Posted by: maboulette | December 15, 2012

5 MOST DEADLY WEAPONS THAT CAN BE PURCHASED ONLINE


While the nation is processing yet another deadly mass shooting, this time involving children at an elementary school in Connecticut, the question will be whether this will be the wake-up call the United States needs to have a serious conversation about gun control and the gun culture fueled by the National Rifle Association.

Will we demand our political leaders take action to get at the root of the problem — America’s lax gun control laws? Or will we let the NRA and their followers continue to dominate the discussion by dismissing guns as the problem or even arguing that every private citizen should own a gun? Should the children have been packing?

Shopping malls. Houses of worship. Schools. Cinemas. A mass shooting every other week. Will we become numb to what should be shocking? Is this the price our society has to pay for the 2nd Amendment?

Last week it was an Oregon shopping mall shooting. This week it is a Connecticut elementary school in the line of fire. Where will the next mass shooting take place as a consequence of American gun violence? Organizations like Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence are fighting the good fight against the NRA and for stricter gun control measures.

Background checks are required at gun stores. But did you know that in most states you can buy a gun online legally without a background check? That’s right folks, anyone can legally buy a gun on the Internet without a background check. The online loophole is one of the most outrageous and dangerous in our society. A convicted murderer can log on and load up.

Unlicensed private sellers, who conduct their business in the online market, account for 40 percent of U.S. gun sales. And a New York City investigation found that 62 percent of private dealers sold guns over the Internet to buyers who would not have passed a background check.

Here are the five deadliest weapons you can buy online — legally

Barrett M82 50-Caliber Sniper Rifle

Image

In NBC News undercover investigation into legal online gun sales conducted a transaction for this 50-caliber sniper rifle, calling it “the most powerful gun legally sold in the U.S.: bullet range 5 miles. It can pierce armored vehicles, even bring down a helicopter.”

The NRA claims 50-caliber sniper rifles have not been used in crimes, but the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit working to reduce gun violence, refutes that assertion with a long list of criminal activities in which the 50-caliber sniper rifle was the weapon of choice

M134 General Electric Minigun

Image

The minigun is one of the most dangerous weapons ever designed, with the capacity to fire up to 166 bullets per second. Amazingly, it is currently legal in the U.S. to own this military-grade machine gun because the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 stated that any fully automatic weapon constructed before that year was legal to own.

AK-47

Image

Shortly after the Aurora movie theater massacre, President Obama made a gun control speech in New Orleans, in which he said he believes that “a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”

Glock 23 Semi-Automatic Pistol

Image

The Glock semi-automatic handgun is the favorite weapon for mass shooters who want to maximize casualties. The gun was used in the Virginia Tech, Gabby Giffords, Sikh temple, and Aurora massacres.

The Chicago Tribune paraphrased Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, writing that “semi-automatic handguns are the weapon of choice for mass murderers because they are light and easy to conceal, and adaptable to using high-capacity magazines. This allows the shooter to fire the maximum number of bullets in a short period of time.”

Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine

Image

This deadly assault rifle, used on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, is perfectly legal to purchase in the United States because the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004. There have been multiple attempts to renew the assault weapons ban, but there has so far been no progress from Congress or the White House.

Will President Obama make reinstating the assault weapons ban a priority in his second term, along with other gun control measures like closing online loopholes? Perhaps his emotional comments after the horrific gun-related slaughter of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut provides a preview of what’s to come.

“As a country we have been through this too many times. Whether it is an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago — these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children. We’re going to have to come together to meaningful action on this, regardless of the politics,” the president said at Friday’s White House press briefing.

About these ads

Responses

  1. That’s silly. You can’t buy any of those items online unless its through a gun store with a valid FFL license and they must do whatever background checks that their individual state requires. The reason the “assault weapon” ban wasn’t renewed is because there is no such thing as an assault weapon. The only weapon you can legally purchase is a semi=automatic rifle or pistol. Your so called “assault weapon” that you guys want to ban is military style like the AK 47 or AR15 or M14. They are full military, machine gun if you like. They are NOT legal. You want to ban guns because they look like a military gun not that they perform like one. Fact is you guys just don’t see any need for guns so you want to take away my right to have one. Just like my salt shaker, french fries, pick up truck, SUV and everything else YOU don’t like. Not participating isn’t enough for you, you feel a need to ban them because you don’t like them. Typical

    what gun law would you like to see that would actually make a difference to all this gun violence? An armed citizenry works EVERY time!

    • It is not silly because I went and placed orders for everyone of these guns without giving any ID – I cancelled the orders but it is just too easy. And don’t call me silly!!

      • You can order one but you can’t take possession unless its through a local dealer with a FFL license and you must pass your state background check. You probably could buy something privately without a background check but that’s illegal but it’s done all the time. most illegal guns get into the wrong hands because alot of people aren’t diligent about keeping them locked up and they get stolen. Those people should be held accountable for whatever takes place with their weapon. ALL gun owners should be responsible.

