al Qaeda buys its WMDs in America. You should too!

25 views
Skip to first unread message

moen...@earthlink.net

unread,
May 14, 2005, 8:35:32 PM5/14/05
to
Congress' Government Accountability Office reported in March that,
mainly because of gun owners' privacy rights, the FBI and state
officials were unable to stop 47 of 58 gun purchases by people who are
in the FBI's "terrorist watch list" during a nine-month period last
year.

Hey America! Ya got any deals on yer old nukes?

Bob Tiernan

unread,
May 14, 2005, 8:52:20 PM5/14/05
to
moenkopi wrote:

> Congress' Government Accountability Office reported in March that,
> mainly because of gun owners' privacy rights, the FBI and state
> officials were unable to stop 47 of 58 gun purchases by people who are
> in the FBI's "terrorist watch list" during a nine-month period last
> year.

Do we hear the left cheering? That figures. See, it's
not about any concern over privacy rights vs. security,
but about their hatred of gun rights.

Bob T

edi...@netpath.net

unread,
May 14, 2005, 9:10:13 PM5/14/05
to
Get real. You're unconcerned that terrorists are in the U.S. as long
as they can't buy guns? Didn't 9/11 - in which a fistful of terrorists
killed 3,000 Americans in one hour of "boxcutter violence" (or was that
"airplane violence?") teach you anything?

See the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW

as...@global.net

unread,
May 14, 2005, 11:54:17 PM5/14/05
to
moen...@earthlink.net wrote:

A pistol is hardly a wmd!

Unless these people are convicted of some crime they are entitled to all
the rights proteced by our Constitution.
If they are Illegal Aliens they cannot purchase a firearm.

GKDD

unread,
May 15, 2005, 12:52:06 AM5/15/05
to
your other name is cor isn't it?


cor

unread,
May 15, 2005, 3:28:21 AM5/15/05
to

Well, glad you asked.
Thanks to an anonimous tip, coincidence and this greed Asher Karni is
in prison (for not too long since he has the israeli lobby behind him),
for selling the triggers necessary for nuclear bombs. He was selling
them to a Pakistani businessman that in turn was selling them to anyone
who asked. This was in 2004!

Althought the investigation on the Karni case has been sealed (to avoid
embarrasing Pakistan- and Bush -) but it has been linked to Perkin Elmer
that makes the triggers and into the black markets of Islamabad and Dubai.
The US restrictions go through a loophole, exported to South Africa
that then reexports them to the rest of the world interested
in making more nuclear weapons.
Hundreds of nonworking triggers were shipped to South Africa and are
part of the evidence against him. But, was it the first time he did it?
doubt it.

Jos.Carman

unread,
May 15, 2005, 3:17:32 AM5/15/05
to
Carman wrote:
Newsgroups trimmed. (Why? Because I feel like it.
You have issues with that?)

edi...@netpath.net wrote:
"Get real".

Carman wrote:
Fine idea! Lets.

edi...@netpath.net wrote:
"You're unconcerned that terrorists are in the U.S.
as long as they can't buy guns?"

Carman wrote:
To what "terrorists do you refer? The people on the
"watch lists"? Surely you understand that simply being
on some bureaucrat's "watch list" is not the same as
being convicted of a crime?

You DO understand that don't you? The Left has tried
very hard to obscure that little (but very important!)
distinction, but surely YOU understand it. Don't you?

edi...@netpath.net wrote:
"Didn't 9/11 - in which a fistful of terrorists
killed 3,000 Americans in one hour of "boxcutter

violence" (or was that "airplane violence?") - teach
you anything?"

Carman wrote:
Your concern for the proper terminology is noted.
Apparently, as with many on the Left, the means one
uses to commit murder is as important to you as the
act itself. The proper term, of course, has nothing
to do with the instrument used, or the location of
the crime: We call it Terrorism when people kill the
innocent for political gain.

Far from failing to learn from that horrific event,
9/11 taught the US many things! We've learned, for
example, it's unwise to tolerate foreign Terrorism in
the mistaken belief "It can't happen here". We know
better now, though it seems the Left would like to
forget this as quickly as possible.

It remains worth noting though, that these new
lessons on Terrorism have not blotted out the old
lessons we learned regarding Tyranny. This is why
our basic Constitutional protections (such as those
regarding firearms) can't simply be set aside by
some nameless bureaucrat who enters your name onto
some extra-legal "watch list".

Though The Left think's they'd love it, (I think
they wouldn't), it would be a shame for the United
States to survive Islamic Terrorism only to fall
victim to Authoritarian Socialism.

PLMerite

unread,
May 15, 2005, 4:44:21 AM5/15/05
to

<moen...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1116117332....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> Congress' Government Accountability Office reported in March that,
> mainly because of gun owners' privacy rights, the FBI and state
> officials were unable to stop 47 of 58 gun purchases by people who are
> in the FBI's "terrorist watch list" during a nine-month period last
> year.

Wow, maybe the FBI could put you on their "leftist subversive watch list"
and deprive you of some of your rights.

Christopher Morton

unread,
May 15, 2005, 10:22:53 AM5/15/05
to

When did any FIREARM become a "weapon of mass destruction"?

Oh, and while you're at it, explain why Al Qaeda would buy
semi-automatic rifles in the United States for $450 when they could
buy fully automatic weapons in Somalia for $12?

You strike me as kind of stupid.
--
"Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and you know it. Another monster lie
from the gover-media." - Judy Diarya, AKA "Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend"

Check out: http://machjr.blogspot.com

Scratch

unread,
May 15, 2005, 11:10:59 AM5/15/05
to


And that's what they hate. Makes it just that much harder when citizens
own guns and lots of us do.

Message has been deleted

Paul Mitchum

unread,
May 15, 2005, 2:12:11 PM5/15/05
to
<retro...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 15 May 2005 10:22:53 -0400, Christopher Morton <cm...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Oh, and while you're at it, explain why Al Qaeda would buy semi-automatic
> >rifles in the United States for $450 when they could buy fully automatic
> >weapons in Somalia for $12?
>

> So they can use them in the US without having to pass through airport
> security?

I was gonna say: Try getting UPS to deliver from Somalia! But your
answer is better.

--
"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats who don't know what's
going on." -- Robert Kennedy, Jr.

Christopher Morton

unread,
May 15, 2005, 6:03:09 PM5/15/05
to
On Sun, 15 May 2005 09:05:05 -0700, retro...@comcast.net wrote:

>On Sun, 15 May 2005 10:22:53 -0400, Christopher Morton <cm...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>

>>Oh, and while you're at it, explain why Al Qaeda would buy
>>semi-automatic rifles in the United States for $450 when they could
>>buy fully automatic weapons in Somalia for $12?
>
>

>So they can use them in the US without having to pass through airport
>security?

That must be why Columbians buy drugs here instead smuggling them into
the country....

Christopher Morton

unread,
May 15, 2005, 6:03:49 PM5/15/05
to
On Sun, 15 May 2005 11:12:11 -0700, use...@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
wrote:

><retro...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 15 May 2005 10:22:53 -0400, Christopher Morton <cm...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Oh, and while you're at it, explain why Al Qaeda would buy semi-automatic
>> >rifles in the United States for $450 when they could buy fully automatic
>> >weapons in Somalia for $12?
>>
>> So they can use them in the US without having to pass through airport
>> security?
>
>I was gonna say: Try getting UPS to deliver from Somalia! But your
>answer is better.

So then UPS ships drugs from Colombia?

You Know Who

unread,
May 15, 2005, 6:10:54 PM5/15/05
to
In talk.politics.guns moen...@earthlink.net wrote:

LOL

How many of the 58 were nukes? Do you even know the difference between
a nuke and a can of tuna?

Clave

unread,
May 15, 2005, 6:28:08 PM5/15/05
to
"Christopher Morton" <cm...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6nhf81d1pr0d1sqvk...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 15 May 2005 09:05:05 -0700, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 May 2005 10:22:53 -0400, Christopher Morton <cm...@cox.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Oh, and while you're at it, explain why Al Qaeda would buy
>>>semi-automatic rifles in the United States for $450 when they could
>>>buy fully automatic weapons in Somalia for $12?
>>
>>
>>So they can use them in the US without having to pass through airport
>>security?
>
> That must be why Columbians buy drugs here instead smuggling them into
> the country....

You asked a question and got the correct answer. Too damn bad if you didn't
like it.

Jim


Chris Morton

unread,
May 16, 2005, 10:03:00 AM5/16/05
to
In article <Y_WdnSZcLKQ...@cablespeedwa.com>, Clave says...

You were asked a question and ran squealing.

All cocaine and heroin is produced domestically, RIGHT?


--

--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.

Bert Hyman

unread,
May 16, 2005, 10:31:14 AM5/16/05
to
moen...@earthlink.net () wrote in
news:1116117332....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Congress' Government Accountability Office reported in March that,
> mainly because of gun owners' privacy rights, the FBI and state
> officials were unable to stop 47 of 58 gun purchases by people who
> are in the FBI's "terrorist watch list" during a nine-month period
> last year.

Are you ->seriously contending that hunting rifles and handguns are
now "weapons of mass destruction"?

You present yourself as an idiot.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@iphouse.com

Michael Ejercito

unread,
May 16, 2005, 12:06:07 PM5/16/05
to

retro...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 10:22:53 -0400, Christopher Morton
<cm...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Oh, and while you're at it, explain why Al Qaeda would buy
> >semi-automatic rifles in the United States for $450 when they could
> >buy fully automatic weapons in Somalia for $12?
>
>
> So they can use them in the US without having to pass through airport
> security?
I suppose cocaine and heroin are grown domestically too.


Michael

Michael Ejercito

unread,
May 16, 2005, 12:04:44 PM5/16/05
to

moen...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Congress' Government Accountability Office reported in March that,
> mainly because of gun owners' privacy rights, the FBI and state
> officials were unable to stop 47 of 58 gun purchases by people who
are
> in the FBI's "terrorist watch list" during a nine-month period last
> year.
If they were stopped, then they would know they are on the terrorist
watch list.


Michael

Message has been deleted

Chris Morton

unread,
May 16, 2005, 1:07:08 PM5/16/05
to
In article <9iih811u1n7otiitq...@4ax.com>, retro...@comcast.net
says...
>
>On 16 May 2005 09:06:07 -0700, "Michael Ejercito"
>I'm sure you think that is somehow a response to the point made above.

As indeed it is. It points up the sheer stupidity both of calling firearms,
"weapons of mass destruction", and pretending that it makes one iota of
operational or economic sense for terrorists to buy expensive non-automatic
weapons when they could smuggle full auto weapons that cost $12 a piece. Anyone
who believes otherwise is an idiot.

Message has been deleted

Duke Kahanamoku

unread,
May 16, 2005, 1:37:30 PM5/16/05
to

Smuggling weapons into America is an unnecessary risk, when you can buy
better quality in America anyway. Plus you save the cost of shipping
from Somalia, which is significant, especially when you want the shipper
to risk jail time. No, if you were a terrorist planning an attack in
America, the place to buy your weapons is inside America. The NRA will
even zealously protect and promote your right to buy them, own them, and
carry them under your coat.

cocaine and heroin are not grown domestically, but you can buy them both
in America a lot more safely than you can buy them overseas and smuggle
them in yourself. How is this related to terrorists in America?

Bert Hyman

unread,
May 16, 2005, 1:39:48 PM5/16/05
to
long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
news:d6aloq$d6u$1...@services.kq.no:

> Smuggling weapons into America is an unnecessary risk, when you can
> buy better quality in America anyway.

Really? Where in the US would you go to buy an AK-47 or any similar
assault rifle?

