![Brady Blog [image]](http://www.bradycampaign.org/common-images/page-headers/brady-blog.jpg)
“In countries like the United States it’s perfectly legal for members of the public to own certain types of firearms. If you live in such a country obtain an assault rifle legally, preferably an AK-47 or variations.”
– AL QAEDA TRAINING MANUAL
In the last few weeks, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Congressman Peter King (R-NY) have introduced bills which say that people on the terrorist watch list should not be permitted to buy guns. Most people are shocked when they learn that this common-sense step in fighting terrorism is not already in place.
We welcome and applaud this effort by the Bush Administration and Congress to begin to plug the terrorist loophole in our nation’s gun laws, and the gun loophole in our nation’s war on terror. Under current law, suspected terrorists who are deemed too dangerous to fly on airplanes, are not classified as too dangerous to buy assault weapons or other guns unless they fall into some other prohibited category. This makes no sense.
In 2001, after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the Brady Center highlighted the danger posed by terrorists and guns in a report, Guns and Terror: How Terrorists Exploit Our Weak Gun Laws. This report documents how terrorists had obtained guns from gun shows, corrupt gun dealers, and other sources. Drawing on President Bush’s statement that “We have a responsibility to deny weapons to terrorists and to actively prevent private citizens from providing them,” the report called for America to strengthen its gun laws.
S. 1237 and H.R. 2074 are important first steps to prevent terrorists from obtaining guns. The legislation would give the Attorney General, the nation’s top law enforcement officer, the discretion to deny gun sales only to those whom he has determined are supporting, engaging in, or preparing for terrorism, and whom he also reasonably believes may use a firearm in connection with terrorism. Any denials of gun sales may be appealed to, and reversed by, a court.
While this legislation has the support of the Bush Administration, elected officials from both parties in Congress, and probably vast majorities of Americans, including gun owners, the leadership of the National Rifle Association has expressed its opposition. Whether this position represents its membership is yet to be seen.
(Note to readers: This blog entry, as well as past blog entries, are co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and www.huffingtonpost.com)
107 Comments
Sorry, comment limit exceeded for this entry.
![www.godnotguns.org blog [image]](/xshare/modules/images/gngblog.gif)
![[image]](/xshare/modules/images/gun-violence-map.gif)
![Paul Helmke [image]](/xshare/modules/images/brady-joinus-red-2007-10-12.gif)
![Gun Industry Watch [image]](/xshare/modules/images/gunindustrywatch-description.gif)
![Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence [logo]](http://www.bradycampaign.org/bradyreport/email/common-images/bc_logo.gif){kind=logo}
[…] Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership: �In countries like the United States it�s perfectly legal for members of the public to own certain types of firearms. If you live in such a country obtain an assault rifle legally, preferably an AK-47 or variations.� […]
So the terrorists are going to buy an AK-47 for about $5,000 here when they can get one for about $50 dollars back in the Middle East or smuggle it from Mexico?
Rmember folks, guilty until proven innocent when it comes to owning firearms. Did you also support Sen. Kennedy being on the “no-fly list” as a “suspected terrorist?”
The basic theory here Paul is that a citizen’s RIGHTS which are guaranteed to us by the Constitution are just that…RIGHTS. You are entitled to your rights unless you break a law or are convicted of an act which invalidates your rights. Those of us opposing S. 1237 and H.R. 2074 believe that your guaranteed RIGHTS should not be infringed upon just because you are “suspected” of anything. Murders, child molesters, and rapists are still guaranteed a trial by jury even in instances where there is irrefutable evidence to convict them. Sure, I would LOVE to see a 100% accuracy rate with these bills where every potential terrorist is nipped in the bud. But placing authority in the hands of ONE person who can arbitrarily decide whether or not you can exercise your rights sounds a lot like Communism to me. Where does it end?
My state of residence has a web site that is aimed at terrorist awareness. One of the “how to spot a potential terrorist” entries lists opposition to gun control as a “red flag”. Now, I strongly oppose gun control. Am I a terrorist? No. But should one individual be charged with invalidating my 2nd Amendment Right just be cause he/she feels like I have the potential to be a terrorist?
Is it just me or can anyone else see the slippery slope potential this has? It amazes me to read how gun control advicates make it sound like those of us who are not on board with the gun control agenda are terrorist and criminal supporters. Like your classic line “The NRA, a Criminal’s best friend.” Give me a break.
Basically, what S. 1237 and H.R. 2074 and those who support it support is indiscriminate infringement on your rights without trial or conviction. Poll the whole Country Paul, not just your predetermined cross section. I’d LOVE to see just how many Americans are in favor of that.
If there is enough credible evidence against someone to conclude that they are involved in terroristic activity, then apprehend them, try them, and convict them.
It’s interesting to see the Brady Bunch endorse the No-Fly list. Oh, yea, I understand. Those who endorse the “Mr. and Mrs. American, turn them all in” type of “sensible gun control” would use any tool or any lie available to keep firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
When one rubs two neurons together, however, one comes to the realization that the No-Fly list is a list of people where the government 1) has enough evidence to declare them as too dangerous to be allow on a plane, and 2) the government does not have enough evidence to detain them in a prison such as Gitmo. So how much evidence does it take to be detained in a secret prison, that is sometimes in a secret location, where one would be (secretly, of course) be denied the right to appeal ones imprisonment to a secret court? I’m sorry, that’s a secret, but news reports have hinted that some of the detained people are j. random people turned in by other people for the reward money.
All of that is a round-about way of saying we can’t trust the no-fly list. I’m sure the Robert Johnsons, Ted Kennedys, James Moores, Walther Murphys, and a few people named John Lewis would agree with that assessment. All the innocent people who are on the list would agree that it’s a secret how they got on the list, and there is no way to formally get off the list. Thus the list violates the “Due Process” sniff test.
Due Process – that’s another right we pro-freedom people care deeply about.
Where do these people get this stuff ? The people that are terrorist are PETA, GREENPEACE,MOVE ON,Paul Helmke, ECT, ECT. These are the people HELPING Radical Groups such as themselves DISARM the CITIZENS of the United States. That makes it SAFER to FORCE YOUR VIEW on people. BATHTUBS KILL MORE PEOPLE than GUNS EVERY DAY ! Last time I watched the NEWS IED’S (HOME MADE BOMBS) were the WEAPON of choice of the COWARDLY Terrorist. GUNS SAVE LIVES just ask ANY POLICE OFFICER. COP’S - (CITIZEN ON PATROL) can stop any attempt by a Radical Extremest to kill by being ARMED at the scene. That is called a DETERRANT and if Force is needed that’s called RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT. This works for Terrorism and CRIME, JUST ONE ARMED STUDENT (CITIZEN) at VA TECH “Could Have” Resolved the Conflict much sooner. However, They were DENIED the right to defend themselves by people that PUSH FEAR of GUNS on other people.
NO ONE can have DISCRETION to DENY ANYONE the right to self defense. If you think someone is a terrorist PROVE IT FIRST !!!!
The Organizations above use fear and intimidation to FORCE thier views on the Public, CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG but isn’t that TERRORISM ? Boy that list is gonna be pretty long !! Hope they don’t plan on FLYING anytime soon.
WE DON’T NEED MORE GUN LAWS. THERE ARE NO LOOP HOLES AND TERRORIST DON’T ABIDE BY LAWS.
ONLY LAW ABIDING CITIZENS OBEY LAWS !!!!!
Only You Can Prevent Gun Violence !! Educate yourself about guns, GO Shooting, Get your Concealed Handgun Licence and PROTECT yourself and your family from Criminals and Terrorist.
FEAR THE PEOPLE THAT FEAR YOUR RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF !!!! (The Second Ammendment)
The BC’s support of this legislation is consistent with their policy of supporting any and all legislation that could be used to deny American citizens of their rights to lawfully own firearms. Despite their claims that they support lawful ownership of firearms, they have never supported any laws which strengthen gun owners rights.
As to Paul’s comment above…
“Whether this position represents its membership is yet to be seen.”
…I am a member of the NRA and do oppose this legislation but not because of the NRA’s stance. I oppose any laws which deny Americans their Constitutional right to due process of law.
Michael
Paul, I see you have posted another propaganda filled diatribe, aimed at the weak minded.
“In countries like the United States it’s perfectly legal for members of the public to own certain types of firearms. If you live in such a country obtain an assault rifle legally, preferably an AK-47 or variations.”
– AL QAEDA TRAINING MANUAL
Strange in Scanning the Manual located by the Manchester (England) Metropolitan Police. I see nothing that mentions the above. So ether Paul, I read a different version, or as usual Paul you are being dishonest.
Seeing your past record of distortions and half truths, I opt for the latter.
Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), the most ‘Unpopular Senator in the Country” (look it up Paul.) The reason he earned the dubious title from his constituents is he lies just like you. Further is corrupt and a do nothing Senator. So Paul any one who knows who Lautenberg is ignores him the way you would the Village Idiot.
Paul, These United States are free. Not like your Guru Hugo Chavez’s third world Crap-hole. As an Attorney I am sure you are aware there are these pesky 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments that presumption of innocence is assumed. I know Paul, you feel these rights are only for you and the elite left, but I need to break it to you, they are for everyone.
S. 1237 and H.R. 2074 are trash feel good laws that just like the 94 Clinton rubbish you championed as well a dismal failure.
Paul why not try something original, like the truth…
Here’s a link to the DOJ website w/ the manual. Would the BC please provide a citation for the alledged training manual qoute?
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/manualpart1_2.pdf
Update:
It’s from an alledged pamphlet called ” How can I train myself for Jihad”from the UK, not the AQ training manual. So all these allegations are from one poorly printed piece of paper. They also advocate running. Shall we pass a law against that as well?
http://www.warbirdforum.com/jsource2.htm
Here’s an interesting little bit, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act was supported by the President, majorities of both parties in both houses, and the majority of Americans yet the BC opposed it. Of course I’m still waiting for the BC to explain how all the fully-auto weapons the terrorists are using are coming from the US gunshows and dealers.
Once again the BC Nazis show the world that they don’t see a difference between a terrorist and someone who is SUSPECTED of being a terrorist, which also shows their contempt for the rest of the Bill of Rights.
All I can say is that it’s a good thing that the only people who visit this pathetic web site are those who can easily see their lies and call them out.
They can lie all they want, you will still find me at the firing range practicing.
I suppose that this is similar to the “no-fly” list that regularly entails toddlers and the 80-year old grandmothers?
Due process of law, you see, is one of the cornerstones of our foundation. I always thought it would be the second amendment to go first in my country, but I suppose now anti-gun groups are willing to compromise the others to achieve their goals.
Now, what was that earlier post of yours called, Mr. Helmke? “Hysteria”, or something like that? And how the NRA always tries to keep its members scared?
I suppose it isn’t outrage you are showing, but rather envy- that you can’t do the same thing. When you result to tactics like this, it simply shows your disregard for America. But I suppose Habeas Corpus is a “collective right”, as well.
As others have said, one thing that we have to keep in mind is that in the US people are innocent until proven guilty. We do not deprive people of their rights simply because there is suspicion of what they might or could do. This is of course the key element behind opposition to racial profiling.
However, I guess when it comes to the Brady Campaign pushing forward their agenda of banning guns; a little racial profiling is ok. I wonder if they would have that same opinion if a gun wasn’t involved and instead of an Arabic man being investigated at an airport it was a black man walking down the street in a bad area of Harlem.
The self-made “report” the Brady Campaign uses is filled with accusations that are nothing more than the same tired objections to instances in which the law allows those not yet convicted of any disqualifying crime from legally buying a firearm.
It is also worth noting that one can simply replace the word “terrorist” with “criminal” or any other group the Brady Campaign uses at the time to get their agenda passed.
In other words, the very ‘areas they say need to be addressed’ to prevent terrorists from getting guns are just the very same restrictions they have been trying to get passed all along.
For example, here is what the Brady report claims is revealed from analyzing “specific cases involving terrorists and guns” (pg 4):
- “Gun shows are a breeding ground for gun sales to terrorists”
Again, with the “gun show loophole”? What the Brady Campaign objects to is the fact that some states allow face-to-face transfers to occur between private citizens. I guess since their “criminals get guns from gunshows’ argument hasn’t worked for them they need to claim these gunshows are the terrorists own private black markets.
- “Nothing in federal law prevents terrorists from quickly amassing arsenals of
weapons.”
Also known as the infamous “one gun a month” restriction the Brady Bunch wants to see put in place. Again, the Brady folks have just used “suspected terrorists” in place of “would be criminals” to try to drum up enough fear to get one of their pet restrictions passed.
- “The irresponsibility of the gun industry, as well as irrational statutory restraints on
federal record keeping of gun sales and other necessary enforcement tools, allows
corrupt gun dealers to funnel guns to terrorists.”
Wow… this wouldn’t happen to be a cry for providing the information trail that has been shown to be their first step towards firearms registration (and possible later confiscation) would it?
- “Loopholes in federal law have allowed terrorists to buy assault weapons and highcapacity military ammunition magazines.”
And of course by “loophole” they still mean that the law allows people not convicted of a disqualifying crime from buying these weapons. I bet they would recommend an “assault weapons ban” to close this loophole.
- “A loophole in federal law allows terrorists to buy “gun kits” through the mail that
can be assembled into untraceable assault weapons.”
Are the Bradys aware that these kits require the purchase of a certain number of American made parts to be legal and the purchase of a receiver which has to be transferred through an FFL just like any other firearms?. It also should be mentioned that these American made receivers are also made to prevent full-auto fire. They then can only be built up to be the same gun you would buy in a gun store. There is no difference between buying a complete FAL type rifle from a dealer and buying just the American made receiver from a gun dealer and putting the weapon together yourself.
Interesting article about Mayor Bloomberg and the gun-sale related “stings” he set up in Virginia. Looks like they may have more to do with running for President than actually controlling “straw man” sales.
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/052007/05282007/2873 81/
Michael
Just some more FACTUAL reading material refuting the BC and other gun grabbers claim that more guns in the hands of the law-abiding will lead to wild-west shootouts…
http://www.bnd.com/news/state/story/45326.html#recent_comm
Hey Paul, where are all the people who don’t think you are a complete and total ass-bag?
Just wondering.
Paul,
So far, the comments are nearly all hitting on the precise problem: violation of due process. One of Horse’s remarks makes the proper, constitutionally sound course crystal clear:
“If there is enough credible evidence against someone to conclude that they are involved in terroristic activity, then apprehend them, try them, and convict them.”
Well said, Horse.
Paul, that is due process and that is the correct enforcement approach. Why isn’t that obvious to you?
