In the Fight Against Terrorism, Some Rights Must Be Repealed

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sindawe

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
3,480
Location
Outside The People's Republic of Boulder, CO
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.

<snip>

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.

Inane driblings in full here: http://www.ispu.us/articles/fightagainterrorism.html
========== :barf: :barf: :barf:
 
On the flip side if everyone had a (Insert pistol of choice) under their shirt and knew how to use it suicide attempts would end in the "suicide" alot quicker.
 
:fire:
note to self: Send the NRA some more money. Send representatives some more letters/emails....
 
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.

Whew! Firearms ownership by law-abiding American citizens causes terrorism? Somebody's been pouring way too much beer on the Cheerios!
 
What are you talking about? Unalienable rights cannot be taken away by any person, entity or government.
 
Another moron that thinks terrorists are going to go through background checks, potential waiting periods, and pay out the arse for a semi-automatic knockoff of a full auto gun he can buy for $50 bucks back in the middle east.
 
The newly appointed CIA Director Porter Goss, believes that terrorists may bring urban warfare techniques learned in Iraq to our homeland.
I thought our presence in Iraq was to prevent terrorists from attacking the US. Now I read that the CIA Director believes our presence in Iraq has aided the terrorists by helping them learn urban warfare techniques.

It looks as though this WoT is as winnable as the WoD.
 
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.


Americans already did: gun purchases skyrocketed after 9/11. Guess he wasn't paying attention.
 
If unalienable rights need to be repealed... how about start by removing the life, liberty and happiness of muslims that call for the ransacking the bill of rights? Start with the author of that piece.
 
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.​


Interesting way of saying it. Couldn't you just as easily say:

Fully half of gun owners are female, the majority are non-Republicans, and minorities are well-represented among gun owners. The majority of gun owners are college educated and earn more than $50,000 per year.​


The numbers sound a bit odd to me, but the way they've cast it into the "guns are owned by redneck bubbas" mold despite the very numbers they've cited is most impressive. -MV
 
Baloney. In the war on terrorism some people need killing period. Junaid M. Afeef is worried that his personally crafted world is about to crash down upon him. Identify and remove the real problem people.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the job of the militia to protect our borders? If the National Guard won't/can't do it, then it is up to civilian militia...all of us.

How are we supposed to protect people against armed threats when we are unarmed ourselves?
 
Hello everybody.â„¢

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.

1. Part of the public are terrorists. A certain percentage. Which means, naturally, we are all terrorists. Right.

2. How about the other way around.

in April 1984 when three terrorists attacked a busy Jerusalem cafe with automatic weapons, intending to slaughter everyone. They were able to kill only one victim before being shot themselves by handgun-armed Israelis. Criminologist Don G. Kates recalls: "When presented to the press the next day, the surviving terrorist bitterly explained that his group had not realized that Israeli civilians were armed. The terrorists had planned to machine-gun a succession of crowded spots, believing that they would be able to escape before the police or army could arrive to deal with them."

Consider the very different tragic ending three months later in San Ysidro, California, when a single gunman, James Oliver Huberty, met no armed resistance. In very short order, Huberty killed 21 defenseless customers and employees (and wounded 19 others) at a McDonald’s restaurant. Likewise, there were no armed bystanders to stop Patrick Purdy from killing five children and wounding 29 others and a teacher at a school in Stockton, California on January 17, 1989. Or to prevent George Hennard from slaying 23 unarmed persons (and then himself), and wounding 20 others, in a Killeen, Texas cafeteria on October 16, 1991. On December 7, 1993 Colin Ferguson killed six persons, and wounded 17 others, on a crowded New York commuter train. Again, an armed citizen could have stopped the slaughter.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/06-07-99/vo15no12_learn.htm

As usual, :barf: :barf: :barf:

The World of the Tri-Barfs: :barf: :barf: :barf:
 
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.

OH!!! THAT's whose fault all of this is! :rolleyes: Sheesh...
 
Again with those numbers:


Half of all gun owners are women?
Most gun owners are college educated?
Most gun owners are NOT white?
Most gun owners earn more than $50,000?


That seems a bit off to me too. :confused:
 
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://ispu.us/articles/fightagainterrorism.html
 
That article made me sick. I sent an email to the author, but I know it's hopeless. :fire:

It seems that the American militia (i.e. everyone) should be arming themselves more as the threat of suicidal terrorist shooting sprees increases, not less. Do you think the author actually believes this tripe?

What's the deal with the ISPU anyway? I never heard of them before...
 
What's the deal with the ISPU anyway? I never heard of them before...
Anyone with a PC and a fax machine can form a "grassroots" organization, create a letterhead, and get free publicity, so long as their "press releases" are faxed to the correct news outlets.
 
Its a real think tank, not some fly-by-night thing run out of a basement.

No different then the Project for a New American Century or the Progressive Policy Institute.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top