Don Homuth

unread,
May 16, 2005, 1:42:36 PM5/16/05
to
On 16 May 2005 17:39:48 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:

>long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
>news:d6aloq$d6u$1...@services.kq.no:
>
>> Smuggling weapons into America is an unnecessary risk, when you can
>> buy better quality in America anyway.
>
>Really? Where in the US would you go to buy an AK-47 or any similar
>assault rifle?

Legally? Limited number of places, but you can do it IF you fill out
the paperwork.

Illegally?

Be creative here, Bert.
--
Brother Flaming Scimitar of Vengeful Reflection
Servant of the Unitarian Jihad

Duke Kahanamoku

unread,
May 16, 2005, 1:45:38 PM5/16/05
to
Bert Hyman wrote:
> long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
> news:d6aloq$d6u$1...@services.kq.no:
>
>
>>Smuggling weapons into America is an unnecessary risk, when you can
>>buy better quality in America anyway.
>
>
> Really? Where in the US would you go to buy an AK-47 or any similar
> assault rifle?

Well, ok, you would have to buy American. The point is about minimizing
risk to the mission. If you were a terrorist planning an attack inside
America, would you take the risk of smuggling your weapons in, or would
you buy them at much less risk in America? Even if you just had to have
an AK-47, you would still probably buy it in America. No, I don't know
where to buy them, but we can assume terrorists know. Then what would
you do about that problem?

Bert Hyman

unread,
May 16, 2005, 1:45:39 PM5/16/05
to
dhom...@comcast.net (Don Homuth) wrote in
news:3rmh81ta9btpljc03...@4ax.com:

> On 16 May 2005 17:39:48 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
>>news:d6aloq$d6u$1...@services.kq.no:
>>
>>> Smuggling weapons into America is an unnecessary risk, when you
>>> can buy better quality in America anyway.
>>
>>Really? Where in the US would you go to buy an AK-47 or any similar
>>assault rifle?
>
> Legally? Limited number of places, but you can do it IF you fill
> out the paperwork.

Please elaborate.

>
> Illegally?

The person of who I asked the question was clearly talking about
legal sales.

> Be creative here, Bert.

I leave the tale spinning to you.

Bert Hyman

unread,
May 16, 2005, 1:48:24 PM5/16/05
to
long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
news:d6am83$hhq$1...@services.kq.no:

> Bert Hyman wrote:
>> long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
>> news:d6aloq$d6u$1...@services.kq.no:
>>
>>
>>>Smuggling weapons into America is an unnecessary risk, when you
>>>can buy better quality in America anyway.
>>
>>
>> Really? Where in the US would you go to buy an AK-47 or any
>> similar assault rifle?
>
> Well, ok, you would have to buy American.

What? I ask you to simply explain your assertion that someone can buy
automatic weapons in the US. I don't care where they're made.

Duke Kahanamoku

unread,
May 16, 2005, 1:50:59 PM5/16/05
to
Bert Hyman wrote:
> dhom...@comcast.net (Don Homuth) wrote in
> news:3rmh81ta9btpljc03...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>On 16 May 2005 17:39:48 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
>>>news:d6aloq$d6u$1...@services.kq.no:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Smuggling weapons into America is an unnecessary risk, when you
>>>>can buy better quality in America anyway.
>>>
>>>Really? Where in the US would you go to buy an AK-47 or any similar
>>>assault rifle?
>>
>>Legally? Limited number of places, but you can do it IF you fill
>>out the paperwork.
>
>
> Please elaborate.
>
>
>>Illegally?
>
>
> The person of who I asked the question was clearly talking about
> legal sales.

Legal sales for legal guns, yes. But since you can just as easily buy
guns illegally in America, why not buy the best?

>>Be creative here, Bert.
>
>
> I leave the tale spinning to you.

Then how would you deal with the problem: It is way too easy for
terrorists to buy automatic weapons in the US, because (a) the control
system is virtually non-existent and (b) the weapons are so plentiful.

Duke Kahanamoku

unread,
May 16, 2005, 1:52:49 PM5/16/05
to
Bert Hyman wrote:
> long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
> news:d6am83$hhq$1...@services.kq.no:
>
>
>>Bert Hyman wrote:
>>
>>>long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
>>>news:d6aloq$d6u$1...@services.kq.no:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Smuggling weapons into America is an unnecessary risk, when you
>>>>can buy better quality in America anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>>Really? Where in the US would you go to buy an AK-47 or any
>>>similar assault rifle?
>>
>>Well, ok, you would have to buy American.
>
>
> What? I ask you to simply explain your assertion that someone can buy
> automatic weapons in the US. I don't care where they're made.

I don't know where you can get one. I'm sure you can because police keep
confiscating them. Are you saying you can't get them in America?

Bert Hyman

unread,
May 16, 2005, 1:53:59 PM5/16/05
to
long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
news:d6ami3$j5v$1...@services.kq.no:

> Then how would you deal with the problem: It is way too easy for
> terrorists to buy automatic weapons in the US, because (a) the
> control system is virtually non-existent and (b) the weapons are so
> plentiful.

So you keep asserting.

I simply ask you to provide some evidence that either of your points
is true.

Don Homuth

unread,
May 16, 2005, 1:53:51 PM5/16/05
to
On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:45:38 +0200, Duke Kahanamoku
<long...@oldtimers.org> wrote:

>Bert Hyman wrote:

>> Really? Where in the US would you go to buy an AK-47 or any similar
>> assault rifle?
>
>Well, ok, you would have to buy American.

Not at all. FA Kalashnikovs are not unknown within this country.
That televised incident where the two guys were firing AKs at the cops
before they finally got killed were using them, for example.

>The point is about minimizing risk to the mission.

Any mission within the US that would be using FAWs is not going to be
discussing risk minimization. It'll be a suicide attempt, straight
up.

> If you were a terrorist planning an attack inside
>America, would you take the risk of smuggling your weapons in, or would
>you buy them at much less risk in America?

Any reasonable terrist wouldn't be considering using FAWs in the first
place. That gets into a firefight, inevitably.