Here is an example of a ‘reasonable’ supporter of gun control:
(Quote=ISRA Headline News)
During an address at an anti-gun rally in front of Chuck’s [Gunshow], Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina’s Church, exhorted the crowd to “drag” shop owner, John Riggio, from his shop “like a rat” and “snuff” him. Rev. Pfleger went on to tell the crowd that legislators that vote against gun control legislation should be “snuffed” as well.
(End Quote)
Here is a link to an MP3 Audio clip of the above statement:
http://www.isra.org/quick/pfleger_calls_for_murder_052607.mp 3
Wow. I was on the NRA site today and saw that Kevin Costner is now calling for stricter gun control. Ladie’s Home Journal, Dr Phil, Rosie O’Donnell, now Kevin Costner. With such an all star line-up with obvious credibility in gun control and 2nd Amendment issues, I may have to take a step back and rethink my pro-gun position…..
And to think that I was one of about 13 people who actually LIKED Waterworld…
Hi Paul & Zach ~
Thank you for bringing up the important issues of gun control, terrorism, & dangerous loopholes (and, I would add, governmental procedural problems/issues brought to public attention years ago…) whereby ‘a known or suspected terrorist’ could legally purchase firearms in the U.S.
I, too, support bills S 1237 and HR2074 ~ and would encourage other concerned Americans to do likewise.
I also feel that NICS background data should be made readily available to include those in counterterrorism work (provided, that is, that such information does not lead to abuse of rights, etc.) ~ in order to monitor & hopefully prohibit firearm sales to those on terrorist watch lists.
Very interesting topic ~ thank you!
Kelli
Guys:
I don’t think we do our cause any good by resorting to vulgar language. Let’s concentrate on logic and facts here. The truth presented in a civil manner is our best tool.
Michael
So Kelli:
I take it you also support the “No-Fly” list? Do you support other measures that subvert the 4th amendment.
Kelli:
There is alway the potential of “unintended consequences” with any legislation. Remember when low-flow toilets were passed into law in the 1990s? The idea was to reduce water consumption by federally mandanting the size of the water tank attached to commodes. The problem was that amount of water wasn’t often enough to flush waste down. The result was that people flushed 2-3 times and ended up using more water than with the old toilets.
While allowing the AG to determine who should and shouldn’t buy a gun might sound good in theory, it sets a dangerous precedent where Congress can vote away our right to due process of law.
I know you are not in favor of gun rights but next time it might be something important to you. Suppose a federal law was passed saying the AG could deny a woman an abortion if he saw fit? Passing laws like above only make it easier to further infringe on our civil liberties which would be the “unintended consequences”.
Michael
I’ll sign off for the day wiht some food for thought:
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. …Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” –Thomas Jefferson, quoting with approval a noted criminologist of his day.
THIS is what “common sense” is all about.
Micheal is correct. Under S 1237 and HR2074 the AG could choose to put someone under added suspicion based only on the fact they are of Arabic origin and then be protected from revealing this use of racial profiling on the grounds of National Security.
So Kelli, do you support racial profiling in all cases or just those that can used to deny someone a firearm? How about a bill that would double the waiting period for black males in high crime areas? I bet you’d be on board for that one too, right?
Horse:
The quote is from Cesare Beccaria who is probably best known for his treatise “On Crimes and Punishments”
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/cesare+beccaria
Michael
Questions for Kelli.
What is the difference between a “terrorist” and a “suspected terrorist”?
What is the difference between a drug dealer and a suspected drug dealer?
What is the difference between a murderer and a suspected murderer?
Should suspected terrorists be allowed to practice the religion of their choosing?
Should suspected terrorists be allowed to vote in our elections?
Should suspected terrorists be forced to house and feed military personnel in a time of peace?
Should suspected terrorists be allowed to speak their mind?
Should suspected terrorists be allowed near children?
Should suspected terrorists be allowed to buy box-cutters?
What if on May 30th, a given individual is NOT on a watch list; then on May 31st they get added to the watch list? Do you advocate the FBI/ATF/DHS kick in their door and confiscate any firearms they purchased prior to being on the list?
If your answer is NO, then you believe that suspected terrorists should be allowed to have guns.
If your answer is YES, then there is no part of the Constitution you and your ilk are not willing to trash.
One last question Kelli, and I’ll keep it simple.
Have you read SB 1237 and/or HR 2074?
One more observation. Imagine this scenario.
Mr. terrorist super bad guy (actual physco, say a suicide bomber, which seems so popular with the kids now days) has his suicide vest all ready and trying to decide on a juicy target, Fort Dix for example. He is on a watch list and actively being monitored as the authorities try to piece together his associates/financiers/co-conspiritors, etc. Evidience is not sufficient for an arrest at this point but more evidience is gathered every day. Then super bad guy tries to buy a gun and is informed that he failed the NICS.
Hmmmmm?
Doesn’t take to long for him to figure out that he has been affected by SB1237 and HR 2074. Super bad guy then calls all his buddies and says to lie low for a while. The investigation is now worthless.
Sounds like a great idea, doesn’t it Kelli?
Kelli:
Re Post # 22, that information is already available to legitimate law enforcement as noted in a recent article by Michael Sullivan, Acting Director of the BATF.
I know that is different than what Paul and Mayor Bloomberg are saying. but, ask yourself who should know better…the head of the BATF or a mayor who is planning a Presidential run and wants to use gun control as a platform?
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/052007/05282007/2873 81/
Michael
Hey Kelli, in your opinion, should it be illegal to kill a terrorist?
How about a suspected terrorist?
[…] You probably remember my apprehension about the US Attorney General being given arbitrary, unchecked, discretionary power to restrict gun sales to “suspect” people. I’ll wager nobody will be suprised to learn the Brady Campaign to Eliminate Gun Ownership thinks its a jolly good idea; the same folks that rightly worry about the erosion of our (other) civil liberties and the recent rash of unfettered attacks on the 4A don’t seem to mind the thought of Alberto Gonzales deciding who can or can’t be armed. We’re worried about who the government is wiretapping, we’re worried about the executive branch usurping legislative authority, we’re worried about government intrusion into personal lives of all Americans…why shouldn’t we be equally concerned about the USAG getting unilateral say in who is or isn’t armed? […]
Remember folks, we are dealing with an organization that:
1.Publicly supports Mayor Bloomberg’s entrapments even after his acts have been declared illegal by the Justice Department and shown to endanger many ongoing law enforcement investigations
2. Publicly supported the gun confiscations in New Orleans even though they were deemed unconstitutional
3. Publicly supports outright handgun bans even though they have been declared unconstitutional.
For the Brady Campaign, legality, Constitutionality, due process… all that takes a back seat to their agenda of getting rid of guns.
This pretty much says it all:
http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/6271/mmmwantul4.png
Example how strict gun-control in the UK is working to reduce crime:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a…hes/article.do
(Quote)
Teachers want body armour to carry out gun searches
Teachers are demanding to be equipped with stab and bullet-proof vests to protect them from being attacked as they frisk pupils for knives and guns.
Laws coming into effect next week allow staff to conduct forcible searches of students suspected of carrying weapons.
But teachers are saying they should not be made to carry out searches unless they are provided with body armour.
More than 220 staff were seriously injured in pupil attacks last year, a rise of 21 per cent since 2002.
Have we really reached the point of our teachers wearing armour?
“In the staffroom of Sunny Haven primary school, where staff are sitting down having a cup of tea, this idea would probably make them laugh,” said David Brierley, solicitor for the Professional Association of Teachers.
“But in other schools there may be enormous relief at the idea.
“On the list of possible control measures for schools, we think protective jackets should be on the list.”
Mr Brierley said heads should consider buying several of the vests, which typically cost a few hundred pounds.
The union is calling on ministers to include a requirement to supply body armour in guidance on exercising the new powers, which is due to be published shortly. It is expected to say staff should receive training, costing around £50 per teacher, in how to ‘pat down’ clothing and check pockets for knives, blades and other weapons.
Under the Violent Crime Reduction Act, heads will not need parental consent to search pupils and can authorise other members of staff to exercise the powers.
Teachers will be able to frisk any pupil merely on the suspicion they are armed.
Reasonable grounds to initiate searches include suspicions they are members of a gang which habitually carries weapons and ‘wears a distinctive item of clothing or other means of identification.
Meanwhile, airport-style screening using scanning wands or bleeping arches can be used on pupils at random, even if staff harbour no specific suspicions.
The powers are being introduced at a time of mounting public anxiety over shootings and stabbings of children.
Luke Walmsley was stabbed to death at school in Lincolnshire in 2003 while Kiyan Prince was knifed yards from his school gates in North London last year.
A recent wave of knife and gun crime involving teenagers in London has intensified concern.
Last year, a mother sent her 16-year-old son to school in East London in a stab-proof vest because he feared for his safety.
The shopkeeper who sold the teenager the vest said he was selling three a week to children. Jan Myles, assistant secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said: “This is a high-risk strategy which could have dangerous or fatal consequences.” “Schools Minister Lord Adonis said incidents involving knives were rare but the Government wanted a zerotolerance approach.
“That’s why we are giving head teachers these tough new powers to search for weapons,” he said.
“We think parents will welcome the clear message that bringing a knife into schools will not be tolerated.”
(End Quote)
Without having read any comments yet:
Can we also prevent people suspected of terrorism from flying on planes and owning cars? Both have been used as violent weapons by terrorists in this country.
Mac
Kelli, has the BC gotten to you with their “Don’t argue the point - we lose to the evil facts and reality the pro-rights people use!” tactic? It seems your actual attempts at discussion have been in severe decline recently and have been replaced with the format of “Hey BC, you guys are super! I’m pretty super too! Great topic, Paul! I support whatever you do! Bye for now!” Come on, Kelli, where’s that fighting spirit?
Oh and has anyone heard from Zach? Maybe he finally saw the BC for what it is and left.
Mac
Kelli:
Do you remember John Ashcroft and his Operation TIPS (Terrorism Information & Prevention System) where he wanted to make domestic spies out of meter maids, letter carriers, utility workers, etc. These people would report “suspicious” activity to the authorities. It was Ashcroft’s way of getting around having “probably cause” (part of due process). My bet is that you did not support that at the time probably for the same reason I didn’t support it.
Ashcroft’s proposal was ripe for abuse as are
S.1237/H.R.2074 because it ignored Constitutional guaranteed protections against illegal search and seizure. The same could happen here with Gonzales (who, as I recall, you don’t like anyway). Do you rally want to give any AG that kind of power?
Michael
Hi Michael,
I think the Brady Campaign is trying to address the loophole that was not covered in the Brady Act, with respect to purchaser’s background checks & those not included in prohibited groups from lawfully obtaining firearms (eg., a known or suspected terrorist, someone identified only on watch lists, etc.). This is the impression that I have from reading Paul’s interesting current blog ~ & I thought it a valuable topic to comment on.
But, with respect to your concerns on the Attorney General’s Office (and yes, you are correct when you say that I don’t care for Gonzales) ~ I’m aware from published reports that the GAO (and Justice) have strongly recommended to the Attorney General’s Office that specific procedural changes/improvements are necessary to prevent ‘known or suspected terrorists’ from obtaining guns here.
This cannot be overlooked, Michael, IMO.
I think the outcome of restricting those on watch lists from obtaining guns isn’t really the disagreement we are having. Rather, the problem may be more the correct means ~ not the outcome ~ by which this is lawfully (& ethically??) done.
Thanks,
Kelli
Kelli,
Do you really not understand what a “loophole” is? A loophole is “an ambiguity (especially one in the text of a law or contract) that makes it possible to evade a difficulty or obligation.” What is being talked about here is NOT a loophole that allows someone to escape the limitations of the Brady bill.
What is being proposed is a new precedent whereby people merely suspected of something illegal can be denied a Constitutionally protected right. I’m sure you find no fault in this because you think that Constitutional rights should be selectively protected in order to achieve you desired goal of gun bans.
The problem is, you are so blinded by your hatred of guns you cannot see just what a slippery slope such a precedent is. Once it is ok to deprive American citizens “suspected of terrorism” of their 2nd Amendment right there is nothing to stop ‘the powers that be’ from using this precedent to deny rights protected in other Amendments including speech, assembly, expression, religion, abortion, trial by jury, and even due process.
Also, ask yourself what your opinion is of the actions that once took place in Abu Ghraib and some claim are still taking place in Guantanamo Bay. Are you one of the many that feel these acts committed against “suspected terrorists” are ‘cruel and unusual’ (torture) and should be stopped? Well, what prevents “cruel and unusual punishment” from being administered to American citizens is the Constitution. If you support this bill you are also supporting precedent that could be extended to allow the use of torture to “suspected terrorists.”
Kelli:
I guess it depend if you think the end justifies the means. Remember Yasir Hamdi? He is an American citizen who was designated an “enemy combatant” by the Bush administration and denied his Constitutional rights for years.
Do you agree with Gonzales when he wants to deny the right of habeus corpus to the accused as he see fit? This is really no different as far as due process is concerned. However, it will be law and any AG in the future can use it. Since it is the AG’s decision, it could be used to advance a particular political agenda of that administration. Like I said, it sets a dangerous precedent.
Also, guns can easily be smuggled into this country because of our porous borders. Do you really think that a terrorist will go through legal channels to get a gun (and possibly draw attention to himself) when he can get one on the black market?
Michael
Kelli:
One more thing.
If the person in question is a “known or suspected terrorist” why not just arrest him? Then you don’t need to worry about him getting any guns, either legally or illegally. Bush has already shown he does not need probable cause to imprison terrorist suspects in Gitmo. All he has to do is name them “enemy combatants”.
Gonzales is no friend of the Constitution or Bill of Rights (which I believe is why Bush hired him). There is another agenda here and it has little or nothing to do with protecting us from terrorism.
Michael
On another note, more lunacy from the People’s Republic of Kalifornia. Not surprising the California Assembly passed the microstamping legislation after rejecting the findings of their own survey (which recommended against it).
Assuming the the bad guys would buy a gun legally, I bet the first thing they would do is take a file to the firing pin.
Next I guess they will register files!
More feel good legislation.
http://www.nssf.org/news/PR_idx.cfm?AoI=generic&PRloc=common /PR/&PR=053007.cfm
Michael
Paul:
Speaking of terrorists, what about Catholic priest Michael Pfleger who threatened to “snuff out” gun shop owner John Riggio at a weekend anti-gun rally in the Chicago area? I would hope that if he is found guilty (since due process is important for all of us) that the BC would condemn his actions.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive /200705/CUL20070531a.html
Michael
Hi Michael ~
I’m not disagreeing with you on the potential for abuse(s) in terrorism-related investigations.
