So... about the NY Times Square bomber... Looks like the NY Times has zeroed in on the pistol the "would be" bomber was carrying. It's a big, black, scary lookin Sub 2K, in the 9mm flavor. http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100 ... /3496723_1
The article was very interesting, and gave some pretty accurate and fair descriptions of the gun... Though the reporter seemed almost breathless writing about all of the carnage it "could" have done, and all of the mass deaths it "would have" produced, save for the fact that he never even drawn the weapon, but left it behind to blow up.
The other tidbit of news that is worthy to explore:
On Wednesday, the Government Accountability Office released data showing that suspects on the terror watch lists were able to buy guns and explosives from licensed dealers in the United States more than 1,100 times from 2004 to 2010. Such a statistic seems irrelevant in Mr. Shahzad’s case, as he was on no such list in March.
Yeah, I think we can deny watchlisted individuals the right to purchase guns in the future.
I do not agree,... in the news yesterday, many folks want to make this about "Terrorist having access to firearms"..but it is not, It is about the infringement of personal rights of American citizens with out review...this discourse should be focusing on enforcing the laws we have on the books, & common sense,...at the end of the day, if someone is seeking to get a firearm, they will get one, same with drugs, sex, or anything else you can name... and AGAIN, for you are doing illegal things, the laws, whatever they are, are inapplicable to someone that doesn't care... this is not speeding, jaywalking, or not putting an extra .25 in the parking meter...this is killing, murder, and an attempt to destabilize our society...do we really believe that they care about our pesky firearm laws? it will be the least of their worries if they get caught... nope, this one would really only affect me and you... search your feelings Luke, you know this to be true...
To many mistakes are made by these same poeple everyday on minor things and we want to trust them with something as major as this???? from me, that gets big "THATS A NEGATIVE, GHOSTRIDER!"
Too many common names, the opportunity for abuse is VERY HIGH...
but my biggest issue: NO DUE PROCESS TO REMOVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT (and that is any right) = FAIL
who has to OK putting a name on the watch list? ...do you trust DHS to be open and transparent, or even be accessible, to correct "the list" if it is wrong, at what cost and to whom ... in what time frame, with what as your recourse if at first you do not succeed... there are many fine upstanding Americans that have the name Ibrahim and Mustafa and Scheherazade... the classic thing, as pointed out is that the NYC dumbass was not on any list....so why is this an issue? ISn;t it interseting that themes are lumped together...?
A great man once said to me "Trust not those that want to save you without the requst being made for salvation, religious or otherwise"... rings truer now that when he said it to me...
Perhaps a review of the INS process for becoming a citizen is in order before we say OK to start yanking constitutional rights from anyone... Immagration is a REAL issue that need to be addressed...also that fact that it seems that it was the failure of his American dream that started all this reaffrims that this is land of opportunity and the free, not the land of a free hand out...
I mean, you cannot be a foreign national and buy a firearm in America already, so this would ONLY affect citizens...??? AH,...no... enforce the laws you already have...and far as words, i believe they suit the purpose just fine...what differnec will more words make to those that do not read them already? does it make you feel safer? not to be silly, or rhetorical...but does it? would it? it does not for me...
No, I would like to bit more checks and balances for an American citizen to have ANY right removed...like a trial by their peers, access to competent legal counsel,etc...these processes were designed to be "inconvenient", and the founders knew it, and made the process what it is on purpose, as doing these types of things was meant to have extensive review, not arbitrary lists created by unknowns in backrooms that never see the light of day...
No, I do not believe that was the intent at all...
just my .02,
Carry on, Do good things...
Be particular, and be vigilant, as the enemy will only attack on two occasions:
When you're ready or when you're not ready.
Also never forget, that everyone who shows up, is not necessarily there to help.
