auto.
I bought a flak 88 at a gun show to scare off the children of my lawn. Now i'm known as "that crazy fecker".
At least my lawn is clean. :)
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
... I've been to gun shows where you can buy weapons whose only purpose is to shoot down helicopters.
CaliforniaMike blogs at All Voices and at his own blogs, http://www.mikerappaport.net/onevoice and at http://oneminutewithmike.blogspot.com.
Where was this gun show and what was the weapon?
I get that you're just trying to point out the hypocrisy that conservatives hate the forth amendment but love the second amendment. Another irony is that the pro-life crowd is overwhelmingly pro-death-penalty, but all this smugness will be a small comfort when the constitution-shredding fest is over. If you really love freedom, come down from your high horse and do something about it.
That's where a lot of home grown terrorists get their guns.
of the posts here pointedly ignore the basis for this article: Just about anyone, Mr. Suburban Whitebread, and terrorist alike, can go into a gun show and arm themselves with little fuss. And anybody that thinks they can spot a terrorist at a gun show, is crazy. Like drug gangs, they simply send in a mule to buy for them. Appearance issue solved. The NRA, in their zeal to allow free gun sales, has STILL failed to offer a solution to the fact that criminals and terrorists can easily obtain guns at a gun show. When confronted, as we see here, they retreat to ranting about the second amendment, and avoid the issue entirely.
If you're going to respond to my post with ideology, don't waste your time, but if you have a concrete solution to this issue then let's hear it.
Most sellers at gun shows are FFL holders, same laws apply. While you think it may be easy for them to get guns there, they do not according to BATFE. The reason why everyone is ignoring the basis of the article is because the article is not worth reading.
I have two thoughts before dismissing this whole article as too silly for words: 1) My experience at gun shows is very different from the claims in the article. You can't buy automatic weapons in any gun shop in America without very difficult to obtain federal licensing. Can't buy them in a gun show either. I've never bought a gun at a gunshow where I didn't have to submit to the same electronic background check that would have greeted me in every gunshop in the country. So the thoughts of being able to freely buy automatic weapons or any type of weapon without a background check is simply bogus. It only happens in the dreams of the Brady Bunch.
2) Terrorists don't use guns when they want to kill lots of people. The average multiple killing event is a bombing; not a shooting. Ask anybody fresh back from the Middle East what the terrorists prefer as their weapon of choice. In fact there is nothing they'd like more than to obtain a nuclear device to kill the most possible people at one time. Sadly for the Brady Bunch, you can't find one of those at a gun show either.
Loophole? Anyone who believes that is simply a moron. Educate yourself rather than accept the opinions of others.
Fundamentalist Nazis:
Remember the whole :David-Wynn: Miller/ Jared Loughner sock-puppet diatribe? Here's the breakdown:
http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns...
http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/...
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?oe=UTF8&client...
http://www.publiceye.org/hate/Statistics.html
Silly Godless Commies:
When Krylon spray paint cans are outlawed, only eco-terrorists will, will... ah, never mind.
Funny how you can guess which posts will get the most vehement and fervid response (even when the original premise's debunked right after the post) maybe you could sell-out to CBN, FOX, AOL or something? Just think of all the stuff you could do instead of research?
Be Advised - Gun Control is a Loser Issue for 2012
No matter how much sense seems to make, If the Democrats and Liberals try to run with this it will be a disaster.
It will take years to develop a winning gun control message. Don't jump the "Gun"!
Comments are closed on this entry