  2. Further more- You’re a bright girl. Do you see any similarities in all these places where these things happen? The people there are unarmed and completely helpless. You can’t legislate evil. These people are just plain evil and cowards. If not guns it would be knives or cars or bats or fertilizer. I wish it wasn’t so, I’d like to see it end too, but more stringent gun laws on the lawful will only make it worse not better. This is a heart issue not a gun issue.

    • With the Bushmaster rifle that the kid used in Connecticut – you don’t need to be accurate – you just spray the whole room. One of the boys that was buried yesterday had 11 holes in him- 11!! So don’t even talk to me about this issue.

      • “an ar 15 assault riffle is evil because it kills you deader then a bolt action riffle with a 5 round clip. so don’t even talk to me about this issue because i don’t want to hear the facts!” yeah, how much more dead is he then if he was shot once? the kid was psycho, his psychologist from the school told his mom that he should be put in a padded cell for the rest of his life and dope’d up so he DOESN’T go crazy and kill people. mommy dident want to do that to her baby and thought it was a good idea the not lock her (legally purchased, she took a background check) guns in a safe around her PSYCHO son. the son got mad one day and desired to kill his mom and the school psychologist. he went in and she wasent there. so he shot a bunch of kids. how do better background check fix this? they don’t.

  3. You can’t just spray the whole room. The rifle is semi automatic which means you must pull the trigger each time to shoot one bullet.

    It would be really interesting if you would open your blog up to discussion of what could be done to control this sort of thing from happening again. I think we are going to see some sort of gun ban in the very near future. I think that is really a poor choice to combat this issue in a real effective way. You know, something that would actually work instead of another feel good law that doesn’t address the actually problem. All that does is punish the law abiding citizen and ignore the real problem. Actually it would probably make things worse

  4. oh, by the by, Mab, if you look, I think you just might find two little thing that blow this story out of the water, like an ABC news report,live, by the way, in which the reporter reads a statement from a FBI official, that says that the AR-15 was NOT used in the shooting, and that only four (4) hand guns were found in the school, and then there is the ABC news video, also live, which shows police officers removing the unloaded AR-15 from the locked trunk of the young man’s car, but you probably won’t bother to look, will you? It would not fit with your anti-gun agenda, it is typical of all anti-gun lefties to blame the tool, not the user, for what was done by the user with the tool. So please, please, tell me, when was the last time, or even the first time for that matter, that a gun, all by it’s self killed anyone? and yet you still blame all guns, and all law-abiding gun owners, for what a few, yes i said a few, nuts do with a tool, most of which those nuts stole in the first place? And also, tell me please, if you do somehow, manage to get our guns, (and make no mistake, the O, and Finestine, and all the rest want ALL our guns, just read Finestine’s bill…) and the nuts start killing with axes, or cars, or crowbars, or whatever they will find next, will you want to ban all those things as well? Time and time again, the Governments own statistics prove that gun bans do not work,and that where you have the most restrictive gun laws, like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Sandy Hook Conn, ect… you have the most and worst crime, and where you have the most guns in the hands of law-abiding people, you have the least crime, but that does not matter to you, does it? You just want to feel that you have done something, anything, to protect the children, eh? Well, here’s an idea, If those teachers had been able to carry concealed guns, maybe all those kids would be alive right now, cause someone could have put that nut down before he killed them all, but I guess that makes too much sense, eh? Or is it that you think the teacher is a nut and might kill the kids first? if that is the case, why are we trusting them with the kids anyway????
    PLEASE, think with your head not your heart, and research before you react, PLEASE?

  5. Wow, sure was great to see that you actually were honest enough to approve and show my previous responce to this post, and to make such a well researched and reasoned rebuttal, I just knew that you were an honest person, with the courage of your convictions, way to go, Mabs.

    Oh, wait….no, I guess not. :(

    • Sorry Curtis but my blog has gotten to the point where I simply do not have the time to respond to everyone who disagrees with me.

  6. well, Iam very, very sorry for that last post, It seem that I have a great deal of egg on my face, My browser took some time to refresh the page, and by then I had already made that last post, not knowing that yuo really had posted the other, so, I very much appologize, and will not feel any more a fool if you decide to put that up as well, once again, very sorry, eh?
    may be I should be quick er to take my own advice, or at least refresh my browser more often? :*( :*( at me.

  7. I have seen the news reports and the videos and Alex Jones has said it enough – so I am deleting this video because it is taking up so much room in my comments section – but I thank you for being so focused on only one thing in your comments – no one is going to take your guns away curtis.

  8. really mab? is that why the Ill State House is at this very moment working to pass a total, state wide gun ban, which was supposed to be dead Friday, but the Dem State speaker called a special session, which the public was not notified about untill the very last second, and that only certian picked represenitives were informed of , after everyone went home Friday, thinking they had beaten thjs? Here is another link for you to delete, eh? It is a article, NOT from infowars, that explains what is going on but, I am sure you WILL delete it cause the spread of real info to those who read your blog will not fit your agenda, eh? You can lie to your self, (if that is what you are doing), but do not try to lie to me or those other Americans who value their freedom and god given, not State permitted, rights, We know what is being done, and what the true intent is.
    Oh, the Ill state house, just went to closed session, juat as the bill came up, that means no video, and all citizens must leave the room, only the senetors can stay, why is that do you think?????

