Republicans vote to allow gun sales to terrorists

archer wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: I can do that right now. Go out an purchase an M-16 manufactured in 2002 archer and see what happens. I guarantee you you won't be able to purchase it. You are a law abiding citizen, you said so yourself and I will take you at your word. Go ahead, go out and purchase an M-16 manufactured in 2002. The only way you will accomplish it is to break the law. You can buy one from 1982 if you have the cash, but not one made in 2002, regardless of how much cash you have. I've just proven to you that a law abiding citizen can't purchase a gun - can I presume you will start worrying now?

No...what do you need an M 16 for?

And so it begins - the switch from ability to justification. Need I justify myself archer? Need I justify why I wish to purchase one product instead of another in the land of the free and the home of the brave as a law abiding member of that society? If so, why stop at guns? How long before I need to justify why I wish to own one vehicle instead of another? How long before I need to justify why I wish to live in one place instead of another?

Get back to me when a law abiding citizen can't buy a gun and I'll start to worry.

So what you really meant was get back to you when a law abiding citizen couldn't buy a gun that you approve of, right?

LadyJazzer wrote: Don't know about you, but I don't WANT a terrorist to be able to buy an M-16 at a gun show. But I'm funny that way. I worry more about people that shouldn't have them than I do about the right-wing hysterics that are afraid that if we screen out the bad guys, some "good guy" (who only beats up his wife from time to time) might be denied one.

The only way that happens currently is when the federal government decides to allow the purchase in spite of the fact that the person desiring to purchase the weapon appears on one of their lists. Kind of like they did with Operation Gun Runner and Fast and Furious. What they get to do next is release a report that says that people with links to terrorism were allowed to purchase weapons and stir up a bunch of fear that will hopefully influence the populace to allow them to take more guns away from law abiding citizens.

Good...

In case you missed it, I'll repeat it: "Don't know about you, but I don't WANT a terrorist to be able to buy an M-16 at a gun show. But I'm funny that way. I worry more about people that shouldn't have them than I do about the right-wing hysterics that are afraid that if we screen out the bad guys, some "good guy" (who only beats up his wife from time to time) might be denied one."

Martin Ent Inc wrote: Alot of LEO's should/are on watch lists as they do have DV charges and some convictions.

Terrorists don't need to go to shows, are government made sure we stocked them years ago with weapons, and the weapon of choice for most terrorists is the AK.

Actually, I think I would rather have an AK-47. Saw some show, on Mil. Channel, they took an AK-47, put it in sand, pouring it down the barrel, then pouring it out, Worked like a champ, no jamming, and nothing, then they took the same rifle and dumped it in water, totally drown the sucker, Worked like a champ, then they ran it over
with a tank, same gun, still worked, but not have accurate, with that bent in the barrel. VERY Impressive. Pretty
Sure M-16 couldn't stand up against that beating...

Check out youtube should be there, YES OF COURSE THERE ARE A LOT OF "Don't try this a home" messages.

LadyJazzer wrote: Good...

In case you missed it, I'll repeat it: "Don't know about you, but I don't WANT a terrorist to be able to buy an M-16 at a gun show. But I'm funny that way. I worry more about people that shouldn't have them than I do about the right-wing hysterics that are afraid that if we screen out the bad guys, some "good guy" (who only beats up his wife from time to time) might be denied one."

Repeating a poorly crafted message word for word does nothing to enhance the clarity of what you were attempting to say. Perhaps rephrasing might correct that lack of clarity and allow discussion on the point you are not being successful in making.

When I need lessons on how to speak around issues and clowd the discussion with unnecessary references to extraneous material, you'll be my go-to guy.

In the meantime, what part of "Good!" was unclear to you?

The part where you think it is good for the government to be able to fly a false flag and then use that to scare the populace into giving it more power. I would have been willing to bet you would have thought that to be a bad thing and not a good one.

There's no "scare"...

"I don't know about you, but I don't WANT a terrorist to be able to buy an M-16 at a gun show. "

What part of this do you not understand? Seems pretty clear and unconfusing to me.

I worry more about people that shouldn't have them than I do about the right-wing hysterics that are afraid that if we screen out the bad guys, some "good guy" [might be eliminated]

What part of this do you not understand? Seems pretty clear and unconfusing to me.

Obviously, the Second Amendment is not an absolute right...(If it were, there wouldn't still be a required background-check for retailers.) So, we have a loophole where people can sell at gunshows, and buy at gunshows and get around the required background check that retailers are required to perform.

With me so far?

I don't want people who are on the terrorist watch-list, (or for that matter, the same list that the retail background check would flag as "not allowed"), to get guns.

Still with me?

Some of the people who would be turned down on background checks also include people who got placed there as a result of domestic violence.

Still with me?

I don't want them to have guns either...And again, if they were to be flagged by the background check, then I say "GOOD!"

Let me know which part you don't understand, or is ambiguous... Otherwise, you can take my WELL-crafted message and stuff it up your nose.

LadyJazzer wrote: Otherwise, you can take my WELL-crafted message and stuff it up your nose.

It won't fit, you got too verbose.

LadyJazzer wrote: There's no "scare"...

"I don't know about you, but I don't WANT a terrorist to be able to buy an M-16 at a gun show. "

We can pretty much stop right here and dismiss the rest of your nonsense because there is no loophole that needs closing here. To purchase an M-16 requires the purchase of a special tax stamp when ownership of the firearm is transferred from one person to another person- an additional $200 added to the cost of the weapon itself. That tax stamp must be purchased and it can only be purchased from the federal government by the person to whom the weapon is being transferred or sold. Thus the only way for a terrorist to purchase an M-16 at a gun show is with federal approval. That has been true since 1934, well before there was any law requiring a background check at a gun show and regardless of whether or not there are any background checks performed at the gun show. With me so far? Is there anything I've said here which you don't understand now? Good. I'm glad we were able to clear that up as it pretty well establishes that your position is the result of successful fear tactics employed by the take the guns away lobby rather than a reasoned conclusion drawn from the study of facts.