US born Islamic terrorist urges purchase of local firearms to commit mass murder


PDA






Zoogster
June 4, 2011, 07:24 AM
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/06/04/2011-06-04_terror_at_gun_store_us_great_place_to_buy_firearms_american_al_qaeda_tells_jihad.html


Notorious "American Al Qaeda" Adam Gadahn is urging terrorist sympathizers in the United States to launch personal jihads with locally purchased weapons.

"America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms," the California-born terrorist declares on a videotaped message just released on the Internet.

"You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and most likely without having to show an identification card.

"So what are you waiting for?" he concludes in perfect, unaccented English.


This is likely to be picked up by antis soon to promote further restriction of firearms.

If you enjoyed reading about "US born Islamic terrorist urges purchase of local firearms to commit mass murder" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Deanimator
June 4, 2011, 07:27 AM
I'd just LOVE for anti-gunners to try to use the WRONG statements of a TERRORIST to try to deceive the public.

I'll make them ENVY Anthony WEINER's troubles.

Zoogster
June 4, 2011, 07:30 AM
Fully automatic rifle without ID or a background check, he is clearly misinformed. Yet the sentiment is still the same, purchase weapons in the US for use in Jihad against the US.

It will be the next soundbite of closing the private sales 'loophole', to bring all transfers under government oversight.

Geckgo
June 4, 2011, 07:37 AM
So now the terrorists are after our gun rights... by making all the anti's think that full autos can be picked up for a song.

I thought this was a joke at first, is that million bucks dead or alive? Anyone wanna take a trip to Pakastan?

The Lone Haranguer
June 4, 2011, 08:02 AM
"You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and most likely without having to show an identification card.
:rolleyes: :D Go ahead and try it. Apparently intelligence is not a prerequisite to being a terrorist. :p

bbuddtec
June 4, 2011, 08:09 AM
Picked up by anti's or planted by...

They should be arrested as terrorists.

MachIVshooter
June 4, 2011, 08:23 AM
Picked up by anti's or planted by...

I agree

Even if you were OK with breaking the law, it's far from easy to obtain a full auto firearm for people in normal circles.

I've been immersed in the gun culture for almost 20 of my 29 years on this planet, and I still wouldn't know where to quickly obtain an illegal MG. It's not like you can just drive downtown to your local illicit arms bazaar. I'm sure one could probably start asking around in th red light districts and maybe score.........or maybe get caught by an undercover cop/agent..........or maybe get killed by a thug thinking you're the undercover cop.

InkEd
June 4, 2011, 08:34 AM
I can think of a BETTER use for those guns.

Seriously, I hope they lock-up this idiot.

Neverwinter
June 4, 2011, 09:16 AM
Picked up by anti's or planted by...

They should be arrested as terrorists.
When can we start the waterboarding and the Rack?
:rolleyes:

That tape is just a piece of propaganda, trying to get the people to be scared of a bogeyman.

mp510
June 4, 2011, 09:20 AM
This really isn't the first time that Al-Q has made this type of claim.

philpost
June 4, 2011, 09:27 AM
I hope a drone sends this guy on a dirt-nap soon, but in principle he's not wrong. Maybe not fully automatic weapons, but I frequently worry about individual jihadis, who have never been in trouble, legally purchasing weapons (with an NCIS check) and randomly opening fire.

dirtykid
June 4, 2011, 10:31 AM
3-words for his "followers" BA-RING-IT ,, Hope I am nearby when they attempt this kind of cowardly-attack,,Why would our media even cover this story ? It gives it some kind of sensationalism,and may give one of "them" a chance to suceed therefore putting more scrutiny upon us legal gun owners,,

armoredman
June 4, 2011, 10:55 AM
And you answered your own question - they run a story like this so they can scream, "See, the terrorists know and they're going to exploit the gunshow loophole/private purchase loophole/Second Amendment loophole, we need to stop this now! For the children!"

hso
June 4, 2011, 10:59 AM
come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check

I wonder if this is less an error and actually an intentional misstatement to create controversy within the US.

Of course, the guy was from California and probably never touched a gun until leaving the US and joining A lQaeda.

KodiakBeer
June 4, 2011, 11:02 AM
There's two issues here.

One is the automatic weapons at gun shows which we all know is BS. But, he obviously gets his info from the mainstream media which constantly repeats that lie.

The other issue is entirely possible and long overdue. How long until some terrorist (or a small group of terrorists) walks into a crowded Christmas time mall with semi-auto AK's or AR's and starts shooting people? It would be a bloodbath. The police would just cordon off the area and wait for tactical units. In many states there are no CCW carriers, so the only opposition would be a few security guards who may or may not be armed.

Nushif
June 4, 2011, 11:10 AM
Seeing as the security guards are hired by corporations whose sole purpose is to make money ... They won't be. It costs less to turn a "guard" into a "witness" than it does providing tangible and effective security measures.

But yes, the question has been long overdue. How long will it be until any terrorist waltzes into a mall and opens fire with anything? That's the price we pay though for being allowed to own guns. There really is nothing to do about it. Other than to infringe on everyone's rights because of what someone might do, of course.

Shear_stress
June 4, 2011, 11:18 AM
"So what are you waiting for?" he concludes in perfect, unaccented English.
If they were going to do it, they would've done it. Adam Gadahn's statements are just an admission of the weakness of his organization.

Old Fuff
June 4, 2011, 11:26 AM
Hopefully everyone will remember to point out that the "easy availability" of guns is also a deterrent to terrorists - except in places such as New York City that prohibits the general population from having any viable means of self defense. :uhoh:

On the other hand itís likely that a similar attack in many places in Arizona would be short lived.

SaxonPig
June 4, 2011, 11:30 AM
Why doesn't somebody tickle this guy? Anybody advocating mass murder obviously needs to be tickled.

Claude Clay
June 4, 2011, 11:33 AM
The other issue is entirely possible and long overdue. How long until some terrorist (or a small group of terrorists) walks into a crowded Christmas time mall with semi-auto AK's or AR's and starts shooting people? It would be a bloodbath. The police would just cordon off the area and wait for tactical units. In many states there are no CCW carriers, so the only opposition would be a few security guards who may or may not be armed.

this and the ganger's who fear nothing, are the reason that when the winter coat season starts i chose going to crowded places as if they were hot zones. since 9/11 it has seemed problematical that malls would be on the terrorists to do list. thus if i do go, i wear something that i am competent with to 25 yards ( defender or p239/40) such that i would be able to pick a target from cover...doing my best to observe so that i am not in the 1st group when they open fire. no 'mall-ninja' am i ; just want to shop and leave the same as i arrived: unscathed.
though situational awareness is always running in the background, its a conscious thing when in a crowd. no paranoia here..im just looking at what im seeing.

besides him needing a bullet implant, that he uses info the press disseminates that is false, for the press toreport, that sorta quoting its own falsehoods. and the antes love it...
or perhaps are in bed with it.

jiminhobesound
June 4, 2011, 11:54 AM
Jimmy Carter destroyed our covert international reprisal capability. We need to resurrect that and take the offensive against these people.

MachIVshooter
June 4, 2011, 12:51 PM
One is the automatic weapons at gun shows which we all know is BS.

There are tons of them, as well as DD's, SBR's, AOW's, etc. But unless you're an SOT, you're not walking out with one that day.

How long will it be until any terrorist waltzes into a mall and opens fire with anything? That's the price we pay though for being allowed to own guns going out in public

Fixed that for ya.

One, it's a fundamental right, not an allowance. Secondly, where has prohibiting law abiding citizens from owning arms ever stopped the criminals from obtaining and using them?

I'm truly surpised to see a comment like yours here, and especially in the context of terrorists, who managed to pull off the worst attack in history with some planning, coordination, and tools a 5 year old can buy at Target.

Personally, I'd much rather they come at us head-on with guns than with cars in underground parking structures loaded with explosives. At least then we can see the threat and have some chance of dealing with it.

Nushif
June 4, 2011, 01:21 PM
I think you're reading way too much into my comment.

Not Picking up on some minor word usage here doesn't make me an anti, I swear.

Liberation
June 4, 2011, 01:56 PM
I think its always been a fear of the US Govt that they would try and get like 10 groups of 2 to go in malls during the Christmas season and just kill as many people as possible causing massive fear and would be very damaging to the US economy.

Its all to convenient that this is coming out after the whole thing with the Patriot Act having a amendment to ban firearms sales to anyone on the watch list(lets watch them and tip them off where watching them).

Animal Mother
June 4, 2011, 01:59 PM
Looks like the message from Al Qaeda to potential Jihadis is "Try your worse but you're on your own guys, don't expect any support from us, we've got our own troubles."

withdrawn34
June 4, 2011, 03:07 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if this guy is on a three (or five) letter agency's payroll.


But yes, the question has been long overdue. How long will it be until any terrorist drives into a festival crowd with a HD pickup and kills a bunch of people? That's the price we pay though for being allowed to own cars. There really is nothing to do about it. Other than to infringe on everyone's rights because of what someone might do, of course.

Fixed it for you :)

Zoogster
June 4, 2011, 03:25 PM
MachIVshooter said:
Personally, I'd much rather they come at us head-on with guns than with cars in underground parking structures loaded with explosives. At least then we can see the threat and have some chance of dealing with it.


This is something many fail to understand. When guns are a simple avenue it is a chosen avenue more often.
The Mumbai attacks show how effective a coordinated small arms terrorist attack can be. They had firearms and grenades and managed to have their way with a city for way too long. But they were also not in a well armed society.
Of course how armed the society is only matters if the small armed percent get involved. If the armed citizens run away or hide then the attackers face limited resistance and still inflict the damage they wanted before the authorities finally respond and kill them.



But you can fight armed attackers. There is other types of attackers you get less say with.
For example even after all the invasive security upgrades at airports, and loss of freedoms they are still vulnerable.
I thought one of the best examples of how when freedom is taken it will not be returned is in the banning of knives (even though since cockpit doors they were declared to pose no threat to pilots or the aircraft, it was the flight attendants union that fought to keep them banned.)

Here is an idea I thought of as a vulnerability back in 2001 after 9/11 as a way a suicidal nut could defeat the screening, but chose to keep quiet on so as not to give any ideas to radicals, but which they have finally figured out themselves:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/12/06/2010-12-06_al_qaeda_is_truly_gutless_terror_doc_eyes_sewing_bombs_in_thugs.html

Jihadis bent on concocting a "new kind of terrorism" are brainstorming how to surgically implant explosives to make undetectable Frankenbombers.

Stitching a bomb into the abdominal cavity made of plastic or liquid explosives - such as semtex or PETN - was judged the best method.



Some of the top leaders of 'Al Qaeda' are doctors and surgeons. In fact the number 2 guy when Bin Laden was alive and long considered the actual brains of the outfit is a surgeon himself from Egypt with a medical education.

A guy not planning to live more than a couple days doesn't even need a stomach, and a doctor could remove it, replacing the empty area with any device before sewing the person back up. Removal of the stomach is done all the time in gastrectomy for the obese. They could even train by getting fat to create more room.
Any bomber could have a timed device and get on a long flight. Or a device intended to be communicated via bluetooth from a cell phone. Or even a simple device with no circuitry and minimal metal to be detected with a switch intended to be toggled through the stomach wall and skin.
Internal explosives of someone that was well washed would not be detected by the bomb sniffers.
Numerous people already have metal screws, bolts, plates, pins, wires, and other things in their bodies from repaired injuries, so its also not uncommon for people to set off detectors and be wanded and then allowed to proceed even if they trigger the detectors, and such a device could contain less metal than your typical surgical screw.
It is only a matter of time before such people take down some aircraft or hit other sensitive targets.
As the Lockerbie bombing demonstrates it really doesn't take much explosive to bring down an entire jet filled with passengers.


So yeah having such guys grab guns and try to take us on is certainly one of the better scenarios of attack to defeat.

Nushif
June 4, 2011, 03:28 PM
I guess most people don't get down to the last bit of my post. If I recall right I insinuated exactly that.
"What is there to do other than infringing on everyone's rights because of what people might do ..."
SHOULD explain my view on this pretty well, but feel free to discontinue using the last sentence.

FIVETWOSEVEN
June 4, 2011, 04:14 PM
Last gunshow I went to I saw a few full autos including a M60 but I don't think that giving the man in the suit behind the table the special wink will make him sell it to me right then and minus the $30,000 price tag.

LukeTheDrifter
June 4, 2011, 04:29 PM
This was probably planted, IMHO. I despise fear-mongering. The only ones hurt by this crap are US citizens that believe in our right to bear arms and defend ourselves and our loved ones. Just arrest that little a**hole and string him up, for all I care.

Everytime I see stuff like this, or someone talks about extremely common ammo running out, or all guns being banned... All I see is someone looking to drive up prices, increase sales, or add paperwork to legal purchases of firearms. Yeah, it ticks me off.

crossrhodes
June 4, 2011, 04:56 PM
Let's make roads and motor vehicles illegal and then we won't have to worry about road side bombs when they run out of guns. LOL

merlinfire
June 4, 2011, 05:24 PM
Hadji has got some of his facts wrong. If anything, this tells us more of us should CCW though.

merlinfire
June 4, 2011, 05:28 PM
Jimmy Carter destroyed our covert international reprisal capability. We need to resurrect that and take the offensive against these people.

Eh? I'm pretty sure that we've been able to take people out all over the global at will for decades, all we need is the intel. See: Bin Laden

harrygunner
June 4, 2011, 06:17 PM
Purposely crafted wording.

Chicago and New York gangsters, Al Qaeda terrorists and the Brady Bunch all want us disarmed.

The anti-gunners will play into their hands.

retiredman
June 4, 2011, 08:30 PM
Yup went to the gun show today in California, and got 200 full autos for $50 no id check either. Not to forget got 5000 rounds of ammo extra at no charge.

They even through in a Bridge that goes across San Fransico for an extra $5

So when are people going to quit posting all this B. S.

Sheesh!

crossrhodes
June 4, 2011, 08:53 PM
Now. Just think what would happen if they attacked a mall or some mom & pop shop in the name of jihad and against the Christian capitalist pig dogs. I bet you would have Bubba and every other pro American group taking down masques and the National Guard would have to be called in to protect them.
I also think it would turn in to some bloody witch hunting and lawless justice.
I don't think it would be in their best interest or a wise choice on their behalf.

Zoogster
June 4, 2011, 10:08 PM
Yup went to the gun show today in California, and got 200 full autos for $50 no id check either. Not to forget got 5000 rounds of ammo extra at no charge.

They even through in a Bridge that goes across San Fransico for an extra $5


I know your point, but cost is not really an important factor in deterring suicidal maniacs in our society. $5 or $20,000 does not make a big difference.

A nut can max out credit cards or take out loans, never concerned with paying them back because they don't plan to be alive long.
In our country someone with no concern with paying anything back or medium and long term financial consequences can really build a nice mountain of debt to fund many things that someone who plans to be around a year later could never afford.

ArfinGreebly
June 5, 2011, 12:36 AM
Oh, darn.

I missed this thread earlier.

Wife posted a rebuttal (http://noisyroom.net/blog/2011/06/04/al-qaeda-urges-american-muslims-to-buy-guns-for-terror-attacks/) to the "machine guns for nuthin', chicks for free" assertion.

Yeah, I also wondered about whether his claims were simply uber-ignorant, or salted by collaboration with the Brady Disinformation Campaign.

MistWolf
June 5, 2011, 01:21 AM
There's two issues here.

One is the automatic weapons at gun shows which we all know is BS. But, he obviously gets his info from the mainstream media which constantly repeats that lie.

The other issue is entirely possible and long overdue. How long until some terrorist (or a small group of terrorists) walks into a crowded Christmas time mall with semi-auto AK's or AR's and starts shooting people? It would be a bloodbath. The police would just cordon off the area and wait for tactical units. In many states there are no CCW carriers, so the only opposition would be a few security guards who may or may not be armed.
Police no longer cordon off and wait for SWAT when dealing with active shooters. Columbine has taught them they must respond to active shooters now and that change in policy has been the driving force behind officers being allowed patrol carbines.

This whole thing is a propaganda stunt. If it gets idiots into thinking they can take up arms against the population inside our borders and gets the sheeple to bleating about stricter laws, all the better. It's best to stay alert, prepare for the worse, hope for the best and go about your business calmly

Ole Coot
June 5, 2011, 10:13 AM
We are un-American in these parts, we profile. I don't think fully auto firearms can be purchased at any gun show. Mostly the guns that change hands in this area are private sales and trades with people we know. The folks in this area of the country are reasonably informed about all types of firearms.

stevelyn
June 5, 2011, 11:23 AM
Don't put it past the enemy camp or the govt to throw this out there as a pretext for gun control legislation.

Remember Obama said he's working under the radar.

Neverwinter
June 5, 2011, 01:35 PM
Now. Just think what would happen if they attacked a mall or some mom & pop shop in the name of jihad and against the Christian capitalist pig dogs. I bet you would have Bubba and every other pro American group taking down masques and the National Guard would have to be called in to protect them.
I also think it would turn in to some bloody witch hunting and lawless justice.
I don't think it would be in their best interest or a wise choice on their behalf.
Destroying masques[sic] would not be justice, any more than executing pastors would be justice for abortion killings. You're unknowingly conflating two different populations.

Remember Obama said he's working under the radar. Actually, Sarah Brady said that Obama said that he's working under the radar. Brady isn't the most truthful or trustworthy of people.

Old krow
June 5, 2011, 02:10 PM
I wonder if this is less an error and actually an intentional misstatement to create controversy within the US.

I tend to think that any group of people who intentionally use weapons and/or explosives to make a political point probably know the difference. It could be that he is mistaken, but I sort of doubt it. I think that it was probably designed more toward causing strife in the US. If you can make some Americans scared enough, they'll give up just about any right.

I don't think it would be in their best interest or a wise choice on their behalf.

They don't actually have to do anything to have an impact. Making just the statement will likely impact us anyway.

Actually, Sarah Brady said that Obama said that he's working under the radar. Brady isn't the most truthful or trustworthy of people.

No matter who said it, the ceased to be "under the radar" as soon as they proclaimed that they were. Sorta makes me wonder what their true intentions were by telling everyone? Maybe the Bradys are mad at Obama for not pushing legislation sooner and that was their way of making their point. Or, maybe it just wasn't well thought out.

Neverwinter
June 5, 2011, 03:47 PM
No matter who said it, the ceased to be "under the radar" as soon as they proclaimed that they were. Sorta makes me wonder what their true intentions were by telling everyone? Maybe the Bradys are mad at Obama for not pushing legislation sooner and that was their way of making their point. Or, maybe it just wasn't well thought out.
If Sarah Brady said it, it must be true! :eek:

Crash_Test_Dhimmi
June 5, 2011, 04:27 PM
Back in the 40's it was Yamamoto who said the invasion of the USA would be fruitless because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

Today in the 2010's it needs to be a 45 on every hip and a carbine in every trunk. And then the islamic fundies will get a history lesson.

ArfinGreebly
June 5, 2011, 05:24 PM
(Sounds like the title of a fable.)

Remember Obama said he's working under the radar.
Actually, Sarah Brady said that Obama said that he's working under the radar. Brady isn't the most truthful or trustworthy of people.

No matter who said it, the ceased to be "under the radar" as soon as they proclaimed that they were. Sorta makes me wonder what their true intentions were by telling everyone? Maybe the Bradys are mad at Obama for not pushing legislation sooner and that was their way of making their point. Or, maybe it just wasn't well thought out.
If Sarah Brady said it, it must be true! :eek:


There are times when even pathological liars will cough up the truth.

If your objective is the disarmament of the population so that the ruling class may have unfettered scope of operation, and you're looking for support, and a member of the ruling class affirms your mission, it's entirely possible that you'll utter that truth in the ear of the faithful to encourage them to hold the line and fork over funds.

I don't have any trouble at all believing her in this instance.

Until and unless the White House disavows it, I'm quite happy to let it stand.

And even then, I'm not sure which liar I'd be more inclined to believe.

Neverwinter
June 5, 2011, 07:08 PM
It's also entirely possible that you'll utter lies in the ears of the faithful to encourage them to hold the line and fork over funds.

Doubly so if actions to refute such a lie can only rile the conspiracy theorist base into a frenzy about the double-secret conspiracy to disarm the American people with the cooperation of terrorists. Not to mention the diversion from real issues that would be a result of focusing attention on it.

Your last sentence illustrates the futility of an attempt to prove the non-occurrence of that conversation.

DoubleTapDrew
June 5, 2011, 07:13 PM
Maybe he's actually trying to get them caught. Hopefully a bunch of them will try this. They can think about what went wrong as they rot in club fed.

SFsc616171
June 5, 2011, 09:07 PM
This sounds like an opportunity to canvas the area for future potential CCW'ers. (The Sheepdog Principle.)
Second, if you are not a CCW'er, this might be the reason you need, to protect your family from these poor misdirected fools.
Some folks just don't get it. You cannot reason with them. You and I are Americans, and we deserve to die, as they see it. It doesn't matter how good a person you are, what status you have or not in the community, what religious belief or disbelief you possess, you are an American, and that is enough for these guys/gals. This is a war they declared, with the first bombing of the Twin Trade Towers in 1993. The Thais were fighting these guys on their southern border, while fighting the Communists on their northern border, in 1972. Think about that, for a moment. Our G.I.'s tangled with both sides. I will NOT 'surrender'.

shootingthebreeze
June 5, 2011, 10:00 PM
What I believe is this: don't fall for that ploy. Terrorists can get a boat load of weapons, full auto, explosives, grenades, you name it-so they don't need gun shows to acquire firearms.
It's a ploy to activate anti gun people into an anti gun frenzy in the hope to disarm law abiding Americans. Anti gun people fail to realize that terrorists can acquire weapons way more powerful than handguns, shotguns and rifles. Fifty pounds of explosives smuggled into the US trumps a lot of handguns.
I would not be surprised if terrorist cells have already weapons stock piled here in the US, and I'm not talking about firearms bought at a gun show. I'm talking about full auto AK 47s and other full auto weapons including explosives.
Think this one through and you will realize how absurd this call to arms really is.

44Brent
June 5, 2011, 10:09 PM
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
June 5, 2011

Adam Pearlman, aka Adam Gadahn, has called for Muslims to fall on U.S. gun stores and gun shows, stock up on weapons, and start killing Americans. Pearlman’s remarks are contained in a video released on Friday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMDf-9mfV1w&feature=player_embedded

...Copyrighted Material Removed ...

http://www.infowars.com/gadahn-call-for-gun-violence-merges-with-obamas-under-the-radar-anti-gun-agenda/

blume357@bellsouth.net
June 6, 2011, 07:00 AM
what frightens me most is some or most of you folks opinions on this... because this statement comes from someone you see as an enemy most of you latch onto how misinformed he is on what a person can and can not buy at a gun show or through an individual private sale as a good thing. Like this a is a good thing and 'justified'.

As Americans and supposedly a 'free' people we should be able to buy those evil assault weapons (full auto too) just for this reason. The logic of keeping guns out of our enemies hands by taking them away from us just doesn't work in the end.

crossrhodes
June 6, 2011, 08:19 AM
I think you misunderstood me. I'm not advocating this type of action!!!... But I bet there are some who would operate under this as their "color of law", I agree with what your saying. It's like suing a firearm manufacturer for a criminal's action with a firearm. It's not right but it will happen, hence the saying "you have your 10%", that make "their " decision the people's decision.
Happens every day with the Govt.

merlinfire
June 6, 2011, 01:23 PM
There's no way to accurately predict which law abiding citizens will become criminals, even if they're wearing a turban or a white klan suit. Might as well get used to it and start taking responsibility for our own safety - CCW'ing where available.

Ole Coot
June 7, 2011, 01:08 PM
Seems a lot of dealers at gun shows around here shine up the grips and stocks with bacon grease. Doesn't make a half-bad lube either and if lost in the woods you can always boil your stock.

FIVETWOSEVEN
June 7, 2011, 02:13 PM
Hes talking to the American public, if he said ID everyone would know what he was talking about, yet he says a "Identification Card". Seems like he is trying too hard in my opinion, like its fake.

Cosmoline
June 7, 2011, 02:26 PM
The other issue is entirely possible and long overdue. How long until some terrorist (or a small group of terrorists) walks into a crowded Christmas time mall with semi-auto AK's or AR's and starts shooting people? It would be a bloodbath.

It's been a concern of mine for awhile. But the usual spree killers, whatever their crazy motivations, are well known and don't present a major threat to the nation. What worries me much more than a lone nut shooting up the place with an SKS is a team of trained terrorists pulling off a repeat of the Mumbai attacks using small arms and explosives. They would target a gun-free area such as a major stadium and go to work as a team, cutting off exits and killing systematically in order to stampede the crowds. The panicked and of course unarmed people would effectively block law enforcement from getting in and add confusion to the situation. It would be a real horror show. They could also have layers of attackers, just as they've been using layers of bombs. One bomb for the injuries, another for the killing after the first responders arrive. So in this case the second layer of attacks would start on the outside, pushing the crowds back into the stadium. Thankfully they don't seem to have the wherewithall to pull this off, and of course with every person they add to the plot there's more chance of exposure.

Realistically it's all but impossible to stop spree killers ahead of time. But law enforcement can do a lot to stop the plotting, and has been. Clamping down on immigration and movement to places such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Somalia is another important part of the puzzle. And most of all keeping good relations with the mainstream Muslims and religious leaders to keep an eye out for potential trouble makers. Gun control isn't really relevant to any of this, since it isn't about the firearms it's about the people.

kayak-man
June 7, 2011, 06:20 PM
But yes, the question has been long overdue. How long will it be until any terrorist waltzes into a mall and opens fire with anything? That's the price we pay though for being allowed to own guns. There really is nothing to do about it. Other than to carry everywhere and refuse to become a victim, of course.

Fixed that for ya' :)

I hear what you're saying, and my gut feeling is that I'm more likely to run into an Active Shooter type situation than I am to get mugged or carjacked (not saying those aren't out there too).


Chris "the Kayak-Man" Johnson

JustinJ
June 7, 2011, 07:00 PM
Planted by anti-gun groups? Come on....really? I know we all strongly dislike anti-gun groups but lets be realistic.

MrsSmith
June 7, 2011, 07:49 PM
One or two people buying a handful of weapons at a gunshow or local gun store isn't what most terrorist cells are going for. Not to say it won't happen, but that's more "rogue" behavior than organized terrorist cell.

1) Terrorists look for targets that are going to provide mass casualties, will gain extensive media coverage, and have "easy" access.
2) While firearms are at the top of the Fatal 5 list of favored terrorist weapons (yes, due to the fact that they're relatively easy to get), they're more likely to be used (not always, but more likely) as a means of getting their hands on bigger and badder weapons, like carjacking a truck loaded with HAZMAT.

You're far more likely to run into a regular old home-grown bad guy on a rampage than you are a terrorist who bought guns at your local gun store then took them to the mall. And as many of you have said, all the more reason to CCW.

You want to be worried about something, worry about car bombs. Far easier to conceal, takes less effort, results in greater loss of life - all of which make terrorists feel all warm and fuzzy.

This guy and others like him are stirring the pot. Don't let them.

FourTeeFive
June 7, 2011, 08:01 PM
If they really want full-auto military weapons they can go to Mexico and buy them like everyone else...

sniper5
June 7, 2011, 10:34 PM
Why bother with automatic weapons? Just go down to the drugstore and buy plutonium like everyone else does.

Are people really THAT gullible?

Oops, I forgot, this is America.

Pingy
June 7, 2011, 11:06 PM
Planted by anti-gun groups? Come on....really? I know we all strongly dislike anti-gun groups but lets be realistic.

I don't know man. It was pretty convenient how the President came on television, announced that Osama was dead, we did a DNA check to be sure, then buried him at sea so that the corpse could never be retrieved or tested again. They have pictures they won't show us, but trust them, they got him. I'm not saying the CIA killed JFK or anything, but all this recent stuff has been waaaay too "convenient." Now that the evil one is vanquished the only thing left to do is ban the sale of firearms in America because people who buy them are terrorists. Seems a little too convenient for me, just as "weapons of mass destruction" were a great excuse to throw tons of money at private security firms, and the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about. It's not the people who distrust the government that are crazy, it is the people who trust them. Thats just my opinion though, take it or leave it.

Pingy
June 8, 2011, 12:57 AM
Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it. Is this not the same country who threw thousands of Japanese-Americans into internment camps during WW2? The same country where we had the red scare and commissions to determine if persons were "un-Amarican." Google Executive Order 9835 and you'll see similarities as far as the powers given to the Attorney General. This is an executive order mind you, not a law passed by Congress even.

The founding fathers did NOT set up a government which takes away the rights and privileges of citizens without a trial by jury, and thats exactly what they're trying to do here. I've made forum posts critical of the US Government, how do we know that I'm not on the "terrorist watch list" and would be banned from buying firearms or flying for simply questioning the government's actions? If asked about why in a court of law, the answer would be "we cannot disclose that because of national security" and the entire checks and balance system put into place is nullified in the interest of "security."

This quote is widely attributed to Benjamin Franklin and I agree with it 100%, "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." It's happened before in our history, and it's happening again. The question is, why are we allowing it to happen again? I need to call my representative's office and get some serious phone time in about this stuff, and I think it would be wise if you all did the same. Yes, I'm advocating a peaceful revolution through contact with your elected representatives to let them know you disagree with what the government is doing. Threatening them with votes and campaign dollars is downright terrifying to any elected official, and we can win this. Who's with me!?!

JustinJ
June 8, 2011, 11:00 AM
I think the best way to prevent errosion of rights is to stand up for all of them. Not just the ones that we personally receive value from. We should be no angrier about assaults on the second amendment than on any other. We can't expect others who dont care about guns to fight for the second ammendment when we don't stand up for the ones they do care about. Under the Bush administration the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments were directly assaulted in horrednous ways. Is that okay since the 2nd was left alone? Most was done in the name of national security but personally i believe that principles never really existed if they don't endure times of adversity.

Pingy
June 8, 2011, 01:12 PM
I think you're right Justin, but I must say that the 2nd is by far the most important. Why? Because even if all the others are taken away, as long as we have the 2nd we have the means to regain the others. If the 2nd is taken away, it's only a matter of time before the others are trampled with no viable options to regain them. That's why I personally get so upset about that one in particular.

What about the 9th and 10th ammendment? It seems we could reclaim any and all lost territory on the other rights through them by liberal interpretation. I'm a Constitutionalist through and through, and don't much like the way our government ignores the parts that limit their power.

withdrawn34
June 8, 2011, 01:47 PM
One difference that i feel we have from Mumbai is that our LE is willing to return fire.

I am not saying we should be apathetic; nor am I saying a potential terrorist wouldn't be able to take a lot of casualties before encountering someone returning fire, but I am saying that the Mumbai terrorists were able to inflict a ton of casualties because the Mumbai police ran and hid themselves, rather than returning fire.

Some even carried Enfields in the train station and such. Perhaps not the most modern weapon, especially against a real AK, but still very capable, especially with the way some of the terrorists were walking around in the open. There is no SWAT equivalent over there.

Eventually they had to call in military commandos to finally end the situation. Of course, you can imagine the kind of time lag to call in (and transport) such fellows for a domestic incident, especially when there's no existing process for making that happen.

cbrgator
June 8, 2011, 02:05 PM
HERE IS THE TRUTH:

Unless the government goes door to door to confiscate every firearm in civilian hands, a terrorist attack with small arms is possible and entirely unpreventable. Even in light of a nationwide confiscation, such actions are still possible.

The issue is: Does that potential threat justify the infringement of our fundamental 2A rights?

I know how everyone on this forum will answer that question. But how will the American people answer it? And how will the US government answer it?

Whoever answers yes to that question has to face the inevitable follow ups: Do we plan to ban every tool or instrumentality the terrorists threaten us with? Will we capitulate to their every threat?



It's really that simple.

Nushif
June 8, 2011, 02:07 PM
CBR ... well said.

eye5600
June 8, 2011, 02:17 PM
Whatever the details, it's certainly true that it's easy enough to buy guns in the US if you have the right kind of ID. And it's just the sort of thing that will be used to make the case for banning sales to anyone on the terrorist watch list (which might be a good idea if the list was a good list, but it's not, and it's a bad idea).

But beyond that it's just scare mongering. There are lots of dangerous things for sale in the US and everywhere else. Like gasoline. Like fertilizer and fuel oil. Like vehicles. Life is dangerous.

84B20
June 8, 2011, 03:02 PM
I can see the positive side to the story. Just think, if all the jihadist go to a gun show and try to purchase a full auto they can be identified and reported... oh, wait, we're not allowed to profile anymore, NEVER MIND!

JustinJ
June 8, 2011, 05:45 PM
"oh, wait, we're not allowed to profile anymore,"

Anymore? When was it okay to?

84B20
June 8, 2011, 06:01 PM
"oh, wait, we're not allowed to profile anymore,"

Anymore? When was it okay to?

Actually, you're right. It was just wishful thinking on my part.

Neverwinter
June 8, 2011, 09:38 PM
I can see the positive side to the story. Just think, if all the jihadist go to a gun show and try to purchase a full auto they can be identified and reported... oh, wait, we're not allowed to profile anymore, NEVER MIND!
There's a difference between behavioral profiling and racial profiling. The former can be performed without the latter.

daorhgih
June 8, 2011, 10:19 PM
.... there is that snoopy UPS man. The weapons of the terrorist are not a bomb or gun or anthrax-event ... ... it is "terror". A prepared, and fully, and legally, armed society cannot be terrorized.

06
June 8, 2011, 10:23 PM
There is an old and very true addage in sports: "A good offense is the best defense". "Bout time to let them know a bit of terror. Let them feel fear of loss of life and security. If a man is running it is hard to hit back. When Americans get tired of being targets and start targeting things will change. If it brings war then so be it. In the end there will be peace without fear of having some "sheet head" run into your church, bus, resturant, etc. and do his j'had thingy.

daorhgih
June 8, 2011, 11:52 PM
It's not "advocating mayhem" to purely advocate readiness, is it? I be a PURE ADVOCATE.

Erik M
June 9, 2011, 12:09 AM
Are we for sure that this guy wasn't briefed by anti's before he made his statements? I have it on good authority that anyone buying a weapon that was not born a citizen, as in 'was naturalized at some point' will automatically be flagged for further review when they attempt to purchase a firearm. Last I checked NICS wasn't used when you buy out a car trunk in downtown Oakland though.

JustinJ
June 9, 2011, 10:32 AM
"Are we for sure that this guy wasn't briefed by anti's before he made his statements?"

That is not a logical way of determining things: if it's not disproven then it must be true. The burden of proof is on the one making the accusations and the more outrageous the accusation, the higher the level of proof needed. The problem with conspiracy theorosists is that no degree of proof is ever good enough. If Bin Laden's body had been brought back to the US and examined on the mainland, people would just say the examiner was lying. How the word of an examiner on an air craft carrier is less than that on the mainland is beyond me. If pictures had been posted it would be said they are old or photoshopped.

A good friend of mine bought a gun when he just had a greencard. The check took two days when it had always taken 30 minutes at this gun store. Once he was naturalized all his purchases went through just as fast as everybody elses.

If you enjoyed reading about "US born Islamic terrorist urges purchase of local firearms to commit mass murder" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!