Are Guns Responsible for Terrorism?

[JohnRich 4]

A Muslim lawyer, and writer for a policy institute, thinks that he has the solution to ridding America of the threat of terrorism: revoke the 2nd Amendment and ban all guns!

Article:

In the Fight Against Terrorism, Some Rights Must Be Repealed

The idea of terrorist cells operating clandestinely in the United States, quietly amassing handguns and assault rifles, and planning suicide shooting rampages... what about the threat posed by terrorists with guns?

The idea of public gun ownership simply does not make sense anymore... The more important consideration is public safety. It is no longer safe for the public to carry guns...

The idea of curtailing rights in the name of homeland security does not seem implausible given the current state of civil liberties in the United States. The war on terror has already taken an enormous toll on the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. In light of this precedence, it seems reasonable that scaling back or even repealing the right to bear arms would be an easy task.

So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians.

The Second Amendment is not worth such risks.

Source: Institute for Social Policy

[Amazon 7]

Hmm perhaps he is afraid that we will shoot the guy with the exploding vest that a terrorist walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and blowing up the unsuspecting civilians.

[quade 3]

John --

If I go to a "gun show" or if I go to a private individual, how many and what type of guns can I buy without the government knowing?

Would I, just as an example, be able to purchase an AR15 without -any- government involvement?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If I go to a "gun show" or if I go to a private individual, how many and what type of guns can I buy without the government knowing? Would I, just as an example, be able to purchase an AR15 without -any- government involvement?

Yes. So what?

If gun ownership was banned by law, do you think it would stop the terrorists from acquiring AR15's?

If terrorists obeyed the law, they wouldn't be terrorists.

Side note:

Isn't it funny how he complains about the loss of civil rights due to homeland security, but then decides that while we're at it, we might as well go ahead and eliminate more civil rights while we're at it? It's hard to figure out which side he's on...

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

If gun ownership was banned by law, do you think it would stop the terrorists from acquiring AR15's?

I don't understand this reasoning. We have banned driving through a red light, yet people still do it. Do you advocate not having laws against driving through a red light? Or stopping for a stop sign?

[unformed 0]

Quote

Quote

If gun ownership was banned by law, do you think it would stop the terrorists from acquiring AR15's?

I don't understand this reasoning. We have banned driving through a red light, yet people still do it. Do you advocate not having laws against driving through a red light? Or stopping for a stop sign?

Except ... there is no legitimate reason to drive through a red light (save for an emergenecy).

There are legitimate uses for owning guns.

This ad space for sale.

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

Except ... there is no legitimate reason to drive through a red light

Sure there is, I have wasted many a minute standing still for a red light in the middle of nowhere.

[christelsabine 1]

Holy Moses! JohnRich and a gun thread, covered in Muslinm "matters" - how new is that? ROFLMAO - I just love it

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Douva 0]

Quote

John --

If I go to a "gun show" or if I go to a private individual, how many and what type of guns can I buy without the government knowing?

Would I, just as an example, be able to purchase an AR15 without -any- government involvement?

The vast majority of firearms sold at gun shows are sold by dealers who are required to perform background checks. You can, however, legally buy a gun from an individual at a gun show or just about anywhere else, without a background check. The only legal requirements are that you be of legal age and be from the same state where you are buying the gun. The reason for this is that without gun registration, there is no way to keep tabs on the exchange of firearms between individuals. Despite the fact that it is so easy to legally trade firearms between individuals, most gun crimes are committed by illegally purchased firearms, suggesting that changing the way law abiding citizens are allowed to buy and sell guns would have minimal impact on the acquisition of firearms by criminals.

When you see huge tables full of guns at a gun show, those are usually dealer tables. Individual deals are usually done on a smaller scale, so this isn't a practical way to try to stock up for a terrorist attack. It would be much easier and cheaper to purchase the guns in bulk on the black market. And if I were planning on killing a lot of people, I wouldn't go with an AR-15. I'd probably go with a semi-automatic pistol and a vest full of high capacity magazines, for killing at close range. For killing from a distance, I'd choose a quality hunting rifle with a really nice scope.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[bch7773 0]

Quote

John --

If I go to a "gun show" or if I go to a private individual, how many and what type of guns can I buy without the government knowing?

Would I, just as an example, be able to purchase an AR15 without -any- government involvement?

john you messed up here!!!

quade, to buy a gun even at a gun show or a gun store, you have to get a mandatory backround check. at a gun show, the dealer calls it in to a government office who do an immediate check.

as far as how many you can buy, I beleive its essentially "as many as you want". You do have to fill out a form if you are buying multiple handguns, which the BATF reviews. But the BATF watches for suspicious behavior, like buying several guns at once

EDIT: Douva is right, buying a gun from an individual requires no checks.

MB 3528, RB 1182

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

If gun ownership was banned by law, do you think it would stop the terrorists from acquiring AR15's?

I don't understand this reasoning. We have banned driving through a red light, yet people still do it. Do you advocate not having laws against driving through a red light? Or stopping for a stop sign?

We have laws against running red lights because we need to be able to impose penalties on people who run red lights. We already have laws regarding assault and murder. A terrorist who is planning to commit murder isn't going to concern himself with a simple firearms violation. That's like expecting lower speed limits to make it harder for criminals to outrun police.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

If I go to a "gun show" or if I go to a private individual, how many and what type of guns can I buy without the government knowing?

