OK, I am not arguing that it doesn't exist, just that it isn't a very significant organisation. Security experts can debate on its changing strategy as well.
It just seemed odd to me that an organisation which is allegedly as strong and powerful as Al Qaeda is supposed to be launching the 9/11 attacks would have quit when its enemy was on its knees (or down on the ground). Despite what people will say, 9/11 was a victory for the terrorists since the east coast of the united States shut down for the day and US air traffic was pretty much shut down for a week. It seems that an organisation with such strong skills at organising such a task would have planned to keep kicking while the giant was down. Instead, the attacks pretty much stopped.
There was the Beltway Sniper attacks a little over a year later that paralysed the US Capital area, but that was just a loner. We can also argue that the Fort Hood Shooter was "Al Qaeda inspired" instead of just another crazy with a gun. Not to mention at least two conspiracies to shoot up military bases in the US, Fort Dix and Quantico, that have been thwarted so far.
My point, however,is that the ability to terrorise large segments of the US population using a firearm is pretty well known, yet no one has been successful. This is an avenue for terrorism that has remained wide open despite an alleged "war on terrorism". Additionally, is the amount of gun carnage and the fear it creates also terrorism? I know that citing to VPC for a link between guns and terrorism won't persuade the unpersuadable. In fact, a few more DC sniper incidents wouldn't persuade them, but that's irrelevant since the point is that guns are tools and they are tools that terrorists can use for their ends.
Also, I have to admit it was odd that no one took credit for 9/11. Most terrorists will take credit for their actions. It seems as if the 9/11 attacks were attributed to Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda as a reason for all sorts of other actions which make no sense in a "War on Terrorism". Terrorism can be a homegrown act committed by anyone (e.g., Oklahoma City) and is not unique to a "Middle Eastern-looking man with a bomb."
The Oklahoma City bombing was the most significant act of terrorism on American soil until the September 11 attacks in 2001, claiming the lives of 168 victims and injuring more than 680. The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen–block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings. The bomb was estimated to have caused at least $652 million worth of damage. This was an act of home grown terrorism perpetrated by some one who was upset at the federal government's handling of the Waco Siege and the Ruby Ridge incident (Oddly enough, people of this mindset scream for "gun rights" to fight government tyranny).
It's easy to look for the bogeyman outside of your country, but harder to deal with internal threats to national security.
Anyway, my point is that whatever threat "Al Qaeda" is to the United States is minimal. The US's illogical reactions to 9/11 prove that to be the case. The problem is that these reactions have utilised US (and other countries' resources) in activities that have not been productive. That's fortunate since Al Qaeda would be having a field day if it were truly powerful.
Showing posts with label terrorists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terrorists. Show all posts
06 December 2009
In the fight against terrorism, some rights must be repealed
I found this whilst trying to get info on a certain Jewish "Gun Rights" organisation. It's from altmuslim! It's also been something that I have been saying since 9/11.
By Junaid M. Afeef, March 4, 2005
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 groups 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 is 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://ispu.org/.
Comment: if the US seriously starts addressing gun control, stops messing with gay marriage, abortion, making Christianity the state relgion, and other wedge topics, then there would be progress. As long as the US allows the political arena to be diverted by fringy groups, nothing will get done.
By Junaid M. Afeef, March 4, 2005
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 groups 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 is 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://ispu.org/.
Comment: if the US seriously starts addressing gun control, stops messing with gay marriage, abortion, making Christianity the state relgion, and other wedge topics, then there would be progress. As long as the US allows the political arena to be diverted by fringy groups, nothing will get done.
09 November 2009
When we hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope.
I have to admit being flooded with outrage about the Fort Hood shootings. There are loads of reasons for this.
First off, that it could have been allowed to happen. Even more so when you consider that the ridiculous access to firearms is done under the guise of the Second Amendment. This is a text that includes the words:
necessary to the security of a free State
Why has that gottten lost in the debate? I hear all sorts of stupid shit about "fighting tyranny", "rights", "Liberty", and "freedom", but I never hear about the responsibility and obligation that is incumbent upon this right.
That is service in the militia. Not some bullshit "unorganised" militia, which is the quivalent of having a draft card, but actually serving in a legally organised militia unit.
There has been at least two conspiracies to shoot up military bases in the US: Fort Dix and Quantico, VA. U.S. domestic military bases are still "wide open to attack."
Charles Faddis, a 20-year CIA counterterrorism veteran, says:
Nothing has been done to restrict access to firearms either. One can walk in to a gun store with a valid drivers licence and walk out with enough firepower to cause serious mayhem. Hey, you can buy enough guns and ammo to start WWIII. There have been mass shootings in the United States for at least 30 year, yet gun laws are becoming laxer, not tighter. The assault weapons ban was crap, but somewhat useful. Even then, it was allowed to lapse and newly made assault weapons can once again be bought,
So, why the fuck are people who should not have access to firearms still buying them legally? Or even acquiring them easily. I mean we lock our houses and cars, but we leave firearms wide open.
The next thing that pisses me off is that people are pointing fingers at everything except what allowed this to happen.
The gun.
Yeah, sure guns are tools. They are highly effective tools for killing. They work quite quickly as the Fort Hood shootings show.
Don't give me any crap about an Army Base being a gun free zone since there was an armed guard who returned fire. They were guns on the base which could have been used to fend off the attack, but a semi-automatic pistol can has a high rate of fire. Unfortunately, people, especially civilians, don't understand that an incident like this can happen quite quickly and result in a high body count before anybody can do anything.
The FN 5.7 holds 20 rounds. In a crowded room it would be easy beyond belief to hit 43 people in a matter of a few SECONDS, say nothing of minutes.
Are you going to tell me that US soldiers are cowards and didn't resist in any way? They just let this psychotic asshole shoot up the military processing center. I don't believe that.
Not to mention someone did return fire, but by that point, the body count had racked up.
Of couse, in this outrage, we also see a backlash against muslims, which also doesn't make sense. The Fort Hood shooter could have been screaming "Kill for Cthulhu". He was a fucking whack job.
His religious pseudofundamentalism is a symptom of his mental illness.
As Zirgar said, do we point out the people who kill abortion doctors are christians? Likewise, do we point out the religion of other mass shooters? How about the asshole who shot up the Holocaust museum, what religion was he? How about the dickhead who gunned down 3 Pittsburgh Officers, what religion was he? How about the Jerkoff who shot up an LA Fitness Centre in Pittsburgh? What religion was he?
No, only this asshole because he is a "muslim".
If this is terrorism, then it is because someone with a firearms shoots up a place we would like to think is secure. But we would like to think streets, shopping malls, supermarkets, schools, universities, fitness centres, and so on are secure. Terrorism is creating a feeling of terror and panic, which mass shootings do create.
The United States has to become like Northern Ireland during the troubles where security checkpoints were ubiquitous and frequent if people are going to demand more guns without restrictions. Even with registration, there should be checkpoints.
It is completely moronic to give terrorists the tools they need to accompllish their goals. Those who block any restrictions, especially if they do it in the name of "fighing tyranny" are complicit in this act.
After all, who defines tyranny? Is it a small minority who feel that they have been wronged? Then why aren't they praising the Fort Hood shooter for standing up against what he saw as tyranny?
No, because that it complete bullshit. So, cut the crap with the Second Amendment being for "fighting tyranny" and "freedom" because somehow our freedom of movement and right to live safely will have to be curtailed. Even if that destruction of liberty is from sheer paralysis about leaving the safety of your own home.
As for the Second Amendment, I have said more than once that it is archaic and its meaning has been lost with the passing of time. The founders would be shaking their heads in disbelief at things which are being said and done regarding "the Second Amendment right". Especially when people say that the Army should be able to "exercise its Second Amendment rights".
No, too much emphasis has been placed upon the phrase "right to keep and bear arms" with neglect of the concept of the "Security of the Free State". The Supreme Court wrote those words out of the Amendment in its DC v. Heller decision, but it is time to revive that concept.
The "right to keep and bear arms" is related to the "Security of the Free State" and those who would allow terrorists, foreign or domestic, access to arms are guilty of treason.
So, where the fuck is the outrage that this shit can happen and why isn't it directed at the ease it can happen?
First off, that it could have been allowed to happen. Even more so when you consider that the ridiculous access to firearms is done under the guise of the Second Amendment. This is a text that includes the words:
necessary to the security of a free State
Why has that gottten lost in the debate? I hear all sorts of stupid shit about "fighting tyranny", "rights", "Liberty", and "freedom", but I never hear about the responsibility and obligation that is incumbent upon this right.
That is service in the militia. Not some bullshit "unorganised" militia, which is the quivalent of having a draft card, but actually serving in a legally organised militia unit.
There has been at least two conspiracies to shoot up military bases in the US: Fort Dix and Quantico, VA. U.S. domestic military bases are still "wide open to attack."
Charles Faddis, a 20-year CIA counterterrorism veteran, says:
"If you drive around the United States today, other than security measures in place at airports, you will see very little has changed in the last eight years," said Faddis, who has visited several U.S. military bases in the past year while researching an upcoming book on homeland security, "Willful Neglect".
"We remain wide open to attack. That is true in the nation as a whole, and it is true on military bases as well," said Faddis, 51, who retired in 2008 as chief of the CIA's weapons of mass destruction terrorism unit. Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, he led a counterterrorism team into northern Iraq in search of an al Qaeda base. He has authored two withering critiques of his former employer, most recently "Beyond Repair: The Decline and Fall of the CIA", published last month.
“They know how to secure an installation,” says Faddis. “They are not failing to do so because they do not know what to do. They are failing to do so, because somehow, some way, we have convinced ourselves that an attack cannot happen here.”
"You may have to show a photo ID at some locations, but even that is not always true. Even if you have to show an ID, a civilian driver's license will often suffice," he said. "Most bases remain open to civilian visitors with even the most cursory of explanations for why they are coming on post. "
Even the Fort Meade, Maryland, headquarters for both the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command and the super-sensitive National Security Agency, has porous security, said Faddis, who has visited the sprawling post within the last few weeks. "There are no barriers (at the gate)," he said. "If you want to stop, you do so. If you want to go by the gate and onto the base at 60 miles an hour, you do so.
"Once you are on base," the former CIA official continued, "you go wherever you want. There are no armed guards. There are no checkpoints. There is no visible security. Even entering buildings, the only kind of security you are going to see is the kind designed to deter unauthorized personnel who are trying to sneak in, steal secrets. and sneak back out.
Nothing has been done to restrict access to firearms either. One can walk in to a gun store with a valid drivers licence and walk out with enough firepower to cause serious mayhem. Hey, you can buy enough guns and ammo to start WWIII. There have been mass shootings in the United States for at least 30 year, yet gun laws are becoming laxer, not tighter. The assault weapons ban was crap, but somewhat useful. Even then, it was allowed to lapse and newly made assault weapons can once again be bought,
So, why the fuck are people who should not have access to firearms still buying them legally? Or even acquiring them easily. I mean we lock our houses and cars, but we leave firearms wide open.
The next thing that pisses me off is that people are pointing fingers at everything except what allowed this to happen.
The gun.
Yeah, sure guns are tools. They are highly effective tools for killing. They work quite quickly as the Fort Hood shootings show.
Don't give me any crap about an Army Base being a gun free zone since there was an armed guard who returned fire. They were guns on the base which could have been used to fend off the attack, but a semi-automatic pistol can has a high rate of fire. Unfortunately, people, especially civilians, don't understand that an incident like this can happen quite quickly and result in a high body count before anybody can do anything.
The FN 5.7 holds 20 rounds. In a crowded room it would be easy beyond belief to hit 43 people in a matter of a few SECONDS, say nothing of minutes.
Are you going to tell me that US soldiers are cowards and didn't resist in any way? They just let this psychotic asshole shoot up the military processing center. I don't believe that.
Not to mention someone did return fire, but by that point, the body count had racked up.
Of couse, in this outrage, we also see a backlash against muslims, which also doesn't make sense. The Fort Hood shooter could have been screaming "Kill for Cthulhu". He was a fucking whack job.
His religious pseudofundamentalism is a symptom of his mental illness.
As Zirgar said, do we point out the people who kill abortion doctors are christians? Likewise, do we point out the religion of other mass shooters? How about the asshole who shot up the Holocaust museum, what religion was he? How about the dickhead who gunned down 3 Pittsburgh Officers, what religion was he? How about the Jerkoff who shot up an LA Fitness Centre in Pittsburgh? What religion was he?
No, only this asshole because he is a "muslim".
If this is terrorism, then it is because someone with a firearms shoots up a place we would like to think is secure. But we would like to think streets, shopping malls, supermarkets, schools, universities, fitness centres, and so on are secure. Terrorism is creating a feeling of terror and panic, which mass shootings do create.
The United States has to become like Northern Ireland during the troubles where security checkpoints were ubiquitous and frequent if people are going to demand more guns without restrictions. Even with registration, there should be checkpoints.
It is completely moronic to give terrorists the tools they need to accompllish their goals. Those who block any restrictions, especially if they do it in the name of "fighing tyranny" are complicit in this act.
After all, who defines tyranny? Is it a small minority who feel that they have been wronged? Then why aren't they praising the Fort Hood shooter for standing up against what he saw as tyranny?
No, because that it complete bullshit. So, cut the crap with the Second Amendment being for "fighting tyranny" and "freedom" because somehow our freedom of movement and right to live safely will have to be curtailed. Even if that destruction of liberty is from sheer paralysis about leaving the safety of your own home.
As for the Second Amendment, I have said more than once that it is archaic and its meaning has been lost with the passing of time. The founders would be shaking their heads in disbelief at things which are being said and done regarding "the Second Amendment right". Especially when people say that the Army should be able to "exercise its Second Amendment rights".
No, too much emphasis has been placed upon the phrase "right to keep and bear arms" with neglect of the concept of the "Security of the Free State". The Supreme Court wrote those words out of the Amendment in its DC v. Heller decision, but it is time to revive that concept.
The "right to keep and bear arms" is related to the "Security of the Free State" and those who would allow terrorists, foreign or domestic, access to arms are guilty of treason.
So, where the fuck is the outrage that this shit can happen and why isn't it directed at the ease it can happen?
25 March 2008
Barely has the dust settled...
And SCOTUS is going to hear its first felon in possession case. well, actually it's a challenge to the West Virginia domestic violence statute, but it's the opening salvo in a barrage that will seem like the Battle of the Somme fought with hydrogen bombs.
The problem is that changing the status quo regarding the Second Amendment, especially by setting up some sort of standard of review, will place this issue into a state of flux. I am not sure of where the Court will go in regard to the issue of whether self-defence should be added to the Second Amendment. Justice Roberts did make this comment:
CJ Roberts makes a comment a little later on about the First Amendment picking up baggage over time. Now, adding concepts to the Second Amendment which aren't there and announcing standards will indeed create baggage. Highly unnecessary baggage as far as public safety is concerned. And while the Constitution didn't mention self-defence it did mention insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare, which means it would be against the Constitution to find an individual right to firearms given the cost to society.
At this point, I plan on using the individual right to keep and bear arms in my criminal practise. Mr. Mohammad, my AK-47 toting client may benefit from this sort of decision. As will other criminals, which explains why the NRA, while urging Second Amendment strict scrutiny, thinks Martha Stewart and Lewis Libby have no gun rights. Of course, I agree with Douglas Berman that an individual right means that criminals and terrorists are entitled to guns.
After all, I consider Washington, Hamilton, and the rest of that pack of traitors to be terrorists. They terrorised law abiding British American citizens to either leave home or support their treachery.
So, indeed, Al-queda is entitled to arms whether that be a handgun or a weapon of mass destruction if there is an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Constitution.
The problem is that changing the status quo regarding the Second Amendment, especially by setting up some sort of standard of review, will place this issue into a state of flux. I am not sure of where the Court will go in regard to the issue of whether self-defence should be added to the Second Amendment. Justice Roberts did make this comment:
Well, these various phrases under the different standards that are proposed, "compelling interest," "significant interest," "narrowly tailored," none of them appear in the Constitution; and I wonder why in this case we have to articulate an all-encompassing standard. Isn't it enough to determine the scope of the existing right that the amendment refers to, look at the various regulations that were available at the time, including you can't take the gun to the marketplace and all that, and determine how these -- how this restriction and the scope of this right looks in relation to those?
I'm not sure why we have to articulate some very intricate standard.
CJ Roberts makes a comment a little later on about the First Amendment picking up baggage over time. Now, adding concepts to the Second Amendment which aren't there and announcing standards will indeed create baggage. Highly unnecessary baggage as far as public safety is concerned. And while the Constitution didn't mention self-defence it did mention insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare, which means it would be against the Constitution to find an individual right to firearms given the cost to society.
At this point, I plan on using the individual right to keep and bear arms in my criminal practise. Mr. Mohammad, my AK-47 toting client may benefit from this sort of decision. As will other criminals, which explains why the NRA, while urging Second Amendment strict scrutiny, thinks Martha Stewart and Lewis Libby have no gun rights. Of course, I agree with Douglas Berman that an individual right means that criminals and terrorists are entitled to guns.
After all, I consider Washington, Hamilton, and the rest of that pack of traitors to be terrorists. They terrorised law abiding British American citizens to either leave home or support their treachery.
So, indeed, Al-queda is entitled to arms whether that be a handgun or a weapon of mass destruction if there is an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