Bombs work better for such purposes.

> Even if you just had to have
>an AK-47, you would still probably buy it in America.

Any FAW would do, IF such a silly mission were contemplated. But it'd
make no sense to do one in the first place. The only time they'd be
useful is if the initial plan were terribly bungled.

>No, I don't know where to buy them,

You'd not be expected to.

>... but we can assume terrorists know.

We assume far too much about Terrists, other than the ones that are
reasonably proficient have a modicum of good sense. Far too much to
want to initiate a firefight.

> Then what would you do about that problem?

Worry -- also far too much.

Even TmcV, when he wanted to do Terrism, didn't bother with firearms.
He built himself a righteous Bomb, and went with that instead. That
or a CW attack would be the approaches Far more likely to be taken.

A firefight would be Waythehell down the list.

Bert Hyman

unread,
May 16, 2005, 1:57:35 PM5/16/05
to
long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
news:d6amlh$j5v$2...@services.kq.no:

> Bert Hyman wrote:

>> What? I ask you to simply explain your assertion that someone can
>> buy automatic weapons in the US. I don't care where they're made.
>
> I don't know where you can get one.

Of that, I'm qite certain.

> I'm sure you can because police keep confiscating them.

They do? Then surely you can provide me with numerous reports. And
why would the police be confiscating them if, as you say, they're
legally bought, sold and owned?

> Are you saying you can't get them in America?

Not easily, and not legally, as you originally suggested.

Duke Kahanamoku

unread,
May 16, 2005, 1:57:43 PM5/16/05
to
Bert Hyman wrote:
> long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
> news:d6ami3$j5v$1...@services.kq.no:
>
>
>>Then how would you deal with the problem: It is way too easy for
>>terrorists to buy automatic weapons in the US, because (a) the
>>control system is virtually non-existent and (b) the weapons are so
>>plentiful.
>
>
> So you keep asserting.
>
> I simply ask you to provide some evidence that either of your points
> is true.

I simply don't have that evidence. I simply ask you this: If you were a
terrorist planning an attack in the US, would you risk your mission by
smuggling weapons into the US, or would you buy weapons in the US,
legally or illegally?

Bert Hyman

unread,
May 16, 2005, 1:58:44 PM5/16/05
to
long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
news:d6amun$j5v$3...@services.kq.no:

> Bert Hyman wrote:
>> long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
>> news:d6ami3$j5v$1...@services.kq.no:
>>
>>
>>>Then how would you deal with the problem: It is way too easy for
>>>terrorists to buy automatic weapons in the US, because (a) the
>>>control system is virtually non-existent and (b) the weapons are
>>>so plentiful.
>>
>>
>> So you keep asserting.
>>
>> I simply ask you to provide some evidence that either of your
>> points is true.
>
> I simply don't have that evidence.

What a surprise.

Duke Kahanamoku

unread,
May 16, 2005, 2:09:25 PM5/16/05
to
Don Homuth wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:45:38 +0200, Duke Kahanamoku
> <long...@oldtimers.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Bert Hyman wrote:
>
>
>>>Really? Where in the US would you go to buy an AK-47 or any similar
>>>assault rifle?
>>
>>Well, ok, you would have to buy American.
>
>
> Not at all. FA Kalashnikovs are not unknown within this country.
> That televised incident where the two guys were firing AKs at the cops
> before they finally got killed were using them, for example.

Well, I understand that, but I'm trying to nullify all Bert's whinges.

>>The point is about minimizing risk to the mission.
>
>
> Any mission within the US that would be using FAWs is not going to be
> discussing risk minimization. It'll be a suicide attempt, straight
> up.

Yes, but by minimizing risk, I mean ensuring success, where success
means mission accomplished, not survival to fight another day. Still, I
expect if terrorism comes to the US in a significant way (I mean
significant by number of attacks), targeted assassinations will be one
tactic used.

>>If you were a terrorist planning an attack inside
>>America, would you take the risk of smuggling your weapons in, or would
>>you buy them at much less risk in America?
>
>
> Any reasonable terrist wouldn't be considering using FAWs in the first
> place. That gets into a firefight, inevitably.
>
> Bombs work better for such purposes.

Of course, but there is no argument there. Bombs are easy to build in
America, with all American parts. Still, I disagree about FAWs. It would
be easier to attack a specific person with a gun, so if the mission was
to kill a specific person, a gun would be better than a bomb, especially
considering that snipers are valuable resources.

>>Even if you just had to have
>>an AK-47, you would still probably buy it in America.
>
>
> Any FAW would do, IF such a silly mission were contemplated. But it'd
> make no sense to do one in the first place. The only time they'd be
> useful is if the initial plan were terribly bungled.

See, I think you assume terrorists would work the same way in America as
they do in Iraq. Some will, of course, but I think terrorist hitmen will
also become a problem.

Duke Kahanamoku

unread,
May 16, 2005, 2:11:06 PM5/16/05
to
Bert Hyman wrote:
> long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
> news:d6amun$j5v$3...@services.kq.no:
>
>
>>Bert Hyman wrote:
>>
>>>long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
>>>news:d6ami3$j5v$1...@services.kq.no:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Then how would you deal with the problem: It is way too easy for
>>>>terrorists to buy automatic weapons in the US, because (a) the
>>>>control system is virtually non-existent and (b) the weapons are
>>>>so plentiful.
>>>
>>>
>>>So you keep asserting.
>>>
>>>I simply ask you to provide some evidence that either of your
>>>points is true.
>>
>>I simply don't have that evidence.
>
>
> What a surprise.

When you get over your surprise, answer the question you deleted: If you

Duke Kahanamoku

unread,
May 16, 2005, 2:12:34 PM5/16/05
to

You misinterpreted me. I apologize for leading you astray. Now that you
have gotten over your surprise that I don't know where to buy an AK-47
in the US, perhaps you will answer this question: If you were a

Bert Hyman

unread,
May 16, 2005, 2:16:52 PM5/16/05
to
long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
news:d6annq$p4t$2...@services.kq.no:

> Bert Hyman wrote:
>> long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
>> news:d6amun$j5v$3...@services.kq.no:
>>
>>
>>>Bert Hyman wrote:
>>>
>>>>long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
>>>>news:d6ami3$j5v$1...@services.kq.no:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Then how would you deal with the problem: It is way too easy for
>>>>>terrorists to buy automatic weapons in the US, because (a) the
>>>>>control system is virtually non-existent and (b) the weapons are
>>>>>so plentiful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So you keep asserting.
>>>>
>>>>I simply ask you to provide some evidence that either of your
>>>>points is true.
>>>
>>>I simply don't have that evidence.
>>
>>
>> What a surprise.
>
> When you get over your surprise, answer the question you deleted:

I'm not interested in how you want to change the subject.

I'm still interested in your original assertion, that buying
automatic weapons was easy and legal in the US.

Remember?

Message-ID: <d6aloq$d6u$1...@services.kq.no>

" No, if you were a terrorist planning an attack in America, the
place to buy your weapons is inside America. The NRA will even
zealously protect and promote your right to buy them, own them, and
carry them under your coat."

--

Duke Kahanamoku

unread,
May 16, 2005, 2:23:56 PM5/16/05
to

But that assertion doesn't refer to automatic weapons, Bert, and I am
not changing the subject. I'll assume your refusal to answer the
question means you would buy your weapons in the US, legally or
illegally, semi-automatic or fully so, rather than risk your mission by
smuggling them in.

Thanks, Bert.

Don Homuth

unread,
May 16, 2005, 2:29:46 PM5/16/05
to
On Mon, 16 May 2005 20:09:25 +0200, Duke Kahanamoku
<long...@oldtimers.org> wrote:

>Don Homuth wrote:


>> Any mission within the US that would be using FAWs is not going to be
>> discussing risk minimization. It'll be a suicide attempt, straight
>> up.
>
>Yes, but by minimizing risk, I mean ensuring success, where success
>means mission accomplished, not survival to fight another day.

That would be a suicide mission, as definedl.

> Still, I
>expect if terrorism comes to the US in a significant way (I mean
>significant by number of attacks), targeted assassinations will be one
>tactic used.

Probably not. That element of Risk is something we have pretty well
under control. But even if it were, some sort of IED or
remote-controlled explosive would be Far more useful than trying to
use a FAW on a target.

>> Any reasonable terrist wouldn't be considering using FAWs in the first
>> place. That gets into a firefight, inevitably.
>>
>> Bombs work better for such purposes.
>
>Of course, but there is no argument there. Bombs are easy to build in
>America, with all American parts.

Bombs are easy to build anywhere. Kids do it constantly, and have for
years. The information on how to do it is openly available on the
Net.

It's not a uniquely American phenomenon.

> Still, I disagree about FAWs. It would
>be easier to attack a specific person with a gun, so if the mission was
>to kill a specific person, a gun would be better than a bomb, especially
>considering that snipers are valuable resources.

You are, in that case, merely Wrong. If one wishes to take out a
specific person, a bomb would be Far preferable. Individuals, even
snipers, can miss. All a bomb has to do is be close and large enough.

Snipers have a far more important role than mere Terrism.

>>>Even if you just had to have
>>>an AK-47, you would still probably buy it in America.
>>
>> Any FAW would do, IF such a silly mission were contemplated. But it'd
>> make no sense to do one in the first place. The only time they'd be
>> useful is if the initial plan were terribly bungled.
>
>See, I think you assume terrorists would work the same way in America as
>they do in Iraq. Some will, of course, but I think terrorist hitmen will
>also become a problem.

Terrist Hitmen will be bombers or CW specialists, primarily and
secondarily. Individual targets are simply not large enough to invoke
a genuine Terror response. Never have been.

If you want to be a Terrist, you do something to make the populace
Terrified. You want them to believe that They could be a victim --
not some specific political leader.

That's how you do Terrism.

Bert Hyman

unread,
May 16, 2005, 2:42:54 PM5/16/05
to
long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
news:d6aoft$jh$1...@services.kq.no:

Then what were you talking about?

> and I
> am not changing the subject. I'll assume your refusal to answer the
> question means you would buy your weapons in the US, legally or
> illegally, semi-automatic or fully so, rather than risk your
> mission by smuggling them in.

Bullshit.

In the US, only government entities can own automatic weapons made
after 1968. All existing weapons from before that date are either
registered with the government or are illegally owned. Any instance
of criminal use of automatic weapons involves firearms either
smuggled into the country (almost always from our good friends the
Chinese, on board Chinese government operated ships), or have been
stolen from government sources.

So, any acquisition of automatic weapons by any potential terrorists
in the US involve criminal activities, and most likely involve
smuggling.

So, how is their risk minimized?

Then, perhaps you can tell us about all the terrorist attacks
involving automatic weapons that have taken place in the US in the
past 10 years.

Duke Kahanamoku

unread,
May 16, 2005, 2:52:37 PM5/16/05
to

Weapons, Bert.

>>and I
>>am not changing the subject. I'll assume your refusal to answer the
>>question means you would buy your weapons in the US, legally or
>>illegally, semi-automatic or fully so, rather than risk your
>>mission by smuggling them in.
>
>
> Bullshit.
>
> In the US, only government entities can own automatic weapons made
> after 1968. All existing weapons from before that date are either
> registered with the government or are illegally owned. Any instance
> of criminal use of automatic weapons involves firearms either
> smuggled into the country (almost always from our good friends the
> Chinese, on board Chinese government operated ships), or have been
> stolen from government sources.
>
> So, any acquisition of automatic weapons by any potential terrorists
> in the US involve criminal activities, and most likely involve
> smuggling.
>
> So, how is their risk minimized?

The risk to their mission is minimized by buying the weapons *in* the
US. It doesn't matter whether they are smuggled in by Chinese or stolen
from the government. If they are there to buy, you won't risk smuggling
them in yourself.