_________________________________________________
Thanks for taking the time to put forth your point of view. Admittedly, I overgeneralized because I'm (not afraid but) more than a little pissed off at the chain of events. Your right, the Watchlist would be a very poor choice of lists to prevent people from purchasing weapons legally in the US. And by people, my original meaning would be bad actors such as known weapons proliferators, people known to associate with known terrorists, known drug cartel members. I know these types of persons can legally travel into and out of the US under varying circumstances, and are allowed to by "the powers that be". I'm not sure, even if they are US citizens, they could legally purchase weapons - they sure can get them illegally, but that doesn't really matter in this case.
Anyway, take my comments as just a bit of frustration and a very real lack of sleep.
VAGentlemen, Fail. "Known" "proliferator;" "known associate." I'll choose Bluemont Glock to write my essays on the rule of law any day. I know nothing about him(?) or his educational grounding, but I do know that he gets it.
If there is probable cause to believe that Mr. X has committed an offense sufficiently serious to warrant his being brought up on charges, then do it and don't agonize over the decision. If there is not probable cause don't send in some merry band of provocateurs to induce him to provide it. Don't we know from SCOTUS--you're on your own for a citation--that police forces have no imperative to protect?
"Everyone knows" in my view is about the world's lousiest reason for siccing the hounds of the state on Mr. X. It is reminiscent, though, of the injunction read in so many European crime novels that one not "come to the attention of the authorities."
BluemontGlock wrote:
I mean, you cannot be a foreign national and buy a firearm in America already, so this would ONLY affect citizens...???
I think you are mistaken...I'm quite certain foreign nationals can indeed legally purchase firearms and ammo here if they meet certain conditions...like having a work permit and being a resident of the state where you are buying the gun/ammo...I was in Sharpshooters one day and watched them service a British national...they just have to show a little different ID than we do...
No more catchy slogans for me...I am simply fed up...4...four...4...2+2...
BluemontGlock wrote:
I mean, you cannot be a foreign national and buy a firearm in America already, so this would ONLY affect citizens...???
I think you are mistaken...I'm quite certain foreign nationals can indeed legally purchase firearms and ammo here if they meet certain conditions...like having a work permit and being a resident of the state where you are buying the gun/ammo...I was in Sharpshooters one day and watched them service a British national...they just have to show a little different ID than we do...
Non-immigrant aliens have to have a hunting license. That's all. (Or a special exemption from the Secretary of State, which ... never happens.)
It was put into place after some young foreigners bought some guns and shot up the observation deck of the Empire State Building.
"I think you are mistaken...I'm quite certain foreign nationals can indeed legally purchase firearms and ammo here if they meet certain conditions...like having a work permit and being a resident of the state where you are buying the gun/ammo...I was in Sharpshooters one day and watched them service a British national...they just have to show a little different ID than we do..."
-Zeph
I would have lost that lottery question... i am a bit gobsmaked!!
Be particular, and be vigilant, as the enemy will only attack on two occasions:
When you're ready or when you're not ready.
Also never forget, that everyone who shows up, is not necessarily there to help.
_________________________________________________
a: compact 9mm
b: propane tanks (easy to buy)
c: fertilizer (way easy to buy)
d: Kerosene (can you find this anywhere?)
What should we make harder to buy and keep out of terrorist hands. Well even terrorists need a grill, keep thir yards green and stay warm with thier heaters. So band the gun what else can they do. Everything else is on thier must have to live list and completely harmless, right?
This satire was brought to you by barf bag international
As far as the fertilizer, this genius picked up a bag of Turf-Builder or some such inert daisy-growing compound. He must have been out sick at jihad-U when they taught fertilizer 101.
BluemontGlock wrote:"I think you are mistaken...I'm quite certain foreign nationals can indeed legally purchase firearms and ammo here if they meet certain conditions...like having a work permit and being a resident of the state where you are buying the gun/ammo...I was in Sharpshooters one day and watched them service a British national...they just have to show a little different ID than we do..."
-Zeph
I would have lost that lottery question... i am a bit gobsmaked!!
Hey, I was surprised too...go to any gun store in Germany and all you will see are pellet guns unless you got a permit...and guys like me and you aint gonna get one unless we become one of them and then some...
No more catchy slogans for me...I am simply fed up...4...four...4...2+2...
