AshKKKroft's Gun Rights Idiocy

[MrBenchley]

How far does our corrupt Attorney General and NRA Life Member go to protect "gun rights?" Check THIS out:

"WASHINGTON — The FBI has launched a new background-check system that notifies counterterrorism agents when suspects on its terrorist watch list attempt to purchase guns — but regulations prohibit them from getting details if the transaction actually occurs, according to federal officials familiar with the system.
If authorities block the purchase, however, the FBI is permitted to launch an investigation of the person who attempted to buy the weapon.
The result, according to the officials, is an awkward situation in which terrorism suspects who do not complete gun purchases may be located, while those toting lawfully purchased weapons may not be.
More than a dozen suspects on the FBI's terrorist watch list have attempted to buy guns since the system was implemented last spring, officials said. Authorities have declined to say how many succeeded.
The rules are the result of Attorney General John Ashcroft's interpretation of the Brady gun-control law, according to Justice Department officials, who said they are simply abiding by the federal firearms background-check system the law established."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001793271_guns17.html

Yes, you read that right....if a terrorist actually succeeds in buying guns, this corrupt imbecile then declares him to be a "law abiding gun owner" and protects him from the scrutiny of law enforcement.

Great to have the NRA working right out of the White House, ain't it?

[MojoKrunch]

1. Well at least we know what their priorties are like.

Makes me sick... but at least we know.

Mojo

[MrBenchley]

2. You might recall

that the troops in Afghanistan found that Al Quaeda and the Taliban had been practicing on targets provided by the NRA...

[jhfenton]

4. And they were probably firing rifles provided by the US government.

What's your point?

[jhfenton]

3. Well, I know in your world civil liberties don't matter...

when guns are involved. In my world, being a suspect, is not grounds to deny you any rights. There's certainly nothing to stop the government from surveiling terrorist suspects.

There are also numerous intentional inaccuracies in the article. This is part of the on-going media campaign to confuse the public into thinking "assault weapons" = "machine guns."

"AK-47 rifles are prohibited under the current assault-weapons ban, but numerous copycat models are legally available."

That is simply wrong. An AK-47 is the fully automatic Russian-made model introduced in 1947. They haven't been manufactured in years. Improvements were later made, and the model AK-M (also fully automatic) was introduced. Automatic and semi-automatic variants of the AK-M are available from Egypt, Romania, China, Russia, Yugoslavia, and other countries. Neither the AK-47 nor any of the other automatic variants are affected by the "assault weapons" ban. The semi-automatic variants are restricted by the "assault weapons" ban only with respect to certain mostly cosmetic features, e.g. flash supressors and bayonet lugs.

I'm personally in the market for an Egyptian model (a Maddi) or a Romanian (an SAR-1). Neither can be accurately called an AK-47. They can accurately be called AK-47 variants, if you like, but an AK-47 is a specific model designation.

[MrBenchley]

5. On the contrary...

It's NRA life member AshKKKroft who's pissing on America's civil liberties, while coddling the corrrupt gun industrry.

"There are also numerous intentional inaccuracies in the article. This is part of the on-going media campaign to confuse the public into thinking "assault weapons" = "machine guns.""
Pity the poor gun nut....everyone is against him and the corrupt industry that feeds his fantasies, except the Republican party, a bunch of right wing blowhards like Sean Hannity, Gordon Liddy, and Bob Grant, and some of the scummiest public figures in America..

[el_gato]

6. and yet you want these loonys to have more control

makes no sense to me

but I guess you want us all to bow down to the fascist police state and kiss the boots of big brother

corrupt governments love unarmed peasants

[MrBenchley]

8. Not me, gato

The RKBA crowd are the ones on here pushing their idiotic and dishonest "gun rights" agenda.

[el_gato]

10. you want the fascists to be in control of all guns

very strange

[MrBenchley]

14. And you want us to become just like the fascists

and peddle this "gun rights" horseshit.

[el_gato]

24. you can't say that with an straight face but you say it anyway

but that's what I'd expect from someone who wants to give the fascists total control of guns

[MrBenchley]

27. I say it because its true, gato

The RKBA crowd is pitching AshKKKroft's dishonest "gun rights" horseshit, and expecting the rest of us to line up and salute.

[jhfenton]

7. Ashcroft

I'm not going to defend Ashcroft's other attacks on civil liberties, but I'm also not going to be hypocritical and attack him in the one area in which he is defending civil liberties.

Oh, and not everyone is against the RKBA, just you, a few high-profile anti-gunners, and the mainstream media.

[MrBenchley]

9. Too too funny, fenton

"I'm also not going to be hypocritical and attack him in the one area in which he is defending civil liberties."
Defending gun industry profits, you mean.

"not everyone is against the RKBA"
That's true.....the Aryan Nation, David Duke, Gordon Liddy and Sean Hannity have all spoken out strongly on its behalf.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

11. nice try

you equate preserving the 2nd amendment with defending gun industry profits. That's like accusing somebody who defends the first amendment of promoting print-media industry profits.

[MrBenchley]

12. Yeah, tell us how "principled" this asswipe AshKKKroft is

The guy practically reeks with principle, doesn't he? He's spent his entire life trying to rile up ignorant hillbillies and grab as much dough for him self as he can.

[el_gato]

13. well then why do you want to give him more power?

and why did you run from the previous posters point.

[MrBenchley]

15. The RKBA crowd is pushing his crooked agenda, gato

not me

[Wcross]

17. You and ASScroft are birds of a feather MrBenchley

You just disagree on which rights should be taken away. I support the entire bill of rights, you have no moral high ground on Asscroft.

[MrBenchley]

18. Surrrrrrre, cross....

But it's the RKBA crowd that's pushing this racist asswipe's actual agenda....not me.

P.S.: I support the actual Bill of Rights, including the actual Second Amendment....not Wayne LaPierre's twisted fantasy version of it.

[Wcross]

20. I see your "Surrrrrre" and raise.

I support the actual Bill of Rights, including the actual Second Amendment.

Thats the flaw in your arguement- The people refers to individuals in all the other amendments, but not the second? Flawed logic in an attempt to take away a right your buddy ASScroft overlooked. Sorry, sell it to the soccer moms- they might buy your flawed goods.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jhfenton]

35. "unconstitutional"

"it is suing with Ken Starr (and there's a tip-off) to overturn Campaign Finance Reform on the absurd grounds that its COLLECTIVE freedom of speech is being impaired if it cannnot hand out blood money to the GOP."

As for the so-called campaign finance reform act, everyone from the ACLU to the NRA knows that the legislation is unconstitutional. So I hope you're not trying to defend it.

ACLU vs. FEC


"The plain fact is that if the second conferred an individual right, EVERY gun control law everywhere would be unconstitutional. But it doesn't, and they aren't."

Well, actually, I think most of the federal gun control laws are unconstitutional, from the 1934 National Firearms Act to the 1968 Gun Control Act to the 1994 Crime Bill. Not only do many or most of the provisions violate the 2nd Amendment, many of them are outside the lawful power of the federal government, as they do not truly regulate interstate commerce. Rather they are an attempt to exercise a general police power that belongs solely to the States.

[MrBenchley]

36. Hahahahahahaha.....

"its COLLECTIVE freedom of speech"

"I think most of the federal gun control laws are unconstitutional"
Nothing at all to keep you from suing...and finding out first hand what a steaming pantload that is.

[jhfenton]

37. Suing

Just because I'm "right," doesn't mean I'd win in court. Or do you think that the US Supreme Court always reaches the right conclusion?

Bowers v. Hardwick -- recently overturned
Plessy v. Ferguson -- overturned
etc.

For what it's worth, though, the NRA and another group have recently brought court challenges to DC's gun ban statute, and another group is challenging California's AWB. So we shall see, shan't we.

[MrBenchley]

38. Hahahahahaha!

"Just because I'm "right," doesn't mean I'd win in court."
Gee, the courts are being packed with right wing loonies, and you're still not willing to trust that the fix is in. We can tell you've got a hell of a good case, fenton.

"the NRA and another group"
Oh, let's not be coy...it's the right wing loonies at the Cato Institute...and the NRA is avoiding the Second Amendment...I wonder why?

