Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Gun Found in Bomb Suspect's Car, Sources Say

  1. #1
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    How long before this terrorist is portrayed as a "gun nut?"

    Gun Found in Bomb Suspect's Car, Sources Say

    A Federal law enforcement source told CBS News that components from the incendiary device left in a smoking SUV in Times Square Saturday evening were found in the suspect's Connecticut apartment.

    A 9 mm handgun with extra clips was also discovered in Faisal Shahzad's car at New York's JFK International Airport, CBS News' Len Tepper reports.

    Shahzad, a naturalized American citizen of Pakistani descent, was taken into custody last night.

    Components from the device that were found in Shahzad's Bridgeport, Conn., apartment last night include the boxes for the clocks that were wired to the Nissan Pathfinder's explosive contents.

    His Connecticut apartment was still being searched by law enforcement agents early Tuesday morning.


    Officials also told CBS News that the plane Shahzad boarded for the United Arab Emirates was never going to leave JFK; law enforcement had already notified authorities that the plane was not to take off.

    Emirates Flight 201 had taxied from the gate but was returned, when Shahzad was arrested arrested by U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement officers.

    Sources also told CBS News that Shahzad had made a call to Emirates to either make the reservation or confirm his reservation while on route to the airport.


  2. #2
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    NY police chief: Bomb suspect bought gun in Conn.

    WASHINGTON – Times Square bomb suspect Faisal Shahzad drove to a New York airport with a gun purchased in Connecticut two months ago, New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said Wednesday.

    Investigators have said a gun was discovered in the car Shahzad left at John F. Kennedy International Airport. He was hauled off a Dubai-bound plane Monday night, after he was allowed to board despite being under surveillance and placed on the federal no-fly list.

    "We know he purchased a weapon in Connecticut in March," Kelly told a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

    Kelly also said the hidden vehicle identification number on the suspect's SUV was crucial to identifying Shahzad, while databases were key to linking telephone numbers that led authorities to the suspect.

    The 30-year-old son of a retired official in Pakistan's air force, Shahzad was charged Tuesday with trying to blow up a crude gasoline and propane device inside the parked SUV amid tourists and Broadway theatergoers.

    Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., have introduced legislation that would give the attorney general authority to deny guns and explosives to known and suspected terrorists.

    A gun owner who objected to an attorney general's finding could challenge the ruling.

    Kelly and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg testified Wednesday in favor of the legislation.

    According to the criminal complaint filed Tuesday, Shahzad drove a black Isuzu Rodeo with tinted windows; he drove it in April to a Bridgeport, Conn., parking lot to purchase the Pathfinder he admitted driving into Times Square, the complaint said.

    He fled to the airport Monday from Connecticut after becoming spooked by news reports that authorities were seeking to arrest a man of Pakistani descent in Connecticut, two people familiar with the probe told The Associated Press Tuesday

    Asked about lessons learned from the failed bombing attempt, Bloomberg said that preparation for such an incident paid off: Street vendors were vigilant and responders reacted according to their training.

    He praised first responders for quickly moving people from the area and the fire department for their rapid response.

    And he warned that more attacks will certainly occur in New York.

    "We are a target. We are going to be a target again," he said.

    Kelly said the investigation "was clearly a team effort" between city and federal authorities. "We worked seamlessly on this case. The relationship is strong and a very productive one as this investigation showed."

  3. #3
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    Here we go. Bloomberg speaks out, completely ignoring the fact that the terrorist's ownership of a gun had nothing to do with his act, any more than his ownership of a tv, or stereo, of cb radio,or SUV... oh wait.

    http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/19499486

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Hey, Mayor Bloomberg, can you guarantee that there are no law-abiding citizens on this list. Again, this is not a list of criminals, or even a list of terrorists. This is a list of people who behaved suspiciously enough to bear watching (or were accidentally placed on the list). Many people are on this list, even future terrorists, who have done nothing to warrant the removal of the RKBA!

    IIRC, this guy wasn't even on the list until AFTER the bomb was found. Also, his gun did not factor into the attempted terror attack at all.

    This is political opportunism at its most disgusting.

    Worst of all, Bloomberg's condescending remarks about us keep watch and calling the professionals infantilizes us. Yes, I want someone who knows whether to cut the blue wire or the red wire to disarm the bomb. But, that does not mean I shouldn't proactively deal with a terrorist if I am able.

    If I am at Fort Hood during the attack and was armed (I know, not allowed), I'd like to think that I am qualified to put several rounds into Hassan's chest, center mass, without having to call the professionals. A bunch of folks died waiting for the professionals.

    /rant

    Sorry, Bloomberg really just ticked me off.

  5. #5
    Regular Member flagellum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    North Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    385

    Post imported post

    I saw this on TV when Bloomberg called for more gun control, as if that had anything to do do with this. He then went out to attack the second amendment implying that it doesn't give anyone the right to own a weapon.

    I wanted to punch him through the TV so bad.
    "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
    -- Charles A. Beard
    XD(m) 9mm

  6. #6
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    Hey, Mayor Bloomberg, can you guarantee that there are no law-abiding citizens on this list. Again, this is not a list of criminals, or even a list of terrorists. This is a list of people who behaved suspiciously enough to bear watching (or were accidentally placed on the list). Many people are on this list, even future terrorists, who have done nothing to warrant the removal of the RKBA!

    IIRC, this guy wasn't even on the list until AFTER the bomb was found. Also, his gun did not factor into the attempted terror attack at all.

    This is political opportunism at its most disgusting.

    Worst of all, Bloomberg's condescending remarks about us keep watch and calling the professionals infantilizes us. Yes, I want someone who knows whether to cut the blue wire or the red wire to disarm the bomb. But, that does not mean I shouldn't proactively deal with a terrorist if I am able.

    If I am at Fort Hood during the attack and was armed (I know, not allowed), I'd like to think that I am qualified to put several rounds into Hassan's chest, center mass, without having to call the professionals. A bunch of folks died waiting for the professionals.

    /rant

    Sorry, Bloomberg really just ticked me off.
    He is a great example of why term limits need to be put in place for good. Unfortunately, he's a billionaire and can buy an extension.

    http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...limits-change/

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    I really liked it when Bloomberg mentioned on CNN that is was his Professionals that stop this from happening (explosion/casualties). No dipsh!t, it was the persons who obviously missed going to Bomb Making 101 class that stopped this from happening.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Yeah, the reason we don't have hundreds or thousands dead from the underwear bomber and the Times Square bomber is not vigilance on the part of our anti-terrorist forces or lack of trying by the Islamic terrorists. It is the incompetence of those two terrorists.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    Yeah, the reason we don't have hundreds or thousands dead from the underwear bomber and the Times Square bomber is not vigilance on the part of our anti-terrorist forces or lack of trying by the Islamic terrorists. It is the incompetence of those two terrorists.
    Are you implying that I'm disappointed the bomb(s) failed? If so, you're way off. It's the stoking of ego's I'm actually addressing not the hundreds or thousands who, fortunately, came through uninjured.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    SpringerXDacp wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    Yeah, the reason we don't have hundreds or thousands dead from the underwear bomber and the Times Square bomber is not vigilance on the part of our anti-terrorist forces or lack of trying by the Islamic terrorists. It is the incompetence of those two terrorists.
    Are you implying that I'm disappointed the bomb(s) failed? If so, you're way off. It's the stoking of ego's I'm actually addressing not the hundreds or thousands who, fortunately, came through uninjured.
    I just read, reread, and reread my message. It says what it says. Nothing more. Nothing less. I am making no implications whatsoever. I am at a loss why you would even ask this.

    My message is straightforward and says what it says.

  11. #11
    Regular Member flagellum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    North Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    385

    Post imported post

    I've noticed on forums people jump to think that everyone is being sarcastic towards them, though this is rarely the case on this forum. Usually people will have the courtesy to put a or :Pis that is the case.
    "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
    -- Charles A. Beard
    XD(m) 9mm

  12. #12
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    I had to laugh out loud at this one. OMG, he had a Kel Tec Sub 2000! I guess this was alow budget Jihad.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/nyregion/06gun.html

    Suspect’s Gun Proved Easy to Obtain

    The mammoth clock-to-wire-to-gasoline-to-propane car bomb that the authorities said Faisal Shahzad hoped would claim many lives in Times Square has been analyzed, diagrammed, prodded and examined. But not long before his arrest, Mr. Shahzad was also equipped with a less-eccentric — and yet more dependably lethal — weapon. And he owned it legally.

