NRA fighting for you?

cr726 · 05-10-2007, 11:25 PM

[B]NRA Urges Bush Administration To Drop Its Support Of Bill That Would Restrict Terrorists’ Access To Guns[/B]

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is urging the Bush Administration to drop its support of a bill that would restrict terrorists’ access to guns. Introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-New Jersey) on April 26th, the legislation seeks to close the “terror gap” in federal gun law by giving the Attorney General the power to block gun sales to terror suspects. Under current federal gun law, there is no provision to deny suspected terrorists from purchasing a firearm.

As the law stands now, a licensed firearms dealer must request a background check through the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) before an unlicensed individual may purchase a weapon. However, even if a NICS check reveals that the prospective purchaser is a known or suspected terrorist, nothing in current law prevents that person from purchasing a gun unless he or she meets one of the other disqualifying factors, such as a felony or domestic abuse conviction.

The NRA explains that Lautenberg’s bill “would deny the right to purchase a firearm, get a Right-to-Carry license or become a federally licensed firearms dealer if the person was on a ‘terrorism watch list.’” The problem, says the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre, is that “no one knows how you get on the list, no one knows how you get off the list, and no one knows WHY you’re on the list. It’s entirely up to the discretion of the Department of Justice.” This would allow the Justice Department to arbitrarily take away individuals’ Second Amendment right “without a trial, without an arrest, without charges, just because someone somewhere said, ‘Because I say so.’”

Justice Department officials, however, dispute the NRA’s characterization of the bill, saying that it would not automatically bar gun sales to suspected terrorists. In some cases, federal law enforcement officers may want the sale to occur to prevent jeopardizing an open investigation. Moreover, they add, individuals who are prevented from purchasing a weapon because they are on the watch list can challenge that decision.

cr726 · 05-11-2007, 03:28 PM

No one cares that the NRA would rather have someone on a terror watch list be able to legally purchase a firearm in the U.S.?

Piper · 05-11-2007, 04:00 PM

Surprising that you don't applaud this.

sackdance · 05-11-2007, 04:19 PM

[QUOTE=cr726]No one cares that the NRA would rather have someone on a terror watch list be able to legally purchase a firearm in the U.S.?[/QUOTE]
Dude, how can you harp about this technicality when you fight for a email/cell phone freedom that all prospective terrorists would benefit from? We won't even know they're terrorists until after the fact, if you anti-Patriot Act dipsh-ts get your way. If this doesn't prove that people like yourself care more about partisan politics than national security, nothing does.

cr726 · 05-11-2007, 09:33 PM

Please show me one post that I have stated this sh!t you are spewing. The Patriot Act has helped me out a lot, although it does need more oversight.

[QUOTE=sackdance]Dude, how can you harp about this technicality when you fight for a email/cell phone freedom that all prospective terrorists would benefit from? We won't even know they're terrorists until after the fact, if you anti-Patriot Act dipsh-ts get your way. If this doesn't prove that people like yourself care more about partisan politics than national security, nothing does.[/QUOTE]

chicadeel · 05-12-2007, 07:25 AM

cr726- How do they formulate the watch list? I'm not sure how that works.

cr726 · 05-12-2007, 11:29 AM

Unfortunately I am not allowed to discuss the watch list and how people are placed on it.

[QUOTE=chicadeel]cr726- How do they formulate the watch list? I'm not sure how that works.[/QUOTE]

quantum · 05-15-2007, 03:33 PM

Stuff like this is right up there with the @$$clown questions you get asked at the baggage check-in at the airport:

-did you pack this bag?
-has it left you're sight?
-is there anything dangerous in there?

I'm sure a terrorist would answer these truthfully. :rolleyes:

Greenwave81 · 05-15-2007, 03:45 PM

This is stupid...it appears to be nothing more than posturing for political gain.

If someone is a [b]known[/b] terrorist, as the article states, or a suspected terrorist then the answer is to arrest them and charge them with a crime. If convicted, they then fail the NCIS background check and the problem is solved.

I would bet Lautenburg raised holy hell over analyzing the communication patterns of people on terrorist watchlists, yet can't wait to trample the second amendment rights of these same people..it is hypocritical.

Warfish · 05-15-2007, 03:52 PM

[QUOTE=Greenwave81]This is stupid...it appears to be nothing more than posturing for political gain.

If someone is a [b]known[/b] terrorist, as the article states, or a suspected terrorist then the answer is to arrest them and charge them with a crime. If convicted, they then fail the NCIS background check and the problem is solved.

I would bet Lautenburg raised holy hell over analyzing the communication patterns of people on terrorist watchlists, yet can't wait to trample the second amendment rights of these same people..it is hypocritical.[/QUOTE]

Quoted for Truth and General Agreement. :yes:

cr726 · 05-16-2007, 12:31 AM

You believe there should not be a watch list? You need more than mere suspicion to arrest someone, but hey give them a gun until they actually commit a crime.

[QUOTE=Greenwave81]This is stupid...it appears to be nothing more than posturing for political gain.

If someone is a [b]known[/b] terrorist, as the article states, or a suspected terrorist then the answer is to arrest them and charge them with a crime. If convicted, they then fail the NCIS background check and the problem is solved.

I would bet Lautenburg raised holy hell over analyzing the communication patterns of people on terrorist watchlists, yet can't wait to trample the second amendment rights of these same people..it is hypocritical.[/QUOTE]

Greenwave81 · 05-16-2007, 12:46 AM

[QUOTE=cr726]You believe there should not be a watch list? You need more than mere suspicion to arrest someone, but hey give them a gun until they actually commit a crime.[/QUOTE]

No, I believe there should be a watch list...and if the government wants to listen or collect data about their phone conversations/contacts, that's OK with me too.

I just have heartburn when someone like Lautenberg, notoriously anti-2nd amendment, finds it OK to restrict the 2nd amendment rights of someone on a 'watch list' while at the same time *****ing about the supposed rights of individuals on that same 'watch list' being 'infringed' because their phone records are being scrutinized.

If the goal is to prevent terrorists from committing heinous acts, I'm all for it...but you cannot pick and choose what 'rights' you deem it proper to encroach upon based on political expediency.

We live in difficult times, often made more precipitous by politicians willing to use the situation to their political advantage...and that is truly sad. I see this as political expediency used to further the politicians personal agenda.

The issue of gun control is seen through a prism of individual circumstance. I grew up on LI and didn't even know anyone that owned a gun, which was entirely normal...but here in the midwest, I own what would be considered in NY/NJ as an arsenal. I also have a CCW permit. I can easily see the feds targeting innocent people as 'terrorists' just because of the firearms they own.

Of course the response to this is "well, if your not a terrorist, you have nothing to fear"...but then again, wasn't this also the answer to the flap over the 'phone' issue too?

chicadeel · 05-16-2007, 03:40 PM

[QUOTE=cr726]Unfortunately, I am not allowed to discuss the watch list and how people are placed on it.[/QUOTE]

This is part of the problem.

I'm sure you can understand how people can have reservations when they have no idea the basis for being on a Terrorist Watch List. Having your name on a watch list or being a suspect seems to be vastly different then being convicted of a crime or having a judge deem you a hazard to society.

PMCRW · 05-16-2007, 04:42 PM

What distinguishes a terror suspect from a normal citizen? What do you really think his Al Queda training degree is going to show up in background checks? NRA is right on this one not because they are supporting terrorism but because it would give the Attorney General the power to say YOU are a terrorist. That's right, YOU...

..And more importantly what the f is terror?

ter·ror (tĕr'ər)
n.
Intense, overpowering fear. See synonyms at fear.

Republicans & far left liberals at work my friend. Until you realize that terror is nothing but a political agenda then you will constantly be playing this blame game where if someone isnt fighting against terror they support it... open your eyes.

05-16-2007, 05:56 PM

[QUOTE=PMCRW]What distinguishes a terror suspect from a normal citizen? What do you really think his Al Queda training degree is going to show up in background checks? NRA is right on this one not because they are supporting terrorism but because it would give the Attorney General the power to say YOU are a terrorist. That's right, YOU...

..And more importantly what the f is terror?

ter·ror (tĕr'ər)
n.
Intense, overpowering fear. See synonyms at fear.

