Islamic State magazine steers followers to U.S. gun shows for ‘easy’ access to weapons

[Aim1]

I can see the anti-gunners, "Terrorists get their guns at U.S. gun shows because of the lax laws and guns show loophole!!!"



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...asy-access-to-weapons/?utm_term=.12f9cc75eeb8

Islamic State magazine steers followers to U.S. gun shows for ‘easy’ access to weapons

By Derek Hawkins May 5 at 4:10 AM

In August, a former Islamic State recruit caused a stir when he described how the terrorist organization sought to exploit America’s lax gun laws.

“They say the Americans are dumb — they have open gun policies” the recruit told the New York Times from a German prison. “They say we can radicalize them easily, and if they have no prior record, they can buy guns, so we don’t need to have a contact man who has to provide guns for them.”

Completely false, from the article:

In the most recent issue of Rumiyah, its glossy multilingual propaganda magazine, the Islamic State encouraged recruits in the United States to take advantage of laws that allow people to buy firearms without having to present identification or submit to background checks.

 

[Tirod]

It effectively doesn't make any difference. It's just as hard - or easy - as you or me buying a gun. If you are a legal resident of that state is the key to the issue. Out of state purchasers have to go thru an FFL or buy from a private seller.

If you were selling your guns at a table and a Islamic State operative came up to buy one, what would you do?

 

[Hanzo581]

While I find that article rife with misinformation, and I know people hate my opinion on this here, I do believe private sales should require background checks.

 

[barnbwt]

I thought gun shows were staffed by drooling racists who would never do business with those of 'terrorist descent' ???

 

[RPRNY]

WaPo now colluding with the Islamic State in order to pursue its anti-civil rights agenda. Unsurprisingly, equally intolerant zealots flock together.

 

[Jeff H]

While I find that article rife with misinformation, and I know people hate my opinion on this here, I do believe private sales should require background checks.

It wouldn't have mattered if they are targeting our youth with no prior criminal history they can fly right through the background check process with not a problem. Across town the FBI busted one kid doing the exact same thing. He purchased the guns legally but because he also blabbed a lot on social media, the Feds got wise to him and arrested him as a terrorist.
http://www.fox19.com/story/28284966...reaction-to-the-continued-american-aggression


What is the solution? I don't know but I don't think more restrictive laws are the answer.

 

[Hanzo581]

It wouldn't have mattered if they are targeting our youth with no prior criminal history they can fly right through the background check process with not a problem. Across town the FBI busted one kid doing the exact same thing. He purchased the guns legally but because he also blabbed a lot on social media, the Feds got wise to him and arrested him as a terrorist.
http://www.fox19.com/story/28284966...reaction-to-the-continued-american-aggression


What is the solution? I don't know but I don't think more restrictive laws are the answer.

Absolutely right, it wouldn't help in that case. To me it's more about consistency. If I go into Walmart buy a gun I have to do paperwork, background check etc, but if I just buy the same gun from a person out of their trunk in the parking lot I'm good to go.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Absolutely right, it wouldn't help in that case. To me it's more about consistency. If I go into Walmart buy a gun I have to do paperwork, background check etc, but if I just buy the same gun from a person out of their trunk in the parking lot I'm good to go.

There is also a lot less paperwork (and fees and taxes) buying a used car from your neighbor vs. a dealer. Do you really want the Federal government overseeing garage sales? I don't see how that could possibly within their interstate commerce powers.

Mike

 

[Sistema1927]

While I find that article rife with misinformation, and I know people hate my opinion on this here, I do believe private sales should require background checks.

And once again you how your true colors as a "useful idiot/useful fool/useful innocent" for the infringers. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot )

It used to be that you could buy any weapon without any background check. I don't remember the streets running curb to curb with blood, even though I was allowed, as a 12 year old, to wander off the street, plunk down my money, and walk out the door with a new .22 rifle and several boxes of ammo.

 

[Hanzo581]

And once again you how your true colors as a "useful idiot/useful fool/useful innocent" for the infringers. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot )

It used to be that you could buy any weapon without any background check. I don't remember the streets running curb to curb with blood, even though I was allowed, as a 12 year old, to wander off the street, plunk down my money, and walk out the door with a new .22 rifle and several boxes of ammo.

This is a fundamental problem with your generation, you refuse to acknowledge change. People, and society for that matter, are inherently different than they were 50+ years ago. Simple fact of the matter is, if you agree felons should not be permitted to buy a gun, then ensuring someone isn't one before selling to them doesn't seem irrational. Or are you generally against background checks in general?

 

[Sistema1927]

This is a fundamental problem with your generation, you refuse to acknowledge change. People, and society for that matter, are inherently different than they were 50+ years ago. Simple fact of the matter is, if you agree felons should not be permitted to buy a guns, then ensuring someone isn't one before selling to them doesn't seem irrational. Or are you generally against background checks in general?

I am 100%, without reservation, against background checks of any type. Why shouldn't a felon who has served his time and paid his price to society be allowed to exercise self-defense? if he cant' be trusted he should still be locked up.

Background checks are a useless infringement of freedom, and a violation of the Second Amendment.

They have never once stopped any determined criminal from obtaining weaponry, and they never will, but they have left many who actually needed a self-defense weapon without one.

"Problem with my generation" ?? Such as the fact that we actually believe in freedom while recognizing the unchanging human condition of evil? People DON'T change, and anyone who thinks that they do is ignorant. Technology changes, the environment changes, but people are still the same as they have always been. In my "old fashioned" tradition it is called "Original Sin" and "Total Depravity", but I guess that those concepts are just for old farts like myself, and not for you "enlightened" youngsters who think they have all the answers without even knowing what the fundamental questions are.

 

[Hanzo581]

If I have to tell you why a felon shouldn't be able to buy a gun we're never going to find common ground. You should really take some time to check out recidivism rates. We don't live in a world where everyone that should be in jail is, it's a revolving door, until we fix our judicial system I'll stick with supporting background checks. Straw purchases are a huge way to get a gun to someone who shouldn't have one. Why? Because after they buy it and give it to their felon friend if they live in a state with no restrictions on private sales there is no recourse to punish them. You aren't going to prove they knowingly gave it to a felon.

 

[Sistema1927]

If I have to tell you why a felon shouldn't be able to buy a gun we're never going to find common ground.

We probably aren't.

Note that many felonies are non-violent, many things that now get you a felony conviction today weren't even illegal in times past. Violent felons should be punished commensurate to their crime. However, we don't execute violent criminals like we used to do, and we certainly don't incarcerate them as long as in the past for violent offenses. If someone is a danger to society they should either be executed or locked up, preferably on some distant island.

Why are our prisons and jails full? Because of the stupid and poorly executed "war on drugs". At the same time that we are giving a pass to murderers and rapists we are locking up drug users and others who have not done any harm to society. The whole thing is "bass ackwards" and driven by utopian visions of creating a better world instead of facing the harsh realities of the human condition.

Let me ask you a question: What if I was convicted of the felony offense of carrying my CCW at a Post Office? Should I then be disenfranchised for the rest of my life?

 

[Hanzo581]

We probably aren't.

Note that many felonies are non-violent, many things that now get you a felony conviction today weren't even illegal in times past. Violent felons should be punished commensurate to their crime. However, we don't execute violent criminals like we used to do, and we certainly don't incarcerate them as long as in the past for violent offenses. If someone is a danger to society they should either be executed or locked up, preferably on some distant island.

Why are our prisons and jails full? Because of the stupid and poorly executed "war on drugs". At the same time that we are giving a pass to murderers and rapists we are locking up drug users and others who have not done any harm to society. The whole thing is "bass ackwards" and driven by utopian visions of creating a better world instead of facing the harsh realities of the human condition.

