Republicans vote to allow gun sales to terrorists

In order to own a Real M16 you must pass a BATFE background check 4 to 10 weeks depending, it will cost you the 200.00.
Never seen a M16 for sale at any gun show. There are those for display and you can go to places to shoot them for a hefty fee.

In order to own a Real M16 you must pass a BATFE background check 4 to 10 weeks depending, it will cost you the 200.00.
Never seen a M16 for sale at any gun show.

I was getting a kick out of the ignorant posts by the liberals until you all ruined it with the truth- you just can't buy an M-16 at a gun show.

And terrorists belong in jail- not out on the streets excersizing what's left of America's freedom. A real terrorist would not even go to a show- there are numerous black market sources for firearms.

You had my "position" about 10 posts ago...

BearMtnHIB wrote:
I was getting a kick out of the ignorant posts by the liberals until you all ruined it with the truth- you just can't buy an M-16 at a gun show.

I was getting quite a kick out of the posts (I won't say ignorant....that is your put-down term) by conservatives arguing first.....there shouldn't be gun laws, it's a 2nd amendment right to own a gun....then using gun laws to defend their position. Which is it.....does the government have the right to regulate the sale and ownership of guns by certain citizens or don't they? ditto certain types of guns....should they be regulated?

HMMM, OFF-TOPIC, since gun-dislikers (no put down term) don't like guns and want more laws to get rid of them, (even though it is a RIGHT), than is it fair to ask Does the government have the RIGHT to regulate the killing of innocent fetuses, using taxpayers money or don't they?
Of course, we don't want a loon/gangster running around with a gun, but it's there right if they are NOT FELONS. But does that stop them from getting them NO it doesn't.
Would banning killing of innocent fetuses (as a form of birth control) stop because the government said stop NO, so as a civilized country we set-up regulations to FORCE certain forms of behavior, isn't that what we're really talking about when we're talking about LAWS?
Maybe not a good example, but LAWS are a form of behavior modification are they NOT?
The ones that OBEY will not be punished, those that DO NOT OBEY will be punished.
What I want is less regulations & laws, so that I have more freedom, IMO what the left wants are more laws & regulations in order to form a perfect socity, where everybody will be the same, with the same ideas, with the same income, with the same house, with the same cars, the SCREAM that they want freedom of choice, but it MUST be there IDEA, and they're choice. I CHOOSE NOT TO AGREE WITH THAT, but I'm wrong for doing so...
Which of the two statements above explains the AMERICAN Spirit?
Sorry, hope I made my point without to much confusion. Sorry about the ramble, gotta get back to work....

archer wrote: Which is it.....does the government have the right to regulate the sale and ownership of guns by certain citizens or don't they? ditto certain types of guns....should they be regulated?

That's the $64,000 question, especially in light of the recent incorporation of the 2nd Amendment as being applicable to the states' governments. If I might ask, which government are you referring to, the general one or the state one?

Which is it.....does the government have the right to regulate the sale and ownership of guns by certain citizens or don't they? ditto certain types of guns....should they be regulated?

I think it's been overblown - the regulation of firearms. We got through the civil war- shootouts at the OK corral- people calling each other out into the streets to settle disputes, got through the gold rush, until the "progressive" movement started trading our freedom away for some false security.

Gun laws do not bother the criminal intent to use firearms against innocent citizens- they only impede the lawful citizen from freely using his/her second amendment right to bear arms. The laws didn't stop columbine- but you anti-gun lefties use every event to justify more regulation.

Yes I think we can get rid of most regulations without any real affect on our safety as a society. I don't think they were ever necessary. I'm not sure a domestic disturbance justifies denying a person his or her civil right to own firearms. I'm not sure an unpaid traffic ticket justifies denial of a firearm purchase. I'm not sure a late child support payment is a good enough reason to deny a constitutional right.

Hell- I'm not even sure a felony record is a good enough reason to deny a constitutional right. Who came up with that one? Once a person had paid their debt to society- their rights should be restored until they prove once again they don't deserve them.

I'm not sure we should have to ask permission to carry a concealed firearm- the second amendment does not mention asking permission. It gives us defacto permission.

So yea- I would say many of the regulations are crossing the line - they do not make us safer, they create the false impression of safety. And when the doo-doo hits the fan we will all find out how worthless they really are!

Some people want "less regulations" and "less laws"--as long as THEIR laws and regulations can control what goes on in other's wombs, bedrooms, and doctor's offices.

You don't like abortions? Don't have one.

You don't like same-sex families/marriages/whatever? Don't get involved with a person of the same sex.

You don't like what people decide with their doctors, that's none of your business? Butt out.

But you want "less regulations" and "less laws"...Horse-hockey...

(I won't say ignorant....that is your put-down term) by conservatives arguing first.....there shouldn't be gun laws, it's a 2nd amendment right to own a gun....then using gun laws to defend their position.

Oh and in this case my use of the word ignorant was not intended to be a put-down, the technical definition of the word;

(a.) Unknown; undiscovered.
(a.) Destitute of knowledge; uninstructed or uninformed; untaught; unenlightened.
(n.) A person untaught or uninformed; one unlettered or unskilled; an ignoramous.
(a.) Resulting from ignorance; foolish; silly.
(a.) Unacquainted with; unconscious or unaware.

It described to a tee the "unaware" response this thread was getting with regards to the "liberals" and automatic guns available at the gun shows. People like LJ are obiviously "Destitute of knowledge; uninstructed or uninformed; untaught, unenlightened" about the subject.