ISIS- American loose gun laws make terrorism easier for us (1 Viewer)

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I first heard about it on the Rachel Maddow show. That's what she said. 

In any case, doesn't it make sense to you that ISIS would use our gun laws to their advantage? 

So the article actually mitigates against what Rachel Maddow said.  Just to get that clear. This leaves open the question as to whether this is misinformation or information intended to sow discontent.

Does it make sense to me that our gun laws allow guns to be more or less readily obtained, absolutely.  Do I think terrorist would or do take advantage of that, absolutely.  Do I see much evidence that guns are difficult to obtain where suppressed by law or economics, no not really.  Those that want them get them, from third world dictators in countries that do not have the resources to provide drinking water to gangland thugs with felony records.

Do I believe it is past time for reform in this country, yes.  I continuously advocate for constitutional reform on this issue.  I continuously oppose ignoring that process for expediency.  BTW, that expediency has never come about in any real measure, but we have damaged respect for the rule of law when we attempt it, and even if it does come about it turns out that is temporary, and reversible, and that folks work until they get that reversal.  it is past time for arguments that only entrench sides opposed to each other and time for fresh approaches, approaches that may forge consent, probably based around concessions for assurances, not concessions for unconfirmed future trust and goodwill.

 

[krsone21]

Sorry but I strongly doubt that. Against an axe you can run away.  

Unless he is faster then you or they can always throw the axe at you, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyO-97mRNwU

 

[Ministry of Pain]

So let's allow the terrorists to shape American policy in the States?

I'm going to expect an apology from you Tim...not to me but everyone. 

How can you recruit votes for Clinton with this rhetoric? You're voting for Trump, just admit it. 

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Look, I know none of you want to do anything that is going to restrict your own right to own guns. I respect that. Honestly I don't want to do that either. I'd just like to keep the terrorists from getting them. Is there a reasonable way to accomplish this without restricting your rights (or the rights of innocent people that are confused for terrorists?) I'm all ears. 

I'm  in favor of super strict gun laws and I'm OK if I don't qualify under the new guidelines. If you own a gun already and do not qualify on whatever the new more strict gun buying policy is, you can still own that gun to protect your home and family but you won't be carrying it into a public place less you lose it permanently.

I'm simplifying but you get the general idea. Some of the folks who might own guns now can still own them but much stricter guidelines for folks carrying them anywhere deemed public. 

 

[Nick Vermeil]

Depends on whether I'm carrying or not.

No it doesn't.

 

[Sconch]

I'm going to expect an apology from you Tim...not to me but everyone. 

No words

 

[Ministry of Pain]

No words

Tip of the hat will do fine, no need to verbalize. 

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I'd pay $9.99 to see an MOP v Tim televised debate. 

 

[Zegras11]

Coming from a guy who's side loves to talk about fear mongering right wingers, this thread is humorous. 

Tim-monger 

 

[tommyboy]

Besides Saints, I have no solutions to offer here (besides the one I mentioned). I posted that article because I thought it was worth discussing. Draw your own conclusions. 

I think it's more psy-ops than reality.

Reality is that ISIS is attacking Europe and the middle East far more often and effectively than the US . And our massive amounts of armed citizens makes it harder for them to go unopposed here, I think we're a harder target.

 

[tommyboy]

Look, I know none of you want to do anything that is going to restrict your own right to own guns. I respect that. Honestly I don't want to do that either. I'd just like to keep the terrorists from getting them. Is there a reasonable way to accomplish this without restricting your rights (or the rights of innocent people that are confused for terrorists?) I'm all ears. 

Enforce existing laws, secure all borders and ports , drastically reduce immigration

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I think it's more psy-ops than reality.

Reality is that ISIS is attacking Europe and the middle East far more often and effectively than the US . And our massive amounts of armed citizens makes it harder for them to go unopposed here, I think we're a harder target.

We are a harder target because of geography, you can't just walk across the Arctic Circle and arrive in the U.S. 

Having armed citizens has nothing to do with the U.S. being a "hard target" but people like you like to believe that to be true.  Your government protects you from foreign enemies, Billy Joe Jim Bob doesn't.  HTH

 

[Ministry of Pain]

If ISIS told you wolverines made good house pets, would you believe them?

 

[tommyboy]

We are a harder target because of geography, you can't just walk across the Arctic Circle and arrive in the U.S. 

Having armed citizens has nothing to do with the U.S. being a "hard target" but people like you like to believe that to be true.  Your government protects you from foreign enemies, Billy Joe Jim Bob doesn't.  HTH

Ok, sheriff Roscoe

 

[Doctor Detroit]

We are a harder target because of geography, you can't just walk across the Arctic Circle and arrive in the U.S. 

Having armed citizens has nothing to do with the U.S. being a "hard target" but people like you like to believe that to be true.  Your government protects you from foreign enemies, Billy Joe Jim Bob doesn't.  HTH

Ok, sheriff Roscoe

Can't argue the point, make an unfunny joke.  Tommyboy 101, ISIS is scared of a Portland suburb because you might try to run them over with your Rascal.  

 

[tommyboy]

Why would I argue with you? You're obviously right all the time, on every topic. Who said I was trying to be funny? Have a good night, chief

 

[cstu]

Actually what I wrote back then is that I feared it would inflame radical Muslims, which though they are less prominent here rather than elsewhere, are still here and are still a threat. I don't believe the vast majority of American Muslims are dangerous. 

But that has nothing to do with this story, which I found interesting and scary. I am not making any proposals as a result of it. I simply thought it was worth reading and discussing. 

If someone is actually a dedicated member of ISIS then they have access to plans for IEDs and other explosives.  Far scarier than an AK47 imo.  Did we already forget about Boston?

 

[cstu]

'The government has found you potentially dangerous. Therefore you have been deprived of the full use of your rights because the Constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions for security.'

>shameful

As Obama said, he can right now deprive anyone of their right to fly but not of their right to buy deadly weapons.  Are you against the no fly list as well?  And losing the right to fly is far more infringing on personal freedom than not being able to buy a gun.

 

[cstu]

Why would I argue with you? You're obviously right all the time, on every topic. Who said I was trying to be funny? Have a good night, chief

It's morning here, pal.

 

[cstu]

Look, I know none of you want to do anything that is going to restrict your own right to own guns. I respect that. Honestly I don't want to do that either. I'd just like to keep the terrorists from getting them. Is there a reasonable way to accomplish this without restricting your rights (or the rights of innocent people that are confused for terrorists?) I'm all ears. 

Give the government the right to put people on a 'no buy' list as they do the 'no fly' list.

 

[Jrodicus]

Hypothetically, if you were unfortunate enough to be at a rail station where a terrorist decides he wants to go jihad, would you prefer them attack with an axe or an AR-15?   

Which would you prefer using to defend yourself?

 

[Captain Cranks]

Regardless of where you come down on the gun debate, it sounds like our efforts to block potential terrorists from entering the country are working on some level.  That flies in the face of those (Trump) who argue that the Obama administration is "doing nothing".  

 

[John Bender]

Although our gun laws need to be examined and changed this is a terrible article essentially boiling down to: "It's easier for terrorists to buy guns in a country where it's easier to buy guns." No ####? Pulitzer worthy. 

 

[[icon]]

Ok so 1st Amendment - no speech inflaming radicalizable Muslims - down.

2nd Amendment - radicalizable Muslims can't get guns - down.

3rd Amendment - NSA can spy on radicalizable Muslims in their home - down.

4th Amendment - FBI can surveil radicalizable Muslims and put them on watch lists - down.

Keep going.

This post broke all my likes 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

We are a harder target because of geography, you can't just walk across the Arctic Circle and arrive in the U.S. 

Having armed citizens has nothing to do with the U.S. being a "hard target" but people like you like to believe that to be true.  Your government protects you from foreign enemies, Billy Joe Jim Bob doesn't.  HTH

You left out Cooter. How do you think that makes him feel?

 

[matuski]

Tim starting a thread using fear of ISIS/terrorism as a tool to manipulate gun regulation... no different from the fear mongering qualities he rails against on the Right.

You just failed your own litmus test tim.  

 

[The Commish]

So, if I'm reading correctly, and I'm probably not (seems like a lot of the typical "when I said X I meant Y" stuff is missing or has yet to come) but if I am, are we to believe ISIS would really allow any variation of "Damn, the US has some really tough gun laws.  We can't go there now" is entering their mindset?

 

[timschochet]

So, if I'm reading correctly, and I'm probably not (seems like a lot of the typical "when I said X I meant Y" stuff is missing or has yet to come) but if I am, are we to believe ISIS would really allow any variation of "Damn, the US has some really tough gun laws.  We can't go there now" is entering their mindset?

No. The article implies that our current  gun laws make it easier for them. That's it. Anything else, including the question of what if anything we should do about it, is open to discussion. 

 

[The Commish]

No. The article implies that our current  gun laws make it easier for them. That's it. Anything else, including the question of what if anything we should do about it, is open to discussion. 

Not sure I buy this.  Here's why.  Let's say there are 300 million weapons in this country.  Based on today's gun laws 85% of them are "legal" under the law and 15% are "illegal" under the law.  We pass stricter laws.  All we've done in passing the laws is shift those percentages.

Another thought....if it's "easy" for them, why aren't we seeing more and more attacks by ISIS in the US?  All seems like a bunch of poorly thought out  If there is anything that contributes to it being "easier" to them, it's the culture we live in and how we view guns as a populace, but even that's a stretch IMO.

 

[timschochet]

Not sure I buy this.  Here's why.  Let's say there are 300 million weapons in this country.  Based on today's gun laws 85% of them are "legal" under the law and 15% are "illegal" under the law.  We pass stricter laws.  All we've done in passing the laws is shift those percentages.

Another thought....if it's "easy" for them, why aren't we seeing more and more attacks by ISIS in the US?  All seems like a bunch of poorly thought out  If there is anything that contributes to it being "easier" to them, it's the culture we live in and how we view guns as a populace, but even that's a stretch IMO.

I suspect that we don't see more attacks for different reasons. The main one being that we have far less radical Muslims here than Europe because we have done a far better job than Europe of integrating Muslims into our society- we have far more families like the Khans and far less like the San Bernardino killers. 

That being said, as we've all learned, it only takes one or two. 

 

[The Commish]

Not sure I buy this.  Here's why.  Let's say there are 300 million weapons in this country.  Based on today's gun laws 85% of them are "legal" under the law and 15% are "illegal" under the law.  We pass stricter laws.  All we've done in passing the laws is shift those percentages.

Another thought....if it's "easy" for them, why aren't we seeing more and more attacks by ISIS in the US?  All seems like a bunch of poorly thought out  If there is anything that contributes to it being "easier" to them, it's the culture we live in and how we view guns as a populace, but even that's a stretch IMO.

I suspect that we don't see more attacks for different reasons. The main one being that we have far less radical Muslims here than Europe because we have done a far better job than Europe of integrating Muslims into our society- we have far more families like the Khans and far less like the San Bernardino killers. 

That being said, as we've all learned, it only takes one or two. 

This is different than the initial premise.  The initial premise was "ease" of ISIS achieving attacks here in the US because of our gun laws

 

[[icon]]

I'm certain this is ISIS sincerely trying to give us a heads-up, and help us out.

I mean, Art of War 101 says "When you're enemy's actions make them vulnerable to you, you let them know about this weakness immediately" 

 

[32 Counter Pass]

Propaganda - got you hook, line and sinker. No wonder you support Democrats.

Yup, propaganda is a one way street that only the Dems engage in. 

 

[ATC1]

In which scenario would you rather your opponent have an AR-15 instead of an axe?

Time for my soap box again.   In a room of 100 people, I would rather 10 citizens trained to use a self defense carried handgun where the shooter has no idea who is carrying or where those people are. You start putting up signs saying those 10 people can not carry that leaves 100 easy targets for ISIS. If you want to say there should be more training neccessary to carry, then where do I sign up? I'm all for more saftey and training as this will be a responsibility that would be under a microscope by those for stricter gun control. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I will make one observation here.  Me personally, I doubt the ability of others to use their weapons in defense of me or mine in a crowded public place in an emergency scenario, and with the confusion that engenders.  I think folks tend to overestimate their abilities.  Sort of like everyone believing they are a good driver when in practice that is probably not so. 

Regardless, I find arguments about self defense, defense of others, and hunting rights to be a red herring when discussing the second amendment. They may be parameters we look at for an adjusted or amended second amendment, but they have nothing to do with why our founders preserved for us the right to bear arms.

 

[tone1oc]

Which would you prefer using to defend yourself?

I've never felt I needed an axe or an AR-15 to defend myself.  I'm not a beta though. 

 

[JNox3]

http://elitedaily.com/news/politics/isis-america-loose-gun-laws-advantage/1572226/

Scary stuff. 

That lady in your photo is hot!!

This is new right.   Who is she and why do you have her as your photo?

 

[zDragon]

Because you are making the point that terrorists use other weapons, as if it's the same thing.  You know that guns and especially (semi)automatic guns with high capacity magazines which are quite easy to get ahold of in the USA makes a terrorists job a whole lot easier.  

Apparently so do trucks which are much easier to get. 

 

[timschochet]

Apparently so do trucks which are much easier to get. 

Is a truck much easier to purchase than a gun? 

My understanding is that I can go to a gun show with some cash in hand and buy whatever kind of gun I want, without any ID. I certainly can't obtain a truck without ID. 

 

[JNox3]

Is a truck much easier to purchase than a gun? 

My understanding is that I can go to a gun show with some cash in hand and buy whatever kind of gun I want, without any ID. I certainly can't obtain a truck without ID. 

You could if you steal one.

 

[bleachercreacher]

Is a truck much easier to purchase than a gun? 

My understanding is that I can go to a gun show with some cash in hand and buy whatever kind of gun I want, without any ID. I certainly can't obtain a truck without ID. 

Your understanding is wrong in the 3 states I've lived in.  ID and background check required.

 

[timschochet]

Your understanding is wrong in the 3 states I've lived in.  ID and background check required.

At a gun show? From a private dealer? 

 

[zDragon]

Look, I know none of you want to do anything that is going to restrict your own right to own guns. I respect that. Honestly I don't want to do that either. I'd just like to keep the terrorists from getting them. Is there a reasonable way to accomplish this without restricting your rights (or the rights of innocent people that are confused for terrorists?) I'm all ears. 

Unless you ban guns world-wide they can get them when ever they want.  Pretty sure they will not obey our laws when seeking them out.

If you ban guns world-wide there will still be people making them underground so they will still get guns.

 

[bleachercreacher]

At a gun show? From a private dealer? 

Private dealer is different, but guns at a gun show require ID and a background check if bought from a vendor. 

 

[The Commish]

I've never been asked for an ID buying a truck from a friend, friend of a friend or a junk yard....pretty easy to get.  I have no idea why any of this ####ing matters, but just thought I'd throw it out there  

 

[zDragon]

Time for my soap box again.   In a room of 100 people, I would rather 10 citizens trained to use a self defense carried handgun where the shooter has no idea who is carrying or where those people are. You start putting up signs saying those 10 people can not carry that leaves 100 easy targets for ISIS. If you want to say there should be more training neccessary to carry, then where do I sign up? I'm all for more saftey and training as this will be a responsibility that would be under a microscope by those for stricter gun control. 

I agree that any one owning a gun legally should have to be licensed and go through training.    I think that is where we make a good improvement in gun deaths.

As far as this thread goes.  Writing a law to keep a criminal from getting one is not going to work.  They will get one if they want one.

 

[sublimeone]

If we are going to eliminate the 2nd Amendment let's do it on our own terms. Let's not take away freedoms from law abiding citizens because people who want to take our freedoms away are able to use freedoms this country affords to more conveniently carry out terrorism thereby convincing the feeble-minded to willingly give up freedoms in an attempt to thwart future terrorism... because then the terrorist have won.

 

[dickey moe]

It also makes it a lot easier for us to shoot back.

 

[ATC1]

I will make one observation here.  Me personally, I doubt the ability of others to use their weapons in defense of me or mine in a crowded public place in an emergency scenario, and with the confusion that engenders.  I think folks tend to overestimate their abilities.  Sort of like everyone believing they are a good driver when in practice that is probably not so. 

Regardless, I find arguments about self defense, defense of others, and hunting rights to be a red herring when discussing the second amendment. They may be parameters we look at for an adjusted or amended second amendment, but they have nothing to do with why our founders preserved for us the right to bear arms.

Meh. Ok, sure there is a chance in a mass shooting that someone will accidently get shot by the armed citizen.  Since I am not aiming at that person it would have to be a unlucky shot to be leathal. I am distracting the shooter to give others a chance to flee.  I like to think that as a result the armed citizen is saving more lives. Last, if the armed citizen gets killed it's one less gun nut to worry about. 

If I'm ISIS, I'm continuing my targets to be bars, workplaces, schools etc.  Places with strict gun laws the targets seem to be other places, public streets where many people gather, malls, concerts.  Those are places where if allowed by the owner, I can carry. 

The 2nd ammendment is a totally different argument that has been rehashed over and over. 

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Is it possible we citizens could get a list of folks who have voluntarily stated to the FBI that ISIS is controlling them? That is the word tonight with our little airport boy but he may also have gotten into an argument on the plane ride so who knows?

But we do know don't we?