Posted on 03/08/2005 8:05:19 PM PST by freeholland
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 http://www.ispu.us.
He can be reached at junaid.afeef@gmail.com.
Ping.
This guy isn't just stupid. He is stupid to an astounding degree.
Well, in that case neither is the 1st, or the 3rd, or the 4th, or the 5th......we just can't be too careful about TERRORISM (TM) these days.
I hate to profile based on a name, but how much you wanna bet the author of this piece is a terrorist and seeks to disarm Americans before committing a giant atrocity himself? Well, I suppose you could change his name to Sarah Brady and that would change nothing.
Just more of the same old brain dead idiocy. First we have to get rid of our guns to protect ourselves from rabid criminals. Now we have to get rid of our guns to protect ourselves from homicidal terrorists. Notice a pattern?
The victims, MUST have MINIMUM seccess. The CIA says so!!!
Look at the source. Afeef is a Muslim who doesn't want us armed to fight the terrorists. Funny how he attacks our contstitutional right to defend ourselves but is concerned with constitutional rights in the defense of terrorists.
http://www.masnet.org/views.asp?id=2067
At first I was going to ask how old this guy was, I thought maybe this was a junior high report.
Then I saw that the author is an attorney, and everything fell into place.
Nobody can be this stupid without a purpose, can they?
The Constitution is not a Suicide Pact; it's a Living Document.
Bwahahah.... Yeah, thats it, disarm us. After 9/11, they couldn't keep simple pistols on the shelves. Americans reaction to attack was to arm themselves, even if the threat was not the type you could stop with a pistol (try stopping a 757 from ramming your house with a pistol). It was, however, a logical reaction to fear.
So, if a criminal's worst fear (according to statistics I've read) is a tie between a vicious dog or armed homeowner, I wonder how the terrorists feel? They plan for every contingency (at least the "professional" ones do), so how does taking on a pissed off crowd of armed Americans grab ya for operational security?
An armed citizen is the ultimate free radical, you don't know where we are and you don't know how good we are with the weapons we have. Tough to plan for that.
I just love the Liberal group think..if we only outlaw the guns ....the criminals will follow the law and not use them....yeah thats it...a criminal will not break the law...
If unalienable rights must be repealed I suggest that the muslim author of that piece have his rights to life and liberty revoked.
Incredibly stupid.
Not only are these the the disorganized thoughts of an idiot, they are the dreams of most of those we call public servants. Probably 90% of all Police chiefs, 60% of legislators, and probably 40% of Republican office holders hold similar views. I firmly believe that there will be terror type attacks with weapons, and the govt will begin disarming Americans. Soon we will be proudly dependent on the whims of our betters, just like Canada, Britain and Australia.
The INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL POLICY UNDERSTANDING looks like an Islamofascist front. Check out the board of directors.
Or just invoke the "universal executive power of the law of nature"....... that way we can keep our guns!
Transportation means were used in both the trade tower and the Oklahoma City attacks. It makes more sense to ground planes and ban rental trucks to control terror.
I was encouraged by her stastistics for gun ownership. With those kinds of numbers it will be a very hard battle to confiscate guns in the US.
If they actaully think like this article suggests, the answer to that question may not be so obvious.
This is without a doubt the most idiotic, destructive thing I've read in a long time.
The Founders knew the nature of tyranny. That never, ever changes.
Uhhhh.... Shoot 'em.
Sadly, your probably right.
If this kind of terrorist attack were such a concern, then why doesn't it occur with boring regularity in a place like Israel? One thing people like this clown never mention is that these things used to happen there quite frequently, but with so many armed Israelis walking around the Palestinians terrorists had to cope with the problem of their victims shooting back at them.
Incredibly stupid.
======
Au contrare... Incredibly Clever !!!
Where's that wonderful paragraph that describes "Stupid" to the nth degree?
"You are stupid with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns..."
"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."
