Skip to main content
Report this ad

Keeping guns from terrorists


  • Skip Coryell 6 years ago

    Dan, good article. The same thought crossed my mind a time or two.

  • Dawn 6 years ago

    Oh please, the first time a terrorist gets the gun (naturally, it won't be in the legitimate fashion....but lets pretend it is) and then the media and senseless masses find out, THEN they'll be for ALL for this and whining because it was not a followed procedure. Sorry, this is what the world has tolerance. I'm for protecting rights, but there comes a time where you cannot protect some rights at the expense of lives.

  • Otter 6 years ago

    You can protect Rights AND lives by allowing the suspected terrorist to have due process. The government must prove in a court of law that this person's Rights to own or buy firearms should be revoked as they are a risk to national security. The person is innocent until proven guilty. Remember?

  • Smitty 6 years ago

    Whoa yeah......I remember the good old days,like they exist anymore, in America, guilty is first.....then ya can try to prove if you are innocent.

  • straightarrow 6 years ago

    Dawn, if you are willing to give up rights that very act gives up lives. I assume you are very young and not well read or you would know that. The evidence is overwhelming all throughout history, all of history. Go learn something.

  • Dawn 6 years ago

    Well straightarrow, let me say thanks for letting me express MY opinion, and how wonderful of you to support your opinion by attacking mine by attacking me, and you sir, do not know me. So I do not agree with you, I guess I have no right to speak my mind and to give an opinion, well, unless I agree with you. The world has become zero tolerance. Apparently you understand zero tolerance as you seem to have that mindset as well. Disagree all you wish, I have no problem with your opinion and I respect your freedom to speak your mind. Too bad you cannot extend the same courtesy to others. Also, it probably would have helped your defense if you would have added a few pieces of history to "enlighten me" rather than just blindly attacking without having fact to support your claims of myself being either young or not well versed.

  • federalfarmer 6 years ago

    Just because the FBI is paranoid of a certain few doesn't give them or Congress the authority to strip a U.S. citizen of their Right to own firearms. A citizen placed on the "watchlist" must first be convicted in court by an impartial jury who has reviewed the facts & evidence, before they can have their Rights taken. The concept of arbitrary government decision making is the definition of tyranny. Remember king George branded the citizens of Boston "rebels" and disarmed them without evidence or trial. Hitler hated Jews so he branded them a "threat" and disarmed them, without evidence or trial. Stalin feared his own countrymen so he disarmed them without evidence or trial, & the list goes on. Each of these tyrannies ended with governments attacking & killing their own citizens. Benjamin Franklin won this argument quite some time ago, when he stated... "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

  • Al 6 years ago

    This is contempt for the law! Removal of a right because someone thinks you are a terrorist. Next thing you know everyone who is at tea parties rallies are terroroists. This is called social labeling. Even some senators are on watch list because there names are confused with someone else and they cant remove there name from the list.

  • Jarhead1982 6 years ago

    Uh Dawn, can we say thin skinned, over reaction, indignation, all evidence of a lack of maturity, Uh yeah! Straightarrow is opinionated, most of us are on both sides of this particular discussion, but unfortunately for you he is pointing in the right direction and in about as neutral a fashion as he can and usually does.

    How about actually you researching both sides of the story, then basing your position based on comparing the real facts rather than versus fantasy what if claims. This is the common battle between pro gun activists (large group of facts) and anti gun activists (mostly emotions).

    Basing rights and laws on absolutes established by emotions is a fools quest as it never ever solves the problem. So go research how the Background check is enforced less than 1% of the time, the government reports on how gun control fails, the US Constitution and rights of due process and how they are applied to the 9 categories barred per the 1968 Gun Control Act and grow a thicker skin

  • Jarhead1982 6 years ago

    Then comeback and with legal logic, explain how people who in this nation are innocent until proven guilty, and do not legally fall into those 9 categories as described by current law, can then constitutionally be barred from their rights?

    Just because the government has done something before, doesn't make it right or constitutional does it, just like the infamous Patriot Act. Unless you ascribe to the might makes right crowd eh?

    So go do some research, then come back, but be prepared to argue based on facts, not emotions as this crowd tends to eat and spit out emotional rhetoric.

  • Ghostwriter III% 6 years ago

    Thanks Dan.

    What's this really all about?
    Who do ‘they’ really fear? ( ‘they’ read;- members of the Federal mobocracy, elitists, statists, societal engineers, MSM propagandists and other Republic-destroying parasites )

    It’s not gangs, drug dealers and human smugglers; career felons and parolees put back on the streets until they kill someone; illegal aliens demanding their right to turn American into the same third-world cesspools they escaped as refugees; and no, not even the radical islamic fundamentalists themselves.

    Who do ‘they’ really fear?

    If you’re not of some foreign ethnicity, nationality or of an “OTW“ ‘race’; not a sexual deviant, still have some idea of what the words Constitutional Republic might actually mean; foolishly still believe in arcane and outdated principles and values,( such as the 'right' to live unmolested by government thugs and do-gooders )think of the U.S.of A. as a sovereign Nation, and… OMG own a GUN!
    Got it?

  • joker 6 years ago

    "Sorry, this is what the world has tolerance. I'm for protecting rights, but there comes a time where you cannot protect some rights at the expense of lives."
    Ok fine.
    YOUR right to free speech is a threat. We need to strip it from you.

  • jimbo 6 years ago

    where does it say in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America that "certain categories of people" are prohibitted from owning fire-arms?

  • straightarrow 6 years ago

    Dawn, you have the right to your own opinion, you have the right to state your own opinion. You do not have the right to your own "facts". I am willing to allow that your are not young, or that you are not well-versed. But then I must accuse you of dishonesty. Take your pick.

    I'll give you a "few pieces of history" that will lead you to more if you are not the of the latter persuasion listed above. http: // www. hawaii. edu/ power kills /20th. htm

    Go learn or don't, either way you will have revealed yourself.

    And these only cover ONE century.

    I didn't before, but now I do suspect you of dishonesty because only the dishonest bemoan lack of false courtesy when one tells something so utterly false. When the argument is insupportable fall back on claims of incivility. Civility is not owed to error or intentional falsehood. Though honest error is not a heinous breachj, defense of it is.

    Just remove the spaces in the reference

  • Chuckles 6 years ago

    Dawn, there was a terrorist that legally obtained a handgun who went on a shooting spree, and in spite of that I still would not support the government creating a secret banned from owning a gun list. If such a list is to exist, then it must be made public.

  • Ken45101 6 years ago

    Nixon had an "enemies list" which included members of Congress. As already mentioned, Hitler, Stalin, Pot Poi, Mao, and many others took guns away so that their dictatorships could be secure...and killed literally a 100 million people. You say the world had become "zero tolerance", okay, then at least let's have zero tolerance for government mistakes! Make the FBI, Homeland Security, etc. be 100.0% tolerance for mistakes! Fair enough?

    Don't forget the many thousands of American citizens that were stripped of their homes and businesses and housed in cramped quarters under guard in WWII "just because they might be a security risk" (which they were not!)

    As Ben Franklin said "Those who would give up freedom for security will get neither." I will add "those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it."

Report this ad