Gun control is our gravest national security threat - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dksuddeth · 07-18-2006, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

1. How many situations have you experienced which required the use of a gun to resolve? I'm asking in your civilian life, and I'll acept your judgement on whether it was required or not. I also recognize "that's not the point"; I'm just curious.

Luckily, to this point anyway, I have never HAD to use a gun to resolve anything and I hope that it stays that way for the rest of my life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

2. You live in the Dallas/Ft Worth area, approximately, what, 300 miles from the Mexican border? Your major metropolitan area has a substantial police force. Fort Hood, Fort Sam Houston, and several other military bases are between you and the oncoming horde of reconquistas. Are you actually afraid of them, or is your behavior just posturing?

Having been in the marines for 6 years and having seen how it takes DAYS for the military to actually organize and then deploy for any issue, I am telling you that IN THE EVENT of any substantial attack (whether it comes from the border OR within any city limits) the population there will be ON THEIR OWN for almost a week. It won't matter that there is a military base right next to the city or IN the city. It won't matter that there will be thousands of marines or soldiers within walking distance of any attack. The commander of that base will first see to the security of that installation, THEN will wait for an order from the president to filter down to him, THEN will organize the units and equipment to venture out and confront the situation. During that time, every citizen who has found themselves in the 'combat' area WILL BE ON THEIR OWN.
It's not that the government doesn't WANT to protect them, they will simply be unable to for almost a week. Does that make me afraid of the oncoming horde? No, quite honestly. I don't fear for myself, but I do fear for my family and all of those around me who will be defenseless because those who wish to disarm everyone because of their own fears or insecurities, put us all at risk.
Will we ever be invaded? we already have, in my opinion.
Will the illegals ever attack us violently and try to take back what they think is theirs? I don't know and I don't think anyone else does either.
Should we accept the fact that it's possible and prepare for it or do we naively believe that something like that would never happen? We either take steps to protect ourselves and our country or we change the constitution by de facto.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

I think you are the one not approaching this realistically, but I think you are doing it deliberately.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, much as I am entitled to mine thinking that you, and those who think like you, would rather keep your head in the sand than to approach issues with any 'big picture' rationale. It's people that think like you do that clamor for government protection because you don't want to deal with the responsibility yourself, but then whine and cry when it doesn't happen the way you want it to. So you clamor for even better protection because you STILL won't accept the responsibilities that the founding fathers gave you, so we end up with even MORE big government and LESS actual rights.

DJ Happy · 07-18-2006, 05:40 AM

Could this thread be a wind-up? I don't think I've ever seen one on the TFP before, but I'm sure there's a first time for everything. You know, like the first time all the illegal immigrants in the US, all high on crack, simutaneously reach under their beds for their Uzis and gather at the local Dairy Queen, ready to overthrow the government and reclaim the San Andreas fault.

dksuddeth · 07-18-2006, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

Could this thread be a wind-up? I don't think I've ever seen one on the TFP before, but I'm sure there's a first time for everything. You know, like the first time all the illegal immigrants in the US, all high on crack, simutaneously reach under their beds for their Uzis and gather at the local Dairy Queen, ready to overthrow the government and reclaim the San Andreas fault.

yep, just one more crazy lunatic spouting conspiracy theories that we should all ignore.

What really disappoints me about people like you is that you've seen examples of what even TWO people can do with automatic weapons yet 10 or 20 is just TOO FAR FETCHED to be believable. It's that or you're so cemented in your complacency and belief that you can stop all crime by making laws banning guns that you couldn't possibly see anything insidious by people to destroy your newfound utopia of a crime free city.

I guess that a couple hundred deaths would be nothing to you, except to scream about MORE government protection.

well, since some people seem to think that i'm delusional on this southern border thing, let's have a little fun, shall we?

what do we think of this?

Rosarito officers beheaded

Quote:

Mexico's top federal prosecutor yesterday said police connections with organized crime may have contributed to the beheadings of three Rosarito Beach (california) police officers last week.

“What we are seeing is that organized crime is penetrating many police groups, and this is the line of investigation that we have,” Mexican Attorney General Daniel Cabeza de Vaca said during a news conference at the Hotel Camino Real.

curiously, the US congress had hearings on CSPAN for this and then tried to have the hearing 'removed'.
a copy of that hearing can be found here titled 'Impact of Mexico's Presidential Election on the U.S.'

Isn't 'beheading' something that terrorists do? shouldn't THAT make us nervous?

j8ear · 07-19-2006, 10:33 AM

DK, I am inclined to agree with the premise that gun control is a concern, although I might not place it at the top of national security concerns list.

I thought that you might be interested in this article from US NEWS and World Report within the last two weeks:

Quote:

Packing heat on the hill
The NRA is riding high; gun control is a political loser

By Will Sullivan

Posted Sunday, July 9, 2006

Oklahoma Rep. Dan Boren's Washington office features his hunting trophies, including a stuffed wild turkey and a mounted deer head. The freshman congressman's enthusiasm for firearms might always have stood out in the Democratic Party, but Boren now finds himself among an even more endangered species: Democrats willing to discuss guns at all.

"When we as Democrats are trying to reach out and speak to voters in the center of the country, I don't think that we can support gun control," he explains. After seeing Democrats hammered at the polls for voting to regulate guns, many of his colleagues seem to agree. As a result, a number of pro-gun measures moving through Congress will most likely face little opposition, as advocates of gun control increasingly find themselves marginalized and ignored.

Not long ago, it was the gun lobby on the defensive from the passage of the Brady bill in 1993 and the 1994 ban on "assault" weapons. But some say support for gun control cost Democrats the House in 1994, and former President Clinton credited it with Al Gore's 2000 presidential defeat. "It's different than it was in the early '90s. Those were, in retrospect, the glory years," says Paul Helmke, former GOP mayor of Fort Wayne, Ind., who recently took the reins of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Meanwhile, with little fanfare, National Rifle Association backers in Congress allowed the assault weapons ban to expire in 2004 and last year shielded gun makers from being sued over crimes committed using their products. Since 1999, nine states have eased restrictions on concealed weapons, and NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre says the freedom of gun owners is in "the best shape it's been in decades."

Boren is cosponsor of a bill to ban police from confiscating firearms during emergencies--a response to such seizures after Hurricane Katrina. New York Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler says such a bill would never have been considered five years ago. Now, he says he's sure it will become law.

Saul Cornell of Ohio State's Second Amendment Research Center, says polls consistently show broad support for gun control. What gives the gun lobby strength, he says, is that supporters see gun control as a make-or-break issue. With that passion comes money. Gun-rights groups contributed nearly 14 times as much as gun-control groups in the 2004 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Gun-control proponents should avoid efforts like the assault weapons ban that were more effective at agitating gun owners than at preventing gun violence, says Daniel Webster of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. He recommends targeting unscrupulous dealers, and points to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who leads a coalition of over 50 mayors backing a crackdown on illegal gun sales. For backers of gun control, perhaps that's a start.

Regardless of the prevailing sentiment on this board, the issue of gun control, which sees a record of dismal failure, is a political looser. If anything along the lines of the worst case scenarios you provided sees the light of day, I suspect any and all existing gun control measures will be scaled back significantly.

This makes ~me~ less concerned about gun control.

-bear

dksuddeth · 07-19-2006, 11:49 AM

I did read that one, it's heartening, but there are still many democrats (and even a few republicans) who continually put forth bills to restrict the right to keep and bear arms and I fear that if democrats get hold of congress again that they will just pass more.

frogza · 07-19-2006, 12:41 PM

I believe in the right to keep and bear arms. I have a .22 rifle, that's it. I don't see the point in owning anything heavier. I can defend myself as effectively with a .22 as I could with a higher caliber gun. (Unless we're talking about combating tanks, which is beyond unlikely) Others lack the skill and/or confidence to do the same, so they require higher caliber or automatic weapons. As long as they don't try to use them unlawfully I see no problem with them owning them.

ironman · 07-20-2006, 04:39 AM

Didn't the 9/11 terrorists cross through the canadian border?

dksuddeth · 05-06-2007, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ironman

Didn't the 9/11 terrorists cross through the canadian border?

where ever they came from, they are getting in their practice. we'll see that urban warfare real soon.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/24846.html

Quote:

Jihad in U.S. Streets

"These killers are known as "paintball jihadists" in that they practice in paintball game style what they have planned for America’s streets. They are already training others in "urban combat" using paintball guns. They will engage in paramilitary-style training right under our noses, and lie about it to our faces. They are protected, in some cases, by the religious Imams, some who even encourage or schedule such outings."
Zealot Muslims now plan to bathe America’s streets with gunfire just as is going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Darfur and so forth.

Once these Allah devotees get hold, they don’t stop. Street fighting never ends. Further, these fighters are more than willing to sacrifice their own bodies and those of their families and neighbors in order to see through Islam World Rule.

Douglas J. Hagmann, Director, Northeast Intelligence Network, reports that American officials already know of the process. However, both government and media are muffling detail.

Jihad will come to the United States due to "Muslim men inside the U.S., (the latter) adhering to the Islamist ideology of jihad, preparing for war on the streets of America.

"The ‘insider’ reports are very troubling and are purposely being downplayed by official sources and go largely unreported in the media.

"One case, however, can serve as an example of what is taking place all across the U.S. involving the procurement and disbursement of weapons to Muslim ‘jihadists.’ On Tuesday, May 2, 2007, a federal indictment was unsealed in the U.S. federal court in St. Louis naming eight Islamic men as defendants in a case involving the buying, selling or hiding of automatic weapons, an anti-personnel mine and other explosives.

"The case originated with the arrest of Mousa M. ABUELAWI, 22, of Creve Coeur, MO on December 29, 2006. He was charged with three counts of illegal possession or distribution of a machine gun and conspiracy to violate machine gun statutes. A superseding indictment unsealed yesterday, charges ABUELAWI and seven others with machine gun charges and charges of conspiracy, lying to the FBI and other firearms violations.

"The other seven defendants identified in the indictment are identified as: Thaer Abde SUMAD, 23, of Florissant, MO, Abdikarin WARSAME, 28, Charley M. HUNT Jr., 45, Darnell T. THORNTON, 25, and Hussein Ali NURE, 29, all from Jennings, MO, Mohamed JUDEH, 20, of Maryland Heights and Otha L. BAKER, 20, of St. Louis. If found guilty of the charges, the men face 5-10 years in prison."

Jihadists are stockpiling weaponry and explosives via secret cells. Mosque leaders are cooperating with them.

"In the case of ABUELAWI and the other seven defendants, the men met at gas stations located in north St. Louis between August 2006 and January 2007 to buy or transfer automatic weapons and explosives. In the original documents charging Abuelawi, Sumad is quoted in a meeting with ABUELAWI and a government informer as saying that ‘he wants to buy as many explosives as possible because, "we're going to war."'"

Visit http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/ Northeast Intelligence Network

hiredgun · 05-06-2007, 03:39 AM

Sigh. I don't quite comprehend your need to feel utterly safe from any and all potential threats, real or imagined. It's impossible. It would be impossible even under a police state, which none of us would want. You are seriously asking us to be more worried about an eventuality that, as DJ Happy has pointed out, is almost comically absurd.

Why would immigrants try so hard and risk so much to get out of Mexico only to make their adopted home ... once again part of Mexico?

I also am having a really hard time buying that it would take an entire week for the US government to respond to a direct attack on its soil. What did our response - both municipal and military - look like on 9/11?

Finally, the article linked in the OP mentions neither gun control nor a possible 'invasion' of Mexicans. You're really grasping at straws here.

seretogis · 05-06-2007, 07:44 AM

The British are not coming, and you are not Paul Revere.

The gravest threat to this nation's security is its own government. THAT is what we need to be armed to protect ourselves from, not crop-picking/house-cleaning Mexican illegals. Keep focusing on practically irrelevant external factors and you will completely miss the gradual erosion of our individual rights by those who we vote into government positions. Eminent domain. The draft. The PATRIOT act. Hillary Clinton. (I kid.) These are the gravest threats which face us today.

dksuddeth · 05-06-2007, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

Sigh. I don't quite comprehend your need to feel utterly safe from any and all potential threats, real or imagined. It's impossible. It would be impossible even under a police state, which none of us would want. You are seriously asking us to be more worried about an eventuality that, as DJ Happy has pointed out, is almost comically absurd.

I've been preaching all along that there is absolutely no possible way to be safe in this world. What I've been trying to tell people is that IF your safety, and that of your loved ones, are important to you then you need to be prepared, i.e. also carrying a gun. Also, why is it that things are always so 'absurd', until they actually happen. 3 weeks ago people thought it would be 'absurd' to think that a student could protect themselves with a gun on campus.....now we know differently, don't we?

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

Why would immigrants try so hard and risk so much to get out of Mexico only to make their adopted home ... once again part of Mexico?

Once again, I'm not speaking solely of mexicans, but those that come up from mexico or down from canada...as we've heard about many times over the last 6 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

I also am having a really hard time buying that it would take an entire week for the US government to respond to a direct attack on its soil. What did our response - both municipal and military - look like on 9/11?

Coming from a military background I can assure you that the government WILL NOT RESPOND IMMEDIATELY TO PROTECT YOU. They WILL respond immediately to protect military and government assets though, then once THOSE are secure, they will come to protect the rest of us. Our 9/11 response was great if we're talking only of the WTC rescue effort, but what did the rest of the gov do? Not much other than ground aircraft, put fighter jets in the air, and start putting bases on alert. Look at the LA riot response, katrina, and our border issues. I repeat, YOU and YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD are just not that important in the gov and mil priority list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

Finally, the article linked in the OP mentions neither gun control nor a possible 'invasion' of Mexicans. You're really grasping at straws here.

right, but later on in the post there is talk of civilians actually having to fight to defend their cities from invasion or terrorism. When I put this out there, someone told me I should tighten the tinfoil on my head.

I predict that there will be massive urban deaths and casualties due to terror attacks by jihadists using automatic weapons and most people will be helpless against it because of left wing wacko gun control who fear their own people more than anything else.

dc_dux · 05-06-2007, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I predict that there will be massive urban deaths and casualties due to terror attacks by jihadists using automatic weapons and most people will be helpless against it because of left wing wacko gun control who fear their own people more than anything else.

When have automatic weapons been the MO of jihadists?

How will carrying your gun protect you from someone near you in a crowd with a bomb strapped to his body...or from a car bomb?

dksuddeth · 05-06-2007, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

When have automatic weapons been the MO of jihadists?

How will carrying your gun protect you from someone near you in a crowd with a bomb strapped to his body...or from a car bomb?

Maybe you should read the last article I posted.

dc_dux · 05-06-2007, 02:04 PM

dk...I read the article and I am just not as impressed with the Northeast Intelligence Network and Douglas J. Hagmann's "facts and conclusions" as you:

"One case, however, can serve as an example of what is taking place all across the U.S. involving the procurement and disbursement of weapons to Muslim ‘jihadists.’ On Tuesday, May 2, 2007, a federal indictment was unsealed in the U.S. federal court in St. Louis naming eight Islamic men as defendants in a case involving the buying, selling or hiding of automatic weapons, an anti-personnel mine and other explosives.

Where is your/his evidence that this "is taking place all across the U.S. involving the procurement and disbursement of weapons to Muslim ‘jihadists?"

Why didnt he mention above that the charges in the unsealed indictmen say it was a crime for profit but do not specify who the ultimate customers would have been. (St Lous Today) Do you have any evidence that these guys have ties to any "jihadists"?

BTW, Douglas Hagmann was also the guy who said on the Coast-to-Coast radio show that the marketing stunt by Comedy Central in Boston and other cities several months ago was really a terrorist plot.

More on Douglas Hagmann, the "phony "terrorism expert" --who is positive that UFOs and Bigfoot exist but knows little else" (link)

And you still didnt answer my question....when have automatic weapons been the MO of jihadists rather than the more dramatic and destructive other weapons of choice?

shakran · 05-06-2007, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

you people scare the crap out of me.

We do? Imagine if we were armed

Quote:

millions of people a year, who we don't know are violent or not, cross our border and the government is barely lifting a finger to do anything about it.

Hey, I don't know if you're violent either. Let's lock you up until I know for sure that you're 100% safe.

Quote:

How many illegals COULD have crossed the border in the last 5 years?
How many of those MIGHT have carried several guns, like machine guns, with them?

Why, though, is it solely up to the citizens to take care of the problem. You say the government won't stop them. OK. Change the government. Elect people that will.

Quote:

How many of those COULD be conspiring to bring about the kind of mass carnage like what happened on 9/11?

And space aliens COULD be scanning your brain right now, but that doesn't mean you have to go put on a tinfoil hat.

Ya know what the problem with your pro-gun stance is? Your arguments just don't hold water. For what seems like years now you've been preaching that we must be armed in case the government becomes tyrannical and stops doing what the people want it to do. Beyond the obvious arguments that you still don't seem to understand that a few farmers with rifles won't stop a tank, that argument still doesn't make sense. After all, over 70% of the people want us out of Iraq, and the government is refusing to comply with that desire, all while suppressing freedoms and rights at an astonishing rate. In short, the situation that you claim we need our guns for is here, right now, and I don't see anyone shooting.

Could it be that this has occurred to you and that's why you're suddenly switching to the "damn evil foreigners and their scary weapons" tactic?

dc_dux · 05-06-2007, 03:15 PM

Here is another article from Doug Hagmann's Northeast Intelligence Network (NEIN):

Quote:

Whether or not this VA Tech shooting has anything to do with Islam isn’t important at this point. It is similar to incidents with Islamic influence behind them so the pattern fits Islam. They are indeed guilty of the deaths of Americans and they are planning the deaths of many more.
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/Taylor042207

These NEIN guys cry "islamists" at the drop of a pin.

opus123 · 05-12-2007, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

3 weeks ago people thought it would be 'absurd' to think that a student could protect themselves with a gun on campus .....now we know differently, don't we?

The only reason you have let the thread drift from anti-mexican near-racism into VA Tech is that you have no proof or statistics or complicated logic to prove that you are not paranoid. The brain has an area called self-defence mechanism and the more people that say this thread is paranoia, the more you will say that you are right. The fact that you mentioned 9/11 also points to your instability of staying on topic. But since you probably need a clue by four. Here ya go...

1. VA Tech was caused by there not being a link between the judge declaring a young man insane and then not allowing that young man to purchase weapons or bullets. Period. Ronald Reagan gutted the budget for the insane assylums and therapy for those poor people and the large homeless and disturbed walking around today are due to Reagan's stupid choices. Yes, the young man at VA Tech was bullied for over a decade, but that does not justify his killing people. Anyway, a sensible logical approach would be to offer students training on how to non-lethally disarm a man with a gun with martial arts. Even making the classroom doors lockable and give teachers and janitors keys, would be sensible. Also adding an intercom system for the admin staff to use in an emergency would be logical. Arming all kids on campus who wish to be is not logical knowing how hormonal boys and girls are at that age. More bullets being fired from even more guns and from more angles means more friendly fire and deaths. You should have learned that in the military. I suspect that you might be carrying over knowledge, war instincts, and good combat paranoia into the private sector where many people who disagree with you live in safe homes and communities. Another option to use before arming college students with guns, would be to let the students be able to carry stun guns, mace, or tazers instead of guns. Heck, even rubber bullets would be fine to have teachers carry if they got proper training. But the fact that you jumped first to arming the college kids with the choice of real bullets proves you are a knee jerk gun paranoid in my book.

2. 9/11 was caused by two things. Corporate greed of airlines who told the pilots that they did not need strong door into the cockpit. The pilots asked for the doors for years and weight and cost was the issue and the doors would have stopped 9/11. Also Bush got the memo that 9/11 was going to happen and did nothing about terrorists taking pilot classes. Bush should be impeached for that and shipped away to Saudi Arabia with his oil friends. Bush did not read the memo or act on it because in his first term, he went on vacation more than any other president in history.

3. There are thousands of peaceful americans who own ranches in mexico and none of them are getting lots of gunfire and being chased off of their land. This has drug purchase/dealing gone bad written all over it. You wanna stop gun fights on the border of mexico ? Legalize drugs, get the gov to regulate them just like alcohol, and tobacco. As someone who supports choice so much, I am sure you agree with me. Or do you ?

4. I used to work at a gun range in wa state. We had wheel chair ramps everywhere. Because it was required by law ? Nope, the range has had them for decades before the laws required them. The ramps are for the "safe" gun users who accidentally shoot each other (like Cheney VP did) and you can bet Cheney was drunk at the time. We might not know what really happened out there for a few more years or maybe if someone who was there finally tells all. But Cheny was purposefully not tested for alcohol levels and most hunting accidents are kept well hidden. Many wheel chair stories were told to me during the 3 years I worked there. Many "cleaning gun" stories where the cleaner dropped the gun and it went off and they shot themselves in the leg. Seeing a man with a fake leg was a daily sighting on the days I worked. One guy had a war wound and he had a flag on his fake leg. His type was a rare sight. There was even a woman in a wheelchair who was shot by a fellow hunter as she was "making noise in the brush like a deer". So you go ahead and keep guns all you want, and you can shoot yourself accidentally some day or you might shoot your friend like Cheney did, but I will avoid places with lots of gun owners and avoid the forest areas during hunting season. I have purchased my non-lethal forms of home protection and have been trained in non-lethal martial arts. If Texas is that bad, then sorry it has gotten that way.

Jonathan

dksuddeth · 05-12-2007, 04:53 PM

Quote:

The only reason you have let the thread drift from anti-mexican near-racism into VA Tech is that you have no proof or statistics or complicated logic to prove that you are not paranoid.

I've not let anything 'drift', but I see that you are not unlike any other hoplophobe in the world and resort to labeling and name calling when you don't agree with the truth of the message.

You can sit there and blame a dead president, the government, republicans, conservatives, or anybody else you'd like to blame and you can sit there and spout all these BS liberal 'love' messages that sound great but have ZERO realistic capability in accomplishing anything you'd like to wish to see happen, and in the end it won't make a damn bit of difference.

You go with the kumbaya crowd and stay away from me and my guns while I make sure THIS sadistic depravity does not happen to me and mine. Tell me how much you THINK your 'non-lethal' self defense would prevail in this situation.

and as an afterthought, tell me which you prefer....being paranoid and carrying a gun or driving around carefree, unarmed, and having to watch your loved one suffer like those above!

Kadath · 05-12-2007, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I've not let anything 'drift', but I see that you are not unlike any other hoplophobe in the world and resort to labeling and name calling when you don't agree with the truth of the message.

Irony, thy name is dksuddeth.

07-19-2006, 11:49 AM	#45 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	I did read that one, it's heartening, but there are still many democrats (and even a few republicans) who continually put forth bills to restrict the right to keep and bear arms and I fear that if democrats get hold of congress again that they will just pass more. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

07-20-2006, 04:39 AM	#47 (permalink)
ironman Smithers, release the hounds Location: Guatemala, Guatemala	Didn't the 9/11 terrorists cross through the canadian border? __________________ If I agreed with you we´d both be wrong

05-06-2007, 07:44 AM	#50 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	The British are not coming, and you are not Paul Revere. The gravest threat to this nation's security is its own government. THAT is what we need to be armed to protect ourselves from, not crop-picking/house-cleaning Mexican illegals. Keep focusing on practically irrelevant external factors and you will completely miss the gradual erosion of our individual rights by those who we vote into government positions. Eminent domain. The draft. The PATRIOT act. Hillary Clinton. (I kid.) These are the gravest threats which face us today. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

05-06-2007, 02:04 PM	#54 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	dk...I read the article and I am just not as impressed with the Northeast Intelligence Network and Douglas J. Hagmann's "facts and conclusions" as you: "One case, however, can serve as an example of what is taking place all across the U.S. involving the procurement and disbursement of weapons to Muslim ‘jihadists.’ On Tuesday, May 2, 2007, a federal indictment was unsealed in the U.S. federal court in St. Louis naming eight Islamic men as defendants in a case involving the buying, selling or hiding of automatic weapons, an anti-personnel mine and other explosives. Where is your/his evidence that this "is taking place all across the U.S. involving the procurement and disbursement of weapons to Muslim ‘jihadists?" Why didnt he mention above that the charges in the unsealed indictmen say it was a crime for profit but do not specify who the ultimate customers would have been. (St Lous Today) Do you have any evidence that these guys have ties to any "jihadists"? BTW, Douglas Hagmann was also the guy who said on the Coast-to-Coast radio show that the marketing stunt by Comedy Central in Boston and other cities several months ago was really a terrorist plot. More on Douglas Hagmann, the "phony "terrorism expert" --who is positive that UFOs and Bigfoot exist but knows little else" (link) And you still didnt answer my question....when have automatic weapons been the MO of jihadists rather than the more dramatic and destructive other weapons of choice? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-06-2007 at 02:42 PM..

07-18-2006, 05:40 AM	#42 (permalink)
DJ Happy Psycho	Could this thread be a wind-up? I don't think I've ever seen one on the TFP before, but I'm sure there's a first time for everything. You know, like the first time all the illegal immigrants in the US, all high on crack, simutaneously reach under their beds for their Uzis and gather at the local Dairy Queen, ready to overthrow the government and reclaim the San Andreas fault.

07-19-2006, 12:41 PM	#46 (permalink)
frogza Registered User Location: Right Here	I believe in the right to keep and bear arms. I have a .22 rifle, that's it. I don't see the point in owning anything heavier. I can defend myself as effectively with a .22 as I could with a higher caliber gun. (Unless we're talking about combating tanks, which is beyond unlikely) Others lack the skill and/or confidence to do the same, so they require higher caliber or automatic weapons. As long as they don't try to use them unlawfully I see no problem with them owning them.

05-06-2007, 03:39 AM	#49 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	Sigh. I don't quite comprehend your need to feel utterly safe from any and all potential threats, real or imagined. It's impossible. It would be impossible even under a police state, which none of us would want. You are seriously asking us to be more worried about an eventuality that, as DJ Happy has pointed out, is almost comically absurd. Why would immigrants try so hard and risk so much to get out of Mexico only to make their adopted home ... once again part of Mexico? I also am having a really hard time buying that it would take an entire week for the US government to respond to a direct attack on its soil. What did our response - both municipal and military - look like on 9/11? Finally, the article linked in the OP mentions neither gun control nor a possible 'invasion' of Mexicans. You're really grasping at straws here.