Kerry makes ABSOLUTELY no sense connecting terrorism to firearms sold in U.S.

From the other side of the argument...

Jihad Trainees Urged to Use Lax U.S. Gun Laws to Wage Holy War





Most-Wanted Al Qaeda Fugitive Said Bahaji Utilized Jihad Web Site That Urged Sniper and Assault Weapon Training in United States

Washington, DC: Muslim holy warriors should use lax firearms laws in the United States to get sniper and military assault rifle training according to a jihad training pamphlet posted on a web site that has been used by a most-wanted Al Qaeda fugitive. The Violence Policy Center (VPC) has obtained the full text of the pamphlet, which has also reportedly been found in abandoned terrorist safe houses in Kabul, Afghanistan. The pamphlet informs jihad trainees, "In some countries of the World, especially the USA, firearms training is available to the general public," and that "it is perfectly legal" to obtain weapons such as AK-47 assault rifles. It urges would-be warriors to take advantage of those lax laws and learn firearm fighting skills, especially sniping and assault rifle firing.

Said Bahaji who authorities say helped obtain U.S. visas in Germany for the two pilots who crashed jetliners into the World Trade Center towers on September 11 has been linked as a subscriber to a newsletter published by the pro-jihad site on which the instructions for firearms training in the United States originally appeared. Bahaji has been described as the "brains" of a German terrorist cell that provided direct logistical support for the terrorists who hijacked the jetliners. The site has been cited as supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

"This document and the link to the cold-blooded assassins who carried out the suicide attacks show conclusively that our lax gun laws and our tolerance of the most extreme factions of the gun culture have turned America into a one-stop shopping mall and training playground for terrorists," says Tom Diaz, VPC Senior Policy Analyst. "Since September 11, Americans agree that our country will never be the same and that we must make sacrifices iit is beyond time now for the Bush Administration to grasp this internal terror threat and to insist that its supporters in the National Rifle Association and the gun industry step up and make their share of the sacrifice."

Diaz author of the October 2001 VPC study Voting From the Rooftops: How the Gun Industry Armed Osama bin Laden, Other Foreign and Domestic Terrorists, and Common Criminals with 50 Caliber Sniper Rifles points out that the anonymous authors of the jihad training document `zeroed in' on specific elements of the American gun culture to exploit for military assault- oriented terror training. These include:

Using public firearm training courses. "Some of them are only meant for security personnel but generally they will teach anyone," explains the document. "Find one, book your place, go there, learn, come back home and keep it [to] yourself."



Training for military type combat assaults. The pamphlet advises, "Useful courses to learn are sniping, general shooting and other rifle courses," and specifically discourages handgun training until rifle training is mastered.



Obtaining military style weapons. "t is perfectly legal for members of the public to own certain types of firearms" such as assault rifles. "[O]btain an assault rifle legally, preferably AK-47 or variations, learn how to use it properly," urges the paper.



Avoiding illegal trading in firearms. "Respect the laws of the country you are in and avoid dealing in illegal firearms," warns the document. "One can learn to operate many arms legally, so there is no need to spend years in prison for dealing in small, illegal firearms."



Diaz adds that two recent VPC studies warn about the very points made in the terrorist documents. Voting from the Rooftops and the earlier One Shot, One Kill revealed that 50 caliber sniper rifles which can penetrate armor plate, destroy materiel infrastructure, down helicopters, and when loaded with armor-piercing incendiary ammunition explode high-volume fuel tanks and hazardous chemical storage tanks and pipelines can be purchased more easily than handguns in the U.S. Twenty-five of the weapons were purchased by the Al Qaeda terror network in the U.S. in the 1980s.


Ordinary Americans and terrorists alike can train to use 50 caliber sniper rifles and other weapons of war at the more than 1,800 shooting ranges in the United States some of which are on federal land. The nonchalant attitude in the U.S. that the terrorists are exploiting is illustrated in a December 2001 Guns & Ammo article entitled "Four .50s to Fool With." The article asks, "Do you need a .50 BMG rifle? Probably not. But in America that's not the issue. Nor should it be." The author brags about test firing the guns at the Angeles Shooting Range north of Los Angeles.


"These terrorists' own words starkly document that to prevent terrorism America must address its own weak gun laws," states Diaz. "We leave Americans at deadly risk if we fail to do so. This chilling new information presents the NRA and its gun industry cohorts with a stark choice: support America or support terror."

http://www.vpc.org/press/0111jihad.htm

 

"But remember kiddies....when you buy drugs, you're supporting terrorism".


H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e

 

Let me try to explain.
Kerry is pushing for the assault weapons ban under the banner of "the war against terrorism". Using the war on terror in helping achieve other political agendas is nothing new, as we have seen Bush push for an Iraq war under the same banner when there was more evidence to suggest Iraq didn't have WMD's than there was evidence that they did. If UN Weapon Inspectors search and can't find them it suggests that there are no WMD's, more than taking Chalabi as your only source and using sketchy and minimal evidence to push a full out war. I think the best evidence that Bush had for Saddam having WMD's is... "Saddam is a bad man! After all, he tried to kill my daddy!"
The difference is that Kerry makes more sense in pushing for an assault weapons ban. We are obviously safer with the ban than without. Simply because terrorists can get their hands on these weapons doesn't mean that we should end the ban all together. That is like saying, since some people can find ways to get cocaine, we should end the ban on cocaine all together. This only makes getting cocaine easier and makes cocaine use go higher, just like ending the assault ban makes getting these horrible weapons easier and the use of these types of weapons higher.
And why would we want these weapons to be more attainable? They do not serve a good purpose for hunting or self-defense.

Seeing that there is no purpose to have these guns around other than to provoke extreme violence, and seeing that making these types of weapons more easily attainable also makes them more easily attainable for terrorists or criminals, I believe Kerry is right to criticize Bush for allowing the ban to expire. If terrorism is supposed to be the #1 issue of the day as Bush exclaims, allowing the ban to expire would only HELP terrorists. Terrorists aren't simply just Al-Queda members but those who might sympathize with them. This includes the kid who stole a small plane and crashed it. Making it easier for such a novice to attain weapons like these only makes America more dangerous.

But you are right. Let's be honest here. Kerry's push for the ban is more about domestic crime than terrorism but Kerry is still right in that this helps terrorists.
And no, Kerry is not hypocritical for being a hunter and posing with a rifle. The author is not very perceptive if he failed to undertand that there is a distinction between guns that are used for hunting (ex. rifles), and guns that are used for for self-defense (ex. handguns) and guns that are more suitable for a Columbine massacre (ex assault weapons). This distinction is important and being unable to make this distinction means the author should go back to high school.
As for the author claiming that pushing for gun bans hurts in the election, this may or may not be true. What does it matter? We were talking about whether this serves terrorism, not the election, what do the two have to do with each other? But I'll play this author's game...1) This does not hurt Kerry in the election necessarily. Gore's position was more radical than Kerry's position. And also, we are living in different times since 9/11 and weapons and guns are viewed differently. I think Kerry's position against assault weapons will help him with many undecided voters that care about the war on terror 2) Whether it helps him in the election or not has nothing to do with the main question the author is writing about, on whether this helps terrorism or not. I believe I have shown that it can only help terrorists.
And finally, the last unsupported and irrational claim the author uses in order to further his idea is that crime went down not because of the ban but because law enforcement got TOUGH ON CRIME. (I love that expression) 1) I believe there is MUCH more evidence to suggest that crime plunged primarily because the baby boomers got older, rather than getting tough on crime. 2) I'm sure "getting tough on crime" (as in spending more money for more police officers etc) helped reduce crime but there is no reason to think that gun bans did not help either. 3) An assault weapons ban is not meant to reduce the AMOUNT of crime, but rather the degree of violence in crime.
In conclusion, there is simply no good reason to have these types of guns. I'm sure if you grasp real hard you can find something as a positive but any little positive you find in assault weapons is outweighed by enormous negative drawbacks.

 

[sorry for the derail]
Actually, anyone in America who wants cocaine can get it, especially kids. Ending the prohibition of cocaine would make it easier for adults to get it, but could make it nigh on impossible for kids to get, which would have the long term effect of reducing overall cocaine use.

Kind of like how when demand for a product is elastic, you can raise total revenue by reducing your prices. It goes against intuition, but it is the truth.
[/sorry for the derail]

 

Who else *besides* criminals and terrorists would need a freaking AK47?

(besides the Jazz)

 

Hunters who want to mount a moosehead on their wall.

A moosehead with 200 bulletholes in it.

 

When I was coming up with the analogy, I said to myself, I bet andymoon is going to take issue with this, but I went along with it anyway In college, there are people I knew that do coke, but it still is relatively hard to get.
This isn't derailing the issue though, andymoon. It's actually a good point you bring up. What if a pro- assault weapon guy uses your stance on the analogy. Assault weapons be available only to adults with the right permit, like coke available only to adults. My take is this: If coke is easily attainable by adults, it would be easy for an adult to buy it and sell straight to a kids hand. If adult means 21, then once you're a junior in college you can start sellin to the freshman and sophmores.
Likewise, if these guns are easily available to certain people, if there is a demand from other people, it will just create a better and stronger black market. Yes, there is already a black market available but this would make it even harder to restrain. Because now the illegal product is being sold within the borders and then sold illegally in the black market rather than having to come from across the border and checkpoints and then going to the black market. So as you can tell, I believe your answer to the cocaine problem would only strenghen the black market and make it more easily attainable for kids, just as doing the same thing for assault weapons would make these weapons more easily attainable for the wrong people.
We can talk about the drugs without derailing the thread as long as we keep relating it to the analogy.

 

You don't care for the VPC as a source, I won't quote them again (if I remember...)

How about the nation?

Guns 'R' U.S.


by DAVID MONTERO


[from the December 2, 2002 issue]


Terrorists and gun smugglers like to buy guns in America because of the abundant inventory at gun shops and gun shows, and the laxity of US gun-law enforcement. Here are a few examples:


§ Venezuela In July a Venezuelan national and a US citizen placed an order for 150,000 rounds of AK-47 ammunition at a single gun shop in Miami. Although it is legal to buy ammunition in the United States, exporting it requires a special license, which the smugglers did not have. Instead, they listed the cargo as AAA batteries and tried to ship it to Venezuela, which is known to be a source of arms smuggled into Colombia for paramilitary and rebel groups. US Customs arrested the two men after receiving a tip from the gun shop.


§ Haiti Florida is also popular with Haitian gun smugglers. According to the ATF's Miami office, 25 percent of its gun-smuggling cases in the past two years have involved guns destined for Haiti, making it the number-one foreign destination for guns trafficked out of the area. One bust in 1995 uncovered 15,000 rounds of ammunition and 260 firearms, purchased from gun dealers in Fort Lauderdale. In another incident, two men were arrested after they stuffed 110 semiautomatic pistols inside turkey carcasses and tried to ship them to Haiti, which has long harbored paramilitary groups and death squads. The guns had been legally purchased from gun shops in Pompano Beach.


§ IRA In July 1999 an Irish postal worker uncovered a smuggling operation that involved guns mailed from the United States to members of the Irish Republican Army. An ensuing investigation by British police and the FBI intercepted forty-six handguns and 600 rounds of ammunition, all legally purchased at gun dealerships in Florida. Siobhan Browne, a suspect whom the Irish press dubbed the IRA "Mata Hari," told authorities that a gun-shop owner in Florida agreed not to file required ATF paperwork for a fee of $50 per gun. Another suspect, Conor Claxton, who confessed that the weapons were intended for possible use against Northern Ireland's police, said the IRA chose South Florida because of its lax gun laws and its abundant gun shops.


§ Hezbollah Although a convicted felon, Ali Boumelhem was able to acquire several weapons by purchasing them at gun shows in Michigan (background checks are not required at shows in that state). He was preparing to ship them to Lebanon when he was arrested by ATF and FBI agents. FBI agents believed that the weapons were destined for Hezbollah, since they had earlier seen Boumelhem in a videotape declaring his allegiance to the group. Boumelhem was eventually convicted in March 2002 on seven arms and conspiracy charges, and sentenced to forty-four months in federal prison.


§ Al-Fuqra Members of Al-Fuqra, a US-based organization linked to numerous terrorist attacks, exploited gun-law loopholes in Virginia to acquire a small arsenal of weapons. As a convicted felon, Vincente Pierre couldn't legally purchase a firearm, so he had his wife, Traci Upshur, buy guns for him. The "straw purchase" was videotaped in 1998 by ATF agents, who were gathering evidence against members of Al-Fuqra as part of a wide-scale investigation. It wasn't until after September 11, however, that the two were finally arrested, in what US Attorney John Brownlee characterized as a new policy of "prevent first and prosecute second." Another Al-Fuqra member, Bilal Abdullah ben Benu, lied about his criminal past when purchasing firearms in 1999. Like Pierre and Upshur, Benu had been under surveillance by ATF long before September 11, and was quickly arrested afterward.


§ ELN Colombian arms dealers ran a smuggling operation out of Florida in the late 1990s that supplied weapons to members of the National Liberation Army, a major guerrilla group in Colombia. When Colombian intelligence officials seized a trove of assault rifles headed to the rebel group, ATF agents helped traced them to gun shops in Miami. The agents believe that the smugglers purchased as many as 600 assault rifles, which they concealed as machine parts and shipped to Colombia on cargo flights.

This really goes towards a trend... more to come. link

 

Dude, you need to post more often. This was a very respectful and well-reasoned response. We need more of that in this forum!

 

I hate to betray my liberalness...but I am a gun owner and the AW Ban did NOTHING to make us any safer except for restricting hig-cap pistol mags.

All of the weapons that were "banned" are still easily attainable, still imprted in whole or parts from other countries, and just about common-place anywhere in the country. I can go order a BRAND NEW AK-47 from Romania for about 300 bucks, "waller-out" the mag-well, where the magazine attaches to the receiver, and stuff a perfectly legal BEFORE and AFTER the ban, 30 round or even 75 round magazine

Now--If we are talking a full-on ban, as in NO assualt weapons are legal grandfathered or not, that might make some difference. But on U.S. soil, it's handguns that will ALWAYS be the number-one killer and I'm ALL for tough hand-gun laws...

 

I'm very much on the fence about gun control. I tend to think that gun control should be determined by local authorities. What works in rural Vermont, for example, won't work in downtown Houston.

I'll never own a gun, but I don't necessarily have a problem with someone having a handgun in their nightstand or gun cabinet.

I just don't think automatic assault weapons are in the same category. These guns seem very impractical for self-defense, hunting or any other legal activity, but *very* practical for crime and terror.

 

It's true that people found loopholes in the AW ban. The authors of the AW ban realized this and hoped that it can be fixed. But when Bush allows the ban to expire, it is not to create a new and better ban, but to remove a ban of AW all together. You are probably right that this specific AW ban is probably crap. But if it was an outright ban, it would never have gotten passed. Compromises are made within the legislation in order to get votes and then you'll get loopholes. Unfortunately, I don't think we can debate and discuss the specific legislation because this is a game that our legislators play in order to pass bills.
The bigger issue, though, is whether we should have a type of AW ban or not. You seem to agree that there ought to be some kind of ban, whether it is effective or not is up to the abilities of our legislators.
I don't understand how one can argue against a ban of AW guns. These guns are not for hunting or self-defense. One might say, "the 2nd Amendment gives us this right to bear arms! Therefore the Founding Fathers would be against any such ban." But the right to bear arms is not absolute. (Not even the 1st Amendment is absolute) If the 2nd Amendment was absolute then nuclear "arms" and heavy explosives would be allowed. There is obviously a line drawn somewhere. A distinction is made between what weapons fall under the second Amendment and what weapons do not serve the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Like I've said many times, AW's do not serve this purpose because they are not for hunting or self-defense.
Yet, I do not know how those against the AW ban can sit there with a straight face and tell me that there are good reasons to allow AW's. I don't have any proof of this, but the only way I can see it is that I guess you fall into a few categories: either you are a gun enthusiast who loves to play with your guns and don't care that AW's are bad for society... you just want to play with some cool weapons. Or, you represent the weapon industry and are special interest...or you think enforcing a AW ban to any extent is IMPOSSIBLE and so we might as well allow them outright. The best argument they have is that it is impossible to restrain this weapons market, but I think my analogy above destroys this argument. The rest of the reasons above are not even satisfactory. WE NEED AN AW BAN! There's seems to be no other way around it.
Why we still have to debate this, I don't know.... the gun lobby is very powerful and I assume that Bush is playing to a special interest. What makes things worse is that conservatives and republicans who don't even care about getting rid of the ban, defend Bush vehemently just because he's on the Republican ticket and they have to defend "their guy."
It's very much like Iraq, many republicans still refuse to admit that Iraq was a mistake, despite overwhelming, "hands down" evidence that it was. They refuse to admit it was a mistake just because they don't want to admit they are wrong. If defending your party has come to such self-deceit, then we are truly in a sad state of affairs. How does democracy work when the people do not use "reason" to decide their affairs but rather party affiliation?
There's a time when someone must admit that they are simply wrong. There's is nothing embarassing about being wrong. Admitting being wrong is the first step to fixing your error. America can be a better place if we can see the flaws within the political parties that represent us, and be brave enough to voice against them.

 

GreenVegan, I believe the D&D forum can attract fresh and informative voices if the hate and "poo flinging" subside. This forum can be something special if you can draw out the independents to talk. The only reason I decided to post is because I saw less poo-flinging today than usual and decided to give the forum I try. If it returns though, all rational debate is destroyed and I would probably leave again. So if we want to make this forum better and more informative, a new approach must be taken where insults and attacks do not dictate the arguments. I'm not saying you are involved in this, but I'm saying that we call can make sure that whenever such hatefilled attacks do come up, that we not encourage them or point out the poo flinging being done in the post and not respond to them.

 

Dear Roxran,

I won't respond to your every point you make because I think I can respond to most of it by making a general claim. I believe we are miscommunicating. Its my fault actually, I never specified. I really don't care about this specific AW ban. It is not a good piece of legislation. What I'm trying to say is that a good and effective AW ban is needed though and I believe it is possible if the legislators do it sincerely and pro AW people do not compromise the legislation and make it ineffective.
It seems that most of your complaints with AW Bans seem to be about their legislation and not really the idea of banning these guns. Although you are against the idea of a ban, your good and supported claims have to do with the specific legislation. There are inherent contradictions as wouldabeen pointed out. Plus, I bet there are guns that should not be banned under the legislation and guns that ought to be banned that were not.
You are right, the legislation stinks, but do you think it is IMPOSSIBLE to create an effective legislation that supports my views? I think it is very possible. We just need our politicians to be aboard and not try to compromise the legislation, thus making it ineffective.
I don't want to get into specifics because it is unnecessary and would only muck up this thread. The idea I'm touting is that there needs to be SOME KIND of ban. I'm sure you can come up with certain exceptions of guns that are good for self-defense, but it does not defeat the idea that there needs to be some kind of ban on the guns that serve no purpose for defense or hunting?

If I missed anything you would like me to address, just tell me but I think I addressed the gist of your argument. (you brought up many points, I'm not sure which ones were the most important to you)

 

Not that I disagree, but more people are killed by bare hands each year than with assault weapons...should we outlaw our hands? I guess my question would be where does it stop, and what's next, an outlaw of knives?

 

Yes, there are other causes of death that we cannot ban. Think of it in a manner of utility. Hands, knives and guns can cause death, correct. But the positives of our hands and knives outweight the negatives. There are certain guns that have a more positive purpose, handguns and rifles can be used for hunting and self-defense.... An oozi on the other hand, I think it is obvious that an oozi's dangers outweighs the purpose for such a gun. If someone seriously wants to tell me that you use an oozi for self-defense, then I'll tell that person that there are better guns that can accomplish the goal of self-defense or hunting, than an oozi. What we're trying to do is ban the guns that serve no purpose in defending one self or hunting. Our hands serve many purposes that we need them for, same with knives. Some of these AW's though, serve no purpose other than a bit of fun at a shooting gallery or something and thus they ought to be banned in my opinion.
Once again, this is not an attack on someone's rights because the oozi is unnecessary and is not central to one's self-defense or hunting hobby.