Why killing is a profitable enterprise

Why killing is a profitable enterprise

There are 9 comments on the www.washingtonpost.com story from Jul 30, 2012, titled Why killing is a profitable enterprise. In it, www.washingtonpost.com reports that:

Last year, the NRA went to the mat to prevent anyone from cross-checking the names of those on the terrorist watch list against the names of those buying guns.

It is easy to ignore the issue of gun control, given the perfect leaderlessness it enjoys in Congress. Then again, it becomes harder to ignore when your relatives or friends are murdered in the company of someone you idolize, which describes thousands of us in Tucson. I have owned guns, continuously, since I was 6. I still own my grandfather’s pump-action Winchester, carried for decades in a scabbard behind his saddle as he rode the range where he ranched, in Wikieup, Ariz.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.washingtonpost.com.

Gravediggers

United States

#1 Jul 30, 2012
BIASED and SLANTED article.

Ask Mr. Fast and Furious Eric Holder about guns!
Robert

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#2 Jul 30, 2012
The article is written by someone who has grown up with guns yet describes his experience with hunting as my brief assault on local fauna" and " trekking around in the wilderness killing things". Obviously quite a phony.

And the references to the watch list, nobody is their right mind would think that the NRA is there to support terrorit of course the writer is not in his right mind but in his left mind so much for fair and balanced.

An individual on the "watch list" does not have to have been convicted of a crime, they do not have to have been charged with a terrorist act. In fact, no one except the people who compile the list knows how a name ends up on it. The late Ted Kennedy, a U.S. Senator, was on the watch list at one point and Congressman John Lewis' name was on the list. But those facts likely are never explained when taking pot shots at opposition to mis use of the list.

The bill the NRA was not happy with would do the following:

A person who would otherwise pass a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check, could still be prohibited from acquiring a firearm if he is on the FBIís watch list.

That once a person is told that he is on the watchlist, he would be subject to a 10-year prison sentence for a gun already possessed, even if he has been placed on the watchlist by mistake, or for a minor or unsubstantiated reason.

That a person who goes to court to challenge his placement on the watchlist would not be informed of the specific suspicions or allegations upon which his watchlisting is based.

That the personís challenge to his watchlisting would be decided by a judge, not a jury.

That the judge would not be allowed to consider all of the available evidence.

A few facts instead on liberal bias masquerading as news would make the article more interesting.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#3 Jul 30, 2012
Robert wrote:
The article is written by someone who has grown up with guns yet describes his experience with hunting as my brief assault on local fauna" and " trekking around in the wilderness killing things". Obviously quite a phony.
And the references to the watch list, nobody is their right mind would think that the NRA is there to support terrorit of course the writer is not in his right mind but in his left mind so much for fair and balanced.
An individual on the "watch list" does not have to have been convicted of a crime, they do not have to have been charged with a terrorist act. In fact, no one except the people who compile the list knows how a name ends up on it. The late Ted Kennedy, a U.S. Senator, was on the watch list at one point and Congressman John Lewis' name was on the list. But those facts likely are never explained when taking pot shots at opposition to mis use of the list.
The bill the NRA was not happy with would do the following:
A person who would otherwise pass a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check, could still be prohibited from acquiring a firearm if he is on the FBIís watch list.
That once a person is told that he is on the watchlist, he would be subject to a 10-year prison sentence for a gun already possessed, even if he has been placed on the watchlist by mistake, or for a minor or unsubstantiated reason.
That a person who goes to court to challenge his placement on the watchlist would not be informed of the specific suspicions or allegations upon which his watchlisting is based.
That the personís challenge to his watchlisting would be decided by a judge, not a jury.
That the judge would not be allowed to consider all of the available evidence.
A few facts instead on liberal bias masquerading as news would make the article more interesting.
Robert, even your wacked-out misinterpretation of the "...bill the NRA was not happy with..." sounds reasonable to me.

You must believe that all terrorists need access to combat weapons, so that they can perpetrate their massacres and terror, and then face the music.

You have a very twisted idea of the role of police power in our state.
Robert

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#4 Jul 30, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Robert, even your wacked-out misinterpretation of the "...bill the NRA was not happy with..." sounds reasonable to me.
You must believe that all terrorists need access to combat weapons, so that they can perpetrate their massacres and terror, and then face the music.
You have a very twisted idea of the role of police power in our state.
Really, just how many terrorists can't access a weapon other than buying it lawfully in a gun shop? How many terrorist acts in this country were perpetrated where people said if we only had that watch list check in place it would not have happened? You have got to be kidding me, are you really that stupid. You think a watch list check when someone buys a gun is going to stop a terrorist who is not afraid to die, why would he let our legal restrictions stop him?

Not one terrorist incident has occurred which would have been thwarted by this watch list check for gun purchases. I am more afraid of government screw ups than terrorist. Government screw ups happen all the time and to all of us.

You ever think that maybe the fbi does not even want their watch list to be used for things like that, they might not even want people to know they are on the list.

You see this is the way you screwed up in the head liberals are, you come up with ingenious solutions to problems that do not even exist or when a problem does exist you come up with a solution you like then define the problem to fit it.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#5 Jul 30, 2012
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, just how many terrorists can't access a weapon other than buying it lawfully in a gun shop? How many terrorist acts in this country were perpetrated where people said if we only had that watch list check in place it would not have happened? You have got to be kidding me, are you really that stupid. You think a watch list check when someone buys a gun is going to stop a terrorist who is not afraid to die, why would he let our legal restrictions stop him?
Not one terrorist incident has occurred which would have been thwarted by this watch list check for gun purchases. I am more afraid of government screw ups than terrorist. Government screw ups happen all the time and to all of us.
You ever think that maybe the fbi does not even want their watch list to be used for things like that, they might not even want people to know they are on the list.
You see this is the way you screwed up in the head liberals are, you come up with ingenious solutions to problems that do not even exist or when a problem does exist you come up with a solution you like then define the problem to fit it.
If yo so hate our country, you should emigrate.

Australia, Argwntina, Costa Rica, Panama, Finland; might one be better on your poor nerves?
Rich

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#6 Jul 30, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
If yo so hate our country, you should emigrate.
Australia, Argwntina, Costa Rica, Panama, Finland; might one be better on your poor nerves?
I did not think you had any answers and I am not going anywhere, I don't want to even visit other countries with freedoms less than ours.
see the light

United States

#7 Jul 30, 2012
Killing is a profitable business because no gets punished for it.
C-h Freese

Overland Park, KS

#8 Jul 30, 2012
Because the lambs aren't allowed to fight back when in the designated killing pens.
Possum

Tokyo, Japan

#9 Oct 29, 2012
Gravediggers wrote:
BIASED and SLANTED article.
Ask Mr. Fast and Furious Eric Holder about guns!
Why don't you save us the trouble and tell us what he would say if we asked.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min Reality Check 1,534,360
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 8 min Jay 269,715
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 17 min Drumpf Disaster 2,203
News In U.S. presidential first, Trump prays at Jeru... 23 min UidiotRaceUMAKEWO... 43
News Russians increasingly indifferent to Trump, US ... 27 min C Kersey 2
News James Comey fired as FBI director 30 min Quirky 2,335
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 34 min UidiotRaceUMAKEWO... 314,304
News White House rebuts Washington Post report of Tr... 46 min Republican Blunder 638
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr LOL 240,800
More from around the web