Republicans & far left liberals at work my friend. Until you realize that terror is nothing but a political agenda then you will constantly be playing this blame game where if someone isnt fighting against terror they support it... open your eyes.[/QUOTE]

never thought of that...
just think if I had just closed my eyes like a lib-mo-tard at the WTC on 9/11
i would only have been able to hear the destruction and not see it -
after all, if i dont see it right in front of me "terror" is only an abstraction

by the way, what was the political agenda proposed by al qaeda that day
oh right, the same one the american left wing has-just destroy all you dont agree with

Winstonbiggs · 05-16-2007, 08:35 PM

[QUOTE=Greenwave81]This is stupid...it appears to be nothing more than posturing for political gain.

If someone is a [b]known[/b] terrorist, as the article states, or a suspected terrorist then the answer is to arrest them and charge them with a crime. If convicted, they then fail the NCIS background check and the problem is solved.

I would bet Lautenburg raised holy hell over analyzing the communication patterns of people on terrorist watchlists, yet can't wait to trample the second amendment rights of these same people..it is hypocritical.[/QUOTE]

Is the Justice department support of the bill also hypocritical? Being a hypocrite doesn't make him wrong on this issue.

Greenwave81 · 05-16-2007, 09:47 PM

[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]Is the Justice department support of the bill also hypocritical? Being a hypocrite doesn't make him wrong on this issue.[/QUOTE]

Nope...not in the least.

The justice department has been quite willing to stomp on individual rights in the name of fighting terror...across the board. This is quite unlike liberals like Lautenberg that pick and choose what rights are OK to trample on.

Anyone with a gun can be a terrorist....and I got news for you...the 'true' terrorists ain't going to be buying weapons from someone with a FFL which makes them subject to a background check.

cr726 · 05-16-2007, 10:25 PM

It has been the WH stampeding the Justice Dept. and running over individual rights.

[QUOTE=Greenwave81]Nope...not in the least.

The justice department has been quite willing to stomp on individual rights in the name of fighting terror...across the board. This is quite unlike liberals like Lautenberg that pick and choose what rights are OK to trample on.

Anyone with a gun can be a terrorist....and I got news for you...the 'true' terrorists ain't going to be buying weapons from someone with a FFL which makes them subject to a background check.[/QUOTE]

Winstonbiggs · 05-16-2007, 10:43 PM

[QUOTE=Greenwave81]Nope...not in the least.

The justice department has been quite willing to stomp on individual rights in the name of fighting terror...across the board. This is quite unlike liberals like Lautenberg that pick and choose what rights are OK to trample on.

Anyone with a gun can be a terrorist....[B]and I got news for you...the 'true' terrorists ain't going to be buying weapons from someone with a FFL which makes them subject to a background check.[/B][/QUOTE]

I seem to remember we caught the first WTC bombers when they tried to get their money back from the rental truck they blew up? Didn't the shooter at VT buy he's guns legally?

What makes you think these guys are smart? What makes you think they wouldn't try and buy weapons legally? Politicians, Corporate execs, petty criminals and terrorists often are done in by the obvious. The NRA has fought every effort to help law enforcement regardless of whether it's legitimate or not.

The reality is if you want to live in a civil society, Law enforcement and Justice have to make the call on these things. I understand the Wild West has a lot of appeal but it's not practical.

cr726 · 05-16-2007, 10:48 PM

Very good point. If you do not include a terror watch list then anyone on that list will buy weapons and no one will ever realize who they are selling the weapon to.

It is not an absolute, but it is better than what exists right now.

[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]I seem to remember we caught the first WTC bombers when they tried to get their money back from the rental truck they blew up? Didn't the shooter at VT buy he's guns legally?

What makes you think these guys are smart? What makes you think they wouldn't try and buy weapons legally? Politicians, Corporate execs, petty criminals and terrorists often are done in by the obvious. The NRA has fought every effort to help law enforcement regardless of whether it's legitimate or not.

