Tonto 1 #1 April 4, 2005 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/04/opinion/04mon1.html?th&emc=th "If a background check shows that you are an undocumented immigrant, federal law bars you from buying a gun. If the same check shows that you have ties to Al Qaeda, you are free to buy an AK-47. That is the absurd state of the nation's gun laws, and a recent government report revealed that terrorist suspects are taking advantage of it. There are a few promising signs, however, that the federal government is considering injecting some sanity into policies on terror suspects and guns. The Government Accountability Office examined F.B.I. and state background checks for gun sales during a five-month period last year. It found 44 checks in which the prospective buyer turned up on a government terrorist watch list. A few of these prospective buyers were denied guns for other disqualifying factors, like a felony conviction or illegal immigration status. But 35 of the 44 people on the watch lists were able to buy guns. The encouraging news is that the G.A.O. report may be prodding Washington to act. The F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller III, has announced that he is forming a study group to review gun sales to terror suspects. In a letter to Senator Frank Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat, Mr. Mueller said that the new working group would review the national background check system in light of the report. We hope this group will take a strong stand in favor of changes in the law to deny guns to terror suspects. In the meantime, Senator Lautenberg is pushing for important reforms. He has asked the Justice Department to consider making presence on a terrorist watch list a disqualifying factor for gun purchases. And he wants to force gun sellers to keep better records. Under a recent law, records of gun purchases must be destroyed after 24 hours, eliminating important information for law enforcement. Senator Lautenberg wants to require that these records be kept for at least 10 years for buyers on terrorist watch lists. Keeping terror suspects from buying guns seems like an issue the entire nation can rally around. But the National Rifle Association is, as usual, fighting even the most reasonable regulation of gun purchases. After the G.A.O. report came out, Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.'s executive vice president, took to the airwaves to reiterate his group's commitment to ensuring that every citizen has access to guns, and to cast doubt on the reliability of terrorist watch lists. Unfortunately, the N.R.A. - rather than the national interest - is too often the driving force on gun policy in Congress, particularly since last November's election. Even after the G.A.O.'s disturbing revelations, the Senate has continued its work on a dangerous bill to insulate manufacturers and sellers from liability when guns harm people. If it passes, as seems increasingly likely, it will remove any fear a seller might have of being held legally responsible if he provides a gun used in a terrorist attack." Thoughts? tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #2 April 4, 2005 Look, before anyone flames me I do not want terrorists to get any weapon but...If you are a suspect??? What about proving guilt instead the other way around?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #3 April 4, 2005 1) Its unlikely they (the 35) were able to buy an AK-47... perhaps a semi-auto version of one, but not the real thing 2) If they are only suspects, and their rights are to be stripped without due process, isn't that just what the ACLU's big beef with the PA and Bush administration's handling of other terror suspects? 3) If they are suspects, one should think they are under surveillance of some sort, so presumably there should be a way to prevent them from using the gun in an illicit act... although I may be giving the DHS/FBI too much credit there. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropoutdave 0 #4 April 4, 2005 QuoteIf they are only suspects, and their rights are to be stripped without due process, isn't that just what the ACLU's big beef with the PA and Bush administration's handling of other terror suspects? I agree in principle but saying someone can't have a gun and locking someone up indefinately without charge are opposite ends of the scale. ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #5 April 4, 2005 Quote If the same check shows that you have ties to Al Qaeda, you are free to buy an AK-47. How would a routine background check for a gun purchase show ties to a terrorist group? Quote That is the absurd state of the nation's gun laws, and a recent government report revealed that terrorist suspects are taking advantage of it. Absurd ? Hardly. Terrorists taking advantage of it? I haven't heard of any terrorists using firearms against anyone, they are pretty ineffective as a tool for terrorism. QuoteAnd he wants to force gun sellers to keep better records. Under a recent law, records of gun purchases must be destroyed after 24 hours, eliminating important information for law enforcement. must be destroyed after 24 hours? I've yet to buy a gun from a place that didn't keep records for years. QuoteAfter the G.A.O. report came out, Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.'s executive vice president, took to the airwaves to reiterate his group's commitment to ensuring that every citizen has access to guns, and to cast doubt on the reliability of terrorist watch lists. This report makes it sound like the NRA wants terrorists to have guns. I'd love to see a transcript of LaPierre's response. Quote Unfortunately, the N.R.A. - rather than the national interest - is too often the driving force on gun policy in Congress, particularly since last November's election. Are anti-gun groups the national interest? Quote Even after the G.A.O.'s disturbing revelations, the Senate has continued its work on a dangerous bill to insulate manufacturers and sellers from liability when guns harm people. Should car manufacturers and dealers be liable when cars harm people? Quote If it passes, as seems increasingly likely, it will remove any fear a seller might have of being held legally responsible if he provides a gun used in a terrorist attack." When has a gun been used in a terrorist attack? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #6 April 4, 2005 Quote------------------------------------------------------------------------In Reply To ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If it passes, as seems increasingly likely, it will remove any fear a seller might have of being held legally responsible if he provides a gun used in a terrorist attack." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ When has a gun been used in a terrorist attack? Many, many times. IRA spraying a pub with bullets, Sunni Muslims shooting up Shiite mosques, or Christian churches etc. etc. Happens a lot, actually. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #7 April 4, 2005 QuoteQuote------------------------------------------------------------------------In Reply To ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If it passes, as seems increasingly likely, it will remove any fear a seller might have of being held legally responsible if he provides a gun used in a terrorist attack." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ When has a gun been used in a terrorist attack? Many, many times. IRA spraying a pub with bullets, Sunni Muslims shooting up Shiite mosques, or Christian churches etc. etc. Happens a lot, actually. True, but for this discussion (about US gun laws) I was speaking about terrorists using guns in the US. It isn't a really big problem here. I would hope they would be far more concerned with the threat of attacks of a larger scale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #8 April 4, 2005 It happened here just a few weeks ago, in Minnesota. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #9 April 4, 2005 QuoteIt happened here just a few weeks ago, in Minnesota. I wouldn't consider that a terrorist attack, just a kid that went nuts with a gun. (We don't need to dispute what is and isn't a terrorist attack, it really isn't relavent to the topic) Even then, the proposal in the article about denying guns to suspected terrorists wouldn't matter, because the gun was stolen, and he wouldn't have been on a suspected terrorist list. If a terrorists wants a gun, they're going to get one, passing laws will only determine whether they do it legally or illegally. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #10 April 4, 2005 Quote"If a background check shows that you are an undocumented immigrant, federal law bars you from buying a gun" So if you are an ILLEGAL alien...Ok I can agree to that. You don't have the same rights as a Citizen. QuoteIf the same check shows that you have ties to Al Qaeda, you are free to buy an AK-47. "ties" So? What about innocent till proven guilty? QuoteIt found 44 checks in which the prospective buyer turned up on a government terrorist watch list. A few of these prospective buyers were denied guns for other disqualifying factors, like a felony conviction or illegal immigration status. But 35 of the 44 people on the watch lists were able to buy guns. OK so? If you are not illegal, not shown guilty of a crime...Whats the problem? If these guys are on "Watch lists" then I hope they are being "Watched". Until they are PROVEN guilty in a court, they are innocent. QuoteKeeping terror suspects from buying guns seems like an issue the entire nation can rally around. But the National Rifle Association is, as usual, fighting even the most reasonable regulation of gun purchases Again where is the ACLU? I mean if all it takes is being "watched" to have your civil liberties removed why are they not jumping into this? QuoteUnfortunately, the N.R.A. - rather than the national interest - What is the national interest? In this case it seems removing guns from people who are innocent. I have NO problem removinga criminal from buying a gun. I have no problem WATCHING at potential suspect...I do have a problem with someone removing a RIGHT without a reason. Quotethe Senate has continued its work on a dangerous bill to insulate manufacturers and sellers from liability when guns harm people. Ford will not get sued and held liable if I run over a 5 year old on my way home....Why should Smith and Wesson be held liable? Thoughts?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #11 April 4, 2005 Ron and others. All points of view thus far seem valid. I'm not sure I agree that immigrants, legal or illegal should be able to purchase weapons. Agree completely on the innocent till proven guilty stuff, and the manufacturer liability stuff... but didn't this door get opened with the anti tobacco legislation? tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #12 April 4, 2005 QuoteI'm not sure I agree that immigrants, legal or illegal should be able to purchase weapons. I don't know...But I don't have a big problem with a legal immigrant with a weapon. Good question. I don't see a big difference between a guy that has not sworn yet and a guy that has. QuoteAgree completely on the innocent till proven guilty stuff, and the manufacturer liability stuff... but didn't this door get opened with the anti tobacco legislation? Tobacco had a product they KNEW was dangerous, but they claimed it was safe. I don't think anyone doubts a gun can be dangerous, and I don't see anyone claiming they are "safe"."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #13 April 4, 2005 If the general liability laws leave the firearm manufacturers vulnerable, isn't the problem with the general laws. Why do gun makers get a special exemption? Doesn't that lead to a regime where large industries are protected from a bad law whereas smaller industries (say parachute manufacturers) are not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #14 April 4, 2005 QuoteTobacco had a product they KNEW was dangerous, but they claimed it was safe. It is a safe product just as long as you aren't stupid enough to light it and inhale the smoke. See, cigarettes don't cause cancer, it is the stupid people who light them and inhale the smoke that cause cancer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #15 April 4, 2005 QuoteWhy do gun makers get a special exemption? Quote Why do knife makers, why do baseball bat makers ? There are tons of products that can be used to commit a crime, why should guns be held to a different standard when the product is used in a manner not intended by the manufacturer? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites justinb138 0 #16 April 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteTobacco had a product they KNEW was dangerous, but they claimed it was safe. It is a safe product just as long as you aren't stupid enough to light it and inhale the smoke. See, cigarettes don't cause cancer, it is the stupid people who light them and inhale the smoke that cause cancer. It is not a safe product when used as the manufacturer intended. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #17 April 4, 2005 ahhh yes and guns were originally developed for clay shooting purposes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #18 April 4, 2005 QuoteIf the general liability laws leave the firearm manufacturers vulnerable, isn't the problem with the general laws. Why do gun makers get a special exemption? Because they were brought into it by special exemption. QuoteDoesn't that lead to a regime where large industries are protected from a bad law whereas smaller industries (say parachute manufacturers) are not? No it would be type...Tabacco was found to be liable and they are MUCH bigger than gun makers."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #19 April 4, 2005 QuoteIt is a safe product just as long as you aren't stupid enough to light it and inhale the smoke. See, cigarettes don't cause cancer, it is the stupid people who light them and inhale the smoke that cause cancer. Wow you and I agree. However in this case no one is claiming that a Gun will not kill if used correctly. Tabacco made claims that cigarettes were SAFE when used correctly, and all the time they KNEW better. But yes it boils down to the guy that lit the cig who is at fault...Just like the guy that pulls the trigger is a t fault, not the gun. Some don't get that...Im surprised you did."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #20 April 4, 2005 Quoteahhh yes and guns were originally developed for clay shooting purposes Gu makers never claimed that their product when used correctly was "safe"."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites justinb138 0 #21 April 4, 2005 Quoteahhh yes and guns were originally developed for clay shooting purposes. My boss has a few for that reason alone. Why should a gun manufacturer be liable when someone uses their product in an illegal or unintended manner? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jdhill 0 #22 April 4, 2005 Quotesaying someone can't have a gun and locking someone up indefinately without charge are opposite ends of the scale. So the writ of habeas corpus and the second amendment are somehow different in their importance? JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewwhyte 1 #23 April 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteWhy do gun makers get a special exemption? Quote Why do knife makers, why do baseball bat makers ? There are tons of products that can be used to commit a crime, why should guns be held to a different standard when the product is used in a manner not intended by the manufacturer? I wasn't aware that congress passed a law exempting baseball bat makers from product liability laws. Do you know the bill number? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites justinb138 0 #24 April 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhy do gun makers get a special exemption? Quote Why do knife makers, why do baseball bat makers ? There are tons of products that can be used to commit a crime, why should guns be held to a different standard when the product is used in a manner not intended by the manufacturer? I wasn't aware that congress passed a law exempting baseball bat makers from product liability laws. Do you know the bill number? How many manufacturers have been sued because someone got the shit beaten out of them with a baseball bat? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewwhyte 1 #25 April 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteIf the general liability laws leave the firearm manufacturers vulnerable, isn't the problem with the general laws. Why do gun makers get a special exemption? Because they were brought into it by special exemption. Could you elaborate. What are they exempted from so that congress is now considering a bill to exempt them from? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Subscriptions Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
justinb138 0 #16 April 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteTobacco had a product they KNEW was dangerous, but they claimed it was safe. It is a safe product just as long as you aren't stupid enough to light it and inhale the smoke. See, cigarettes don't cause cancer, it is the stupid people who light them and inhale the smoke that cause cancer. It is not a safe product when used as the manufacturer intended. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #17 April 4, 2005 ahhh yes and guns were originally developed for clay shooting purposes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #18 April 4, 2005 QuoteIf the general liability laws leave the firearm manufacturers vulnerable, isn't the problem with the general laws. Why do gun makers get a special exemption? Because they were brought into it by special exemption. QuoteDoesn't that lead to a regime where large industries are protected from a bad law whereas smaller industries (say parachute manufacturers) are not? No it would be type...Tabacco was found to be liable and they are MUCH bigger than gun makers."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #19 April 4, 2005 QuoteIt is a safe product just as long as you aren't stupid enough to light it and inhale the smoke. See, cigarettes don't cause cancer, it is the stupid people who light them and inhale the smoke that cause cancer. Wow you and I agree. However in this case no one is claiming that a Gun will not kill if used correctly. Tabacco made claims that cigarettes were SAFE when used correctly, and all the time they KNEW better. But yes it boils down to the guy that lit the cig who is at fault...Just like the guy that pulls the trigger is a t fault, not the gun. Some don't get that...Im surprised you did."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #20 April 4, 2005 Quoteahhh yes and guns were originally developed for clay shooting purposes Gu makers never claimed that their product when used correctly was "safe"."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #21 April 4, 2005 Quoteahhh yes and guns were originally developed for clay shooting purposes. My boss has a few for that reason alone. Why should a gun manufacturer be liable when someone uses their product in an illegal or unintended manner? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #22 April 4, 2005 Quotesaying someone can't have a gun and locking someone up indefinately without charge are opposite ends of the scale. So the writ of habeas corpus and the second amendment are somehow different in their importance? JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #23 April 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteWhy do gun makers get a special exemption? Quote Why do knife makers, why do baseball bat makers ? There are tons of products that can be used to commit a crime, why should guns be held to a different standard when the product is used in a manner not intended by the manufacturer? I wasn't aware that congress passed a law exempting baseball bat makers from product liability laws. Do you know the bill number? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites justinb138 0 #24 April 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhy do gun makers get a special exemption? Quote Why do knife makers, why do baseball bat makers ? There are tons of products that can be used to commit a crime, why should guns be held to a different standard when the product is used in a manner not intended by the manufacturer? I wasn't aware that congress passed a law exempting baseball bat makers from product liability laws. Do you know the bill number? How many manufacturers have been sued because someone got the shit beaten out of them with a baseball bat? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewwhyte 1 #25 April 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteIf the general liability laws leave the firearm manufacturers vulnerable, isn't the problem with the general laws. Why do gun makers get a special exemption? Because they were brought into it by special exemption. Could you elaborate. What are they exempted from so that congress is now considering a bill to exempt them from? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
justinb138 0 #24 April 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhy do gun makers get a special exemption? Quote Why do knife makers, why do baseball bat makers ? There are tons of products that can be used to commit a crime, why should guns be held to a different standard when the product is used in a manner not intended by the manufacturer? I wasn't aware that congress passed a law exempting baseball bat makers from product liability laws. Do you know the bill number? How many manufacturers have been sued because someone got the shit beaten out of them with a baseball bat? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewwhyte 1 #25 April 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteIf the general liability laws leave the firearm manufacturers vulnerable, isn't the problem with the general laws. Why do gun makers get a special exemption? Because they were brought into it by special exemption. Could you elaborate. What are they exempted from so that congress is now considering a bill to exempt them from? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Andrewwhyte 1 #25 April 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteIf the general liability laws leave the firearm manufacturers vulnerable, isn't the problem with the general laws. Why do gun makers get a special exemption? Because they were brought into it by special exemption. Could you elaborate. What are they exempted from so that congress is now considering a bill to exempt them from? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
