Posted on 12/19/2001 7:42:47 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:39:14 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A day before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a Lebanese man was convicted of conspiring to ship weapons acquired at Michigan gun shows to the terrorist organization Hezbollah.
The man was prohibited from buying guns because of a conviction for grand theft. But he did not have to undergo a background check because no federal or Michigan state law requires such checks for sales between private or unlicensed gun sellers and buyers at shows, according to a report released Wednesday by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Of course it is... What do you think WOULD be an example, if not that, moron?
Only a 90 on that target. One of the shots missed the paper altogether. Coffee jitters?
Excuse the language, but BULLSHIT!!!!! I live here. I've been to Michigan gun shows. For handguns, you need a purchase permit and they are registered.
Secondly, why in the blue hell would I buy a firearms here if I was a terrorist. I'd go to Afghanastan and get a full auto AK-47 for $50.
Rifles - All dealers.
Private collections, not rifles, but if you are selling a lot of guns without an FFL, be prepared to deal with the BATF.
So what's all the arguing about?
So, they're admitting that the government has a database contrary to the law as I understand it.
Interesting.....
No spoken words were ever so true.
To make the point I in fact have 2, and if you think I am just a pillager one of them made a legend of a crook named Dillenger,
if you think that fact is fine, to back it up I also have a H&K9
witty doncha think!
"Give It to Them Straight" |
|||||||||||||||||||||
The biggest mistake we make is failing to take the moral high ground on our issue, and letting our enemies define the terms. THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns." WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns." (FLAW: The implication here is that if you COULD succeed, it would be a reasonable plan.) WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that's unacceptable. Better that we should require every citizen to carry a gun." THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don't need a 30-round magazine fro hunting deer -- they're only for killing people." WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I've never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me, blah, blah, blah." (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.) WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they're good practice." THEY SAY: "If we pass this CCW law, it will be like the Wild West, with shoot-outs all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it." WE SAY: "Studies have shown blah blah blah." (flaw: You have implied that if studies showed CCW laws equaled more heat-of-passion shooting, CCW should be illegal. WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that's not important. What is important is our freedom. If saving lives is more important that anything else, why don't we throw out the Fifth amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We'd catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound?" THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about a five day waiting period." WE SAY: "It doesn't do any good, criminals don't wait five days, it's a waste of resources blah blah blah." (FLAW: You have implied that if waiting periods DID reduce crime, they would be a good idea.) WHAT WE SHOULD SAY: "How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a government review board before the news is reported? Wouldn't that prevent lives from being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people who ALREADY own a handgun tells me that it's not about crime prevention, it's about harassment. Personally, I want to live in a free society, not a 'safe' one with the government as chief nanny." |
|||||||||||||||||||||
THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have atomic bombs." WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh . . ." WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue - it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were each issued muskets, but not the large field pieces with exploding shells. In 1996, soldiers are issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not howitzers and atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV and satellite transmission." THEY SAY: "We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these weapons of mass destruction." WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb. WE SHOULD SAY: "You know, driving is a luxury, where firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But let's put that aside for a moment. It's interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can AT ANY AGE go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size as you want, and you don't need to do anything if you don't use them on public property. If you DO want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16. This license is good in all 50 states. NO waiting periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteen-year-old could go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license good anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public property." Final comment, useful with most all arguments: YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you than anything." THEY SAY: "Huh?" YOU SAY: "Well, passing this proposal won't have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither Bill Clinton nor Newt Gingrich is going to open up internment camps like Roosevelt did fifty-odd years ago. But think of your worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn't it POSSIBLE that a person like that MIGHT be in control here some time in the next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him? If that does happen, do you REALLY what your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want them to have been stripped of it BY YOU?" |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Gun grabbers don't wait long to use 9-11 tragedy to their advantage. I'll bet the percentage of guns from U.S. gun shows used by terrorists is .0000000000000001%
These guys will once again be proven fraudulent
Maybe one of these poophead politician gun grabbers will get the facts before they make these ridiculous charges. sheessh, they sure look ridiculous.
If that is true, then why do all the Taliban and Al Qaida towelheads I see on all the news shows carry kalashnikovs' and AK-47's (russian-made)?? Are we suppose to believe that the terrorists got these guns at U.S. gun shows?? Also, where did that chinese ammmunition come from that was found in the Tora Bora caves a few days ago?
If the proposed remedy for the so-called 'loophole' were law, you would not be able to sell your legally- and privately-owned gun to your friend or neighbor without getting government approval. Basically, if you "do not see how" that affects law-abiding citizens, you're a drooling cretin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.