> Then, perhaps you can tell us about all the terrorist attacks
> involving automatic weapons that have taken place in the US in the
> past 10 years.

None that I know of. My point has nothing specific to do with automatic
weapons. My point is that preventing smuggling of weapons, although
necessary, is not sufficient to prevent terrorist attacks in the US, as
9/11 and Oklahoma City both prove.

Bert Hyman

unread,
May 16, 2005, 2:54:59 PM5/16/05
to
long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
news:d6aq5l$9q2$1...@services.kq.no:

> The risk to their mission is minimized by buying the weapons *in*
> the US. It doesn't matter whether they are smuggled in by Chinese
> or stolen from the government. If they are there to buy, you won't
> risk smuggling them in yourself.

Well, at least you've finally come around to realizing that it's a
criminal activity, end to end.

Now, explain this:

"The NRA will even zealously protect and promote your right to buy
them, own them, and carry them under your coat."

--

Duke Kahanamoku

unread,
May 16, 2005, 3:02:43 PM5/16/05
to
Bert Hyman wrote:
> long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
> news:d6aq5l$9q2$1...@services.kq.no:
>
>
>>The risk to their mission is minimized by buying the weapons *in*
>>the US. It doesn't matter whether they are smuggled in by Chinese
>>or stolen from the government. If they are there to buy, you won't
>>risk smuggling them in yourself.
>
>
> Well, at least you've finally come around to realizing that it's a
> criminal activity, end to end.

Terrorism? Why, yes, I knew that all along.

> Now, explain this:
>
> "The NRA will even zealously protect and promote your right to buy
> them, own them, and carry them under your coat."

That's what the NRA does. That's all it does. It zealously lobbies
against any law that would restrict your access to buying and owning
firearms and carrying them.

Bert Hyman

unread,
May 16, 2005, 3:05:46 PM5/16/05
to
long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
news:d6aqok$d2b$1...@services.kq.no:

> Bert Hyman wrote:
>> long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
>> news:d6aq5l$9q2$1...@services.kq.no:
>>
>>
>>>The risk to their mission is minimized by buying the weapons *in*
>>>the US. It doesn't matter whether they are smuggled in by Chinese
>>>or stolen from the government. If they are there to buy, you won't
>>>risk smuggling them in yourself.
>>
>>
>> Well, at least you've finally come around to realizing that it's a
>> criminal activity, end to end.
>
> Terrorism? Why, yes, I knew that all along.

Oh my; now you're trying to be cute.

Duke Kahanamoku

unread,
May 16, 2005, 3:14:06 PM5/16/05
to
Bert Hyman wrote:
> long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
> news:d6aqok$d2b$1...@services.kq.no:
>
>
>>Bert Hyman wrote:
>>
>>>long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
>>>news:d6aq5l$9q2$1...@services.kq.no:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The risk to their mission is minimized by buying the weapons *in*
>>>>the US. It doesn't matter whether they are smuggled in by Chinese
>>>>or stolen from the government. If they are there to buy, you won't
>>>>risk smuggling them in yourself.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, at least you've finally come around to realizing that it's a
>>>criminal activity, end to end.
>>
>>Terrorism? Why, yes, I knew that all along.
>
>
> Oh my; now you're trying to be cute.

Is it your intent to avoid bringing this discussion to closure, or are
you unable to answer the question? If you were a terrorist planning a
mission in the US, would you smuggle your weapons into the US or buy
them in the US?

Bert Hyman

unread,
May 16, 2005, 3:15:48 PM5/16/05
to
long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
news:d6ardu$g51$2...@services.kq.no:

> Bert Hyman wrote:
>> long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
>> news:d6aqok$d2b$1...@services.kq.no:
>>
>>
>>>Bert Hyman wrote:
>>>
>>>>long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
>>>>news:d6aq5l$9q2$1...@services.kq.no:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The risk to their mission is minimized by buying the weapons
>>>>>*in* the US. It doesn't matter whether they are smuggled in by
>>>>>Chinese or stolen from the government. If they are there to buy,
>>>>>you won't risk smuggling them in yourself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, at least you've finally come around to realizing that it's
>>>>a criminal activity, end to end.
>>>
>>>Terrorism? Why, yes, I knew that all along.
>>
>>
>> Oh my; now you're trying to be cute.
>
> Is it your intent to avoid bringing this discussion to closure, or
> are you unable to answer the question?

You're the only one here who has changed the subject. And you've done
it more than once.

Duke Kahanamoku

unread,
May 16, 2005, 3:19:38 PM5/16/05
to
Bert Hyman wrote:
> long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
> news:d6ardu$g51$2...@services.kq.no:
>
>
>>Bert Hyman wrote:
>>
>>>long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
>>>news:d6aqok$d2b$1...@services.kq.no:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bert Hyman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
>>>>>news:d6aq5l$9q2$1...@services.kq.no:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The risk to their mission is minimized by buying the weapons
>>>>>>*in* the US. It doesn't matter whether they are smuggled in by
>>>>>>Chinese or stolen from the government. If they are there to buy,
>>>>>>you won't risk smuggling them in yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, at least you've finally come around to realizing that it's
>>>>>a criminal activity, end to end.
>>>>
>>>>Terrorism? Why, yes, I knew that all along.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh my; now you're trying to be cute.
>>
>>Is it your intent to avoid bringing this discussion to closure, or
>>are you unable to answer the question?
>
>
> You're the only one here who has changed the subject. And you've done
> it more than once.

I'm on the same subject I have been on from my entry into this thread.
From your direct refusal to answer the question, I conclude you would
buy your weapons in the US. If you have a different answer that actually
answers the question, you may, of course, provide it. Here is the
question again: If you were a terrorist planning a mission in the US,

Chris Morton

unread,
May 16, 2005, 3:02:33 PM5/16/05
to
In article <d6anqi$p4t$3...@services.kq.no>, Duke Kahanamoku says...