"The two pro-gun organizations are challenging the D.C. law in U.S. District Court, but in separate lawsuits. The Cato Institute's lawsuit, filed on behalf of six D.C. residents, claims that the handgun ban is in violation of the Second Amendment.
The NRA lawsuit, filed on behalf of five other D.C. residents, states that the law violates the due-process and equal-protection clauses of the Constitution.
fter U.S. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) introduced the D.C. Personal Protection Act to abolish the 27-year-old handgun ban, the Cato Institute accused Hatch and the NRA of hindering its lawsuit.
"From the start, the NRA has tried to stop our suit from going forward," said Bob Levy, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, a D.C.-based libertarian think tank. "Essentially, the NRA is saying, 'If we can't control the litigation, there won't be any litigation.'""

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,565559,00.html

Worth noting that the DC residents himself overwhelmingly want the gun law upheld and strengthened. They know more guns will only make the street more dangerous.

[jhfenton]

39. Supreme Court

Actually, the Court is pretty evenly divided between conservatives and liberals, and the swing justices are fairly unpredictable. But you're right that the Court is the probably the most favorable we've had to the 2nd Amendment since the worst of the federal gun control abuses started in 1968.

And, yes, I'm aware of the infighting regarding the DC lawsuits. I think the NRA made a bad judgment call trying to interfere. And no, the NRA is apparently not ready strategically to file a pure 2nd Amendment lawsuit. I am.

[MrBenchley]

41. Hahahahahaha.....

Funnier and funnier, Fenton.

"the worst of the federal gun control abuses started in 1968."
That would be when the bill that was proposed after JFK got shot was finally passed due to RFK and King getting shot. And it was no abuse at all.

"no, the NRA is apparently not ready strategically to file a pure 2nd Amendment lawsuit. I am."
Let 'er rip...we could use the BIG laugh.

[DoNotRefill]

56. MrBenchley....you DID see where the 9th Circuit...

just struck down §922(o) as being unconstitutional, didn't you?

[Wcross]

42. Collective homes? Collective papers? Collective effects?

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Gee MrBenchley, you seem real selective on whats collective don't you? Why is the people in the second different than the people of the fourth? How do you explain the federalist papers?

Again- your opinion of the second amendment is just your opinion. Too bad.

"Sorry, sell it to the soccer moms"
I'll do just that, since the soccer moms are decent sane people, and you can keep huddling with the KKK and Aryan Nations, muttering bitterly about it.


Again you use the racist crutch! I resent your implication that due to the fact that I support the right to defend myself I am a racist.
Too bad your arguement lacks so much substance that you have to revert to other accusations. It is a real shame.

[MrBenchley]

43. Yup...

"Gee MrBenchley, you seem real selective on whats collective don't you?"
Nope..."We the people...."

"Again- your opinion of the second amendment is just your opinion."
And the courts opinion, and the Federalist Papers opinion and pretty much everybody but a handful of gun crazies' opinion. And since the gun crazies don't want to go to court to back up their opinion, it's pretty clear their opinion is hooey.

"It is a real shame."
No, what is a real shame is someone lining up behind specimens like Ted Nugent and Larry Pratt, then yelling "Foul" when it's noted accurately what vermin they are. If someone doesn't like people pointing out the company he keeps, perhaps he ought to consider the company he keeps, not the people pointing them out.

[Wcross]

44. Another gun grabbers fantasy!

I don't keep company with ted nugent or larry pratt, I just happen to believe the right to self defense can not be granted or removed by a government. Guns are the most effective means of self defense. Case closed. Your trying to remove my rights, you are no better than those that would like to remove the right to assemble or to be safe in our homes. Thats the way I see it and I will resist your efforts in any way possible.
The only real impact your efforts will bring us is a continued republican majority and another four years of Bush. I suspect you really don't care.
Thanks for nothing.

[MrBenchley]

45. Peddle it to someone dumb enough to buy it,, cross

"The only real impact your efforts will bring us is a continued republican majority and another four years of Bush."
Which will give the RKBA crowd, which keeps assuring us that no other issue BUT "guns guns guns" matters, just what it wants...a corrupt bunch of racists and loonies protecting a corrupt industry.

"Kayne Robinson, former chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa, took over the duties of president on Saturday, including presenting Florida Gov. Jeb Bush with a flintlock rifle during a banquet. Heston was supposed to present Bush with the firearm.
Bush, the keynote speaker, credited the NRA with helping his brother, President Bush, win the 2000 presidential election.
"Were it not for your active involvement, it's safe to say my brother may not have been president of the United States," Bush said. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/28/politics/main551275.shtml

Thanks for nothing yourself.

[jhfenton]

48. It's a good thing I find your ranting amusing...

otherwise I might be offended at your continual implication that I am a "corrupt" "racist" "loony" "protecting a corrupt industry." But I have to have at least a little respect for someone to be offended by them.

If the NRA favored Bush over Gore and favors Republicans more often than Democrats, then it is because of you and your co-conspirators in the Democratic party who pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to endorse.

[MrBenchley]

50. Who are you trying to kid, fenton?

"If the NRA favored Bush over Gore and favors Republicans more often than Democrats"
IF??? Hahahahahahahaha!!

"then it is because of you and your co-conspirators in the Democratic party"
Gee, I'll proudly stand with all those sane decent people. And you can stand over there with David Duke, Ted Nugent, Larry Pratt, John AshKKKroft, Trent Lott and Tom DeLay and bitch whenever the low quality of YOUR "co-conspirators" is brought up in public.

"who pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to endorse."
Like the entire Second Amendment and not just half of it.

[Wcross]

55. I am not selling anything

I am concerned about next years election. I sure am glad there are only three or four of your type here. It gives me hope. As far as being racist and looney, well some could say........

[MrBenchley]

61. That's good, because I'm not buying...

"I am concerned about next years election."
And whether the Republicans will protect your gun fetish?

"As far as being racist and looney, well some could say........"
Hey, cross....you ought to go over to the new thread today, where some of your bullet-minded brethren have linked to a source that's peddling crap about "disease ridden illegal aliens." By jinkies, nothing racist or hooey about that...in a pig's eye.

[Emoto]

16. You can't have it both ways!

When Ashcroft was being grilled about what he would do as AG, people like you were afraid that he would allow his personal views to cause him to break the law. There was a great gnashing of teeth about this. Now, here he is abiding by the provisions of the law that congress enacted--which is exactly what you wanted him to do--and you crucify him for it. The hypocracy of such thinking would be stunning if it came from anyone else.

[MrBenchley]

19. Who are you trying to kid, moto?

I didn't think the racist imbecile should have been confirmed in the first place. And I thought he should have been fired after September 11.

"But that was just the beginning of the ironies. The same morning, The New York Times reported that Ashcroft's Justice Department had blocked efforts by the FBI and other law-enforcement agencies to check Justice's database to determine if any of the 1,200 individuals detained after the September 11 attacks had bought guns or had sought to do so. Why, asked Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy, was Ashcroft handcuffing the FBI--his phrase--in its efforts to investigate gun purchases by suspected terrorists?

The answer, said Ashcroft, was simple. The law creating the federal database of gun buyers and would-be purchasers (which mandates that the records are kept for only 90 days) didn't permit such uses; Congress had forbidden it. What Ashcroft didn't say was that as a member of the Senate--one whose libertarian streak never went much beyond the agenda of the gun lobby--he had worked as hard as anyone to write even more restrictions into that law.

Did Ashcroft think that the law should be changed? the senators asked. Would he send up a bill calling for such changes? Why were there no background checks at gun shows? How many terrorists bought semiautomatics at gun shows in complete anonymity? Again and again, the attorney general ducked: If Congress sent him something he would review it, he told the lawmakers, but "I won't comment on legislation in the hypothetical." "

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/1/schrag-p.html

[Emoto]

21. nobody

You cite prospect.org as authoritative? Puh-leeze...

I know you don't like him. I don't particularly care for him either and also opposed his confirmation, FWIW.

But, that is neither here, nor there. He got the job.

So, anyway, the man has a job that is limited by statute. He is obliged to enforce the law whether he (or you and I) like it or not. This is what he has done, as far as I can tell. I believe the patriot act has constitutional problems, and that parts of it should be struck down, HOWEVER, for now, it is the law, and again Ashcroft must enforce it. He does not get to pick and choose. Get it?

[MrBenchley]

23. AshKKKrroft is a racist scumbag

and fits right in with the rest of the bogus "gun rights" movement.

"the man has a job that is limited by statute"
Limits and laws have never stopped him in his career....nor has common decency.

"Ashcroft spent years and significant state resources in efforts to stymie voluntary St. Louis desegregation plans designed to enable city and suburban students and families to choose whether to participate on a completely voluntary basis. He repeatedly tried to delay and reverse court orders, and his arguments were rejected in three appeals to the Supreme Court. He was threatened with contempt of court and was criticized and rebuked by federal judges. His conduct was likened to the Southern "massive resistance" that had followed the Supreme Court’s decision more than two decades earlier in Brown v. Board of Education. Observers chastised him for exploiting his opposition to desegregation in his campaign for governor through rhetoric widely perceived as racially divisive."

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1097

And what the hell is wrong with prospect.org?

[el_gato]

25. then why do you want him to have more power?

You must be a ted nugent fan.

[demsrule4life]

26. Slam dunk :)

[MrBenchley]

28. Gee, I'm not the one pimping his corrupt agenda, gato

that would be the RKBA crowd.

[beevul]

58. Of course

you are.

"If the NRA favored Bush over Gore and favors Republicans more often than Democrats, then it is because of you and your co-conspirators in the Democratic party who pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to endorse."

That says it all.

"Gee, I'll proudly stand with all those sane decent people.

You mean like Barbara Lipscomb(MMM murderer)?


Heres the part you don't get. The swing voters DON'T "stand over there with David Duke, Ted Nugent, Larry Pratt, John AshKKKroft, Trent Lott and Tom DeLay", they SWING to whatever party bests represents them, or no party at all, or in the case of the "gun" issue, an issue that they are unwilling to cave on because of past transgressions, whoever represents the least threat to thier 2nd amendment rights, real or percieved.

. Actually, I think you DO get this.

In the case swing voters whos "deciding issue" is firearms (directly because of the distrust created by antigun venom and betrayal), those that WOULD swing to the Democratic party except for the gun issue no longer have a CHOICE, because anti's drive them and continue to try to drive them away, and they(pro-gun choice)REFUSE to budge on the "GUN" issue, because they already tried that, and got burned, By ...you guessed it, anti gunners. The fact of the matter is, ANTI-GUNNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE for driving those that are Democratic and/or liberal in every/most/many other ways except the "gun issue" either to republicans, third party, or no vote at all.

Its not that they stand with "David Duke, Ted Nugent, Larry Pratt, John AshKKKroft, Trent Lott and Tom DeLay", its that anti-gunners do all they can to make sure swinger voters who are pro-gun can't stand with democrats, and can therefore demonize them because they ARE the group anti's love to hate, and hold out for hope that they can hoodwink a majority of voters that its better to be like DC than like VT, and in the mean time would rather LOSE without those "Democratic and/or liberal in every/most/many other ways except the "gun issue"", than win with them.

I'm a perfect example of this. I'm PRO GUN,PRO CHOICE,PRO LEGAL IMMIGRATION, ANTI-RACISM, ANTI-BIGOTISM, ANTI-ELITISM,ANTI-DRUG WAR. But, after the betrayal(IMO) of gun owners by Bill Clinton, I swore I would never vote for ANY anti-gun candidate to ANY office, from ANY party again.
Do you think the Democratic party would be better of without me?

"Like the entire Second Amendment and not just half of it."

By the way, "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

pretty much says in modern language:

Because a well regulated militia is necessary, for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You don't have to be a language expert or a lawyer to understand that.You DO however have to be honest.

[iverglas]

60. speaking of being honest ...

"I'm a perfect example of this. I'm PRO GUN,PRO CHOICE,PRO LEGAL IMMIGRATION, ANTI-RACISM, ANTI-BIGOTISM, ANTI-ELITISM,ANTI-DRUG WAR. But, after the betrayal(IMO) of gun owners by Bill Clinton, I swore I would never vote for ANY anti-gun candidate to ANY office, from ANY party again."

