Short interview with Rob Oneil: Texas Isis attack

I thought this line was great:

"these guys showed up because they were offended by something that's protected by the 1st amendment, and they were quickly introduced to the 2nd amendment."

"these guys showed up because they were offended by something that's protected by the 1st amendment, and they were quickly introduced to the 2nd amendment."

Click to expand...

While technically untrue (the two would-be murderers were shot by a police officer, an agent of the State, not a private citizen exercising his 2nd Amendment rights), it is a pretty strong and fantastic talking point to put out there.

Mr. Oneil rather glossed over the fact that a police officer stationed at a very high-risk, and known to be threatened, public event like that almost anywhere in the world would have been armed (and in many places, more heavily armed than this cop), so the Charlie Hebdo analogy is flawed. The difference was more in preparing and hardening the location, rather than any exercise of the 2nd Amendment.


But still, GREAT to hear him say it!

Perhaps he should have mentioned many of the States where ISIS clams to have terrorist agents have some fairly restrictive gun laws?

Sam1911 said:

While technically untrue (the two would-be murderers were shot by a police officer, an agent of the State, not a private citizen exercising his 2nd Amendment rights), it is a pretty strong and fantastic talking point to put out there.

Mr. Oneil rather glossed over the fact that a police officer stationed at a very high-risk, and known to be threatened, public event like that almost anywhere in the world would have been armed (and in many places, more heavily armed than this cop), so the Charlie Hebdo analogy is flawed. The difference was more in preparing and hardening the location, rather than any exercise of the 2nd Amendment.


But still, GREAT to hear him say it!

Click to expand...

It's interesting, though, recently I keep hearing that the level of police violence in this country is due to the 2nd amendment, and police having to be heavily armed to protect themselves from all of us gun toting crazies. The conclusion, of course, is that if we didn't have so many guns, the police could do as they do in certain other countries, and not go about armed on a regular basis, only arming up when certain situations arise.

Considering the cop who stopped this was not a part of the heavily armed SWAT team, I think that shows the problems with this logic. Here in America, the guy with the gun stopped this thing. In France, with no guns readily available, a number of people were killed.

While technically untrue (the two would-be murderers were shot by a police officer, an agent of the State, not a private citizen exercising his 2nd Amendment rights), it is a pretty strong and fantastic talking point to put out there.

Click to expand...

Wasn't that gentleman off duty and hired as a private security at the moment of confrontation though? Do not forget that in many gun control paradise places even professional private security can't carry firearms (e.g. UK, next-to-impossible to get carry permit even for professionals in France, Germany, etc.).

I don't know the answer to that. You may be correct. The question of whether an employed security person is allowed to be armed is perhaps still not exactly a 2nd Amendment matter, generally speaking, however -- though I do see your point -- but a question of local law regarding security guards.

The 2nd Amendment enumerates the right of a private citizen to be armed for his/her own protection, absent any duty or employment or special classification or status. Perhaps a subtle distinction, but an important one.

Wasn't that gentleman off duty and hired as a private security at the moment of confrontation though? Do not forget that in many gun control paradise places even professional private security can't carry firearms (e.g. UK, next-to-impossible to get carry permit even for professionals in France, Germany, etc.).

Click to expand...

Hired and off duty, but still possessing STATE credentials. He and the other 40 or so hired cops did not give up their government creds and avail themselves of operating as private citizens with CHLs for the gig. They were hired because they were cops, not because they were private citizens. They were there in uniform and carrying sidearms in a manner not allowed by the general public in Texas. Not only that, but many were there with official vehicles.

Off duty officers in Texas may be off duty, but they do not stop being peace officers (agents of the State) because they are off duty.

So NO, they were not there as private citizens and exercising 2nd amendment rights.

I don't think this is really a 2nd amendment issue because people with a CHL couldn't legally carry at the location in Texas because it was school property. The best a CHL person could do legally was to have a firearm in the vehicle.

This was more about planning ahead of time for expected trouble. I'm glad there was planning and plenty of police at the event.

Thank you guys for the clarification.

This shows how far apart our countries are in this. Here a cop can't take his uniform on when he is off duty and surely can't take the police vehicle or gun for a private stint unless he is there on duty. Even though, as you said, he remains the agent of the state, he still needs firearms license to be able to holster his private gun and walk armed off duty.

Sam1911 said:

While technically untrue (the two would-be murderers were shot by a police officer, an agent of the State, not a private citizen exercising his 2nd Amendment rights), it is a pretty strong and fantastic talking point to put out there.

Mr. Oneil rather glossed over the fact that a police officer stationed at a very high-risk, and known to be threatened, public event like that almost anywhere in the world would have been armed (and in many places, more heavily armed than this cop), so the Charlie Hebdo analogy is flawed. The difference was more in preparing and hardening the location, rather than any exercise of the 2nd Amendment.


But still, GREAT to hear him say it!

Click to expand...

Actually the two terrorist attacked a 'gun free zone' but for the grace of God a 60 year old cop with guts and skill stopped them dead (literally dead) in their tracks.

Yes it was a no guns area.

Do not be shocked if other would-be jihadist learn from this.

Deaf

Averageman said:

Perhaps he should have mentioned many of the States where ISIS clams to have terrorist agents have some fairly restrictive gun laws?

Click to expand...

This, this, this and this!!

Look at the target states and then tell me what they all have in common.

Sam1911 said:

While technically untrue (the two would-be murderers were shot by a police officer, an agent of the State, not a private citizen exercising his 2nd Amendment rights), it is a pretty strong and fantastic talking point to put out there.

Mr. Oneil rather glossed over the fact that a police officer stationed at a very high-risk, and known to be threatened, public event like that almost anywhere in the world would have been armed (and in many places, more heavily armed than this cop), so the Charlie Hebdo analogy is flawed. The difference was more in preparing and hardening the location, rather than any exercise of the 2nd Amendment.


But still, GREAT to hear him say it!

Click to expand...

The "high risk" part of your comment is striking, and it brought to mind a comment made by Marcus Luttrell at an event I attended this week. He implied that the same honor-bound adherence that had the tribesmen in Afghanistan protecting him from the Taliban is the same honor-bound code that radicals use to defend their faith. He was NOT defending that, rather he was simply stating that it is. He also implied that folks like Mrs. Gellar should keep in mind that it might not be just her head that is in the crosshairs of an AK due to these protests. Again, he was not suggesting that the protests should not be held, but rather that the cost be taken into account. This is not a word for word quote, he did not mention Gellar by name; he referred to the "events in Garland"

My wife doesn't agree with me, but I do not wish to live, nor do I wish my children and grandchildren to live, in a place where nutbags shoot you (or saw off your head ) for drawing a picture of some religious leader.

I may be crazy, but I say bring it on. I'm in favor of provocative acts to bring the nut jobs out into Plainview so we can annihilate them. If I had several dangerous nests of rattlesnakes on my property, I would finish them off. If I had an enormous wasp nest, I would spray it. I don't think we should put up with terroristic threats by nut jobs unwilling to agree to living in a free society either.

Look at the target states and then tell me what they all have in common.

Click to expand...

I've yet to see any compelling reason to believe that terrorists (or any violent criminal type) really take our gun laws into consideration in any way when planning their targets. It is easy to look back and say "well that was a gun free zone, so that's why they chose it!" but that's almost certainly merely seeing what we want to see out of the facts.

Have many of these places been "gun free zones"? Sure. But that's mostly because public events and large cities tend to be so. In no part of the country are private citizens carrying in such large numbers that it significantly increases the chances of a terrorist being stopped or killed by a citizen. The highest rates in the country are still less than 10% of the population who hold carry permits, and some tiny fraction of those folks actually do carry day-to-day. And police officers, security guards, ... and let's face it, law-breakers of various stripe ... all are present in these places and armed.

Look, where have most terrorist type attacks happened in the last 10 years? Mass shootings and bombings by Islamic terrorists? Why, 99.999% of them have happened in places where the US military is locked and loaded and ready to bring in gunships and JDAMs. These guys aren't afraid of dying. They expect to die. They WANT to die in their quest.

The "happens in gun free zones" line is a great talking point and we shouldn't stop using it in the press and when debating, but we should be prepared to recognize that it is hardly credible as a factor in terrorist plans.

I agree with Sam.

These ISIS-inspired attacks look more like opportunism than anything well-planned. I doubt that the event was in a Gun-Free Zone factored into the "planning" at all.

These attacks are meant to sow discord, however I believe that they will unite more than they divide. Further, I believe attacks such as these expose a profound misunderstanding about America on the part of ISIS.

docsleepy said:

My wife doesn't agree with me, but I do not wish to live, nor do I wish my children and grandchildren to live, in a place where nutbags shoot you (or saw off your head ) for drawing a picture of some religious leader.

I may be crazy, but I say bring it on. I'm in favor of provocative acts to bring the nut jobs out into Plainview so we can annihilate them. If I had several dangerous nests of rattlesnakes on my property, I would finish them off. If I had an enormous wasp nest, I would spray it. I don't think we should put up with terroristic threats by nut jobs unwilling to agree to living in a free society either.

Click to expand...

I agree with this sentiment, and I agree with Pam Gellar and her mission to expose these folks for what they are. What they are, however, and what needs to be brought to light, are a large segment of the world's populace that have beliefs that are deeply rooted in honoring thier faith, and that those that actually practice that faith are not going to be talked out of being offended, and that such offense has a penalty that must be applied else they be eternally condemned. With our near open-border policy, this a real and present danger.
I also agree that we must be mindful that the expression of these opinions may come at a price, and that price may be paid by someone that did not sign up for it.

They have a perfect right to be offended. I also had a perfect right to be offended by many many things that have happened and currently happen in our society.

But I do not have the right to haul out my concealed weapon and do violence to people with whom I simply disagree.

If they are unable to find someway to reconcile those two problems, they have a perfect right to emigrate out of our nation! That might be the best course. But a large part of the reason why I got my concealed weapon permit was I felt a responsibility, as an old fart, to be part of the defense of other people Against these kind of crazies after 911.


And Sam, I think that was a very astute observation you made which gave me pause for thought

docsleepy said:

They have a perfect right to be offended. I also had a perfect right to be offended by many many things that have happened and currently happen in our society.

But I do not have the right to haul out my concealed weapon and do violence to people with whom I simply disagree.

If they are unable to find someway to reconcile those two problems, they have a perfect right to emigrate out of our nation! That might be the best course. But a large part of the reason why I got my concealed weapon permit was I felt a responsibility, as an old fart, to be part of the defense of other people Against these kind of crazies after 911.


And Sam, I think that was a very astute observation you made which gave me pause for thought

Click to expand...

I don't disagree, and the problem is extremely complex. We protest, they get mad, we/they kill folks, we protest, they get mad, we /they kill folks. It seems to me a strategy with an actual outcome in mind needs to be employed here. Wars are won and lost on the strength of the propaganda by either side; I have no answers, but I'm not sure demonstrating to get a deadly reaction is the right one, particularly when we know that is the reaction we will get. that has already been established. Now what? If the answer to that question does not effect some actual policy that addresses the problem, then it needlessly put lives in danger.

I would like for the soldiers carrying this fight, like Pam Gellar, (whom I greatly admire) to actually explain what they are hoping to achieve with these demonstrations (can we agree they are provocations?)Are they going to change the minds of "moderate" Muslims? Nope. No such thing. Are they going to kill them all when they show up? Nope. Somebody provide an outcome here. How about channeling this into closing our border, or targeting these groups for greater surveillance, or denying visas to the countries with the largest concentrations of those wanting to kill us? I'm not hearing any of that. I am seeing a stick poked into a hornets nest with no perceivable end game. Since these are hornets that kill, I would love to hear the strategy behind kicking the nest.

Can we be reminded that there are more Muslims in the U.S. than the Middle East? We need policy changes, folks. The uncomfortable, politically incorrect kind. Folks ideologically likely to hurt us need to be elsewhere. Barring that, I don't get the point of the provocations.

I don't have complete answers, and this probably isn't the place to arrive at them. However it reminds me somewhat of The threats used by organized crime, "the mob ".

Most Americans agreed that we could not let organized crime control our streets. People have organized community night walks to take the streets back from smalltime organized crime somewhat successfully. Crimestoppers systems have been effective. Neighborhood crime watch. Threatening to kill someone and taking significant action to accomplish it is a crime, and our police should enforce the laws against it. Racketeering laws might be involved.

All I can say is, we can't let people go on threatening other people.

docsleepy said:

I don't have complete answers, and this probably isn't the place to arrive at them. However it reminds me somewhat of The threats used by organized crime, "the mob ".

Most Americans agreed that we could not let organized crime control our streets. People have organized community night walks to take the streets back from smalltime organized crime somewhat successfully. Crimestoppers systems have been effective. Neighborhood crime watch. Threatening to kill someone and taking significant action to accomplish it is a crime, and our police should enforce the laws against it. Racketeering laws might be involved.

All I can say is, we can't let people go on threatening other people.

Click to expand...

Unlike the Mob, these radicals cannot be reasoned with, and self preservation is not a factor in their behavior. As was pointed out, they WANT to die, so force is no deterrent. Sociologically, That is a unique problem. Not only are we turning a blind eye to it with regard to our immigration policy, we are openly allowing and encouraging the naturalization of folks that ideologically reject and oppose us.

This is a problem of ideology. We used to expect folks that immigrated to the U.S. To adhere to our values. It now seams easier to get into this country if you don't.

Its been mentioned many times about "muslims" like they are a homogenous group, when they are definitely not. There are extremists, just like theres Christian extremists (Timothy McVeigh anyone?...or the guy that left a bomb at the Atlanta Olympics because he didnt like abortion laws? The Baptist flakes that protest soldiers funerals?). Keeping in mind that not everyone thats a muslim is an extremist shouldnt need reminding, but apparently many feel that way. Theres different sects, and widely varying groups within the sects.

Hey I've got an idea, let's turn this into a religious debate.

As that does seem like where we're heading, I have a better idea.

Guess what it is?