At least she admits she’s clueless and does a fair bit of self-deprecation before launching into her “look how easy it is to buy a gun” schtick. She also gets busted fairly easily, because numbnuts knows next to nothing about firearms, and her feeble attempt at undercover journalism is cringeworthy at best.
Nervous, I walked into Pinto’s and was greeted by a friendly, ginger-bearded employee. With time on my mind, I launched right in.
“I wanted to get something that I could get today,” I whispered to the clerk, feeling unsure and like a complete hack. “Um, what kind of things can I buy today on the spot?”
“We’re talking about a gun?” he asked, straight-faced.
“Yes, yes,” I responded.
Clearly, I am not a seasoned “undercover journalist” and I am not a very good actor either.
The clerk explained that I could buy any long gun, a rifle or a shotgun, right then and there. To take home a handgun I’d need a concealed permit, or I’d have to wait a few days.
“What about the AK-15?” I asked, wanting to see how easily and quickly I could buy one. “Do you guys carry those?”
“Uh, it would be more like the AR-15 or the AK-47,” the clerk corrected me.
But hidden in the article was actually something useful and interesting as it pertains to our national security. We’ve been assured by this administration several times that the background checks and vetting for Middle Eastern refugees wanting to enter this country are stringent. The White House put out this infographic that claims “Refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler to the United States.”
As you can see, there are biometrics, background checks, checks for known connections to terrorist organizations by NCTC, FBI, DHS, and the State Department! Seems pretty thorough, correct?
But please take a look at what this Rachel Belle, who clumsily attempted to buy a gun before failing miserably and going back to her talking points on how easy it is to purchase a firearm.
Think about it. You don’t need a permit to buy a gun. You don’t need training. You just need an ID, to fill out a form and pass the instant background check, which completely depends on individual states reporting criminal records to the FBI. If they don’t report, the FBI background check is pretty much useless.”
The background check completely depends on individual states reporting criminal records to the FBI. In other words, if there is no information reported to the FBI, the check will come back clean.
The reason I mention this is because this is precisely the problem with the “stringent” vetting of Syrian refugees who desire to come into this country. Are there databases in Syria we can access to check their criminal histories? Are there assets we have who will reliably report on criminal connections? Just like the background check to purchase a firearm, if there are no inputs into the NICS database, the background check will come back clean, if there are no data in the country of origin, the background check is pretty much useless.
So liberal gun grabbers have a big problem with background checks being incomplete, allowing possibly violent criminals to purchase firearms, but they don’t seem to have a problem with incomplete background checks for those claiming to be refugees coming into our country without proper vetting.
Under grilling from GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions, head of the Senate subcommittee on immigration, the Homeland Security official in charge of vetting Syrian and other foreign Muslim refugees confessed that no police or intelligence databases exist to check the backgrounds of incoming refugees against criminal and terrorist records.
“Does Syria have any?” Sessions asked. “The government does not, no sir,” answered Matthew Emrich, associate director for fraud detection and national security at DHS’ U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Sessions further inquired: “You don’t have their criminal records, you don’t have the computer database that you can check?” Confessed Emrich: “In many countries the U.S. accepts refugees from, the country did not have extensive data holdings.”
While a startling admission, it confirms previous reporting. Senior FBI officials recently testified that they have no idea who these people are, and they can’t find out what type of backgrounds they have — criminal, terrorist or otherwise — because there are no vetting opportunities in those war-torn countries.
If this is a problem in the gun context (I would submit it isn’t really, because if denied a background check, criminals will get guns the same way they normally do: friends, family, black market, or theft), then it should definitely be a problem when vetting refugees from hotbeds of terrorism who want to enter this country!
Which one will it be, gun grabbers?
The op-ed is entitled, “I know Assault Weapons and You Shouldn’t Have One.”
My first reaction is, “Eat a dick. If you claim that, you don’t know what an assault weapon is.”
He claims to be a veteran who experienced “first-hand combat” in Vietnam.”
My first reaction is, “Then, perhaps you should know what an assault weapon actually is, but you don’t.”
I am calling on veterans who have served in active combat – lived and almost died depending on the assault weapon strapped to your body – to speak out. We are the people who have true insight on this issue. Without wealth and connections to keep a deferment, I was drafted and in active combat for a year in Vietnam from Nov. 1967 to Nov. 1968. During the Tet offensive in Jan. ’68, some of the worst fighting in the war, I was frequently in first-hand combat along the Mekong River and through the rice paddies in the delta radioing coordinates for artillery firepower.
Much like the “violence planner,” who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, this cock-gobbler knows exactly dick about the Constitution, but much like the “violence manager,” he uses his alleged combat experience to gain credibility on a subject he obviously knows little to nothing about, despite his spurious claim.
“I was drafted to fight in Vietnam” doesn’t make him an expert. It makes him someone who had to be forced into military duty. Dick.
Assault weapons are just that: for assault. They are not for the general public to play at target practice or use for sport. They are too dangerous. The general public is not trained sufficiently nor mentally strategic enough to understand their raw power. They should be in the hands of only the military and tactical, highly trained law enforcement.
Hey, walking twat! This is Shyanne Roberts. She the daughter of my friend Dan Roberts and a competitive shooter. Last year, this adorable child helped build the custom AR she is shooting in this photo. She was 10 years old at the time. She also knows the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and the fully automatic one you used in Vietnam.
Perhaps it’s time for you and Gersh KUNTZman to compare manginas.
Disagree with me? If you’re a veteran and served in active combat with an assault weapon, I value your opinion – even if it differs from mine. If you’re simply a gun enthusiast who believes it’s your inalienable right to play with assault weapons, I don’t value it because you really don’t understand the consequences – you haven’t witnessed them. If that’s who you are and what you want, join the military and be useful with that.
