Speaking of guns…and terrorism…
Did you know that having connections to a known terrorist organization does not prohibit a person in the United States from possessing firearms or explosives? (Not so in France, by the way, where there is no right to bear arms, where the number of legal firearms is about 3% of those in the US, and where background checks required for ownership have been described as equivalent to the vetting that occurs for White House staff/employees.)
Lawmakers have tried to stop this from happening. Bills have been introduced in Congress to do just that, going as far back as 2007 … But these bills have rarely made it out of committee, in part due to vehement opposition from [cue trumpet fanfare!] the National Rifle Association and [cue flag waving!] its allies in Congress. The NRA objected to earlier versions of the bill, saying they were “aimed primarily at law-abiding American gun owners,” that “prohibiting the possession of firearms doesn’t stop criminals from illegally acquiring them,” and that the bills were “sponsored by gun control extremists.”
Liberté, égalité, fraternité?
Nous sommes Paris?
…well…not quite.
Ingraham’s source is the GAO…so…why would they lie? Unless to conceal even more disturbing trends on the subject.
It’s starting to get picked up by other outlets. And as far as I can see there’s not much challenge to Ingrham’s report. The same sensationalism is being used…“suspected terrorists”…with the qualification glossed over. But the data…disturbing as it is…and the fact Congress has not done anything…for eight years…but twiddle its thumbs and pocket NRA dividends…is creepy enough all on its own.
If I was Feinstein or other gun control extremists, I would be pushing this story as hard as I could…using a little sensationalism of my own: NRA gives guns to terrorists.
Speaking of guns…and terrorism…
Did you know that having connections to a known terrorist organization does not prohibit a person in the United States from possessing firearms or explosives? (Not so in France, by the way, where there is no right to bear arms, where the number of legal firearms is about 3% of those in the US, and where background checks required for ownership have been described as equivalent to the vetting that occurs for White House staff/employees.)
WaPo reports that in the last decade, over 2,000 “suspected terrorists” were successful in legally purchasing firearms. “Suspected terrorist” can be any of the 700,000 people on the FBI’s consolidated terrorist watchlist.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité?
Nous sommes Paris?
…well…not quite.
No lie?
Ingraham’s source is the GAO…so…why would they lie? Unless to conceal even more disturbing trends on the subject.
It’s starting to get picked up by other outlets. And as far as I can see there’s not much challenge to Ingrham’s report. The same sensationalism is being used…“suspected terrorists”…with the qualification glossed over. But the data…disturbing as it is…and the fact Congress has not done anything…for eight years…but twiddle its thumbs and pocket NRA dividends…is creepy enough all on its own.
If I was Feinstein or other gun control extremists, I would be pushing this story as hard as I could…using a little sensationalism of my own: NRA gives guns to terrorists.
Hmm. I thought I posted something here. Was it not accepted?
I’m sorry. I don’t see any pending comments. Would you like to post again? Maybe I ate it?