Let me ask you a question: What if I was convicted of the felony offense of carrying my CCW at a Post Office? Should I then be disenfranchised for the rest of my life?

There are systems in place to get your rights restored right? I haven't researched the detail of it, I only know it's possible. And that's what I'd recommend you do in the scenario you presented (if they even got a felony conviction and didn't settle on a lesser charge given the non-violent nature of the "crime") If there were a way to differentiate between violent and non-violent felonies as far as gun buying goes, I'd absolutely support non-violent felons maintaining their 2nd Amendment rights.

I do not mean to come off as some anti-gunner, I love guns (some in my real life may say too much), but of the few laws I support, this is one. I only sold guns for several months, but even in that short time I personally denied several sales that had straw purchase written all over it. We know it's happening, and requiring a background check between transactions would at least let some blame be placed on the straw purchaser when they hand over the gun to a prohibited person.

 

[Jason_W]

There are systems in place to get your rights restored right? I haven't researched the detail of it, I only know it's possible. And that's what I'd recommend you do in the scenario you presented (if they even got a felony conviction and didn't settle on a lesser charge given the non-violent nature of the "crime") If there were a way to differentiate between violent and non-violent felonies as far as gun buying goes, I'd absolutely support non-violent felons maintaining their 2nd Amendment rights.

I do not mean to come off as some anti-gunner, I love guns (some in my real life may say too much), but of the few laws I support, this is one. I only sold guns for several months, but even in that short time I personally denied several sales that had straw purchase written all over it. We know it's happening, and requiring a background check between transactions would at least let some blame be placed on the straw purchaser when they hand over the gun to a prohibited person.

This is a gun forum. Dissent will not be tolerated! You're either in favor of completely unchecked, unregulated access to firearms for everyone, or you're a commie pinko liberal millenial snowflake progressive who hates America, freedom, mom, and apple pie. The is no middle ground and there shall be no discourse!

 

[Robert]

Actually it is quite the opposite. We encourage polite discussion, dissent and even arguments as long as they remain just that, polite. What we do not have time for is silly off topic post about how we are unaccepting of different points of view. Those add nothing of value to the conversation.

 

[Jason_W]

Actually it is quite the opposite. We encourage polite discussion, dissent and even arguments as long as they remain just that, polite. What we do not have time for is silly off topic post about how we are unaccepting of different points of view. Those add nothing of value to the conversation.

True, that is official forum policy.

All right, then, to bring it back on topic: We live in a democracy or more accurately a republic in which officials are elected democratically. I'm of the opinion that a free and open society is only working when no one is really happy and no one is fully getting their way. We're simply never going back to the days when you could order a Thompson submachine gun through the mail. You have to pick your battles and the background check thing isn't a smart battle to fight. If anything, we should trade universal background checks for something we want more. Maybe a modification of the NFA to allow tax stamp free suppressors and sbr and sbs type weapons.

 

[AZAndy]

There are systems in place to get your rights restored right? I haven't researched the detail of it, I only know it's possible. And that's what I'd recommend you do in the scenario you presented (if they even got a felony conviction and didn't settle on a lesser charge given the non-violent nature of the "crime") If there were a way to differentiate between violent and non-violent felonies as far as gun buying goes, I'd absolutely support non-violent felons maintaining their 2nd Amendment rights.

I do not mean to come off as some anti-gunner, I love guns (some in my real life may say too much), but of the few laws I support, this is one. I only sold guns for several months, but even in that short time I personally denied several sales that had straw purchase written all over it. We know it's happening, and requiring a background check between transactions would at least let some blame be placed on the straw purchaser when they hand over the gun to a prohibited person.

I could give your viewpoint more consideration if I knew that background checks actually prevented bad stuff from happening. I can think of several mass shootings committed by people who passed the background check just fine. Only The Shadow knows what secrets lurk in the hearts of men, not the gun counter salesperson. I think it's been pretty obvious that an actual felon who intends to get a firearm to commit crimes with can do so, thus the background check is mostly just to create yet another impediment to the law-abiding.