Provided that you are of appropriate age (18 for rifles, 21 for handguns) and not a prohibited person (this includes tihngs like being convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year's imprisonment, using illegal drugs, or not being a legal immigrant) you may buy any number of non-NFA firearms (that includes machineguns, short rifles, short shotguns, non-sporting firearms with bores over .5", and things which don't legally fit into the definition of pistol, rifl, or shotgun) from unlicensed residents of your own state without letting the Federal government know about it.

Licensed dealers and manufacturers are required to perform instant checks of which records are illegally retained, keep a bound book and form 4473s which are surrendered to the government when their license lapses, and report multiple handgun sales within a 5? business day period. This holds regardless of whether the dealer is operating at a gun show or their normal place of business.

Quote

Would I, just as an example, be able to purchase an AR15 without -any- government involvement?

No because you're a Californian. If you lived in most other states you could provided it was from a private individual and not a NFA weapon.

[Gene03 0]

Of course not.
It's those evil little bullet thingies.

“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him.

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966)

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

If gun ownership was banned by law, do you think it would stop the terrorists from acquiring AR15's?

I don't understand this reasoning. We have banned driving through a red light, yet people still do it. Do you advocate not having laws against driving through a red light? Or stopping for a stop sign?

I don't advocate laws against owning cars because some people might run red lights. I don't want laws banning cars with top speeds in excess of the 25 MPH maximum permitted within most city limits. I don't support a punitive tax on automobile purchases which makes cars unafordable for the average person.

[lawrocket 3]

Hey, the 9th and 10th Amendments have been swept under the rug! The 4th? Fuck it, too!

The Second would be AWESOME, YEAH! Then, nobody will fight back when we get the other ones...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

A Muslim lawyer, and writer for a policy institute, thinks that he has the solution to ridding America of the threat of terrorism: revoke the 2nd Amendment and ban all guns!

Article:

In the Fight Against Terrorism, Some Rights Must Be Repealed

Right. Lets just eliminate freedom of religion and ban muslims from the country. If it saves just one life....

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Sure there is, I have wasted many a minute standing still for a red light in the middle of nowhere.

That is the worst logic I have ever read from you.

We already have laws in place to prevent both gun crime and running a redlight. We should enforce those, not ban a car so you can't run a red light.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

john you messed up here!!!... to buy a gun even at a gun show... you have to get a mandatory backround check.

You seem to be assuming that every gun seller at a gun show is a licensed dealer. That is not true. Private individuals who rent a table at a gun show to sell their personal firearms, are not required to perform background checks. It's no different than if they sold them out of their own home. But gun shows are where the buyers are.

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

If terrorists obeyed the law, they wouldn't be terrorists.

We could eliminate crime by abolishing all laws.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Except ... there is no legitimate reason to drive through a red light

Sure there is, I have wasted many a minute standing still for a red light in the middle of nowhere.

Do like me. In the middle of nowhere just pull your gun out and shoot the light. Then you ain't running a red

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Would I, just as an example, be able to purchase an AR15 without -any- government involvement?

No because you're a Californian. If you lived in most other states you could provided it was from a private individual and not a NFA weapon.

Not only that, but transfers/sales of AR-15s are no longer permitted in California. You had until Jan 1 2001 to buy one.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

If gun ownership was banned by law, do you think it would stop the terrorists from acquiring AR15's?

I don't understand this reasoning. We have banned driving through a red light, yet people still do it. Do you advocate not having laws against driving through a red light? Or stopping for a stop sign?

For the fiftieth time, driving through a red light is inherently dangerous and qualifies as a bad act. The "logic" of a gun controller would say that we need to ban cars to prevent fatal crashes and people running red lights.

No one is saying that there shouldn't be laws against assault, murder, etc. What we are saying is that it makes no sense to ban an object just because it might someday be used in a crime.
(A) prior restraint is a bad idea and should not be part of laws
(B) what objects don't fall into the category of 'might be used in a crime someday?'

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[unformed 0]

Quote

what objects don't fall into the category of 'might be used in a crime someday?'

Nerf balls?

This ad space for sale.

[Kennedy 0]

Nope. They've been used in rapes and kidnappings to keep victims quiet.

They've also been used in assaults. (thrown at drivers in passing vehicles)

Nothing is so innocent that it couldn't be placed in that category.

Using gun banner's "logic," EVERYTHING has to be banned.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If gun ownership was banned by law, do you think it would stop the terrorists from acquiring AR15's?

I don't understand this reasoning. We have banned driving through a red light, yet people still do it. Do you advocate not having laws against driving through a red light? Or stopping for a stop sign?

For the fiftieth time, driving through a red light is inherently dangerous and qualifies as a bad act. The "logic" of a gun controller would say that we need to ban cars to prevent fatal crashes and people running red lights.

No one is saying that there shouldn't be laws against assault, murder, etc. What we are saying is that it makes no sense to ban an object just because it might someday be used in a crime.
(A) prior restraint is a bad idea and should not be part of laws
(B) what objects don't fall into the category of 'might be used in a crime someday?'

CLASSIC EXAMPLE:

BAN DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE!

Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.

Dihydrogen monoxide:

*is also known as hydroxl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
*contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
*may cause severe burns.
*contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
*accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
*may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
*has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Contamination is reaching epidemic proportions!

Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and recently California.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

*as an industrial solvent and coolant.
*in nuclear power plants.
*in the production of styrofoam.
*as a fire retardant.
*in many forms of cruel animal research.
*in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
*as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!

The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.