|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 12, 2013, 06:52 PM | #1 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Posts: 5
|
Sen. Carl Levin, Gun ban on TERRORIST!!!
I wrote all my senators and received this as a response from Carl Levin (Michigan):
Quote:
Now, one of the major problems I have is that the possible law about terrorists. There are thousands of people on that watch list that won't be a threat to society, but won't be able to purchase a gun because of it. Seems like everyone would end up on the list if they decide to push for a gun ban. This just seems completely radical to me. He also says 40% of guns are sold without a background check. He claims you can just go to a gunshow and pick up a gun, no questions asked. Seems like "common sense" isn't so common anymore. |
|
March 12, 2013, 07:17 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
You might want to tell him that according to the Bureau of Justice studies 40% of crime guns are street sales. Less than 2% are gunshow and flea market sales. Further, of all gun sales everywhere, less than 4% (I think, you may want to look it up again to be sure) was flea market and gun show sales.
|
March 12, 2013, 07:28 PM | #3 |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Posts: 5
|
I agree Jim
It just seems like the answer he gave is a whole bunch of misinformation (lies). Also the point about how AR's have no sporting purpose... I mean, open your freaking eyes man.
|
March 12, 2013, 07:33 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Then schedule a meeting with him, and bring information along. Three Gun comps, the President's Cup at Camp Perry, a print out of that Bureau of Justice Study.
|
March 12, 2013, 07:35 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
To dedicated anti-self defense Levin, every gun capable of rapid fire is owned by a terrorist. Levin simply does not get it.
Last edited by Evan Thomas; March 12, 2013 at 08:59 PM. Reason: silly name-calling. |
March 12, 2013, 10:41 PM | #6 | ||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,820
|
You might want to get his answers to a few questions, although it seem pretty clear from his response which side of the rights denying line he voluntarily places himself.
Some questions I would like to hear his answers to are; Quote:
Note that a couple years after the law went into effect, the Clinton administration bragged about how "thousands" of purchases were prevented. Actual arrests for breaking the law? About 43... And note that our current VP publicaly stated that when it comes to prosecuting people who break the law trying to buy a gun (from a dealer), his response was "we don't have time for that..." Quote:
Yes, current law does allow persons on the Terrorist watch list to buy a gun, which is as it should be. People on that list are NOT CONVICTED of any crime. They may be suspected of wrong doing, or they may simply be on the list due to some clerical error. Either way, they are not convicts, nor otherwise prohibited persons. Guilty until proven innocent is NOT the way the US is supposed to work. Yet that is exactly what his proposed law would do. Where is the Constitutional authority to deny rights based on what someone in govt THINKS you MIGHT DO? If you have evidence, arrest them. Deny people their right to arms, or to get on an airplane, or anything else because their name is on a SECRET govt LIST? This isn't the America I grew up in, and if we keep electing people like MR Levin it will, sadly be the America my grandkids grow up in.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
||
March 13, 2013, 05:15 AM | #7 | |
Member
Join Date: March 12, 2013
Posts: 23
|
Emphasis mine:
Quote:
That would seem to spit in the eye of "innocent until proven guilty." Punishment before conviction one could say. Frightful. |
|
March 13, 2013, 08:19 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 10, 2008
Location: Live Free or Die state
Posts: 259
|
He Clearly Has Drunk the Cool-Aid
but to his credit, at least his answer didn't equivocate with phony "common sense" platitudes. He was specific, precisely defined his position, and didn't apologize for it. I'll give him that.
In my experience, the gun haters usually cloak their real position with ambiguous phrases like "common sense" and "reasonable measures". They hope to assuage their supporters, who speak the same language, and baffle their opponents whom they believe to be stupid. So Levin may be a lot of things, but at least he was honest and direct with you. That in itself is a rare enough quality in politicians of any stripe.
__________________
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness... How pathetic." - - Ted Nugent "Cogito, Ergo Armitum Sum" - (I Think, Therefore I Am Armed)- - anon. |
March 13, 2013, 08:45 PM | #9 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Quote:
If someone is such a threat to the people of the United States that we can't allow them to buy a gun -- why are we allowing them to walk on our streets? |
|
March 13, 2013, 11:58 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 17, 2006
Posts: 261
|
Please please
Please tell me if I am wrong.
But is it not the law in every state, if you buy a gun at a gun show from a dealer (not ind. sale) that you have to have a background check? If so, why do they lie so much and get away with it? |
March 14, 2013, 06:21 AM | #11 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
March 14, 2013, 07:05 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 2,074
|
"Gun Show" is a buzz word meant to invoke false images. First it is implied that gun show dealers operate differently than store front dealers. 2nd, it is implied that private sales at gun shows are somehow different than private sales elsewhere.
I haven't bought a gun from a dealer in years, but who currently pays for the instant background check? Is there a fee? 3rd, if they were to invoke mandatory background checks for private sales, would anyone really comply? I believe it would make criminals out of normally law abiding citizens who would be unwilling to submit to the inconvenience. Really, how could it be enforced unless one of the two parties was an agent or reported the sale to one? Of course, its only a lead in to "this is why we need a national registry", because without one they cannot track private sales and background checks. Do street thugs go to gun shows? If they wear the standard uniform, and look like street thugs, would anybody really deal with them? |
March 14, 2013, 09:10 AM | #13 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
So basically, if I am involved in terrorism and want to see whether the FBI is watching me, I just go and try to buy a firearm and I get an immediate answer? Good deal for terrorists I guess.
|
March 14, 2013, 09:18 AM | #14 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
March 14, 2013, 09:43 AM | #15 |
Junior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2012
Posts: 6
|
Everyone please send this creep a letter telling him you will not support him or ever vote for him.....He is one of the many that want to take away your rights to own the firearms of your choice.
|
March 15, 2013, 12:30 AM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 9, 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 103
|
What kind of a 2nd rate terrorist buys their kalashnikovs from gander mountain? Jokes on them because they over paid anyways. But joking aside keeping firearms out of known/suspected gang members is far more important to me than suspected terrorists.
Perhaps a terrorist trying to buy a firearm legally who gets denied on a check connects the dots and realizes they are a suspected terrorist. Then they disappear and any ties to terror organizations are broken thus inhibiting the ability to identify the lowers in the organization and follow the chain to the key players. Just a hypothetical to stir around the noggin. |
March 15, 2013, 07:00 AM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 2,074
|
The only terror attack on US soil that involed firearms in recent history that I can think of was at Ft. Hood by a US soldier who happen to be an Islamic Jihadist using military issue weapons. Seems to me there are a few other obvious characteristics that tie a lot more terrorists together than firearms purchases.
|
March 15, 2013, 12:32 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Be warned. I've deleted a couple of posts for personal attacks on Sen. Levin (calling him a Marxist, etc.) -- such attacks are a violation of forum rules.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
March 15, 2013, 02:45 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 2013
Posts: 138
|
The fact that the terrorist watch list is secret, and anyone can be on it for any reason, makes this a scary prospect. They could literally add every US citizen to it tomorrow and bar everyone from gun ownership. You have no way of knowing you've been added, or removing yourself from the list either!
It's a terrible idea, and evidence that the slippery slope is indeed in effect in regards to gun control.
__________________
Massachusetts Native (Tough to be a gun owner!) Owner of: S&W Model 10-5, Beretta 92fs and a Mossberg Maverick 88 "Security" Shotgun |
|
|