Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New report calls for stricter laws to keep guns away from terrorists
AP ^ | 12-19-01 | MELISSA B. ROBINSON

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 ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Those that harbor terrorists, you can't keep the guns from them because they bring guns with them. Your citizens have nothing to do with guns that terrorists use..
21 posted on 12/19/2001 9:39:42 AM PST by mbb bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: DinkyDau
Having a criminal background check is not the same thing as Having to obtain government permission to excercise a "right"

Of course it is... What do you think WOULD be an example, if not that, moron?

23 posted on 12/19/2001 9:44:02 AM PST by Sloth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: M1991
you, sir, need a dictonary

Only a 90 on that target. One of the shots missed the paper altogether. Coffee jitters?

24 posted on 12/19/2001 9:54:31 AM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sloth; m1991
I do not see how passing laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals affects law abiding citizens. Does this "right that shall not be infringed" extend to terrorists, as well?
25 posted on 12/19/2001 10:01:53 AM PST by DinkyDau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
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.

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.

26 posted on 12/19/2001 10:04:59 AM PST by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DinkyDau
We already have background checks.
27 posted on 12/19/2001 10:05:58 AM PST by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: .38sw
Handguns, yes.(IN MICHIGAN)

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.

28 posted on 12/19/2001 10:09:59 AM PST by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
We already have background checks.

So what's all the arguing about?

29 posted on 12/19/2001 10:12:47 AM PST by DinkyDau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
"giving the FBI access to background check records of gun purchasers in the government's database"

So, they're admitting that the government has a database contrary to the law as I understand it.
Interesting.....

30 posted on 12/19/2001 10:18:14 AM PST by xsive_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine
"Keep us alive, give us each a .45!"

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!

31 posted on 12/19/2001 10:23:01 AM PST by SERE_DOC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Name ONE terrorist attack which featured guns.
32 posted on 12/19/2001 10:26:36 AM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DinkyDau
I don't give a flying f*ck that criminals don't have the right to buy guns, jerk off. They gave up that right when they committed crimes
"....SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." Got a problem with that? Blackbird.
33 posted on 12/19/2001 10:27:36 AM PST by BlackbirdSST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DinkyDau
1. Private sales.
2. Registration(A ban on private sales would require registration)
3. Gun show ban(McStain's bill)
34 posted on 12/19/2001 10:31:43 AM PST by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
 

"Give It to Them Straight"
by John Ross Author,
Unintended Consequences

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?"


35 posted on 12/19/2001 11:02:57 AM PST by Mini-14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
a "breeding ground for gun sales to terrorists"

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

36 posted on 12/19/2001 11:02:59 AM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destructor
In many of the Middle Eastern countries they sell fully automatic AKs in their own open-air Bazaars. Why would they need to come all the way to the United States for a semi-automatic version of the same gun?

Maybe one of these poophead politician gun grabbers will get the facts before they make these ridiculous charges. sheessh, they sure look ridiculous.

37 posted on 12/19/2001 11:04:31 AM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Destructor
"For terrorists around the world, the United States is the great gun bazaar," said the report, which details how terrorists amass firearms in the United States."

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?

38 posted on 12/19/2001 11:50:37 AM PST by lideric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DinkyDau
I do not see how passing laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals affects law abiding citizens.

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.

39 posted on 12/19/2001 11:52:09 AM PST by Sloth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Man. The VPC is in overdrive and on a full court press to get a law in place based on flimsy and non-existant threats. This crew is as bad as bad gets.
40 posted on 12/19/2001 11:53:37 AM PST by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson