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.
They're the very reason I'm working on building my personal arsenal.
I can't recall where I heard it, perhaps a movie, but I recall the line, "If stupid were people, you'd be China."
Clever? In his own eyes, I'm sure. Not in mine, however.:-)
Jeff, did you know this? Sounds like TC is ripping off your ideas from "Dragon's Fury".
I agree completely. Reconsider old policies in light of the new facts. Conclude that nationwide concealed carry is an absolute necessity. Perhaps even conclude that non-gun-owning Americans should be encouraged to take up the practice.
"Reconsider the value of public gun ownership?" Definitely. It's value has gone up substantially since 9/11.
The CONSTITUTION is not a living document.......that is the excuse haters of the Constituion use to change the Constitution illegally.
Time to put this idea to rest.......the Constitution was written to put limits on Government......not for the Government to put limits on us....which a "living" document allows them to do.
Is this the new Jack Armstrong, All American Boy. Sure sounds like it...NOT.
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.
What a load of excrement - moronic opinions stated as facts. JUNAID M. AFEEF is a complete waste of skin. He needs to be added to the "little list" from the Mikado. This guy is nothing more that a Democrat/UN/country club Republican shill
Growing your arsenal is always good.
If there is a Hillary Clinton presidency, watch the gun sales go through the roof during the transition, same as after 9/11.
That's a good'un. LOL
It makes PERFECT sense if you think our malls are going to be targets.
The idea of LAWFUL gun owners packing while in a mall would, seem to me, greatly reduce the risk of an all out blood bath if terrorists decide to going on a killing spree.
It would make sense to me that those packing would try to stop or at least hold off the bad guys until the cops got there.
This article is a load of BS
If I wanted to live like europe ... I'd move there
That's also why the military takes an oath to "support and defend the constitution." Also, that's the purpose of the National Guard. Their allegience is supposed to be to the state. If the situation in the US got bad enough to warrant a civil uprising, the military would be bound to support the constitution.
So basically, this guy says we are susceptable to terrorists attacking with firearms and his solution is to disarm us??? Is this guy smoking guano or somthing?
There is no way in hell I will give up my right to keep and bear arms. ESPECIALLY if there is a risk of terrorists making attacks with firearms. I want every chance of fighting back that I can get.
If terrorists are amassing arms, then any sane citizen of the US should be doing the exact same. It's not like the police or military is able to protect us if an attack does occur. Nothing against them but all they'll be able to do is count bodies and shell casings.
Some people shouldn't breed... the author of that toilet paper is one of them.
Mike
I'm sure there are plenty of cases where good work by our security agencies has thwarted enough terrorist threats that if we knew, we'd all be huddled in a corner of our gas-proof rooms quivering and crying. But what we do know about are the many instances where the public has taken security into their own hands starting with the "Let's roll" heroes on the 4th plane. I have personal knowledge of at least one in-flight incident where a foreign-looking and somewhat inebriated airline passenger tried to light a cigarette and was quickly subdued by his fellow passengers. (of course, I'm assuming it was because of the flame and not their fear of second-hand smoke).
No, anybody taking a close look at the world after 9-11 would be arming the 95% of us that understands we're the first line of defense (ok, maybe last line of defense is more appropriate). The hand-wringers are so afraid of a would-be terrorist getting weapons through legal means that they forget about that lesson. Oh yeah, they also forget that terrorists aren't adverse to using illegal channels.
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.