>in the US, perhaps you will answer this question: If you were a
>terrorist planning an attack in the US, would you risk your mission by
>smuggling weapons into the US, or would you buy weapons in the US,
>legally or illegally?

I'd smuggle them in in greater quantities than I need, then sell the excess at
great profit to help fund operations.


--

--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.

Chris Morton

unread,
May 16, 2005, 2:58:55 PM5/16/05
to
In article <d6aq5l$9q2$1...@services.kq.no>, Duke Kahanamoku says...

>The risk to their mission is minimized by buying the weapons *in* the
>US. It doesn't matter whether they are smuggled in by Chinese or stolen
>from the government. If they are there to buy, you won't risk smuggling
>them in yourself.

There doesn't seem to be much "risk" in smuggling in tons of illegal drugs.

Duke Kahanamoku

unread,
May 16, 2005, 3:23:24 PM5/16/05
to
Chris Morton wrote:
> In article <d6aq5l$9q2$1...@services.kq.no>, Duke Kahanamoku says...
>
>
>>The risk to their mission is minimized by buying the weapons *in* the
>>US. It doesn't matter whether they are smuggled in by Chinese or stolen
>
>>from the government. If they are there to buy, you won't risk smuggling
>
>>them in yourself.
>
>
> There doesn't seem to be much "risk" in smuggling in tons of illegal drugs.

Statistically true, but a terrorist planning a mission would not take
that risk. Statistics apply to large numbers of acts, not single acts.

Chris Morton

unread,
May 16, 2005, 3:09:07 PM5/16/05
to
In article <10mh815omvsrs15aq...@4ax.com>, retro...@comcast.net
says...

>Not hardly. What's the going rate to smuggle a an AK-47 into the US?
>What are the risks doing so would pose to an operation? Are those
>worth the cost of buying one legally in the US? Many would say no.

You've yet to demonstrate how it's harder to smuggle Kalashnikovs than heroin
and cocaine.

That's because you can't.

>> Anyone
>>who believes otherwise is an idiot.
>
>Ah the self certainty of the moron.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

Duke Kahanamoku

unread,
May 16, 2005, 3:25:06 PM5/16/05
to
Chris Morton wrote:
> In article <d6anqi$p4t$3...@services.kq.no>, Duke Kahanamoku says...
>
>
>>in the US, perhaps you will answer this question: If you were a
>>terrorist planning an attack in the US, would you risk your mission by
>>smuggling weapons into the US, or would you buy weapons in the US,
>>legally or illegally?
>
>
> I'd smuggle them in in greater quantities than I need, then sell the excess at
> great profit to help fund operations.

Good idea, but that is a whole different level of terrorist operation.
You wouldn't smuggle them in yourself, though. You would hire others to
do it, and they would not know who you are.

Chris Morton

unread,
May 16, 2005, 3:07:55 PM5/16/05
to
In article <d6aloq$d6u$1...@services.kq.no>, Duke Kahanamoku says...

>Smuggling weapons into America is an unnecessary risk, when you can buy

>better quality in America anyway. Plus you save the cost of shipping

No they CAN'T buy better quality.

They can't buy legally, and what they buy ILLEGALLY is the same stuff they'd buy
in Mogadishu.

And where's the "risk" in smuggling in tons of cocaine?

>from Somalia, which is significant, especially when you want the shipper
>to risk jail time. No, if you were a terrorist planning an attack in
>America, the place to buy your weapons is inside America. The NRA will

>even zealously protect and promote your right to buy them, own them, and
>carry them under your coat.

It's a good thing that heroin smugglers don't risk jail time. It might impede
drug smuggling into the US.

>cocaine and heroin are not grown domestically, but you can buy them both
>in America a lot more safely than you can buy them overseas and smuggle
>them in yourself. How is this related to terrorists in America?

You've already admitted that somebody smuggles cocaine and heroin into the
United States.

Bert Hyman

unread,
May 16, 2005, 3:25:37 PM5/16/05
to
long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
news:d6arob$ihp$1...@services.kq.no:

> Here is the question again: If you were a terrorist planning a
> mission in the US, would you smuggle your weapons into the US or
> buy them in the US?

In the unlikely event that someone actually wanted to engage in a
firefight with US authorities in the commission of a terrorist act,
they most likely wouldn't buy them at all. They'd be supplied by
someone else who smuggled them into the country or stole them
somewhere.

You're obviously ignorant of the way firearms are regulated, bought
and sold in the US and you simply echo canards about the NRA.

What's your point?

Duke Kahanamoku

unread,
May 16, 2005, 3:29:13 PM5/16/05
to
Chris Morton wrote:
> In article <d6aloq$d6u$1...@services.kq.no>, Duke Kahanamoku says...
>
>
>>Smuggling weapons into America is an unnecessary risk, when you can buy
>>better quality in America anyway. Plus you save the cost of shipping
>
>
> No they CAN'T buy better quality.
>
> They can't buy legally, and what they buy ILLEGALLY is the same stuff they'd buy
> in Mogadishu.

*and* buying them in america avoids the risks of detection associated
with the smuggling.

> And where's the "risk" in smuggling in tons of cocaine?

The risk is that the Coast Guard, or Customs,, or the DEA will detect
your nefarious deed.

>>from Somalia, which is significant, especially when you want the shipper
>
>>to risk jail time. No, if you were a terrorist planning an attack in
>>America, the place to buy your weapons is inside America. The NRA will
>>even zealously protect and promote your right to buy them, own them, and
>>carry them under your coat.
>
>
> It's a good thing that heroin smugglers don't risk jail time. It might impede
> drug smuggling into the US.

I'm sure they do risk jail time. Drug smuggling is a crime.

Duke Kahanamoku

unread,
May 16, 2005, 3:32:08 PM5/16/05
to
Bert Hyman wrote:
> long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
> news:d6arob$ihp$1...@services.kq.no:
>
>
>>Here is the question again: If you were a terrorist planning a
>>mission in the US, would you smuggle your weapons into the US or
>>buy them in the US?
>
>
> In the unlikely event that someone actually wanted to engage in a
> firefight with US authorities in the commission of a terrorist act,

That's irrelevant. I didn't imply you would want to engage in a
firefight with US authorities.

