Joined
·
214 Posts
The Second Amendment was specifically designed to help us fight all enemies, foreign and domestic. That most especially includes terrorists.Bill of Rights said:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
And even though terrorists don't mind being killed, there's a saying for that too:Capt. Todd Brown said:The only thing they understand is force.
I was not kicking our ally while they're down. There is nothing they could have done to prevent this, and there never will be. The only hope people have of protecting themseleves, no matter where they live, is to be prepared/equipped for a terrorist act, and by being armed. If you saw a Muslim turd laying bombs in the subway, wouldn't you want to take care of business immediately? Or would you rather wait 5 mintues for the cops to show up, long after the train is down the tube?Sgt. Major Henry Bergeron said:This is the Perfect War. They want to die, and we want to kill them.
With all due respect, Sir, whether you like it or not crime of any kind is always about gun control to a certain degree.Recoil said:A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
Yes of course I'd take action, but terrorists don't usually walk around carrying a box with a ticking clock taped to itIf you saw a Muslim turd laying bombs in the subway, wouldn't you want to take care of business immediately? Or would you rather wait 5 mintues for the cops to show up, long after the train is down the tube?
Haha, okay fair enough. But regardless, you know it now.pittbug said:Actually I don't remember the second amendment, it wasn't part of my English schooling![]()
Undercover London Armed Police shot a man today while he was attempting to commit yet another terrorist act. This is proof positive that terrorists do in fact "walk around carrying a box with a ticking clock taped to it." Silly jokes aside, when someone is acting suspiciously, it's usally pretty obvious if you're paying attention. And when that someone pulls something out of a bag and affixes it to a train or a bus, you can bet your sweet behind that he's not circumventing the postal service by delivering a package to grandma across town who will pull it off the side of the vehicle at another station. :?pittbug said:Yes of course I'd take action, but terrorists don't usually walk around carrying a box with a ticking clock taped to itRecoil said:If you saw a Muslim turd laying bombs in the subway, wouldn't you want to take care of business immediately? Or would you rather wait 5 mintues for the cops to show up, long after the train is down the tube?![]()
This keenly illustrates the difference between American culture and the soft culture you were indoctrinated with from birth. We Americans are a culture that mostly embraces personal responsiblity (even though our legal system is screwed up and doesn't adequately punish criminals, don't measure our society by that). We are not the kinds who like to sit idly by as bad things happen. When we are faced with a situation like that, we feel desperate.pittbug said:I think most people would prefer to wait the 5 minutes for trained LEO's to handle the situation than face the possibility that they just took down an innocent person.
The terrorist walked out of a house which was under surveilance wearing a bulging coat and either carrying a handgun or had something under his coat with wires sticking out (there are varying reports) then didn't respond to Police commands. This one was pretty obvious, but look at the pictures that have been released of the other people which need to be tracked down:Recoil said:Undercover London Armed Police shot a man today while he was attempting to commit yet another terrorist act. This is proof positive that terrorists do in fact "walk around carrying a box with a ticking clock taped to it."
If someone pulled a device out of a bag that would be obvious... but these were regular looking backpacks probably left under a seat. On the London underground it gets quite crowded during the morning rush, as you can imagine, so people with bags either stowe them on overhead shelves, on laps or under their seats. When the train pulls to a stop and people ready themselves to get out, everyone is so focussed on picking which door to exit through and then which is the fastest way out of the station that noone would noticed if a backpack was left under a seat. This is what makes the London underground an ideal target for terrorists. You have a confined space crowded with people, no quick/easy exits and relatively no security or baggage screening.Recoil said:Silly jokes aside, when someone is acting suspiciously, it's usally pretty obvious if you're paying attention. And when that someone pulls something out of a bag and affixes it to a train or a bus, you can bet your sweet behind that he's not circumventing the postal service by delivering a package to grandma across town who will pull it off the side of the vehicle at another station. :?
I believe certain crimes are deterred through the public owning/carrying guns, but I really don't think this is the case with terrorism. By nature it is cowardly and non confrontational and the culprit is either nowhere near the incident or dies onsite in the case of a suicide bomber. This makes it much more difficult to get into any form of confrontation and take action.Recoil said:I will not assert it as the sole reason or even a major reason, however I suspect that one of the many factors that the United States doesn't see as much terrorism as other nations do is because of our largely liberal gun laws.
I think today's shooting certainly made a pointRecoil said:Look at England for example. I've said before, to Yimmy, that the English are top-notch terrorism fighters. The best even! But there is absolutely no deterrance for terrorists there. None!
So if these cities are top terrorist targets and you say the public having guns would be a deterrant, why are they anti-gun cities?Recoil said:Now, make some predictions as to where the United States will come under terrorist attack...New York City, obviously, and where else? The government claims that in addition to NYC, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chicago are the big targets. There are clearly large populations there to kill, but doesn't it seem at least a little odd that the cities on the terrorist hit list are all anti-gun cities?
I don't argue that point, but look further into those planned crimes and I'm sure most if not all involved some form of confrontation, bank robbery, car jacking, burglary, etc.Recoil said:Granted, terrorists like to kill surreptitiously, but if they knew that 1 in every 2 Americans were packing and that if they were seen they'd undergo a wrath greater than that of Allah at the hands of a righteous citizenry, it would up the stakes and give them a serious thing to consider before carrying out their plan. It's called "deterrence" and it works. How much it works is unknown since there's no way to measure it. But there have been many surveys in prisons where the convicted felons indicated that they didn't do something or changed their plan to avoid certain penalities, such as execution or being shot by an armed citizen.
Haha, indeed.pittbug said:It's a shame terrorists aren't issued uniforms.... that'd make it a lot easier for us to spot them![]()
Suspicious behavior nonetheless. Plus, as you said, the guy who was killed was wearing clothing not appropriate for the weather.pittbug said:If someone pulled a device out of a bag that would be obvious... but these were regular looking backpacks probably left under a seat.
Well, unlike England, the Fourth Amendment protects our rights to searches and seizures. As you may have seen on the news, New York City is now searching people's backpacks, and I hear Washington D.C. is considering the same. This is thoroughly un-Constitutional and blanket searches have been stricken down in the past. Normally, I would expect legal action would shut down this occurance, but with our civil rights being infringed upon daily because of terrorism, I suppose it's just one more step we've taken towards the police state we're destined to become.pittbug said:On the London underground it gets quite crowded during the morning rush, as you can imagine, so people with bags either stowe them on overhead shelves, on laps or under their seats. When the train pulls to a stop and people ready themselves to get out, everyone is so focussed on picking which door to exit through and then which is the fastest way out of the station that noone would noticed if a backpack was left under a seat. This is what makes the London underground an ideal target for terrorists. You have a confined space crowded with people, no quick/easy exits and relatively no security or baggage screening.
Quite right, I agree almost completely, except I maintain that an armed citizenry is one more layer of security that terrorists need to worry about. Indeed, if they're busted by a citizen or a group of them, they're supremely screwed because they'll probably be executed on the spot. Just like hardened criminals, terrorists are well aware of the inefficiency of our legal system and don't really fear it. There is no deterrent. Again, if a terrorist was sitting on a bus and was aware that 25% to 50%, or even 75% of the people around him were packing heat, he might think twice about dropping his payload, lest someone there notice him.pittbug said:I believe certain crimes are deterred through the public owning/carrying guns, but I really don't think this is the case with terrorism. By nature it is cowardly and non confrontational and the culprit is either nowhere near the incident or dies onsite in the case of a suicide bomber. This makes it much more difficult to get into any form of confrontation and take action.
Indeed.Recoil said:I think today's shooting certainly made a point![]()
Anti-gunners buy into the idea that more guns = more crime. It's the same unfortunate wool that has been pulled over the British eyes. :? The problem lies with the fact that a lot of Americans (and English) don't have experience with firearms, so when the media asserts their liberal opinion, they just don't know better. The truth behind why bans exist, is becuase the government in some places doesn't trust the citizens with arms (which the Founding Fathers warned us would happen here someday).pittbug said:So if these cities are top terrorist targets and you say the public having guns would be a deterrant, why are they anti-gun cities?
I know. But I would have addressed it regardless. :wink:pittbug said:(BTW That isn't meant to be a loaded/sacrcastic question at all)
You're right: the surveys cover all sorts of felonies, including the ones you listed. But sexual assault, rape, muder, etc., are also included. In my opinion, all crimes are acts of terrorism, just perhaps on a smaller, or individual scale. Regular crime and terrorism share many aspects and after-effects, and certainly no one would disagree that terrorists are criminals! Terrorists have to take the same precautions as someone planning a serious felony, and neither criminals nor terrorists want to be caught.pittbug said:I don't argue that point, but look further into those planned crimes and I'm sure most if not all involved some form of confrontation, bank robbery, car jacking, burglary, etc.
I don't know if it's been pointed out elsewhere, but the 'bomber' who police shot on the subway... he was a Brazilian electrician who simply lived din the same building as one of the suspected bombers. I'm not arguing with the police's actions, but it is definitely NOT a testament to the quality of their service.Recoil said:I'm really quite proud of the English anti-terrorism forces.
Indeed. I did not want to bring this up myself because I didn't want to seem like I was "kicking an ally while he was down."Scatch Maroo said:I don't know if it's been pointed out elsewhere, but the 'bomber' who police shot on the subway... he was a Brazilian electrician who simply lived din the same building as one of the suspected bombers. I'm not arguing with the police's actions, but it is definitely NOT a testament to the quality of their service.