So the very people of whom the military consists, and whose rights they are sworn to defend don’t count in your book, because you got forced into military service and now consider yourself an “expert?”
This veteran says “Eat a dick.”
I believe in the Second Amendment. I own a gun. I have a concealed carry permit just in case I need it – not to carry routinely. What’s the old saying … if you carry around a hammer, you’re always looking for a nail?
What you do and don’t believe is irrelevant. The Second Amendment exists, regardless of whether you believe it does, and it speaks plain English, regardless of whether or not your stupid ass can understand it.
I also understand the Second Amendment’s purpose when it was written and the state of weaponry when it was created. It’s called perspective – useful when you’re forming opinions and making decisions.
Oh, another one who apparently doesn’t believe that the Internet, computers, and even typewriters are covered by the First Amendment. When you write this ignorant screed with a quill on parchment, given the state of writing technology when the First Amendment was written, I might listen to you (but probably not, because you’re stupid). Until then, eat a dick.
I call out our N.C. senators in Washington who consistently vote against stricter background checks, reinstating the assault weapons ban, and not preventing people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns. I’m amazed that politicians like Thom Tillis accept immense amounts of NRA donations and think we don’t understand that compromises the way he votes. I may not have gotten a college degree because I was fighting a war, but I’m smart enough to figure that out.
So, he has no respect for pretty much any amendment in the Bill of Rights, except, of course, the one that protects his right to be stupid. Due process? Who needs it! Right to keep and bear arms? Fuck it. Right of the people? Don’t care and don’t understand it.
Difference between full auto and semi-automatic rifle? Doesn’t know it, or doesn’t care.
What would you expect for someone who was forced into service and then uses said experience to try and relieve others of their rights?
In other words, John Butler, eat a dick.
And the Twitterverse loses its collective shit.
It really is beautiful to watch. The Senate today rejected four gun control bills that were proposed in the wake of the Orlando massacre, including one that would have relieved some Americans of their rights without due process.
The first, sponsored by Grassley, would have called for research on the causes of mass shootings and increased funding for the background check system, although it would not have expanded the types of gun sales that require them.
The second, sponsored by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., would have expanded background check requirements to include private sales and sales over the Internet.
The third, sponsored by Cornyn, would allow federal law enforcement officials to delay gun sales to suspected terrorists, including those on watch and no-fly lists, for three days and then halt the sales, but only after proving probable cause before a judge.
The final amendment, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., would have allowed the attorney general to halt sales to suspected terrorists and allow individuals to appeal to the Department of Justice if they are denied a firearm.
Causes of mass shootings… hmmmmm… that’s what we need to spend taxpayer dollars on when our debt levels are more than 100 percent of GDP? Research on why evil exists?
Murphy, who bathed in the barely cooled blood of innocent victims and did a dance on top of their dead bodies by leading a badly-timed, classless filibuster on the Senate floor in the aftermath of the Orlando terrorist attack, stuttered and stammered, but finally admitted his bill would have done nothing to stop Orlando, Newtown, or any other monstrous act.
That third one, by the way, was supported by the NRA. Thanks a lot, jerks. I’m sure that young woman being stalked and threatened by a violent ex, who despite having no connection to terrorism whatsoever, and who winds up on the useless no-fly list along with that toddler, will be thrilled to know that she has to wait three days, hoping her assailant doesn’t find her, until she’s proven she’s worthy enough to exercise her right to purchase a tool of self defense!
And the final one to me was the most odious, since it assumes guilt, and it puts the onus on the individual to prove his or her innocence. That noxious hag Feinstein admitted exactly that in this video.
Screw your due process! Screw your innocent until proven guilty! We want gun control!
Well, luckily all the bills failed, and Twitter’s response was glorious!
Celebricunts gnashed teeth and left froth-flecked, 140-character, oh-so-profound ruminations on the subject.
The Senate rejected all four gun control measures that were up for consideration on Monday. Fuck you, Senate.
— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) June 20, 2016
Politicians engaged in hyperbole so ridiculous, one had to check to make sure it wasn’t petulant toddlers screeching how mommy was the worst mommy in the world, because she didn’t make cookies instead of adults debating critical national policy.
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) June 20, 2016
Idiot news whores blamed the NRA, because NRA won, even though the amendment they supported that would deprive those on the no-fly list, nearly half of whom have nothing to do with terrorism, of their rights for three days didn’t pass.
After gun votes Dem FL Sen Nelson she would have to tell Orlando victims & families of those murdered that “the NRA won again.”
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) June 20, 2016
And some dimwitted, emaciated, screeching twat displayed her contempt for basic human rights.
@SpartanGrp shut the fuck up with your due process..
— Jen Marden (@Jen_Marden) June 20, 2016
I won’t take apart policy tonight, because frankly, it’s been done and overdone. Y’all know where I stand.
I will not support hysterical attempts to relieve me of my rights.
I will not support reactionary, unconstitutional legislation that aims to infringe on the rights of every American who didn’t commit the latest atrocity
I refuse to acknowledge uninformed calls for closing nonexistent “loopholes.”
I oppose attempts by the ignorant to tell me what I can or cannot purchase with the money I earn.
My mere possession of a specific type of firearm does not infringe on anyone’s rights – even imaginary ones like the right to FEEL safe.
Any right that requires government permission to exercise is not a right.
And any horror like the one that happened in Orlando makes me yet more determined to fight any effort to infringe on my rights and more determined to help whose who want to defend themselves.
Anything less would be an outright embarrassment to my life and my oath to my country.