 

[RPRNY]

We probably aren't.

Note that many felonies are non-violent, many things that now get you a felony conviction today weren't even illegal in times past. Violent felons should be punished commensurate to their crime. However, we don't execute violent criminals like we used to do, and we certainly don't incarcerate them as long as in the past for violent offenses. If someone is a danger to society they should either be executed or locked up, preferably on some distant island.

Why are our prisons and jails full? Because of the stupid and poorly executed "war on drugs". At the same time that we are giving a pass to murderers and rapists we are locking up drug users and others who have not done any harm to society. The whole thing is "bass ackwards" and driven by utopian visions of creating a better world instead of facing the harsh realities of the human condition.

Let me ask you a question: What if I was convicted of the felony offense of carrying my CCW at a Post Office? Should I then be disenfranchised for the rest of my life?

When found guilty of a crime and sentenced by a jury of one's peers, suspension of one's civil rights, along with prison time, is part of our system of government. When one has served the punishment determined by law and a trial by one's peers, one's civil rights, all of them, unless specifically rescinded for life during sentencing, should be restored. If a convicted felon has served his/her time and his/her freedom has been restored, then so too should his/her civil rights - all of them, including those specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Jason_W]

When found guilty of a crime and sentenced by a jury of one's peers, suspension of one's civil rights, along with prison time, is part of our system of government. When one has served the punishment determined by law and a trial by one's peers, one's civil rights, all of them, unless specifically rescinded for life during sentencing, should be restored. If a convicted felon has served his/her time and his/her freedom has been restored, then so too should his/her civil rights - all of them, including those specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Yes, but not necessarily immediately upon release. Recidivism is a very real thing. I don't think conviction of a felony should mean revocation of rights for life, but I do think they should have to prove to society they are very unlikely to re-offend before having their 2A rights reinstated.

 

[RPRNY]

Yes, but not necessarily immediately upon release. Recidivism is a very real thing. I don't think conviction of a felony should mean revocation of rights for life, but I do think they should have to prove to society they are very unlikely to re-offend before having their 2A rights reinstated.

Makes sense to me. As long as it is part of the sentence and clearly defined. X years in jail and y period of time after release for full restoration of rights.

 

[Hanzo581]

I could give your viewpoint more consideration if I knew that background checks actually prevented bad stuff from happening. I can think of several mass shootings committed by people who passed the background check just fine. Only The Shadow knows what secrets lurk in the hearts of men, not the gun counter salesperson. I think it's been pretty obvious that an actual felon who intends to get a firearm to commit crimes with can do so, thus the background check is mostly just to create yet another impediment to the law-abiding.

I am more looking at it in the reverse. Not so much about prevention, as allowing an avenue to punish the person putting the gun in the felons hands. Straw purchasers are basically operating with impunity. But I will certainly agree, if a bad guy wants a gun they'll get it, so who the hell really knows what the answer is? Circling back around, I just don't think being able to order guns out of the Sears catalog like the good ole days is feasible or realistic today. So much has changed, parents don't parent, no one has personal responsibility for anything anymore and "mental issues" seem to be way more prevalent.

 

[stonecutter2]

Actually it is quite the opposite. We encourage polite discussion, dissent and even arguments as long as they remain just that, polite. What we do not have time for is silly off topic post about how we are unaccepting of different points of view. Those add nothing of value to the conversation.

I have time for that. I'm on the internets after all.

 

[AZAndy]

I am more looking at it in the reverse. Not so much about prevention, as allowing an avenue to punish the person putting the gun in the felons hands.

Ah, I see. I wasn't thinking about it from that angle. I don't see how background checks help with that, unless you mean by going after straw purchasers, which I would agree with.

 

[Aim1]

While I find that article rife with misinformation, and I know people hate my opinion on this here, I do believe private sales should require background checks.

I don't.