This is, of course, a legitimate concern you bring up ~ & you won’t receive an argument from me on this issue. And, on a sidenote ~ I, too, have been appalled by such brutality against detainees in places like Iraq & Gitmo, etc.
Still, to further clarify, I’m talking more narrowly about restricting, via proposed legislation (which I support), sales of firearms to those who fail to be prohibited specifically by the Brady Act/background checks.
I agree with Paul & the Brady Campaign, when they note that such bills are necessary initial steps to “… deny gun sales only to those whom [the AG] has determined are supporting, or engaging in, or preparing for terrorism, AND whom he also reasonably believes may use a firearm in connection with terrorism. Any denial of gun sales may be appealed to, and reversed by, a court…”
And, as far as the important duties assigned to the office of the Attorney General goes … well, as you know Michael, 2008 is just around the corner!
Even though Bush, in my opinion, continues to select the worst possible candidates for the position of AG (eg., Ashcroft, Gonzales), his administration has thankfully nearly run its course. And, I daresay, along with all of us ~ the rest of the world will be watching the outcome of our forthcoming presidential elections.
Another quotation that may explain further my take on this issue, comes from an ‘05 report by the GAO*, which can be downloaded online (if you are interested).
It notes:
“Although the Attorney General and the FBI ultimately are responsible for managing NICS, the FBI has not routinely monitored the states’ handling of NICS transactions with valid matches to terrorist watch list records. For example, while the FBI has notified state agencies about the procedures for handling NICS transactions with valid matches to terrorist watch list records, it has not routinely assessed the extent to which the states have implemented and followed procedures. According to the FBI, routine monitoring of the states has not been performed because of the difficulty in obtaining reliable state data … given that valid-match background checks involve known or suspected terrorists who could pose homeland security risks, more timely or more frequent monitoring would help ensure that terrorists who have disqualifying factors do not obtain firearms in violation of the law…”
That’s all today ~ thanks,
Kelli
p.s. ~ *source for above quote: GAO-05-127, “Gun Control and Terrorism: FBI Could Better Manage Firearm-Related Background Checks Involving Terrorist Watch List Records” (can be downloaded at http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05127.html).
“[To Michael:] I think the outcome of restricting those on watch lists from obtaining guns isn’t really the disagreement we are having. Rather, the problem may be more the correct means ~ not the outcome ~ by which this is lawfully (& ethically??) done.”
-Kelli
Kelli,
Actually, Michael–along with many of us–have been clearly remarking on our disagreement with restricting those on watch lists from obtaining guns. I haven’t seen anyone, except for you, commenting about how they accept that proposition, but are concerned to make sure it is implemented lawfully and ethically.
I think you might want to review the comments. The objections are to the proposition itself, not its implementation, and boil down to:
–A “watch list” is simply that: a list of people whose actions should be watched, and no more.
–A “known” terrorist should be apprehended, tried, and convicted, per due process.
–A “suspected” terrorist should be surveilled and then, if having broken any law, apprehended, tried, and convicted, per due process.
That’s probably not a complete list, but let me reiterate the three things this proposition violates: due process, due process, and due process.
An individual has a right to obtain and possess legal firearms, unless that right has been taken from them by due process.
What say you?
p.s. ~ Michael, please stop using “K” for California. I ask this; because I have friends & former colleagues who live there (have gone to school there…), who also have diverse views on their politicians, laws, etc. ~ but who love it, nonetheless! This is probably true for most states & citizens across the country. And, what makes our nation so appealing to others is our ability to voice our differences here. k
Kelli:
I have a sister who lives in Moraga outside of San Francisco and a long-time friend who lives in Piedmont. I have also enjoyed working in and visiting San Diego.
The “K” is directed towards hypocrites like Dianne Feinstein who applied for and received her CHL (after the death of Harvey Milk) then proceeds to attack the gun-rights of the average American. But, I guess since she is a Senator, she is better than the rest of us!
Michael
Kelli:
Re post #45…so because one law enforcement group is not perceived to be doing it’s job properly, you are willing to forgo due process of law? Talk about a slipery slope! What about getting more man power for the FBI so they can do the job properly. And, if the FBI can’t handle it with the number of employees it has, what makes you think the AG and his office can do it? Also, if there is a problem with the states’ databases, how will allowing the AG this power help the situation?
Like I said before, there is another agenda here and it has little of nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Once granted this power, the AG could conceivably stop gun sales nationwide or selectively stop people from buying certain types of weapons.
Michael
Here’s a good one! This just goes to show you that our focus should be on criminal recidivsm to end gun violence, not infringing on the law-abiding’s rights.
Criminals will will be criminals…no matter what laws are out there.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-no guns1jun01,1,5216846.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california&c track=1&cset=true
P.S. Kalifornia.
Kelli:
Re # 45 again…
“… deny gun sales only to those whom [the AG] has determined are supporting, or engaging in, or preparing for terrorism, AND whom he also reasonably believes may use a firearm in connection with terrorism. ”
First of all, like I already said, if they are supporting or engaging in terrorism then arrest them before they can do any more damage.
Second, as far as “reasonably believes” who is to say what is “resonable”? I think it is reasonable for all states in the US to allow concealed carry of handguns. Illinois does not allow it so they must be unreasonable, right. But, you think Illinois is reasonable for not allowing concealed carry.
President Bush thinks it is reasonable to allow wiretapping of American citizens without having to get a court order. He is the President (who the AG reports to), so if you disagree with him, then you must be unreasonable, right?
I think you get the idea.
Michael
Kelli,
(Quote)
Still, to further clarify, I’m talking more narrowly about restricting, via proposed legislation (which I support), sales of firearms to those who fail to be prohibited specifically by the Brady Act/background checks.
I agree with Paul & the Brady Campaign, when they note that such bills are necessary initial steps to “… deny gun sales only to those whom [the AG] has determined are supporting, or engaging in, or preparing for terrorism, AND whom he also reasonably believes may use a firearm in connection with terrorism. Any denial of gun sales may be appealed to, and reversed by, a court…”
(End Quote)
What you mean by saying you want to restrict “sales of firearms to those who fail to be prohibited specifically by the Brady Act/background checks” in nothing more than drumming up an excuse to through due process of law out the window altogether and ban the sale of firearms to those still legally allowed to buy them.
There is no loophole here. People SUSPECTED of a crime should be picked up, put in jail, and charged with a crime. Until that is done and they are convicted of the crime they have to be treated as innocent. Instead you want to forgo due process and punish them before they are convicted as long as they can appeal to the courts after that punishment.
You even acknowledge the very real ability to abuse such legislation but you still support it because in your mind, when it comes to getting guns of the streets, “the ends justify the means.” Well I am going to come right out and call you a HYPOCRITE. You don’t support ‘torture’ at Guitmo even though it is a means to a very important end (preventing terrorist attacks, catching terrorists, etc.). In fact I bet the denial of the right to buy a firearms is the only case where you feel it is perfectly acceptable to through out due process.
Demorcatic Peoples Republic of Kaliforna
Zen, you are talking to the wall. The truth is not welcome by some here.
Hi Zach ~
I was wondering if either you or Paul has the time to answer a quick question/clarification on the issue of terrorism & prohibited gun buyer: Just from my POV, it appeared that the Brady Act did not reach far enough, in terms of specific language prohibiting such groups as terrorists & those on ‘watch lists’ from lawfully getting firearms. Is this the case? And if so, do the bills under discussion help to address this issue?
Thanks so much for reading,
Kelli
(Kelli Quote):
“Just from my POV, it appeared that the Brady Act did not reach far enough, in terms of specific language prohibiting such groups as terrorists & those on ‘watch lists’ from lawfully getting firearms. Is this the case? And if so, do the bills under discussion help to address this issue?” (End Quote)
Translation:
The language of Brady Bill doesn’t justify violating someone’s due process in order to prevent them from buying and owning a firearm. Because people are legally considered “innocent until proven guilty,” they are still allowed to buy and own a gun if they are merely suspected of a crime but haven’t yet been convicted.
We need to call this inability to violate due process a “loophole” and convince people it needs to be “closed.”
While trying to hide the fact that it strips a person of their right to due process, would you please take the time to preach the virtues of this law in such a way (perhaps using emotional appeals rather than facts and logic) that leads people to want to support it?
Kelli (re: #47):
I am assuming that you do not like it when people refer to California spelled “K”alifornia because you believe that it incorrectly stereotypes all residents and politicians as being closely associated with communism and other derogatory comparatives? I see your point. A generalization about all people shouldn’t be made just because of the throughts, beliefs, and actions of the few right?
Like how I feel, being a professional, college educated individual being called thug, terrorist, gun-pusher, child killer, illogical, greedy, criminal-supporter, red-neck, etc by the BC and other radical anti gun groups just because I believe in the constitution, freedom, and my guaranteed right to protect myself and my family.
What goes around comes around I guess….
City of Los Angeles supplies gangs w/ 1.5 million dollars all in the name of “Gun Control”. Gangs use money to buy more guns. Should we classify the Gov’t of LA as a terrorist organization and put them on the list?
http://tinyurl.com/3×5j9u
Just remember everyone, as far as the BC is concerned, any legal manner of obtaining a firearm in this country has been, currently is, or soon will be labeled a “loophole” which must be closed.
RAK (re: #58)
I think your link has changed.
http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_152194329.html
Just a sidenote:
I don’t think it’s wise to speak or translate for the Brady Campaign here (or anyone else posting, for that matter…). Bloggers could very well be erroneous in their assumptions as to what the Campaign believes ~ & what their work is about. Perhaps, that’s why they opened these discussion blogs to begin with?
Kelli
“It isn’t wise to speak for the brady campaign” Isn’t blindly following the something not wise either
PS Kailforna
Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna KailfornaKailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna
Kailforna
Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna KailfornaKailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna
Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna KailfornaKailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna
Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna KailfornaKailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna
Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna KailfornaKailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna
Kailforna
Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna KailfornaKailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna
Kailforna
Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna KailfornaKailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna
Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna KailfornaKailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna
Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna KailfornaKailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna
Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna KailfornaKailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna Kailforna
Mr. Helmke always mentions how easy it is to get “assault weapons”.
You can’t buy assault weapons at gunshows. You can’t even buy then at gunshops unless you are licensed by the Federal Government.
You can buy SEMI-AUTO rifles that LOOK like military weapons. These ARE NOT “assault weapons”.
An assault weapon is a fully-automatic weapon. You can’t buy one at a gunshow.
Do a little research, and stop calling semi-auto weapons “assault weapons”. It makes you look uninformed, like your friend McCarthy who says that a barrel shroud is “uhh…that thing that goes up to the shoulder…”.
A quick search…so you don’t have to…for “assault weapon” info.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0
Chuk, nice video. While it’s info we know, it’s nice to see it so clearly articulated and in a manner that the BC would be too terrified to ever address. Oh those horrid facts shining down like rays of sun on the Draculaic BC.
California really is a nice place - it has simply been ruined by commie scum. Of course Feinstein should be allowed to carry while pushing gun control. She’s a politician – she’s better than you! And as your better should probably be given dictatorial authority over her subjects in the People’s Republik of Kalifornia. You should pay 60% income taxes, she should pay none, and make 5x what you do pre-tax. I know this having lived there (don’t anymore). So as a former resident with family there, I authorize the use of the “K” in Kalifornia. I watched from a distance when my old gun range was sued out of existence by its city. Never mind that it hosted some of the most upstanding citizens the area has to offer, as well as multiple law enforcement agencies, and helped who knows how many Boy Scouts earn their Shotgun and Rifle Shooting merit badges while teaching proper gun handling and safety. There’s still a lot of land under the BLM where you can find a nice desert canyon and go plinking, but that’s about it.
Mac
Here is a good article…about sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs.
http://hobbes.ncsa.uiuc.edu/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html
People like the Brady Bunch want to eliminate the sheepdog, as that will somehow eliminate the wolf.
GroundChuk
Thanks for that one, it’s great!
Here another good one…
Robert A. Heinlein wrote that an armed society is a polite society. The common perception is that armed societies were polite because an act of rudeness might evolve into a duel, as portrayed in Dumas’ The Three Musketeers. The real reason, though, is the mindset and psychology that come with responsible weapon ownership. The knight’s sword was a symbol of his duty to protect weaker members of society and behave chivalrously, e.g. with respect and courtesy to women, elderly people, and so on. The sword was the soul of the Japanese samurai, a constant reminder of the samurai’s duty and code of behavior. The sword was a symbol of taking responsibility, not only for one’s self, but usually for others.
http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/leaflets/armed.html
Michael
Marcc (re: #62 and #63),
Those were idiot posts that really do completely nothing to further the demolishing going on here of the BC’s notions.
Kelli (re: #61),
The “translation” should be seen for what it is: legitimate satire and criticism of BC ideas. Mainly, the point of the criticism in that “translation” was the due process problems that MANY here are pointing out, including myself directly to you previously. Would you care to address what is perceived as very real due process problems in removing firearms-related rights from individuals who’ve not been adjudicated against in courts of law? I suggest that if you don’t share your wisdom on this matter and help us to see the light and that our concerns aren’t warranted, people here will continue the satirical mockery.
Ah, another gem from Kelli.
Just a sidenote:
I don’t think it’s wise to speak or translate for the Brady Campaign here (or anyone else posting, for that matter…). Bloggers could very well be erroneous in their assumptions as to what the Campaign believes ~ & what their work is about. Perhaps, that’s why they opened these discussion blogs to begin with?
Kelli
So what does the BC believe?
They cried a river over the end of the DC gun ban and are actively lobbying to reinstate it.
What more need they say. We know their ultimate goal Kelli, and so do you. If you don’t like your constitutional rights, then renounce your citizenship.
Simple as that.
I am not sure you people understand what the BC is trying to do. It is entirely too easy for a terrorist to get a gun in this country. Our borders are wide open. Do we really want terrorists, whether home grown or not to have AK-47s
If the government believes that an person is going to committ an act of terrorism or supply terrorists then then should deny the purchase. Many of you talk about due process. What about safety. Giving the AG the ability to fight the war on terrorism makes sense. If the AG begins to abuse this power we can address it at that time.
And how would we address it at that time Mike? All he/she would have to do is label you a terrorist and there goes your due proccess. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Unless spending years in jail before the courts may or may not decide to intervene is something you are willing to accept for “safety”.
As an aside, why don’t you tell me where a terrorist is going to legally get an AK-47 in the US for less than about $3000 after a background check.
Laws can always be changed changed, modified or repealed.
Preventing a suspected terrorist from purchasing an assault rifle is a far cry from being jailed without due process.
On getting AK-47s. I watched a documentary on the M-16 the other night on the History Channel. One of the things that was mentioned was most armies and militias that use the AK-47 do so only if they cannot afford a M-16. Translation: AK-47s are cheap. If smugglers can bring drugs and people illegally across the border a few cheap assault rifles should not be a problem. The terrosist could then walk into any gun shop in the US and purchase all the bullets and clips he wants along with a more rifles and handguns. Next thing you know Main Street USA is the Gaza Strip.
So you can change change laws from jail when you can’t even get representation? Really?
You apparently don’t understand what “due process” means. “Due Process” is what prevents the Gov’t from just being able to round up anyone it feels like for whatever reason. They have to have actual evidence and bring charges up against you. This bill continues allows the AG to declare anyone it feels like to be a “suspected terrorist” and remove their rights.
You also don’t understand what an “assault rifle” is. An “Assualt Rifle” is a select fire weapon that falls under the 1934 GCA. They are uncommon and expensive in the US. AK-47’s are not cheap here. You just stated that the list wouldn’t stop smugglers from bringing guns into the US. The law doesn’t affect ammo or magazines. Thank you for showing that the law will not only be unconstitutional but useless.
Mike,
In your little scenario of smuggling weapons, why hasn’t it happened yet?
Why isn’t Main Street USA the Gaza Strip yet?
Why aren’t they doing it now?
Not sure how this law would help if it isn’t happening now.
Perhaps we should throw Mike in jail for aiding the cowards (most call them terrorists, I call them what they are) with ideas. Sounds like he is working for them to me.
Someone should inform the AG about this Mike person. And quickly, he is up to something.
Wow mike, your ignorance of firearms and firearm laws is really evident.
First of all, true “AK-47″ is a fully-automatic weapon regulated under The National Firearms Act of 1934 and banned from importation in 1986. True “AK47s” (registered class 3 firearm) still in legal existence in the US tend to START at $14,000.
As for the semi-auto versions of these weapons, these are functionally no different that the average semi-auto hunting rifle. However, these military copies fire a smaller less powerful bullet. You can verify this yourself by simply doing a search for ballistic information comparing the 7.62×39 round fired by the AK47 to hunting rounds like the famous .30-06, .300 Winchester, 7mm Remington, etc.
Now let me address your statement that “it is too easy for a terrorist to get a gun in this country.” Well, I sure you haven’t stopped to consider that the very same freedom that allows a person that hasn’t been convicted of a crime to buy a gun is an insuperable part of all of the freedoms that make this country great.
In a very real sense, due process is what prevents the government from trampling on every right that a person has. The same people that protest gun-ownership and believe the government should be allowed to usurp the rights of its citizens for “their own safety” don’t realize that the freedom they stand to lose if this “for their safety” criterion is turned against them.
Mike:
Re # 71, as far as stopping the AG from abusing his power, what do you think Congress has been trying to do lately? Bush has violated FISA and ordered unwarranted phone taps on American citizens. Also, he has denied Constitutional rights to American citizens (remember Yasir Hamdi?) simply by calling them “enemy combatants”. Gonzales has said he does not think that the right of habeus corpus is guaranteed to evryone under our Consitution, also. So, if you give the AG that sort of power, what makes you think you will be able to reign him in when he starts to abuse it? But, maybe you approve of what Bush has done to our civil liberties in this country.
This is a politically motivated law, pushed by those who want to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights and has nothing to do with terrorism.
Michael
I have to come back to this golden nugget by mike:
“If the AG begins to abuse this power we can address it at that time.”
Anyone notice the irony in anti-gun folks using the need to “prevent crimes against people” as their motivation for banning guns but, when their acts could lead to the government committing crimes against its people, those same anti-gunners want to wait until “after” the abuses have occurred.
In other words “lets abandon due process so we can do what we need to to feel safe, then when this abandonment of due process leads to offenses against us we can address it.” The obvious problem is that the only ways to address offense by the government is through due process or revolution. However, by then, we would be left with neither due process nor the means with which to revolt.
Kelli said:
(Quote) I don’t think it’s wise to speak or translate for the Brady Campaign here (or anyone else posting, for that matter…). Bloggers could very well be erroneous in their assumptions as to what the Campaign believes ~ & what their work is about. Perhaps, that’s why they opened these discussion blogs to begin with? (End Quote)
Translation:
The Bradys rely on being able to deceive the public into believing them. Don’t call to light the Brady Campaign’s hidden agenda, present clear instances of their blatant dishonesty, highlight their misrepresentation of facts and demonstrate the methods they use to intentionally mislead the public. By doing this you might undermine what they want people to believe.
re post 76
Ballistics of the 7.62 x 39
Bullet weight: 123 gr
Velocity: 710 m/s (~2329 ft/s)
Energy: 2010 J (~1478 ft·lbf)
Effective Range: ~300 yards
Ballistics of the 30-06
Bullet weight: 150 gr
Velocity: 2910 ft/s (~887 m/s)
Energy: 2820 ft·lbf (~3835 J)
Effective Range: ~1000 yard
Ballistics of the .300 Winchester
Bullet weight: 165 gr
Velocity: 3050 ft/s (~930 m/s)
Energy: 3408 ft·lbf (~4635 J)
Effective Range: 1200 Yards
Ballistics of the 7mm Remington
Bullet weight: 140 gr
Velocity: 3175 ft/s (~968 m/s)
Energy: 3133 ft·lbf
Effective Range: ? 500+ Yards
So what does all this mean? Is the 7.62×39 any less effective within 100 yards than any of these others?
The point is that an AK-47 is considered to be a cheap, mass produced assault rifle. How difficult would it be to covert a semi-automatic version which is sold for less than $500 at most gun shops to full auto? 5-6 internal parts that can be easily purchased or made by a competant machinist?
Lastly, if AK-47s are so rare and expensive how did the people who were going to attack Fort Dix train with them?
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070509-112511-2126r.ht m
They didn’t Mike. Show me in that article where they “trained w/ them”? It’s nowhere in there. They were looking to buy them. Illegally.
Those “5-6 parts” can’t be “easily purchased” and , if made (both being illegal anyway), would have to modify the reciever to fit them. A “competant machinist” can make an entire firearm anyway.
Of course you ignore all the other issues to continue w/ your little red herring. Typical. I’m glad you support the current measures (wiretapping, CIA run prisons, loss of Habeus Corpus, etc) by the Gov’t all in the name of “safety”. I’m sure granting the Feds. more power won’t result in anything else similar, right?
Mike:
Check out another one of the violence Policy Center(www.vpc.org). According to them the Fort Dix terrorist trained with SKS rifles, not AK-47s. My bet is the Washington times (being the gun experts they are) confused the two rifles.
http://www.vpc.org/press/0705fortdix.htm
Michael
Mike:
Re Post 82, there is a difference between the SKS and AK-47. The SKS comes with a fixed 10 round magazine that is top fed using stripper clips. It does not have a pistol grip as it comes from the factory. The AK-47 (and its clones) have a removable magazine and a pistol grip as well as a threaded muzzle.
Under the 1994 AWB, the SKS (as it was designed) was not considered an assault weapon since it did not have at least three of the five items which distinguished and assault weapon (distinct pistol grip, removable magazine, threaded muzzle, bayonet lug, etc.). Also, the import of foreign made assault weapons was stopped in 1989 by executive order by Daddy Bush. This ban stopped the Chinese and Egyptian AKs from being imported while the SKS was allowed to still allowed.
Michael
Michael
In 1974, after the PLO attacked a school in Ma’alot, Israeli (25 dies and 66 wounded) the Israelis started issuing concealed weapons permits. An incident in 1984 showed it became much more deadly for terrrorists to use mass shootings as a weapon of terror.
“Three terrorists who attempted to machine-gun the throng managed to kill only one victim before being shot down by handgun-carrying Israelis. Presented to the press the next day, the surviving terrorists complained that his group had not realized that Israeli civilians were armed. The terrorists had planned to machine-gun a succession of crowd spots, thinking that they would be able to escape before the police or army could arrive to deal with them.”
Note the comment that the surviving terrorist had not realized that Israeli civilians were armed and could fight back. There is some speculation that this was the incentive for terrorists to start using bombs instead of automatic weapons since a bomb could be detonated more covertly that fring a machinegun.
http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/sto ry_id/11200/edition_id/214/format/html/displaystory.html
Michael
Re-post 80
Here is a direct quote from the article in post #80.
According to the complaint, Eljvir Duka asked the agent if he knew where he and his brother, Dritan, could purchase AK-47 and M-16 firearms, adding that they “wanted to buy the Russian version of the AK-47 instead of the cheaper Chinese version because of its durability and its capability of being buried in dirt and sand.”
Let’s see, we have terrorists in America and their asking where to buy AK-47’s? This obviously means that they’re looking for the select-fire(full auto capable) models. This is confirmed since they were looking for M-16’s as well, which are also select fire true assault rifles.
Get you facts straight Mike. Your lies will not withstand the crowd found at this web site. The truth shall set you free.
(Quote) So what does all this mean? Is the 7.62×39 any less effective within 100 yards than any of these others? (End Quote)
Simply put, YES. The reason actually has more to do with the design of the AK47. Semi-auto ‘hunting’ rifles are made for just that, precision accuracy. On the other hand, the AK47 was designed to be tough weapon that “sprays” many rounds rather than an a weapons capable of accurate aimed shot placements.
When it comes to the how well a weapons functions, there is a very real trade off between accuracy and durability. To be accurate a firearm has to be made to very strict tolerances. However, the stricter the tolerances the easier it is for the firearm to become critically damaged.
When it comes to a semi-auto version of an AK47, they are still made to the low tolerant design specs of their fully-auto cousins but they fire at the same much slower (than full auto) rate of one round per trigger pull like a other semi auto weapons. So what you end up with a durable highly inaccurate weapon.
(Quote) The point is that an AK-47 is considered to be a cheap, mass produced assault rifle. How difficult would it be to covert a semi-automatic version which is sold for less than $500 at most gun shops to full auto? 5-6 internal parts that can be easily purchased or made by a competant machinist? (End Quote)
Despite what gun control advocates would have you believe, it is EXTREMERLY difficult to convert an AK47 to be a true full-auto weapon. The reason is that in order to be compliant with Section 922(r), of Title 18, U.S.C., semi-auto versions of military weapons have to be made so that they cannot be legally converted to a full-auto weapon. To accomplish this, semi-auto receivers are made in such a way that prevents them from being altered to accept full auto parts. The only way to “get around this” is requires the knowledge and skill to manufacture a completely new receiver.
Zen:
I’ld like to take you to task on one thing, my SAR-1 (Semi-auto AK) gets below 1.5 MOA consistently at 100M. It’s after 300M that it starts getting less accurate.
But even still, the standard hunting rounds are “more effective” as they have much more power behind them and are ussually in rifles that are more accurate.
Not that facts will matter to Mike.
I saw a really good comment made on another site about another possible outcome of this bill.
If this bill is enacted it provides a “due process” based challenge for the terror watch list because all of a sudden simply being named on the list would now mean one’s due process could be violated.
So, to ensure that due process is NOT violated, additional measures would need to be put into place to insure a person actually receives due process of law (notice of a hearing, right to challenge evidence/witnesses, etc.) before they are even added to the watch list.
The net effect of this bill could seriously reduce the governments ability to watch suspected terrorists because the government would have to be able to “prove” they have obtained “probable cause” to suspect the person is a terrorist in order to even put that person on a terrorist watch list.
Zen:
Re: 88, can you tell us which site you saw it on?
Michael
Hi Mike ~ thank you for your posts!!! I’m glad to hear your views, which are valuable in spite of the unpleasant retorts (we get a lot of those retorts here, btw … LOL) & I hope you will continue to offer your POV on this & other gun control issues!
Thanks again,
Kelli
Re: 90
It was here:
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/05/29/they_also_prefe r_you_dont_shoot_back/
I didn’t post the link as we all that this site’s spam guard has a tendency to (conveniently) filter out posts with links.
Let me know if the link I posted doesn’t appear in post # 92 above.
Kelli:
Before you talk too much about the “unpleasant retorts” you warned Mike he might get here, check out his post # 26 on “Solving Gun Crimes”. He accused me of exaggeration without even first asking where I got my information on 20,000 gun laws in the U.S. (If you look you will see I provided two sources after his post.)
I have no problem with people challenging what I say here and asking for clarification…that is what discussion is all about. But, rather than attack first, politely ask me to provide references. If I can’t, then you can claim exxageration. As I pointed out to Mike, most of us on the pro-civil rights side are more than willing to provide sources for the information that we post here.
There have certainly been some verbal abuses from our side. As you will remember, I have defended you when I felt they were out of line especially when sexual refences were used (to see a more recent one, check out Post #23 above.)
All for now,
Michael
So Kelli:
What specifically has been valuable in Mike’s posts besides his desire for more illegal gun control ? His knowledge of firearms and the law have already been found lacking.
Heads up everybody, I have a feeling that ” Mike” is actually Mike Barnes, another BC employee. This would explain his lack of knowledge concerning firearms and his presence on our web site.
why are we trying to keep guns away from terrorests? On 9-11-2001 terrorests killed thousands without one shot being fired!
All gun control fenatics should move to australia where guns are illegal. Although you still might want to get steel bars on your doors and windows because home invasion robberys involving GUNS went on the RISE after ALL the guns were taken away from EVERYONE. Those damnd outlaws! who would have ever thought they would do something like BREAK THE LAW and SMUGGLE guns in from another country.
Paul (& Mike’s comments, too) are a good reminder that our decisions in this country regarding guns not only affect us; but also, others outside our borders. We all really should know this by now; but, many (gun rights zealots, gun lobbyists, arms manufacturers, some political figures, etc.) need the constant reminders ~ as they appear to not understand.
Kelli
Kelli, would you care to offer some facts to support your statement that our gun rights effect other nations. Of course not.
Kelli, I believe they are still accepting immigration visas in Australia, you can check. But before you go, go to google and type in (gun crimes up in australia dispite ban) and there you will see approxamtly 680,000 stories to back up my statment #96
The manual doesn’t include that text. There are several versions going around the Internet on that. They are bogus.
The Brady Campaign lied to us again.
payday advance loan new mexico…
payday advance loan new mexico…
dish network consumer complaints…
dish network consumer complaints…
for payday loans…
for payday loans…
free annually credit report…
free annually credit report…
health insurance for elderly…
health insurance for elderly…
[…] It’s interesting to see the Brady Bunch endorse the No-Fly list. Oh, yea, I understand. Those who endorse the “Mr. and Mrs. American, turn them all in” type of “sensible gun control” would use any tool or any lie available to keep firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens. […]
aiming…
aiming…