Is this guy crazy, or just stupid? Only the neo-Nazi's care about the 2nd Amendment?! He doesn't read FR, does he? 80 million gun owners in America. Imagine just HALF of that as a standing army! Average number of guns per owner: 2.6. 160 million handguns or rifles is ABSURD? He assumes we'd be facing the US military. We'd be facing an ANTI-US Military...the REAL U.S. military would likely be on the side of defending the country against despotism. At least the ones I know would be. He cites WACO as proof the "people" are impotent?! A bunch of suicidal cultists?
Disarm the people to fight attacks on our country?! What should we do, throw rocks and garbage at them? Where do they find these a$$clowns?!
What kind of demented logic demands that the good guys disarm during a war, and let the bad guys have all the guns?
This guy isn't just stupid. He is stupid to an astounding degree.
======
No... he is clever to an astounding degree !!!
I see you are not a subscriber to the New York times
Yeah! "Like some primordial remnant of the Big Bang of stupidity!"
That is correct! >>DING!<<
"Junaid M. Afeef is a Research Associate at the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding"
This was my first clue. I'm laughing pretty hard right now so its hard to type, but:
Research Associate=wannabe underling
Social Policy=Socialism
& Understanding=Liberal, feel-good rhetoric
Yeah, that one!
BTW, when the Israelis started shooting back at the homicide bombers - before they get a chance to off themselves - those attacks slacked way off.
Sedition Bttt...
I wonder what this moron thinks would happen to the mighty US military if even one fifth of the American people rose up and seized control of or destroyed it's support base?
Huh, most of the suicide bombers in the Middle East use homemade bombs, not guns. It's unlikely terrorists would use guns for terrorism. Way too ineffective.
I don't say these things to criticize what the passengers on those planes did. They reacted as we've all been trained to react. They dialed 9-1-1 and waited passively for "proper authorities" to deal with the situation. However, that passivity is a death trip. Passivity and pacifism have always been death trips, and the terrorist attacks only proved that fact.
The lesson that we need to learn from the terrorist attacks is never to be passive in the face of evil. When we are attacked, we need to immediately use force against our attackers. The "proper authorities" won't always be there to help us until it is too late. While we are waiting, we need to be doing all that we can to kill terrorists.
Denying us weapons to use in self-defense against the terrorists is stupid. The idiot who wrote this column buried himself in his fallacies by the third or forth paragraph. Rather than attacking private ownership of guns, we need to promote private ownership of guns as a means of fighting terrorism.
Bill
All the more reason for the general public to be well armed. The police and military can't be everywhere at once. The general public can be and is.
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.
Look on the bright side, they are at long last admitting that there is a "right to keep and bear arms" and that that Constitution protects it. That the purpose of the right is defend the country and to keep the government in check. He even implies that the Constitution should be amended to adapt to changed circumstances.
Now they would have us "give up essential liberty for some temporary safety". They would disarm the general public just when there are Islamic crazies in the land wanting to kill anyone they can.
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.
They ignore that AK's and RPGs for that matter, are cheap on the world market and terrorists need not buy them here or if they wanted to buy them here that they do so through legitimate sources. Guns are easier to smuggle than drugs. Gun parts easier still.
This guy has no idea what he is talking about. The majority of the US military wouldn't go agianst the US population, mainly because they are taught to THINK FOR THEMSELVES. The armed American population would not have to face the military, this guy is just writing propaganda for the liberals in large cities who feel threatened by little old ladies with guns.
Well said.
You can't stop it from ramming *your house*, but if you where on it, you'd stand a good chance of stopping the Jihadies from ramming it into someone else's house, or a public building, sports arena, etc, etc.
Good analysis. Terrorists prefer unarmed prey.
Beatuiful
I notice though that it say "READ MANUAL BEFORE USE"
What a shame that the stupid PC people have to put their stamp on everything.
It's like writing on teh Mona Lisa; NOT ACTUAL SIZE or some other nonesense ruining a work of art.
I hope the pendulum swings quick the other way and we get rid of them completely.
Mr. Afeef needs to do some more research. Lucky for him, he lives in a PC fantasy world. In other lands throughout history, Mr. Afeef's proposal to disarm the citizenry during wartime would have been greeted with great hostility and gotten him a swift ticket to eternity for being in league with the enemy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.