> they most likely wouldn't buy them at all. They'd be supplied by
> someone else who smuggled them into the country or stole them
> somewhere.

...or bought them from someone in the US.

> You're obviously ignorant of the way firearms are regulated, bought
> and sold in the US and you simply echo canards about the NRA.
>
> What's your point?

...that a terrorist would buy weapons in the US rather than risk
detection by smuggling them in himself.

Sam Rouse

unread,
May 16, 2005, 3:23:46 PM5/16/05
to
In article <d6aloq$d6u$1...@services.kq.no>,
Duke Kahanamoku <long...@oldtimers.org> wrote:

> Chris Morton wrote:
> > In article <9iih811u1n7otiitq...@4ax.com>,
> > retro...@comcast.net
> > says...
> >
> >>On 16 May 2005 09:06:07 -0700, "Michael Ejercito"
> >><meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>retro...@comcast.net wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Sun, 15 May 2005 10:22:53 -0400, Christopher Morton
> >>>
> >>><cm...@cox.net>
> >>>
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Oh, and while you're at it, explain why Al Qaeda would buy
> >>>>>semi-automatic rifles in the United States for $450 when they could
> >>>>>buy fully automatic weapons in Somalia for $12?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>So they can use them in the US without having to pass through airport
> >>>>security?
> >>
> >>> I suppose cocaine and heroin are grown domestically too.
> >>
> >>I'm sure you think that is somehow a response to the point made above.
> >
> >
> > As indeed it is. It points up the sheer stupidity both of calling
> > firearms,
> > "weapons of mass destruction", and pretending that it makes one iota of
> > operational or economic sense for terrorists to buy expensive non-automatic
> > weapons when they could smuggle full auto weapons that cost $12 a piece.

> > Anyone
> > who believes otherwise is an idiot.
>

> Smuggling weapons into America is an unnecessary risk, when you can buy
> better quality in America anyway. Plus you save the cost of shipping

> from Somalia, which is significant, especially when you want the shipper
> to risk jail time. No, if you were a terrorist planning an attack in
> America, the place to buy your weapons is inside America. The NRA will
> even zealously protect and promote your right to buy them, own them, and
> carry them under your coat.
>

> cocaine and heroin are not grown domestically, but you can buy them both
> in America a lot more safely than you can buy them overseas and smuggle
> them in yourself. How is this related to terrorists in America?

Add the facts that cocaine and heroin don't set off metal detectors, a pound of
either is worth several orders of magnitude more than a pound of firearm, and
you can't swallow & shit a gun.

Bert Hyman

unread,
May 16, 2005, 3:40:39 PM5/16/05
to
long...@oldtimers.org (Duke Kahanamoku) wrote in
news:d6asfo$m1e$2...@services.kq.no:

No individual terrorist or small terrorist cell would ->ever risk
buying machine guns or assault rifles (or WMDs as the thread would
have them) in the US on their own.

Unless they're already well-connected with arms smuggling operations
or other in-place large-scale organized crime operations, they're
certain to be caught.

So, no, a terrorist would not buy weapons in the US.

Sam Rouse

unread,
May 16, 2005, 3:41:25 PM5/16/05
to
In article <d6anqi$p4t$3...@services.kq.no>,
Duke Kahanamoku <long...@oldtimers.org> wrote:

Aside from that, isn't it easy enough to do the conversion from semi- to
full-automatic, that someone who knows how to build a bomb triggered by a
cellphone or pager probably has the smarts to do it? I seem to recall that, for
at least some semis, all you need is a file & the knowledge of where to apply
it. Maybe this is a myth - feel free to correct.

Chris Morton

unread,
May 16, 2005, 3:42:34 PM5/16/05
to
In article <d6arvc$ihp$2...@services.kq.no>, Duke Kahanamoku says...

How do you know? I suspect you don't.

I seem to recall them planning years ahead. A couple of years would get a LOT
of machineguns imported.

Of course they seem to prefer boxcutters and airplanes....

Chris Morton

unread,
May 16, 2005, 3:41:20 PM5/16/05
to
In article <nofun-186B93....@news.newsguy.com>, Sam Rouse says...

>Add the facts that cocaine and heroin don't set off metal detectors, a pound of
>either is worth several orders of magnitude more than a pound of firearm, and
>you can't swallow & shit a gun.

I work in the import business. Does 42,000lb.s of railroad parts set off a
metal detector? Does anyone even bother to scan 42,000lb.s of railroad parts
with a metal detector? Does a dog key on an AKMS buried in 3000 side frame
keys? Perhaps you want to hand search EVERY container that comes into the
United States.

Can you think of a cheap and efficient way to distinguish between a container of
knuckle pins and a container of knuckle pins plus twenty sten guns? If so,
you'd be the first.

Once again, an anti-gunner is tripped up by his ignorance of the subject at
hand.

Sam Rouse

unread,
May 16, 2005, 3:48:39 PM5/16/05
to
In article <Xns9658871AC2C...@127.0.0.1>,
Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:

The fact that it is difficult to legally purchase automatic weapons in the US is
not supported by the NRA and many of its members. And the primary question
above (the top of this portion of the thread) makes no mention of legality -
just that it is easier than smuggling them in. Seems like a slam-dunk to me.

Chris Morton

unread,
May 16, 2005, 3:50:37 PM5/16/05
to
In article <d6aqok$d2b$1...@services.kq.no>, Duke Kahanamoku says...

>That's what the NRA does. That's all it does. It zealously lobbies

They don't promote safe boating?

>against any law that would restrict your access to buying and owning
>firearms and carrying them.

It zealously lobbies to prevent the creation of the government monopoly on the
means of armed force which you wish to see.

Bert Hyman

unread,
May 16, 2005, 4:12:24 PM5/16/05