So this report comes out stating that over 40 suspected members of terrorist groups have purchased firearms from dealers in America. Not “attempted to purchased�, actually completed the sale.
There are many aspects of this report that are stunningly ignorant and I am going to try to cover them all;
First up, this story is a perfect example of how, no matter how many ignorant gun laws the liberals can come up with, they will never stop people who shouldn’t own guns from getting them.
Next up, it shows that terrorists are not buying their firearms at those eevviill gunshows through the loophole that left wing politicians are always crying about. They are going to federally licensed dealers.
On another note, these suspected terrorists are passing the National Instant Check System. How is that? Why aren’t their names on a list somewhere that gets added to the list of people who get delayed/denied?
The NICS system cannot tell the difference between me and my grandfather who has been dead since 1982 because we have the same name so I get the delay two out of three times, but Sim-Sala-Bim gets a pass? WTF!?!
And as if the NICS system wasn’t horrible enough, we now have politicians whining about wanting to keep the records of purchases for up to 10 years. As it is now, those records have to be destroyed within 24 hours so as to not give the feds a chance to start a federal gun registry.
I’m sure you can guess which party is behind the effort to extend the time allowed to keep records.
I found this story on a number of left wing blogs. One thing I would like to ask those on the left who are whining about this is, when the government names or arrests a terror suspect, you all bitch and moan about how they may not have the right person because of the confusion that overcomes us dumb Americans when it comes to middle eastern names.
So why are you taking the government at their word this time?
It wouldn’t be because it fits your little mindset and furthers your agendas, would it? You would stoop so low as to follow the “BushCo� tactic of being opportunistic, right?
The one blog that went and ranted enough for me to want to rant on it myself was our old sheltered pals at blogAmy. I had a comment all ready to go for this topic, but found that I have been banned for some odd reason.
I guess dissent isn’t much relished over at Amy’s place. Oh well.
In any case, I would just like to point out here at RNS where Miss Amy’s need to actually join us in reality lies.
First up Amy goes and rambles an untruth; “God knows any time people try to bring the issue up, panties get all in a wad and people act like the boogie man liberals are out to take their guns away. Which is just not true.�
Oh really, Amy? You really shouldn’t talk about things you don’t know anything about. Try these on for size:
Senator Diane Feinstein, speaking on “60-Minutes” immediately after the passage of the Brady Bill said, “if I thought I could get the votes, I’d have taken them all.”
Do you not think of DiFi as a liberal, Amy? How quaint that Senator Feinstein thinks that she qualified to possess a California concealed firearm permit (and have 24 hour security), but does not think any of her subjects, oops I mean constituents, should be allowed to have one.
Feinstein also supported a state government that refused issuance of said permits to anyone they did not find ‘deserving enough’ and still supports a county and city government that has a bill in the works to deny the ownership of ALL FIREARMS to ALL CITIZENS.
Or how about this fellow member of the Democrat Party,
Democrat Representative W. Clay was quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch of May 8, 1993, regarding the Brady Bill. He said it is “the minimum step” Congress should take. “We need much stricter gun control and eventually we should bar ownership of handguns except in a few cases.”
He sounds just like Feinstein. He is effectively stating that only those rich enough or connected enough should be allowed to own firearms.
That doesn’t sound like he supports the common working person. In his world, they should just be left to the mercy of the criminals.
As for the ‘Liberal Media’ that you and yours claim doesn’t exist,
Former President of NBC News M. Gartner was quoted in USA Today, Jan. 16, 1992, as saying, “I now think the only way to control handgun use is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution.”
The US Constitution, door mat to the left wing.
And finally, to cap it all off, the founder of a leading ‘Firearms Safety’ group accidentally lets his real agenda out
Peter Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc. was quoted in the New Yorker Magazine, June 26, 1976, “We’ll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily … given the political realities … very modest. We’ll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.”
I guess you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to this topic, Amy. Maybe you should stick to what you know best, what ever that might be.
I saw some very nice pics of the snow in your neighborhood a while back. How about you go back to being a weather pixie? That sounds about your level.
Think I am being a little harsh?
How about this line from your ill-informed little rant,
“If you want to own a car, you get a license, you HAVE to get it insured, and it has to be registered. Or you’re breaking the law. I don’t see why it’s such a horrible thing to have to do that for owning a gun. If I bitched about “the man” making me have to have a license to drive my car and have it registered, then I would be told that’s the “price” I have to pay for the liberty to own a car and drive it around. So then, why does that same logic not apply when some of the very same people are talking about owning a gun?”
Amy, would you please inform me, where exactly in the Bill of Rights is the amendment that states that driving a car is an inalienable right? I’ve got my pocket Constitution and BoR right here, I’m thumbing my way through it, but I am just not seeing that part.
You have fallen for the first and worst argument for the registration of firearms and the licensing of their owners and operators. I was debating this topic in high school and it took exactly twice for my opponents to bring this argument up before they realized how stupid they sounded.
You want to compare a privilege, granted by the state, that takes place on state constructed and maintained property to my right to be able to protect myself and my family and my fellow citizens?
You truly are ignorant.
That is the only word for your condition. I call it a condition because you have been “conditioned� to believe that the Second Amendment is nothing more than a mistake by the forefathers. You even termed it a “lack of foresight�.
I suppose that since you wouldn’t want to be a hypocrite that you will now stop blogging. You see, how could those silly old white men have envisioned instant electronic publishing, the modern day equivalent of the hand operated printing press. I mean, they couldn’t have foreseen the ‘assault weapons’ you speak so poorly of when all they had were flintlocks.
So if we’re going to get rid of one, we might as well just get rid of both, OK?
I bet you couldn’t even describe an ‘assault weapon’ to me. Not name one, describe one.
Go to the other end of the pool Amy, the water is too deep here for you.