Posted on 06/17/2002 8:31:42 AM PDT by rface
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:39:39 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Armed private citizens in some heavily Jewish areas of Brooklyn, N.Y., started patrolling their neighborhoods this past weekend. Some carried baseball bats or cellphones. Others had concealed handguns or shotguns.
Why such unusual behavior?
Many Brooklyn Jews were alarmed by a CBS 60 Minutes report on June 2 that the terrorists who targeted the World Trade Center in 1993 first planned to blow up Jewish neighborhoods in Brooklyn. The terrorists apparently switched to the trade center only because they believed that most of its occupants were Jewish. A terrorist interviewed by CBS gave the impression that Brooklyn Jews were still a prime target.
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
I was discussing this with a group just last week,walk around with a cased weapon,not anything anyone can do unles they want to invite a lawsuit....then gaurd the synogogues with hired private security.
I think they are performing well under a very real threat,much the same if thugs were to threaten my neighborhood,which in todays world is real also.
All it takes is for an ANTI-? to have their person or property violated and they start singing a different tune,or shuddup entirely.
Sad how quickly it comes back to haunt them, they made a deal,didn't they, and now.........
“The FBI quietly warned its agents nationwide of unconfirmed information from a captured senior Al Qaeda official that terrorists may be planning attacks against supermarkets or shopping centers, law enforcement officials said Wednesday.
The warning, sent Tuesday to all FBI field offices and relayed to some state and local police, cautioned that the information was unsubstantiated and did not include specific information about possible targets, timing, numbers of people involved or any particular method of attack.
The warning said that Al Qaeda operatives inside the United States may be planning attacks against civilian targets, possibly including banks, shopping centers, supermarkets and shops, law enforcement officials said. The information came from Abu Zubaydah, the highest-ranking Al Qaeda terrorist leader in U.S. custody, they said.”
This report reminds me of the 1985 movie INVASION U.S.A. starring Chuck Norris. The premise of this film was based on the assumption that a small invasion force could disrupt the American way of life by creating chaos through terrorist attacks on civilian institutions. These included shopping centers, residential neighborhoods, a school bus full of children, social gatherings, and so on. Mr. Zubaydah may have seen the movie or maybe not.
After the events of 9/11, and prior to the establishment of the Office of Homeland Security, I wrote a letter to the Executive Office of the President providing a suggestion to place additional security resources in every community at little or no cost to our government. I pointed to the same scenario of possible terrorist actions as Mr. Zubaydah now claims may become a reality.
There are tens of thousands of honorably discharged veterans; many are Federal employees who have already undergone background/security checks. They would be willing to provide an additional level of civilian defense if only they could be assured of their own right to defend themselves and to come to others defense. The Federal Marshals program allows individuals to be deputized. Under this authority, individuals can be armed. While no one would be forced to carry a weapon, the “unknown” factor as to who is and who is not armed creates an environment of uncertainty for the person who decides to take criminal action.
A person who is committed to dying for a cause may not care about such a policy; however, a timely armed response could minimize the damage. The police cannot be everywhere. This was proven in Israel when a civilian shopping in a supermarket killed a terrorist who was shooting and killing other shoppers. Had he not shot the terrorist, many more would probably have died.
Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp once wrote to the Washington Post (If I Had Had My Gun, 02/27/1993) to describe the results of laws that keep a person from protecting themselves. She has spoken on this issue many times and has been quoted: "The Second Amendment isn't about protecting ourselves against criminals. It's about all of us protecting ourselves from all of you." (to Congressman Charles Schumer (D-NY), 1994)
"Let me make a point here, in case this isn't becoming extremely clear. My state has gun control laws. It did not keep Hennard from coming in and killing everybody! What it did do, was keep me from protecting my family! That's the only thing that cotton pickin' law did! OK! Understand that! That's ...that's so important!" -Dr. "Somewhere along the line I made one of my stupidest decisions... I was afraid that ... if ... somebody caught me with the gun in my purse, I could lose my license to practice, lose my ability to make a living. So I took the gun out of my purse and I left it in my car ... which the laws in my state are kinda wishy- washy on ...and I thought, 'Heck, if I needed it, it's probably going to be when I'm out on the road ... in the middle of nowhere and, you know, my car's broke down or something ..."
There is also a side benefit to implementing such a nation-wide program. In states where concealed carry of weapons is easily allowed (shall issue policies), crime seems to go down. In Vermont, open carry is allowed, and it appears to be one of the lowest crime states in the country.
There are policies that could be done almost immediately. Advise or allow States to have reciprocal agreements for individuals who possess carry permits. Require States, such as Maryland, that place work related restrictions on the permits to remove them. None of these programs should deny any citizen's 2nd amendment rights.
In conclusion, we have the makings of an available civilian defense force. Given a basic course of training, these individuals can provide additional homeland security and perhaps, dissuade future criminal activity.
Sounds familiar. I don't think that the Jews who were targeted in Nazi Germany were permitted to protect themselves. Only the government had the power to protect them.
Outside of the liberal, lefty, anti-self-defense creeps, name one American who believes this?
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.