The reality is if you want to live in a civil society, Law enforcement and Justice have to make the call on these things. I understand the Wild West has a lot of appeal but it's not practical.[/QUOTE]

05-10-2007, 11:25 PM	#1
cr726 Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,289	NRA fighting for you? [B]NRA Urges Bush Administration To Drop Its Support Of Bill That Would Restrict Terrorists’ Access To Guns[/B] The National Rifle Association (NRA) is urging the Bush Administration to drop its support of a bill that would restrict terrorists’ access to guns. Introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-New Jersey) on April 26th, the legislation seeks to close the “terror gap” in federal gun law by giving the Attorney General the power to block gun sales to terror suspects. Under current federal gun law, there is no provision to deny suspected terrorists from purchasing a firearm. As the law stands now, a licensed firearms dealer must request a background check through the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) before an unlicensed individual may purchase a weapon. However, even if a NICS check reveals that the prospective purchaser is a known or suspected terrorist, nothing in current law prevents that person from purchasing a gun unless he or she meets one of the other disqualifying factors, such as a felony or domestic abuse conviction. The NRA explains that Lautenberg’s bill “would deny the right to purchase a firearm, get a Right-to-Carry license or become a federally licensed firearms dealer if the person was on a ‘terrorism watch list.’” The problem, says the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre, is that “no one knows how you get on the list, no one knows how you get off the list, and no one knows WHY you’re on the list. It’s entirely up to the discretion of the Department of Justice.” This would allow the Justice Department to arbitrarily take away individuals’ Second Amendment right “without a trial, without an arrest, without charges, just because someone somewhere said, ‘Because I say so.’” Justice Department officials, however, dispute the NRA’s characterization of the bill, saying that it would not automatically bar gun sales to suspected terrorists. In some cases, federal law enforcement officers may want the sale to occur to prevent jeopardizing an open investigation. Moreover, they add, individuals who are prevented from purchasing a weapon because they are on the watch list can challenge that decision.

05-16-2007, 12:46 AM	#12
Greenwave81 a JETS fan since '68...and I BELIEVE! All League Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Missouri Posts: 3,883	[QUOTE=cr726]You believe there should not be a watch list? You need more than mere suspicion to arrest someone, but hey give them a gun until they actually commit a crime.[/QUOTE] No, I believe there should be a watch list...and if the government wants to listen or collect data about their phone conversations/contacts, that's OK with me too. I just have heartburn when someone like Lautenberg, notoriously anti-2nd amendment, finds it OK to restrict the 2nd amendment rights of someone on a 'watch list' while at the same time ****ing about the supposed rights of individuals on that same 'watch list' being 'infringed' because their phone records are being scrutinized. If the goal is to prevent terrorists from committing heinous acts, I'm all for it...but you cannot pick and choose what 'rights' you deem it proper to encroach upon based on political expediency. We live in difficult times, often made more precipitous by politicians willing to use the situation to their political advantage...and that is truly sad. I see this as political expediency used to further the politicians personal agenda. The issue of gun control is seen through a prism of individual circumstance. I grew up on LI and didn't even know anyone that owned a gun, which was entirely normal...but here in the midwest, I own what would be considered in NY/NJ as an arsenal. I also have a CCW permit. I can easily see the feds targeting innocent people as 'terrorists' just because of the firearms they own. Of course the response to this is "well, if your not a terrorist, you have nothing to fear"...but then again, wasn't this also the answer to the flap over the 'phone' issue too? Last edited by Greenwave81; 05-16-2007 at 12:49 AM.*

05-11-2007, 03:28 PM	#2
cr726 Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,289	No one cares that the NRA would rather have someone on a terror watch list be able to legally purchase a firearm in the U.S.?

05-11-2007, 04:00 PM	#3
Piper Hall Of Fame Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from) Posts: 13,197	Surprising that you don't applaud this.

05-11-2007, 04:19 PM	#4
sackdance All Pro Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,882	[QUOTE=cr726]No one cares that the NRA would rather have someone on a terror watch list be able to legally purchase a firearm in the U.S.?[/QUOTE] Dude, how can you harp about this technicality when you fight for a email/cell phone freedom that all prospective terrorists would benefit from? We won't even know they're terrorists until after the fact, if you anti-Patriot Act dipsh-ts get your way. If this doesn't prove that people like yourself care more about partisan politics than national security, nothing does.

05-11-2007, 09:33 PM	#5
cr726 Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,289	Please show me one post that I have stated this sh!t you are spewing. The Patriot Act has helped me out a lot, although it does need more oversight. [QUOTE=sackdance]Dude, how can you harp about this technicality when you fight for a email/cell phone freedom that all prospective terrorists would benefit from? We won't even know they're terrorists until after the fact, if you anti-Patriot Act dipsh-ts get your way. If this doesn't prove that people like yourself care more about partisan politics than national security, nothing does.[/QUOTE]

05-12-2007, 07:25 AM	#6
chicadeel All Pro Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,234	cr726- How do they formulate the watch list? I'm not sure how that works.

05-12-2007, 11:29 AM	#7
cr726 Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,289	Unfortunately I am not allowed to discuss the watch list and how people are placed on it. [QUOTE=chicadeel]cr726- How do they formulate the watch list? I'm not sure how that works.[/QUOTE]

05-15-2007, 03:33 PM	#8
quantum GFY Snatchez! Hall Of Fame Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: LI Posts: 17,877	Stuff like this is right up there with the @$$clown questions you get asked at the baggage check-in at the airport: -did you pack this bag? -has it left you're sight? -is there anything dangerous in there? I'm sure a terrorist would answer these truthfully. :rolleyes:

05-15-2007, 03:45 PM	#9
Greenwave81 a JETS fan since '68...and I BELIEVE! All League Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Missouri Posts: 3,883	This is stupid...it appears to be nothing more than posturing for political gain. If someone is a [b]known[/b] terrorist, as the article states, or a suspected terrorist then the answer is to arrest them and charge them with a crime. If convicted, they then fail the NCIS background check and the problem is solved. I would bet Lautenburg raised holy hell over analyzing the communication patterns of people on terrorist watchlists, yet can't wait to trample the second amendment rights of these same people..it is hypocritical.

05-15-2007, 03:52 PM	#10
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=Greenwave81]This is stupid...it appears to be nothing more than posturing for political gain. If someone is a [b]known[/b] terrorist, as the article states, or a suspected terrorist then the answer is to arrest them and charge them with a crime. If convicted, they then fail the NCIS background check and the problem is solved. I would bet Lautenburg raised holy hell over analyzing the communication patterns of people on terrorist watchlists, yet can't wait to trample the second amendment rights of these same people..it is hypocritical.[/QUOTE] Quoted for Truth and General Agreement. :yes:

05-16-2007, 12:31 AM	#11
cr726 Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,289	You believe there should not be a watch list? You need more than mere suspicion to arrest someone, but hey give them a gun until they actually commit a crime. [QUOTE=Greenwave81]This is stupid...it appears to be nothing more than posturing for political gain. If someone is a [b]known[/b] terrorist, as the article states, or a suspected terrorist then the answer is to arrest them and charge them with a crime. If convicted, they then fail the NCIS background check and the problem is solved. I would bet Lautenburg raised holy hell over analyzing the communication patterns of people on terrorist watchlists, yet can't wait to trample the second amendment rights of these same people..it is hypocritical.[/QUOTE]

05-16-2007, 03:40 PM	#13
chicadeel All Pro Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,234	[QUOTE=cr726]Unfortunately, I am not allowed to discuss the watch list and how people are placed on it.[/QUOTE] This is part of the problem. I'm sure you can understand how people can have reservations when they have no idea the basis for being on a Terrorist Watch List. Having your name on a watch list or being a suspect seems to be vastly different then being convicted of a crime or having a judge deem you a hazard to society.

05-16-2007, 04:42 PM	#14
PMCRW Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,278	What distinguishes a terror suspect from a normal citizen? What do you really think his Al Queda training degree is going to show up in background checks? NRA is right on this one not because they are supporting terrorism but because it would give the Attorney General the power to say YOU are a terrorist. That's right, YOU... ..And more importantly what the f is terror? ter·ror (tĕr'ər) n. Intense, overpowering fear. See synonyms at fear. Republicans & far left liberals at work my friend. Until you realize that terror is nothing but a political agenda then you will constantly be playing this blame game where if someone isnt fighting against terror they support it... open your eyes.

05-16-2007, 05:56 PM	#15
flushingjet Edit Status Guest Posts: n/a	[QUOTE=PMCRW]What distinguishes a terror suspect from a normal citizen? What do you really think his Al Queda training degree is going to show up in background checks? NRA is right on this one not because they are supporting terrorism but because it would give the Attorney General the power to say YOU are a terrorist. That's right, YOU... ..And more importantly what the f is terror? ter·ror (tĕr'ər) n. Intense, overpowering fear. See synonyms at fear. Republicans & far left liberals at work my friend. Until you realize that terror is nothing but a political agenda then you will constantly be playing this blame game where if someone isnt fighting against terror they support it... open your eyes.[/QUOTE] never thought of that... just think if I had just closed my eyes like a lib-mo-tard at the WTC on 9/11 i would only have been able to hear the destruction and not see it - after all, if i dont see it right in front of me "terror" is only an abstraction by the way, what was the political agenda proposed by al qaeda that day oh right, the same one the american left wing has-just destroy all you dont agree with

05-16-2007, 08:35 PM	#16
Winstonbiggs Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 12,909	[QUOTE=Greenwave81]This is stupid...it appears to be nothing more than posturing for political gain. If someone is a [b]known[/b] terrorist, as the article states, or a suspected terrorist then the answer is to arrest them and charge them with a crime. If convicted, they then fail the NCIS background check and the problem is solved. I would bet Lautenburg raised holy hell over analyzing the communication patterns of people on terrorist watchlists, yet can't wait to trample the second amendment rights of these same people..it is hypocritical.[/QUOTE] Is the Justice department support of the bill also hypocritical? Being a hypocrite doesn't make him wrong on this issue.

05-16-2007, 09:47 PM	#17
Greenwave81 a JETS fan since '68...and I BELIEVE! All League Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Missouri Posts: 3,883	[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]Is the Justice department support of the bill also hypocritical? Being a hypocrite doesn't make him wrong on this issue.[/QUOTE] Nope...not in the least. The justice department has been quite willing to stomp on individual rights in the name of fighting terror...across the board. This is quite unlike liberals like Lautenberg that pick and choose what rights are OK to trample on. Anyone with a gun can be a terrorist....and I got news for you...the 'true' terrorists ain't going to be buying weapons from someone with a FFL which makes them subject to a background check.

05-16-2007, 10:25 PM	#18
cr726 Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,289	It has been the WH stampeding the Justice Dept. and running over individual rights. [QUOTE=Greenwave81]Nope...not in the least. The justice department has been quite willing to stomp on individual rights in the name of fighting terror...across the board. This is quite unlike liberals like Lautenberg that pick and choose what rights are OK to trample on. Anyone with a gun can be a terrorist....and I got news for you...the 'true' terrorists ain't going to be buying weapons from someone with a FFL which makes them subject to a background check.[/QUOTE]

05-16-2007, 10:43 PM	#19
Winstonbiggs Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 12,909	[QUOTE=Greenwave81]Nope...not in the least. The justice department has been quite willing to stomp on individual rights in the name of fighting terror...across the board. This is quite unlike liberals like Lautenberg that pick and choose what rights are OK to trample on. Anyone with a gun can be a terrorist....[B]and I got news for you...the 'true' terrorists ain't going to be buying weapons from someone with a FFL which makes them subject to a background check.[/B][/QUOTE] I seem to remember we caught the first WTC bombers when they tried to get their money back from the rental truck they blew up? Didn't the shooter at VT buy he's guns legally? What makes you think these guys are smart? What makes you think they wouldn't try and buy weapons legally? Politicians, Corporate execs, petty criminals and terrorists often are done in by the obvious. The NRA has fought every effort to help law enforcement regardless of whether it's legitimate or not. The reality is if you want to live in a civil society, Law enforcement and Justice have to make the call on these things. I understand the Wild West has a lot of appeal but it's not practical.

05-16-2007, 10:48 PM	#20
cr726 Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,289	Very good point. If you do not include a terror watch list then anyone on that list will buy weapons and no one will ever realize who they are selling the weapon to. It is not an absolute, but it is better than what exists right now. [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]I seem to remember we caught the first WTC bombers when they tried to get their money back from the rental truck they blew up? Didn't the shooter at VT buy he's guns legally? What makes you think these guys are smart? What makes you think they wouldn't try and buy weapons legally? Politicians, Corporate execs, petty criminals and terrorists often are done in by the obvious. The NRA has fought every effort to help law enforcement regardless of whether it's legitimate or not. The reality is if you want to live in a civil society, Law enforcement and Justice have to make the call on these things. I understand the Wild West has a lot of appeal but it's not practical.[/QUOTE]