Guns for Terrorists-

welsh

welsh

Junkmaster
Ah, nothing like a gun thread.....

So let's not just lift the assault weapons, lets make it easier for terrorists to buy them.

When will the humor cease?

Guns for Terrorists
The New York Times | Editorial

Monday 4 April 2005

If a background check shows that you are an undocumented immigrant, federal law bars you from buying a gun. If the same check shows that you have ties to Al Qaeda, you are free to buy an AK-47. That is the absurd state of the nation's gun laws, and a recent government report revealed that terrorist suspects are taking advantage of it. There are a few promising signs, however, that the federal government is considering injecting some sanity into policies on terror suspects and guns.

The Government Accountability Office examined F.B.I. and state background checks for gun sales during a five-month period last year. It found 44 checks in which the prospective buyer turned up on a government terrorist watch list. A few of these prospective buyers were denied guns for other disqualifying factors, like a felony conviction or illegal immigration status. But 35 of the 44 people on the watch lists were able to buy guns.

The encouraging news is that the G.A.O. report may be prodding Washington to act. The F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller III, has announced that he is forming a study group to review gun sales to terror suspects. In a letter to Senator Frank Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat, Mr. Mueller said that the new working group would review the national background check system in light of the report. We hope this group will take a strong stand in favor of changes in the law to deny guns to terror suspects.

In the meantime, Senator Lautenberg is pushing for important reforms. He has asked the Justice Department to consider making presence on a terrorist watch list a disqualifying factor for gun purchases. And he wants to force gun sellers to keep better records. Under a recent law, records of gun purchases must be destroyed after 24 hours, eliminating important information for law enforcement. Senator Lautenberg wants to require that these records be kept for at least 10 years for buyers on terrorist watch lists.

Keeping terror suspects from buying guns seems like an issue the entire nation can rally around. But the National Rifle Association is, as usual, fighting even the most reasonable regulation of gun purchases. After the G.A.O. report came out, Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.'s executive vice president, took to the airwaves to reiterate his group's commitment to ensuring that every citizen has access to guns, and to cast doubt on the reliability of terrorist watch lists.

Unfortunately, the N.R.A. - rather than the national interest - is too often the driving force on gun policy in Congress, particularly since last November's election. Even after the G.A.O.'s disturbing revelations, the Senate has continued its work on a dangerous bill to insulate manufacturers and sellers from liability when guns harm people. If it passes, as seems increasingly likely, it will remove any fear a seller might have of being held legally responsible if he provides a gun used in a terrorist attack.
Click to expand...
 
Also take into consideration the fact that America's definition of a terrorist is anyone with a criminal background.

Now, I'm a gun-loving American and a member of the NRA, but those people who voted for Bush because of his gun control policy need to have their head examined (and then promptly bashed in with a fire extinguisher). If anything, gun laws have become MORE strict since he took office.

Fucking Bush...
 
Scrapper said:
If anything, gun laws have become MORE strict since he took office.
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate on this? Letting a ban on assault weapons expire seems to be an extreme example of loosening gun laws.

For my part, I always believed the tougher it was for average honest Joe to get a gun, the tougher it was for "People I don't Want to Have Guns(tm)" to get them. So, I'm all for mandatory waiting period, background checks, purchase limits, and closing any gun show or collection loop holes.
 
At least in my state (Illinois), clip size maximums have been reduced from 12 to 10, and waiting periods for getting guns have increased. You could buy an AR-15 here during the Clinton administration as long as it had a three-round burst limiter, but now it has to have a semi-auto limiter in order to be legal. Otherwise the ATF will jam lead into your barrel, making it a very large paperweight.
 
Actually, the ban on assault rifles did little, if anything. It only looked at size of clips and such to judge if it was an assault rifle or not.

Even if a terrorist is "anyone with a criminal background" I dont think I'd want anyone with a criminal background hanging around with a gun. (Depending on the crime)
 
It's just stupid that way, because all that does is force criminals to use unregistered guns that are far more difficult to track (which any smart crook is going to do anyway, but that's beside the point).
 
Your Right to Bear Arms makes things so complicated. It's quite funny to read about all your complicated little laws, whereas here in Britain is pretty much 'No', with some exceptions. :D
 
I'm actually quite amused by some of the firearms produced for the British market; since they have to be a certain (ridiculous) length to qualify as a "Shotgun". Saw I think a .22 varmint rifle where the barrel alone was 36" long, never mind the stock. Must have made it fairly accurate, actually.
 
What exactly the assault ban did was discussed on this thread,assault ban lifted and others mentioned there.

Honestly, I have always been suspicious of the NRA- is it representative of firearm owners or firearm makers? Because those communities have different interests and I would be a bit worried that the industry manages to fuck the owners in their rush to profit.
 
Well welsh i think in a way the NRA supports both the gun makers and owners.......without one you cant really have the other. Even though i am a member of the NRA i do realise that it is a special interest group, however i dont feel bad about supporting it because not only is it a special interest group that shares my views but there are many other special interest groups batting for the other side. Politics are corrupt and sometimes it takes making pacts with groups with money to get what you need out of the government.

On a different note i really dont know why criminals even try to purchase firearms legally, when arms can (and do) come across our leaky borders and aren't really that hard to get.
 
Anybody can be a suspect, and denying citizens rights because you just might be a towel-head isn't the way we should look at justice. Firearms or not.
 
I think being on a terrorist watch list might be a little more specific that "are you a towel head."

That said, I would also be curious to know what it takes to get on the terrorist watch list.

As for making deals with devils Bob, you may be assuming that there is a fair deal being made- gun owners and gun companies. But if politics is a corrupt business, don't you think the politics of social groups or movements might be equally corrupt. Would not the gun industry have more power to manipulate the NRA agenda than the gun owners?

For example- Most americans probably support the right of people to have guns, for sport hunting, collecting or even target shooting. At the same time most americans are said not to support having assault weapons and are not averse to some limits to gun ownership for public safety. These folks support something of a compromise between the right to bare arms and personal security.

The gun industry, in the late 1980s and the early 1990s, was in need of new markets to increase sales, so they pushed hard on the marketing of assault weapons to replace declining sales in hunting weapons. They also apparently pushed hard for 9 mm handguns with high clips because of declinding sales in revolvers. The backlash was movements to restrict the import of guns from foreign manufacturers, bans on weapons and greater legal limits at both state and federal levels in many states.

Likewise, now that the assault weapon ban has been lifted, the gun industry is also seeking to protect itself for liability for negligent sales. So if they have some reason to suspect a straw purchaser, or that someone is buying weapons in bulk in one locality to move to a second more restrictive area to resell, they have no liability. In otherwords they want to protect themselves from law suits. The question of whether the community would consider such sales by the gun industry (which profits from the sale of weapons they know will go into criminal circulation) as negligence, is left undecided or, better yet, never considered due to legal immunities.

Yet the average gun owner, who might own one or two weapons for home protection, hunting, has little interest in this. In fact, one might argue that the gun owner might have an interest in preventing the sale of guns that the manufacturer has reason to suspect (or may even market to- as in the case of the Tec-9) to criminal elements.

Likewise, the average hunter may have little reason to support the sales of mass-produced assault rifles that have little use outside of the battle field, and may even be interested in preventing the circulation of such weapons that might make society more dangerous or may even, in the long-term, lead to laws which further infringe on his right to own a hunting rifle. THe industry gambles with your rights and interests in order to gain it's objectives.

Ok so the rub- even within social groups, individuals have their individualized interests and may pursue those interests through the group. In fact, they may even utilize the social group to obtain their interest at the detriment of other members of that social group.

For example. the feminist movement was successful for middle and upper class women- allowing them to gain access to professions, income and legal protections that had not been afforded them prior to the Equal Rights Movement. Yet other women's group- poor and minorities, have generally not succeeded in their goals- child care, health care, etc. WHy? Because once the middle and upper class won their goals, they could abandon the others. They could because the middle and upper class women had more money, influence and opportunity to manipulate the feminist agenda than poor and minorities.

Why wouldn't the gun manufacturers pull the same stunt on gun owners? As a gun owner I think I would have reason to suspect the gun manufacturers in directing the agenda of the NRA. Who has more money, influence and access- the individual gun owner or the gun industry?
 
Hunting was not the only thing on the minds of the Founding Fathers when they established our government and ensured our right to bare arms.

Read the "Declaration of Independence" and research the Founding Father's opinions on the topic. Lots of quotes can be found that can clear up some of the ambiguity people interpret in the 2nd amedment.
 
Geh. The original article is so biased it isn't funny

"Even after the G.A.O.'s disturbing revelations, the Senate has continued its work on a dangerous bill to insulate manufacturers and sellers from liability when guns harm people."

Uh, yeah, dangerous bill that stops idiots from suing the gun company because they were dumbasses and shot themselves in the foot or little Jimmy decided he didn't feel like living anymore. People might compare this to protecting tobacco companies but it's not the same thing at all. Cigarettes don't come with a damn manual that has at least a full page of bright red text describing what will happen if you act stupidly around firearms and list the 10 rules of firearms safety.

Also, the Assault Weapons Ban tried to ban firearms based on cosmetic features which is like trying to ban red cars because people like to drive too fast in them. "Oh no, it has a pistol grip, it's evil!" Right. According to the Californians, a pistol design that's 99 years old and is sort of obsolete is an assault weapon simply because the magazine isn't in the grip. Great logic.

Either way, I need sleep. - Colt
 
So, what you're saying, Welsh, is that gun makers are influencing NRA policy so they can reserve the possibility of selling to terrorists?
 
I agree, sueing a gun company because some accidently shot himself in the foot, is silly.

Likewise if one person went to, say Virginia, and bought an assault weapon that was illegal in New York, and then brought the weapon to New York and used it in a crime, I would have a hard time seeing the industry as negligent.

But at the same time if the gun industry is selling guns in bulk to retailers who they know or should know are buying with the purpose of circulating the guns into markets which have regulated those weapons, than the manufacturer is either acting knowingly or negligently. Why shouldn't the industry be liable?

Basic products liability stipulates that parties are often liable for their contracts if they put items in the stream of commerce. That places the industry on an even footing with every other industry that manufacturers in the US.

That is unless of course you feel that guns should never be regulated at all.

Which the Courts have never upheld. THe right to bear arms is not unrestricted, or at least is no less restricted than any other right of the Bill of Rights.

But also, if you are to argue that the right to bear arms is unrestricted anywhere that would mean that you completely throw out any difference between say, the bad neighborhoods in Philadelphia where kids are killing each other in large numbers and a nice rural area in Kansas where most of the folks keep these guns for sport or self-protection or sport.

But if that's the case than you'd also be arguing that localities are not allowed to regulate conduct in ways they feel are necessary to protect themselves. That whole "states-rights" thing that conservatives are fond of gets tossed because its the NRA? I mean even in the "Wild West" towns would often forbid individuals from carrying weapons in town.

I mean, does your right to bear arms in rural Kansas mean that cities with high gang-related crime can't keep guns out of the hands of gangsters?

No Bradylama- what I am saying is that the interest of the gun manufacturers- to maintain a steady or growing profit stream, is not necessary the same as that of the gun owners- who might be interested in self-protection, hunting or other sport.

This would be consistent with the politics of other social groups- members within social groups that have greater access to wealth and influence may move the policies of a social group in ways that are detrimental to the rest of that group.

I regularly hear that Most Americans are both sympathetic to gun owners but don't want assault weapons. So why would the NRA push an agenda when it contradicts what most Americans and probably most gun owners want? Could it be profit?
 
welsh im not sure but you seem to be implying that most hunters dont want assault weapons. Are you a hunter? it may be true that most hunters dont want to see a deer shot up with an SKS or AK but i know many hunters that collect and refurbish assault rifles as a pass-time activity.

In my town several of the gun shops in town started selling assault rifle acessories (that before the assault weapons ban very hard to get and very expensive) for at least half priced of the pre-ban merchandise, if they where really out to gut gun byers clean wouldnt they have raised the prices to turn more of a profit?

Also you seem to assume that most of the firearms that criminals get are purchased legally, while the gun may have been purchased legally they often change hands from the buyer to another buyer.

Are companies that make bath tubs ever called "killers" or "corporate pigs" they to make a product that can be deadly if misused, and they have a legal team to help with lawsuits as well. Gun manufacturers cant be held responsible for the actions of buyers, as they cannot possibly control their product outside their control. It would be like giving a life sentence to the parents of a murderer when they where not directly involved, but as they are his parents they become involved because they raised him.
 
I don't think all gunowners are NRA members to begin with. Societies that lobby in the name of citizen's rights don't have to (nor should) simply represent what's in vogue.
 
your right, as most of us know Mr. moore is a member of the NRA....... and he wouldnt pick up a gun to save his life (he just uses it as a calling card but hey whatever)
 
So you're telling me that the primary group that represents the freedom to bare arms, the NRA, doesn't really represent gun owners?

Bob- there have been lots of lawsuits against companies that have made bathtubs, chidlren's toys, bikes, handsaws and just about anything should the manufacture be liabile under products liability, breach of warranty or negligence.

And yes, most guns that are used by criminals are probably purchased legally at least somewhere down the chain of commerce. If not manufacturers are getting ripped off and are pretty sloppy with their security.

So yes, you have the case where a guy steals a gun and sells it. Or where someone rips off a gun or a bunch of guns and it goes into the market. Legally, such a theft might be seen as a break in the chain of commerce. But when a retailer sells a couple dozen assault weapons to the same buyer ever few months, somewhere a red flag should come up. That's especially true if those weapons begin to show up in other cities and can be traced to violent crimes.

Again, looking at assault weapons, many of the weapons that have been banned both before the ban went into affect or were added to the bad were foreign manufactured. Why? Because the industry is protecting itself.

As for the price of guns - the price is sold at a rate that is competitive at the market. Depending on where you are probably depends on how much you spend on guns. I am sure you can find places where you can surplus assault weapons at bargain prices.

No, I don't hunt but I do want to. Fishing season tends to last longer and is in better weather.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top