New anti-firearms bill - Page 11

New anti-firearms bill

This is a discussion on New anti-firearms bill within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Talk about jumping the shark or your strawman arguement. Someone did not read the article. FIRST. The Terrorist Watch List is a list of people ...

Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 239

Thread: New anti-firearms bill

  1. #151
    Member Array Faitmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    358
    Talk about jumping the shark or your strawman arguement. Someone did not read the article. FIRST. The Terrorist Watch List is a list of people who *might* be a terrorist for any one of a thousand reasons. I like how SD changed that to be 963 criminals.

    Secondly, the article says that of the 963 checks that were a match, almost 90% of them were allowed after a delay.

    SD - How about you ask each of us if we beat our wives tonight. It is basically the same arguement you keep putting forth. Your question has nothing to do with the actual subject matter.
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

    NRA Member / Ohio Conceal Carry Instructor
    CHL Holder


  2. #152
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,105
    Thats right Faitmaker, go ahead and confuse the issue with FACTS.
    But like the headline says, these people are suspects! That means someone, somewhere, thinks they might have done something illegal! I mean, just think about what life would be like if the government had to actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was a bad guy!
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  3. #153
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    Did the Government use the Laws to take these criminals off the street?
    What difference does that make? Perhaps they are terrorists that have not yet broken a law. Do you want to wait until your daughter is murdered?

    If not then I would assume that they went out and found a firearm some other way.
    This is always brought up as justification for not attempting to prevent criminals and terrorists from getting firearms. Makes no sense at all. Since we cannot stop all bank robberires, shoud we make it easier for criminals to rob banks?

    If these 963 criminals have been taken off the streets permanently they I would say you have a point. Otherwise no.
    So, if we do not immediately take them off the streets we should arm them?

  4. #154
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Thats right Faitmaker, go ahead and confuse the issue with FACTS.
    Exactly what fact do you think make the case against preventing terrorists from axquiring firearms. It is hard to believe that ANYONE wants to allow terrorsits tools to murder Americans. Do you people have half an understanding as to what you are suggesting?

    But like the headline says, these people are suspects! That means someone, somewhere, thinks they might have done something illegal! I mean, just think about what life would be like if the government had to actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was a bad guy!
    You are confusing a criminal accusation requiring a trial IF a US citizen with enemy terrorists.

    Can someone please explain why some people here want to defend terrorists? Many of the pro terrorists here sound alot like what the Obama administration justifying the accusation of brave American CIA agents doing a difficuly job of protecting America.

    Sure, let the terrorists go. Let them buy as many guns as they want. Do you people read what you post?

  5. #155
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,105
    SelfDefense, can you tell us what terrorist activity you have found in your extensive research that is legal?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  6. #156
    Member Array Ticman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Posts
    144
    SelfDefense, what will you do when your name gets on the list? Since you're in the "business" so to speak, all you have to do is piss off the right or maybe I should say the wrong person and you could be on the list too.

    That is the problem everyone is having with this. Someone's opinion about who "is" and "is not" would be inadmissible in a court room.

  7. #157
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    SelfDefense, can you tell us what terrorist activity you have found in your extensive research that is legal?
    I think you are missing the point. The point is that we do not want suspected terrorists to be able to acquire weapons. Why would we want to arm terrorists? We cannot wait until Americans die to action against the enemy. That is wrong headed thinking and will cost American lives.

  8. #158
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Ticman View Post
    SelfDefense, what will you do when your name gets on the list?
    Since I don't communicate with terrorists, since I don't attend terrorist training camps, since I don't plan terrorist activities, I will not be on a terrorist watch list. Why are you asserting I will be on 'the list?'

    Since you're in the "business" so to speak, all you have to do is piss off the right or maybe I should say the wrong person and you could be on the list too.
    What makes you think the terror watch list workd like that. And no, I am not in that particular business.

    That is the problem everyone is having with this. Someone's opinion about who "is" and "is not" would be inadmissible in a court room.
    It has nothing to do with a cortroom. No one is accused of a crime. The concept is to prevent terrorists from easily acquiring weapons. That sounds like a worthy goal.

    If someone is illegimately put on the list by mistake then all that is required is to demonstrate you are who you say you are. For example, I was sued many years ago because my name was identical to the person who was the target. I guess the lawyer simply looked up names in a phone book and suddenly I was receiving court orders and legal junk. I was on 'the list.' I provided sufficient information to the plantiff that made it very clear I was not the guy they were looking for. That was the end of it.

    It really isn't brain surgery here. Advocating a position in which terrorists should have unfettered access to firearms is untenable.

  9. #159
    Member Array Ticman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Since I don't communicate with terrorists, since I don't attend terrorist training camps, since I don't plan terrorist activities, I will not be on a terrorist watch list. Why are you asserting I will be on 'the list?'

    How do you know who they are? You could be talking to one daily and not know it. And, you're on the list. BTW, isn't planning terrorist activities already illegal?



    What makes you think the terror watch list workd like that. And no, I am not in that particular business.

    What make you think it doesn't? Who decides? My bad I thought you had something to do with Home Land Security or something to that affect.



    It has nothing to do with a cortroom. No one is accused of a crime. The concept is to prevent terrorists from easily acquiring weapons. That sounds like a worthy goal.

    [I]The reason court was brought up was because some of us believe there should be due process. You shouldn't have to prove you are innocent.[/I]

    If someone is illegimately put on the list by mistake then all that is required is to demonstrate you are who you say you are. For example, I was sued many years ago because my name was identical to the person who was the target. I guess the lawyer simply looked up names in a phone book and suddenly I was receiving court orders and legal junk. I was on 'the list.' I provided sufficient information to the plantiff that made it very clear I was not the guy they were looking for. That was the end of it.

    It really isn't brain surgery here. Advocating a position in which terrorists should have unfettered access to firearms is untenable.

    [I]No one is advocating terriost buying firerarms but you know that already. You don't have unfettered access to firearms either.[/I]
    Answers in italics.

  10. #160
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,105
    So I guess SelfDefense can not provide any examples of legal activity that could get someone on the list.
    If there is no legal activity that puts someone on the list it would appear that the federal government would prefer to have over a million criminals running the streets and advancing their plans than to actually arrest them and prosecute them. So if the next attack is carried out by people on the watch list, the government would actually through their inaction be partially responsible for the deaths and damage that occur.
    So SelfDefense why is it you want these criminals running the streets instead of safely locked away somewhere? Do you want them to attack us?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  11. #161
    Member Array Knapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Port St. John FL
    Posts
    52
    We don't have to write specific gun legislation to protect us from Terror suspects. If a person is a known terrorist or on a terrorist watch list, then he can't buy a gun in the first place.
    This is just an erosion technique. You write enough gun control laws, even ones that seem 'reasonable' you run into problems.

    Jess
    I'm an artist, and if you give me a tuba I'll bring something out of it.
    - John Lennon

  12. #162
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Ticman View Post
    How do you know who they are? You could be talking to one daily and not know it. And, you're on the list. BTW, isn't planning terrorist activities already illegal?
    Of course I would know if I was involved with terrorists! The assumption that people are too dumb to know what they are doing their daily lives is an insult to Americans. If a terrorist is planning an attack from foreign soil, comes to America on a legal visa, exactly wha law would you use to arrest him?



    The reason court was brought up was because some of us believe there should be due process


    Due process has nothing to do with having a day in court. It means people should be treated the same in the same situation. It has to do with fairness.

    You shouldn't have to prove you are innocent.
    No one is accusing of being guilty.

    No one is advocating terriost buying firerarms but you know that already. You don't have unfettered access to firearms either.
    That's exactly right. If we can employ another tool to deter terrorists then we should do exactly that. Opposing the concept of preventing terrorists from obtaining firearms actually is supporting terrorists.

  13. #163
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    So I guess SelfDefense can not provide any examples of legal activity that could get someone on the list.
    It has nothing to do with the issue. However, if you have read my posts you will find some suggestions that meet your irrelevant request.

    Would you prefer we stop identifying and tracking terrorists? Do you want them to attack America or do you think it would be better to stop them before they kill Americans?

    If there is no legal activity that puts someone on the list it would appear that the federal government would prefer to have over a million criminals running the streets and advancing their plans than to actually arrest them and prosecute them.
    You seem to be stuck on the pre-9/11 mindset of sticking our head in the sand and hoping against hope no one will attack. And once they kill thousands of Americans then, and only then should we take action. Sorry. Most Americans want to thwart enemy attacks BEFORE they occur.

    So SelfDefense why is it you want these criminals running the streets instead of safely locked away somewhere? Do you want them to attack us?
    I could give you numerous examples of enemy plans that were thwarted because of the Patriot Act and prevented the death of Americans. The Buffalo cell was uncovered and those terrorists are in jail. Of course, you would prefer that we don;t pay any attention to the enemy, let them plan their activities, acquire firearms and wait until they kill people to take action. Otherwise, heaven forbid, a Federal authority might put them on a LIST! Oh My!

  14. #164
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,105
    Thats right, they were thwarted by the terrorists being arrested.

    They can acquire all kinds of weapons from all kinds of sources that laugh at laws like this. If there is evidence that these people are that dangerous they need to be taken off the street. Surely with the Patriot Act being so effective, there must be mountains of evidence of criminal acts by these people.

    Why do you want us to ignore these crimes and enable them like that? How many more must die before the government takes meaningful action and puts these terrorists away?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  15. #165
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Thats right, they were thwarted by the terrorists being arrested.
    AFTER they were on a LIST and being tracked by authroties.

    They can acquire all kinds of weapons from all kinds of sources that laugh at laws like this.
    I never understood this argument. Maybe you an explain it to me. The argument you offer is that since someone will break law Y, we should not make law X. Because someone can rob a 7/11 we should not have a law against robbing banks.

    If there is evidence that these people are that dangerous they need to be taken off the street. Surely with the Patriot Act being so effective, there must be mountains of evidence of criminal acts by these people.
    I suppose you want to allow terrorists on planes, too. Who needs those metal detectors and watch lists? Until they kill people we should let them be. Is that your position?

    Why do you want us to ignore these crimes and enable them like that?
    Despite my coninuing explanations to you, you seem to miss the point. Terrorists may have done nothing illegal, however we know they are terrorists. We watch them and when we have sufficient evidence we arrest them. In the meantime, they should not be allowed to buy a gun. Why is that difficult to understand?

    How many more must die before the government takes meaningful action and puts these terrorists away?
    If you have suggestion on how to improve homeland security, I suggest you contact your representatives. I think I will let the professionals do the jobs we hired them to do. We have not been attacked since 9/11 and no one's rights have been violated. One can only hope that the liberals/libertarians won't too weaken our defenses. Although the fact we will not interrogate captured enemy anymore is very disturbing. Cheney's recent comments on the subject are right on the money.

    Some people simply continue with the pre 9/11 mentality and that is to the detriment of all of our safety.

Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Gov. Jindal vetoes anti-gun parade bill
    By ppkheat in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 14th, 2009, 05:55 PM
  2. New HR 2159 Anti-Gun Blacklist Bill Introduced in U.S. House
    By tns0038 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 20th, 2009, 09:55 AM
  3. H.R. 2640 Military.com Gun Bill Not Anti-Veteran
    By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 16th, 2007, 04:24 PM
  4. The current anti-gun bill introduced in Congress
    By Ron in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: May 21st, 2007, 05:56 PM
  5. Anti lawsuit bill passes
    By rachilders in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2005, 12:54 AM

Search tags for this page

, patriot act aided in 179 terror convictions, human events, july 19, 2004; and report from the field: usa patriot act a
,
boliva gun laws
,

david freddoso, patriot act aided in 179 terror convictions, human events, july 19, 2004; and report from the field: usa

,

debate it is difficult to value human right when facing bullets in the field

,
debate topic it is difficult to value human rights when facing bullets in the field
,
it is difficult to value human rights when facing bullets in the field.
,
lautenberg amendment and divorce
,

lautenberg amendment arizona

,
libertarians do not understand
,
list of recent anti firearms legislation
,
new anti gun legislation forum
,
www. sherfen sog.
Click on a term to search for related topics.