  9. http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/1/anti-gun-representatives-introduce-first-wave-of-bills-in-us-house.aspx

  10. Oops, wrong link, eh? I got in such a hurry, that I pasted the wrong link, this is the correct one: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/01/illinois-senate-president-ramming-through-total-gun-ban-bill/

  11. Tho you are right about one thing Mab, no one WILL take my guns away, at least as long as I am alive to stop them with those same guns. I will do whatever I must to protect myself, my family, and ALL my God given rights, up to and including armed self defense, after all, that is why we have the 2nd Amendment in the first place, isn’t it?

  12. And maybe you would like to talk about the move to do away with the 22nd amendment, to let the O become Pres for a third, and maybe more term, how ’bout we just throw out the whole damn thing, eh? then the O can just be our glorious leader for life, just like Castro or Chaves, hum? oh, there were just over 11,000 gun related deaths in the US in 2011, of which 73% were gang related in nature, and of the approx. 4300 left over, 68% were cop involved. in the same year, there were just over 36,000 auto involved deaths, over 300,000 tobaco related deaths, and almost 150,000 deaths attributable to medical “mistakes”, but no one is talking, anywhere that I can find, about banning cops, cars or Doctors, altho they are working hard on tobaco……,not sure I am really against that, even tho I am a smoker, lol

    • Actually that a great idea!!!

  13. [Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
    [H.J. Res. 15 Introduced in House (IH)]

    113th CONGRESS
    1st Session
    H. J. RES. 15

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to
    repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the
    limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

    _______________________________________________________________________

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    January 4, 2013

    Mr. Serrano introduced the following joint resolution; which was
    referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

    _______________________________________________________________________

    JOINT RESOLUTION

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to
    repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the
    limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
    States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House
    concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an
    amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be
    valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
    ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States
    within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

    “Article–

    “The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the
    United States is hereby repealed.”.

  14. will you delete the text of a House resolution, which has already been introduced because “it takes up too much room”?

  15. And finally,(at least for the momment ), lest you somehow think that it sliped my notice, let me say that I find it to be very disheartening that you have once again stooped to the sad, old lib/progressive tactic of insulting your opponents intelligence instead of confronting and debating the facts.
    Your implication that my choosing to take the time to comment on an the subject of YOUR post somehow shows some form of political myopia, while deleting and cleverly not addressing the relevent information I gave you and your readers, shows once again just how disingenious libs/progressive, oh hell, let’s just be clear and open here, socialists to give you your correct lable, are. In short, you should be but as we all know, will not be, ashamed.
    Next, I suppose, you will point out that I have a problem with spelling, or that I am not a very good typist, as if either of these facts, to which I will readily admit, has any bearing at all on the validity of my arguements, sad Mabs, just sad……I honestly thought I had found a lib/progressive who would try to be honest, but have no fear, I will still pray for you, and will still comment here, in the hope that in time, and with the lords help, we cant bring you to the truth.

    With love your Brother,
    Curtis

  16. oops, my bad typing again ,I ment “CAN” bring you to the truth, not can’t or cant, which is an entirley different fish alltogether, eh?

  17. Guns dont kill people, dumb americans and stupid politicians do

  18. Hi there it’s me, I am also visiting this site daily, this web page is really fastidious and the users are genuinely sharing good thoughts.

  19. Attractive section of content. I just stumbled upon your
    website and in accession capital to assert that I acquire in fact enjoyed account
    your blog posts. Any way I will be subscribing to your augment and even I achievement you access consistently rapidly.

  20. I never respond to gun related blogs so this is the first time for me. I have been reading this one and wanted to mention a couple of things that I have thought about for years and just did not have a platform to express my views. The government is so concerned about guns which under most conditions fire a bullet which normally could kill one person per bullet. However, if you really look at some of the past mass murders you would discover that fire, chemicals, poison and explosives have been responsible for many more tragic events of mass loss of life. For instance, Rev. Jim Jones and the cyanide Kool Aid, Oklahoma City and homemade explosives, Waco and explosives/fire, Boston marathon and homemade explosives, the Move and the police dropping explosives, etc. etc. etc. All of these plus many more resulted from devices much easier to obtain and build than firearms and sooner or later there will be a dirty bomb or nuke attack with huge casualties. My point is that the few people that are tragically murdered by nuts with firearms relative to the massive numbers killed by other easier to obtain devices are being martyred for a political agenda which is not even relevant to the actual cause of the deaths. People don’t want guns simply because they are afraid of the freedom from oppression which they afford to those who would refuse to be forced into conformity to a political system which is attempting to take away the foundational liberties of our great incredible nation. If you ask any veteran from our honorable armed services if they would give up their right to have any type of gun they choose to own I believe 99,000 out of 100,000 would say hell no, Don’t Tread on Me.

    • Keeereeectamundo!!!!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 453 other followers

%d bloggers like this: