Quantcast

In the Fight Against Terrorism, Some Rights Must Be Repealed

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Sindawe, Mar 8, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Don Gwinn

    Don Gwinn Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,384
    Location:
    Virden, IL
    Less time is being spent by the federal government on terrorists with guns in shopping malls because that's not a federal issue. It can and should be handled by the local police forces and citizenry in most states.
    (Police only in a few.)


    Unfortunately, that's not so unusual. We have plenty of members here at THR who believe in "some" civil rights, but would like to suppress others. Some have been so honest as to put that fact in their signatures.
     
  2. Herself

    Herself member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    676
    Fine -- why haven't they, already?

    It could be a good thing and not a bad one if they did. The United States are vast and -- at least until recent decades -- its citizens are able to learn from the mistakes of their peers. If we think sales of personal arms are up since 9/11, it would be nothing to the increase after some half-wit "terrorist" wannabees shot up a mall or similar in one of the Defenseless Zones on MA, NYC or CA!

    Subjects of those states might be inclined to start behaving like citizens, too, and demand their governments not deny them the basic human right of self-defense.

    On the other hand, it could be very bad. The chattering media would demand that government Do Something, Ban Those Awful Guns, and use a lot of flag-waving rah-rah to sell it to the American public.

    One thing I am certain of: after 9/11, the next person or group who tries to hijack a passenger plane will have a lot more to worry about than a couple of TSA aircops: the would-be hijacker will go down under a human wave. When the stakes were merely a trip to Cuba, few would risk it, but if you're gonna die anyway, most will charge the bad guy.

    Other terrorist acts might work once, too. But none of them that rely on the bad guy living for very long will ever succeed twice.

    As for "repealing rights," it might work for awhile but it's long-term suicide for any government. Such acts create a group of people with little else left to lose and no incentive not to.

    --Herself
     
  3. Too Many Choices!?

    Too Many Choices!? Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    763
    It's all in the perception of the details...

    In order to prevent tyranny, and the loss of the conceptual founding principles of the republic,The CONSTITUTION, some of GOVERNMENTS aloted powers, must be Repealed!!! I like my version better:evil: .

    PS-Almost forgot, since this guy is either an immigrant, or a socialist, I will inform him....YOU CAN'T REPEAL A RIGHT...LIKE A BIRTHRIGHT. YOU CAN CHOOSE TO NOT EXERCISE THAT RIGHT, BUT NOT LOSE IT.
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2005
  4. GEM

    GEM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,529
    Location:
    TX
    I'm too lazy to read the whole thread - kill me. However, the debate about the infringement of rights for the WOT is going on at many gun boards.

    We get folks who clearly think that the situation demands that the leader get free reign to go after the terrorists and violate constitutional rights. I, flame suit on, regard this as not a well thought out philosophical position but rather an authoritarian personality that really has no respect for liberty.

    The one exception is raving about the 2nd Amend - but, IMHO, this is not because of an appreciation of liberty, but instead liking to play gun boy. (Add another flame suit layer).

    Such folks also don't realize that in an 'emergency' a president can quickly decide the armed populace (doesn't that mean that right wing extremists, animal rights terrorists and Muslim-amercians can buy guns) is a threat and move to ban/confiscate weapons from the general populace.

    Can't you see No Warrant Wire Tapping George, who would have signed the AWB if it got to him, going after guns? He isn't the deepest thinker on the cruise ship of state.

    As Bush apologist Fred Barnes said on FOX - the problem is that some folks make a fetish of personal liberty.

    Your choice are:

    1. All hail the leader and screw the Constition. He knows what is good for us and the trains will run on time.
    2. All hail our liberties and the Constitution. We will do the best we can against enemies domestic and foreign within the domain of our liberties.

    We might do better with more competent leaders rather than violating our rights.
     
  5. Drizzt

    Drizzt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,647
    Location:
    Moscow on the Colorado, TX
    In the Fight Against Terrorism, Some Rights Must Be Repealed
    By Junaid M. Afeef
    ISPU Research Associate

    The newly appointed CIA Director Porter Goss, believes that terrorists may bring urban warfare techniques learned in Iraq to our homeland. If he is right, we could have a whole new war on our hands. The prospect is indeed scary.

    The idea of terrorist cells operating clandestinely in the United States, quietly amassing handguns and assault rifles, and planning suicide shooting rampages in our malls, is right out of Tom Clancy’s most recent novel. If not for the fact that the 9/11 attacks were also foreshadowed in a Clancy novel, I would have given the idea no further thought.

    However, rather than facing this potential threat publicly, the Bush administration is only focused on terrorist attacks involving missiles, nuclear devices and biological weapons. Stopping terrorists with WMDs is a good thing, but what about the more immediate threat posed by terrorists with guns? The potential threat of terrorist attacks using guns is far more likely than any of these other scenarios.

    This leads to a bigger policy issue. In the post 9/11 world where supposedly “everything has changed,” perhaps it is time for Americans to reconsider the value of public gun ownership.

    The idea of public gun ownership simply does not make sense anymore. The right to bear arms, as enumerated in the Second Amendment, was meant for the maintenance of a “well-regulated militia.” At the time the amendment was adopted, standing armies were viewed with a great deal of suspicion, and therefore, gun-owning individuals were seen as a protection mechanism for the public. These gun owners were also seen as guardians of the republic against the tyranny of the rulers. The framers of the Constitution saw the right to bear and use arms as a check against an unruly government. That state of affairs no longer exists.

    Today, only a handful of citizens outside of neo-nazi and white supremacist goups view gun ownership as a means of keeping the government in check. Even those citizens who continue to maintain such antiquated views must face the reality that the United States’ armed forces are too large and too powerful for the citizenry to make much difference. Quite frankly, the idea of the citizenry rising up against the U.S. government with their handguns and assault rifles, and facing the military with these personal arms is absurd. The Branch Davidian tragedy at Waco, Texas, was one such futile attempt.

    The more important consideration is public safety. It is no longer safe for the public to carry guns. Gun violence is increasingly widespread in the United States. According to the DOJ/FBI’s Crime In The United States: 2003 report, 45,197 people in the United States were murdered with guns between 1999 and 2003. That averages out to more than 9,000 people murdered per year. Nearly three times the number of lives lost in the tragic 9/11 attacks are murdered annually as a direct result of guns.

    Examples of wanton violence are all around. One particularly heinous incident of gun violence occurred in 1998 when former Aryan Nation member Buford Furrow shot and wounded three young boys, a teenage girl and a receptionist at the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles and then shot and killed a Filipino-American postal worker.

    Another occurred in July 1999 when white supremacist Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, a member of the World Church of the Creator, went on a weekend shooting spree, targeting Blacks, Jews and Asians. By the time Smith was done he had wounded six Orthodox Jews returning from services, and killed one African-American and one Korean-American.

    Just recently, in Ulster, NY, a 24 year old man carrying a Hesse Arms Model 47, an AK-47 clone assault rifle, randomly shot people in a local mall. While the Justice Department did not label this murder a terrorist attack, all the signs were there. The Ulster, New York shooting is an ominous warning of what lies ahead. Terrorism can be a homegrown act committed by anyone with a gun and is not unique to a “Middle Eastern-looking man with a bomb.” As long as the public is allowed to own guns, the threat of similar terrorist attacks remains real.

    The idea of curtailing rights in the name of homeland security does not seem implausible given the current state of civil liberties in the United States. The war on terror has already taken an enormous toll on the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and thus far, very few Americans have objected. In light of this precedence, it seems reasonable that scaling back or even repealing the right to bear arms would be an easy task.

    In fact, it will be a very difficult task. So far the civil liberties curtailment has affected generally disenfranchised groups such as immigrants, people of color and religious minorities. An assault on the Second Amendment will impact a much more powerful constituency.

    According to the DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2002 41 percent of American households owned at least one gun. According to these same statistics, 50 percent of the owners were male, 43 percent were white and 48 percent were Republican. More than 50 percent of the gun owners were college educated and earned more than $50,000 per year. Regrettably, these folks are going to marshal their considerable resources to protect their special interest.

    This is a shame. Instead of laying waste to the civil rights and civil liberties that are at the core of free society, and rather than squandering precious time and money on amending the U.S. Constitution for such things as “preserving marriage between a man and woman,” the nation ought to focus its attention on the havoc guns cause in society and debate the merits of gun ownership in this era of terrorism.

    So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians.

    The Second Amendment is not worth such risks.

    Junaid M. Afeef is a Research Associate at the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding. His articles are available at www.ispu.us. He can be reached at [email protected].

    http://www.ispu.us/articles/fightagainterrorism.html
     
  6. Rabbi

    Rabbi Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    126
    Location:
    MI
    Notice the author's name .......... Junaid Afeef. Now there stands a dude with a vested interest in disarming Americans.
     
  7. GunnySkox

    GunnySkox Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,129
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    And in the fight against terrorism, we should lock up all the brown people, because of all the havoc they cause in places like France and Australia.

    And in the fight against terrorism, the right to free speech must be repealed, because of all the havoc all this sedition causes among the sheepulace.

    And in the fight against terrorism, some editorial-writing morons need a vicious sack beating with a hefty clue-by-four.

    ~GnSx
     
  8. Harve Curry

    Harve Curry Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,756
    Location:
    Black Range of New Mexico
    Where ever this Junaid Afeef came from he should go back, he has no concept of being an American or living here.
     
  9. Ryder

    Ryder Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    2,430
    Location:
    Mid-Michigander

    haahha... Found on altmuslim.com :scrutiny:
     
  10. Mad Chemist

    Mad Chemist Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,197
    Location:
    OR
    Duplicate thread with same title.
     
  11. coylh

    coylh Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    592
    Location:
    Bothell, WA
    This guy's argument is so weak that name calling, or racists remarks shouldn't be necessary.

    Since when is 41% of US households a "special interest"?

    These stats also say that 50% of owners were female! 52% were not Republican!

    "So long as airplanes fly, there will always be the threat of terrorists crashing one into a building. Your holiday get-away is not worth such risks."
     
  12. Janitor

    Janitor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,301
    Location:
    MN
    This person complained about "laying waste to civil liberties that are at the core of free society," in the same breath that he used to say he feels we should be evaluating our needs for some of these rights. This guy has really taken a deep drink from Chicago's pitcher of Kool Aid.

    I'm sure his message has the Osama seal of approval.
    -
     
  13. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,086
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    If we need to attack the Bill of Rights, then let us attack the real cause of 9/11--religion. Attack the First Amendment, ban religion, for the children.:D
     
  14. jsalcedo

    jsalcedo Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,683
    How much is a handful?

    This guy is as bad or worse than any racist.
     
  15. Janitor

    Janitor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,301
    Location:
    MN
    Bingo.

    This person wants to eradecate our right to carry arms, all in the name of stopping the terrorism.

    Ok. Quick quiz -

    How much of 9/11 would we have been able to avoid if it hadn't been so easy for the terrorists involved to obtain firearms?

    :rolleyes:
    -
     
  16. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,449
    In light of the concerted effort of the Bush administration to eliminate First and Fourth Amendment rights, it's not a stretch to imagine it teaming up with congressional Democrats to eliminate Second Amendment rights. If you don't think the government already looks at you as a potential terrorist, check out this FBI flier that another member posted on a different thread:

    Front page: http://keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Front.jpg

    Back page:http://keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg

    Folks, by even discussing the Second Amendment you are officially putting yourself in the catagory of potential terrorist.
     
  17. Camp David

    Camp David member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,230
    Location:
    VA
    Wrong... Inflamatory and fictional liberal assessment! Search for the truth a bit...
     
  18. Biker

    Biker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,108
    Location:
    Idaho
    Semms to me that a lot of conservatives, including Republicans, feel the same way as Lobotomty Boy on this subject.
    Biker
    ;)
     
  19. Tomcat1066

    Tomcat1066 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    232
    Location:
    Southwest GA
    If this is the case, then why should we need to worry about terrorists with the same weapons? How about THIS senario. Terrorists begin guerilla operations in this country, but the armed citizenry begins to engage the terrorists, killing several before the military or police can even respond. Once they do, it's an easy mop-up. But hey, what possible reason could we have for wanting firearms :rolleyes:

    Once again, proof[sic] that we have nothing to worry about with terrorists. Oh wait, the Branch Davidians weren't out and about shooting people. They were just on their property with their guns. Oh well, guess my arguement is shot.

    And then what right will be repealed? Oh wait, we've already gotten rid of a lot of them. Nevermind.

    Which means that the stereotype of the psycho gun nut. Why should we disarm these people?

    Further, minorities will be deeply affected by disarming the population. After all, only 43 percent are white, meaning that 57 percent are minorities. 50 percent are women, as was pointed out, so we'll be hitting women pretty hard. Women are a protected group under civil rights laws. But I guess thats irrelevant.

    Tom
     
  20. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,449
    Camp David, you and I have been going round and round about this for weeks, and it appears to me that in every instance I have been proven right, not wrong. You seem to believe that if you keep repeating your stance in a parrot-like fashion, it will somehow change the facts. Instead of just calling my premise wrong, inflamatory, and a fictionally "liberal" statement, show me why it is so? You have yet to do so in dozens of pages of posting.

    It's time you did something more constructive than simply trying to shout down those you don't agree with. You are a perfect example of what my very conservative, very Republican father-in-law would call a "screamer." These are the talking heads on television who resort to increasingly louder and more shrill voices to shout down their opposition with name calling rather than counter their arguments with facts.

    BTW, I like the way you use a lower case "l" in liberal. Look up the word in your dictionary. It will shed some light on the fallacy of your basic premise.
     
  21. Camp David

    Camp David member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,230
    Location:
    VA
    Prove to me, right now, how you (NOT SOMEONE YOU KNOW BUT YOU) have been harmed by the Patriot Act. Cite denied liberties.

    Prove to me, right now, how you (NOT SOMEONE YOU KNOW BUT YOU) have been harmed by the War on Terror. Cite denied liberties.

    I'll wait....
     
  22. grimjaw

    grimjaw Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    3,358
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Can someone tell me how many "terrorist" attacks on American soil have taken place in the last fifty years involving firearms?

    Seems to me the two largest attacks in the last twenty years (OK City, 9/11), involved no firearms whatsoever.

    jmm
     
  23. Biker

    Biker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,108
    Location:
    Idaho
    This is insanity. I say that aids is not a health risk. If you disagree, prove to me right now, how it has harmed your health (NOT SOMEONE YOU KNOW). Cite health effects.
    I'll wait...
    Biker
     
  24. Camp David

    Camp David member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,230
    Location:
    VA
    Apples and Oranges Biker...

    Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndowm (AIDS) is a world disease affecting people in every nation and is recognized by the CDC as a threat to every person.

    Assumed Liberties Denied (ALD) is a fictional malady the left suffers from and credits the Patriot Act and the War on Terror as the cause... it is fictional!

    I asked Lobotomy Boy to back up his claim and prove a liberty he was personally denied as a result of the War on Terror; it is a legitimate request...

    Waiting....
     
  25. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,449
    It is insanity. It is the best that Camp David has to offer by way of rational debate, but I will answer him. Each and every one of us has been harmed by the degredation of the Constitution under the guise of the war on terror. We are harmed because the document was designed to preserve our liberties, and when that document is undermined, our American way of life has been degraded. Is that an abstraction? No more than liberty itself is an abstraction, and isn't the preservation of liberty what our soldiers die for? What could be more real than that?

    Camp David, you have tried to insult me by calling me a left-leaning liberal, yet your argument is so far to the left that it could be embraced by Stalin or Mao. This is not like the pot calling the kettle black. This is like the kettle calling a snowball black.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice