Honestly, the new video of Al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn encouraging radical adherents to use U.S. gun shows to arm themselves for attacks on American citizens is not new. Terrorists have written about doing this before, and yes, they've bought guns at our gun shows to kill innocents before.
But there is still nothing as stark as seeing a video where a leader of a murderous group of thugs who killed 3,000 of our people in one day, is able to announce the intention to use our own lack of common sense laws against us, and know the NRA will do all they can to protect Al Qaeda & Friends' ability to pull this off, Mumbai-style. After all, terrorists pay cash for their guns too.
Am I being too harsh? Well, see what the NRA is up to in Delaware right now. Yup, it almost makes you yawn by now. I'm just surprised they forgot to insert Obama into the paranoid "they're coming to take all your guns!!" rant, this time. Or something about how it is part of a Mason & Illuminati conspiracy hatched at a Bilderberg conference with the Rothchilds presiding.
Going back to the issue at hand, I wrote about this very danger immediately after Osama bin Laden was killed:
If you don't think we should get on this forthwith, just remember, there are those who will want to take revenge for bin Laden's killing. And there are those who will continue to plan attacks on the United States because it is such a tempting target. They may not have the capabilities to pull off a large scale attack like the one on 9/11. But by allowing them to purchase Jared Loughner's Glock with an assault clip, or (God help us) explosives, we are asking for trouble.Hopefully most of remember what happened in Mumbai, India. It only took guns, some explosives, a few cell phones, and a hijacked fishing vessel to terrorize an entire city and commit mass murder at train stations, luxury hotels and in the streets.
What will we have to do to stop the NRA and radical gun nuts from arming terrorists? Can we overcome the gobs of arms-dealer cash when 70% of the NRA's own members can't even seem to convince their leadership that the latter hold dangerous, anti-law enforcement views?
No promises, but one can continue to hope...
Follow Cliff Schecter on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cliffschecter
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2008-12-01.asp
There is no such thing as an "assault clip".
In the US, you CANNOT deny people their rights without due process and in the US you ARE innocent until proven guilt. There IS NO due process involved in these lists. The people on these lists generally have not been indicted, charged, or convicted of a crime. Many of the people on these lists don't even really have ties to terrorism and have done nothing wrong. All the only reason they are on the TWLs is for information gathering and sharing, nothing else.
Thanks a lot for supplying terrorists with false intel. About time the gun banners did something useful.
http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2011/06/public-relations-of-gun-control.html
They get that belief from the confusion deliberately spread by the gun control lobby.
Never mind the fact that even the ACLU is opposed to expanding the 'terror watch lists' because of the lack of due process and large scale errors w/ said lists as they currently stand.
But these facts don't really matter when one can only resort to logical fallacies and insults.
http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2011/06/terrorists-gun-control-media.html
But if you want to purchase a firearm that can deal death to anyone within a half mile, no problem. Even though we have 'no-fly' lists, the 2nd amendment fetishists would much prefer to allow potential terrorists, the mentally disturbed, and straw buyers for the illegal gun market easy and unrestricted access to military grade weapons and ammo.
Also, if being on the terror watch list is enough to keep you off planes, why can't it be enough to flag you for refusal of sale if you should try to purchase a gun?
Also, why haven't we renewed the rather common sense ban on large capacity clips? (And don't say you need it for hunting--any hunter who needs thirty bullets to take down a deer is an incompetent mo-fo who DEFINITELY should not be freely firing in the woods).
And this from someone who is VERY second amendment rights. I absolutely believe all law-abiding citizens should be able to buy as many guns as they want. Believe me, the mandatory background check and a three day wait (for a handgun) has never once impeded my ability to get a gun. Right now I own a .45 pistol, a 2020, and a 30 ought 6 (shotgun). Should a crazy or a terrorist be able to get their hands on these weapons? I think NOT.
As you've pointed out, it's illegal for convicted felons to possess firearms. Private, unregistered sales are not a loophole-it's still illegal for them to possess without regard to where/how purchased. Why should you or I have an extra 50 or 100 dollars (going rate for an FFL to do a NICS check)added to the price tag of a firearm purchase?
Keeping and bearing arms is a fundamental civil right, specifically enumerated by the constitution. You cannot deprive someone their rights without adequate due process. For me to agree to using these lists (as an aside, I have serious misgivings about the whole terror watch list idea) either there needs to be serious changes to the list including but not limited to judicial oversight via warrants, a guarantee to be able to see the evidence/confront your accusers and a clear/open process for appeal. It's the whole innocent until proven guilty bit.
BTW, the Brady's love trotting the fact that thousands of folks on the list that have purchased firearms but have, to date, been unable to trot out a single instance of someone on the list buying firearms and then going on to commit an act of terror-perhaps it's predictive value is not so good that we'd want to rely on it to trample someone's rights?
Because people brains shut off...and they just REACT from emotional extremes...whenever the issue comes up.
There is a UNIVERSE of other alternatives between "confiscate all guns" (which no sensible person wants to do)....and "anyone can buy and carry around any gun at any time" (which makes no sense either.
But those at the extremes of this issue have a vested interests in SUPPRESSING any sort of talk that could possibly result in a mature compromise on this issue. Because their power lay in keeping people anxious and agitated about it.
So they won't think for themselves or look too closely at what they're being told.
Or laws specifically designed to make it to expensive to own firearms?
Or those that give the gov't the authority to arbitrarily decide who can/can't own based off of personal opinion?
I have examples of all of those on the books and enforced. Why should any more be allowed?
I have no problem with it -- it's only when you go pointing guns at people and requesting their valuables (or just shooting them) that the trouble starts. Since no nation has ever succeeded in keeping firearms out of the hands of those who misuse them, we're better off if most guns are owned by people who are not criminally inclined.