Why aren't you also saying:

I swore I would never vote for ANY anti-choice candidate to ANY office, from ANY party again.

I swore I would never vote for ANY anti-legal immigration candidate to ANY office, from ANY party again.

I swore I would never vote for ANY pro-racism candidate to ANY office, from ANY party again.

I swore I would never vote for ANY pro-bigotry candidate to ANY office, from ANY party again.

I swore I would never vote for ANY pro-elitism candidate to ANY office, from ANY party again.

I swore I would never vote for ANY pro-drug war candidate to ANY office, from ANY party again.

(and I might throw in "anti-union", "pro-imperialist warmongering", "anti-decent health care system", "anti-poor-bashing" and a few others ...)

??

That's the question that a lot of people just can't figure out: how it is that people who are supposedly anti-racist, anti-imperialist warmongering, pro-decent health care, pro-union, anti-poor-bashing, etc. etc., would decide whom to vote for based on a single issue and then vote for a racist, warmongering, economy-destroying candidate and party. How they would figure that such a party "best represents them".

Enquiring minds just can't seem to figure it out.

.

[iverglas]

30. what's wrong with prospect.org?

Hmm, I was curious, not recalling having seen it. Perhaps this?

The aim of The American Prospect is to contribute to a renewal of America's democratic traditions by presenting a practical and convincing vision of liberal philosophy, politics and public life.

Of course, I assume that they wanna grab guns, too.

Strange coincidence, if so.

.

[MrBenchley]

32. Funny how that question goes unanswered, isn't it?

"MESSAGE BOARD RULES (SHORT VERSION)
1. This is a message board for Democrats and other progressives."

"The aim of The American Prospect is to contribute to a renewal of America's democratic traditions by presenting a practical and convincing vision of liberal philosophy, politics and public life."
Sounds like prospect.org is right in the mainstream.

[Emoto]

46. You still can't have it both ways, kiddo

The AG is obeying the law that congress passed. You want him to disobey the law in the name of national security? Isn't that a Bad Thing? Do we not want our government officials to obey the laws that the legislature has made? Or are they only supposed to obey the laws that YOU happen to agree with?

Get the law changed to be what you want instead of carping about him obeying the law.

[MrBenchley]

51. So are you ever going to tell us

what's wrong with prospect.org, other than that they're actually liberal and not a corrupt and dishonest bunch of right wing loonies and racists?

[MrBenchley]

29. More on this corrupt and racist nutcase

""This policy is mind-boggling," said Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who has frequently clashed with Ashcroft on gun issues. "We could have a nationwide lookout for a known terrorist within our borders, but if he obtained a weapon, the Justice Department's policy is to refuse to reveal his location to law enforcement officials."
Officials have declined to reveal how many terrorism suspects were able to buy weapons. It is also difficult to determine precisely how the system works because Justice and FBI officials have refused to provide details about it.
Shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Ashcroft's advisers stopped the FBI from comparing a list of Sept. 11-related detainees against a list of approved gun purchasers. They said that under the Brady law, the Justice Department is prohibited from using such records for law enforcement purposes. Before it was interrupted, the search had resulted in two matches, sources said at the time.
A Congressional Research Service report released earlier this year found that U.S. gun laws could be exploited easily by terrorists, who can obtain firearms and explosives by taking advantage of delays and loopholes in the system. An al Qaeda training manual recovered by U.S. forces in Afghanistan included a chapter noting the ease with which firearms can be obtained in the United States and urged followers to "obtain an assault rifle legally, preferably an AK-47 or variations, learn how to use it properly and go and practice in the areas allowed for such training."
AK-47 rifles are prohibited under the current ban on assault weapons, but numerous copycat models are available legally. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54498-2003Nov17_2.html

Hey, Osama...don't worry. Tom DeLay and the GOP are doing all they can to let you buy all the assault weapons you want.

[iverglas]

31. gobsmacked

I truly am. With all the things that your anti-terrorism legislation lets 'em do to just about anybody anytime they choose ... and they "can't" release firearms purchase info to law enforcement agencies??

Gobsmacked doesn't actually begin to describe it.

.

[MrBenchley]

33. Nope, the man who thinks calico cats come from the devil

is absolutely hamstrung by those pesky rules and his high moral principles...in a pig's eye.

"they "can't" release firearms purchase info to law enforcement agencies??"
If they did, somebody might find out what the corrupt gun industry has been up to, and with whom. And that could get in the way of the liability waiver they're trying to ram through.

Incidentally, you may notice the new strain of RKBA "logic" in this thread: The only way to prevent AshKKKroft from carrying out his demented and dishonest agenda is to join in enthusiastically and push his demented and dishonest agenda.

[demsrule4life]

34. You must be really smart

making up your own words. If you have the education to make up your own words I would never stand a chance against you. (Don't mind me just had a few tornados pass through my area which scares me a whole lot more than any gun.)

[iverglas]

40. either that, or ...

... nah, I won't say it.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=gobsmacked&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en&meta=

"Results 1 - 10 of about 15,400."

It's an excellent word. I encounter it mainly on the brit tv shows I watch. Aha, here's the very first result google offers:

http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-gob1.htm

GOBSMACKED

... “I was looking at a UK magazine and ran across gobsmack. What can you tell me about this term?”

It’s a fairly recent British slang term: the first recorded use is only in the eighties, though verbal <i.e. "oral", aargh> use must surely go back further. The usual form is gobsmacked, though gobstruck is also found. It’s a combination of gob, mouth, and smacked. It means “utterly astonished, astounded”. It’s much stronger than just being surprised; it’s used for something that leaves you speechless, or otherwise stops you dead in your tracks. It suggests that something is as surprising as being suddenly hit in the face. It comes from northern dialect, most probably popularised through television programmes set in Liverpool, where it was common. ...

Yup, that's exactly what I meant to convey: "utterly astonished, astounded", left speechless, stopped dead in my tracks. And it sounds so much finer -- and I'll bet you guessed just what it meant even if you'd never seen it before!

And now we all have a new word. And my natural modesty compels me to disclaim authorship of it.

I'll also bet that you have an inherent right to defend self and property against tornados. Isn't there some device that you could revendicate for that purpose?? (ha-ha, "revendicate", for your delectation and future utilization. And that ha-ha must be pronounced "ha-HA", as in "ha-HA, said Brenda, as she threw a corgy at him", in reference to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as portrayed by Private Eye ... and oops, it's a "corgi", I see.)

Anyhow, give the tornados hell, eh?

(Just not "sam hell", as someone here inquired "what the" about today, since he was Sam Hill: http://www.livinggoldpress.com/samhill.htm Ah, google for fun and procrastination. "The phrase <'What the Sam Hill?!'> ... refers to a farmer from one of the New England states who ran for public office--but no one knew who he was or from where he came!")

I'm done. Be gobsmacked.



(punctuation fixed to show end of quotation)

.

[jhfenton]

49. Very nice post, iverglas

I was familiar with "gobsmacked," but I enjoyed your post nevertheless. Even if you had made it up, the meaning was obvious from the context, and I have nothing against a good neologism.

I obviously don't agree with you on gun issues, but you are intelligent and entertaining. Thanks for elevating the level of the debate (most of the time). ;)

[beevul]

47. Everyone ok I hope!

(Don't mind me just had a few tornados pass through my area which scares me a whole lot more than any gun.)


Tornados are serious business. Hope the injuries and damage were minimal as possible. My mother and father were taken 40 feet into the air inside a trailer (this was well before my days) by a tornado,
and my grandfather bloodied his hands in an attempt to get them out after the twister set them down. I have heard the story and looked at the pictures sooo many times. Serious business ...those tornados.
Again, hope the injuries and damage were minimal as possible.

[Liberal Classic]

52. Hey, you were near that storm that rolled through eastern U.S.?

My mother had water in her house due to flooding, and a tornado less than a mile away. Serious business!

[beevul]

54. Naa, Nowhere near thank goodness

(Don't mind me just had a few tornados pass through my area which scares me a whole lot more than any gun.)-demsrule4life

My bad for not making it clearer it was he/she who said that.


Here in Yuma AZ, its wierd, were surrounded mostly by mountains, and 99 percent of everything goes around us. About the only thing we get here is consistant 110 plus degree temps in summer, which is serious business too, but we at least know its coming, and can prepare for it somewhat. Although it REALLY SUCKS when it gets 125 plus, vehicles don't function like normal, and you need to drink like 40 ounces of water a day if you spend alot of time outside.

I hope everything turns out ok for your mom, flood damage sucks and can destroy important documents and things like family photos and that box full of keepsakes like baby booties/report cards/ school pictures that most mothers keep, verry efficiently.

Best wishes to both you and your mom, and dems.:)

[Liberal Classic]

53. Ya, hope you are ok too

Here's some best wishes, hope you didn't get flooded or swept away by high winds.

[Hammie]

57. Ashcroft is a nut case

but apparently he can read. The law passed by congress is explicit as to what the background checks can be used for, and how long they can be preserved. You clearly don't agree with those provisions but they are the law.

BTW this is a red herring. The FBI doesn't need that information anyway. Look how quickly they were able to put together the whole 9/11 story once they knew who to look for. Their problem is identifying terrorists, not tracking them down once identified. Since buying guns doesn't make one a terrorist any more than buying a Koran does access to records of approved purchases will do zip, nada, dust toward identifying and apprehending terrorists.

How about the FBI keep records on anyone who purchases tofu? I'm convinced that ELF terrorists consume above average amounts of the stuff. The FBI can cross reference tofu purchases with PETA mailing lists to create a data base of likely eco-terrorists. Of course, those cretins would probably just get their tofu through straw purchasers and at farmers markets. We really do need a Tofu Brady Law, not to mention closing the Farmers Market Loophole.

[iverglas]

59. Oh, what a tangled web you weave

"Their problem is identifying terrorists, not tracking them down once identified. Since buying guns doesn't make one a terrorist any more than buying a Koran does access to records of approved purchases will do zip, nada, dust toward identifying and apprehending terrorists."

And amazingly enough, NO ONE suggested that buying guns made anyone a terrorist; NO ONE suggested that firearms purchases should or could be used for "identifying terrorists".

So what straw fellow have you smitten here, friend? And why?

Here's what was actually the subject of discussion: the

situation in which terrorism suspects who do not
complete gun purchases may be located, while those toting lawfully purchased weapons may not be. More than a dozen suspects on the FBI's terrorist watch list have attempted to buy guns since the system was implemented last spring ... .

Oh look. The people in question are ALREADY "terrorism suspects".

Nobody in the world is or was suggesting that firearms purchases be used for identifying terrorists.

The question that was raised was why the govt. is not / should not be able to use firearms purchase records for determining which terrorism suspects have acquired firearms.

So when you say:

"How about the FBI keep records on anyone who purchases tofu? I'm convinced that ELF terrorists consume above average amounts of the stuff. The FBI can cross reference tofu purchases with PETA mailing lists to create a data base of likely eco-terrorists. Of course, those cretins would probably just get their tofu through straw purchasers and at farmers markets. We really do need a Tofu Brady Law, not to mention closing the Farmers Market Loophole.

... y'know what I say? Yada yada yada, that's what I say.

If you discover that tofu is an ingredient in a weapon of mass destruction and that your government has reason to believe that terrorism suspects are engaged in acquiring tofu, let me know and then we can talk, 'k?

Summary for any simple-minded among us:

- there is no suggestion that the government can or should be able to identify terrorism suspects by checking firearms acquisition records;
- there is a suggestion that the government should be able to determine which terrorism suspects have acquired firearms by checking firearms acquisition records.

I think most people should be able to tell the difference.

And I'm still curious why all those draconian powers under Ashcroft's Patriot Act would not permit Ashcroft to do such checking.

.

[MrBenchley]

62. Great post...

"I'm still curious why all those draconian powers under Ashcroft's Patriot Act would not permit Ashcroft to do such checking."
The hilarious posts are the ones suggesting that it is the iron will of Sarah Brady and her draconian law that prevent this racist asswipe from doing so.