    It is fearsome looking, a carbine hybrid of a pistol and a long gun with a mouthful of a name: the Kel-Tec Sub Rifle 2000. Mr. Shahzad bought it, new, in March for about $400. It was found in the Isuzu Trooper that he drove to Kennedy International Airport on Monday, loaded, with multiple extra clips.

    Because the Kel-Tec Sub Rifle 2000 is classified as a rifle, it required no permit, as pistols do in Connecticut. But with its folding stock, hand grip and appetite for pistol ammunition and not rifle ammunition, the Kel-Tec was about as close as one could get to a pistol that is not technically one.

    The authorities have not disclosed, if they have learned, what Mr. Shahzad planned to do with that gun. But some law enforcement experts have surmised that he had it to fire at officers in case he was pulled over.

    The Kel-Tec was briefly center stage in Washington on Wednesday as New York’s police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, addressed the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. He said that Mr. Shahzad bought the gun amid obtaining supplies for the bomb.

    “It appears from some of his other activities that March is when he decided to put this plan in motion,” Mr. Kelly told the committee. Of the gun, he said, “It may well have been an indicator of putting something catastrophic in motion.”

    The terrorists in Mumbai, India, in 2008 carried out a rampage that killed more than 160 people chiefly with the use of automatic weapons. The guns were much more powerful than the one Mr. Shahzad bought, and the strategy was simple: kill as many people as possible in a city crowded with tourists and residents.

    Mr. Shahzad — whom the authorities have described as bent on taking American lives — made missteps while he was designing and building his bomb, including buying what looks to be the wrong kind of fertilizer aimed at making the explosion more powerful. But all along he possessed a weapon that could have easily done extreme damage, one rapidly fired round at a time.

    The Kel-Tec, while not being capable of producing the far-reaching devastation of a well-constructed car bomb, at least might have produced a measure of Mr. Shahzad’s desired effect.

    It was about two months ago when he walked into Valley Firearms in Shelton, Conn., which is on a downtown street beside a tattoo parlor and beneath a karate studio. Two American flags fly in front of the gun store.

    Inside were the urban parapets of the trade: metal prison bars behind the windows, glass cases securing the guns. He had not lived in Shelton for nine months, having had lost his home there to foreclosure while on a long trip to Pakistan. For the last month, he had lived 12 miles away, in an apartment in Bridgeport.

    On its recording to callers to the store, Valley Firearms described itself as “the area’s largest used gun buyer.”

    Mr. Shahzad made his choice of gun and produced his Connecticut driver’s license. He left for a two-week waiting period, and returned March 15, putting down about $400 not for a used gun, but for a new rifle, serial number E7L98, according to a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives tracing report.

    The gun was manufactured by Kel-Tec CNC Industries, founded 19 years ago in Cocoa, Fla., which makes semiautomatic pistols, rifles and the Sub 2000, a combination of the two. The gun was designed by George Kellgren, perhaps best known for having designed early versions of the Tec-9 handgun that became a favorite of street criminals and was later banned.

    The Kel-Tec gun is about two and a half feet long, but for storage or carrying, the barrel can be folded back over the stock, cutting its length almost in half.

    It weighs four pounds unloaded, has front and rear sights for aiming and a grip like one on a pistol. The rifle is unusual in that it fires pistol rounds — in this particular gun’s case, 9-millimeter rounds. It fires as quickly as one can pull the trigger; it is not a machine gun. The number of bullets it holds varies with the size of the magazine. Kel-Tec sells it with 10-round magazines.

    It is, in effect, a low-powered rifle. Unlike those of some rifles, its bullets probably would not penetrate a police officer’s bullet-resistant vest, a law enforcement official said.

    It was unclear what attracted Mr. Shahzad to that particular gun. “Why not just get a pistol if somebody wants a handgun round?” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the case.

    One theory: “It looks more intimidating than a pistol. It’s an intimidating-looking contraption. It’s black, it has some plastic and polymer — it has that military look, but all it really is a really big handgun.”

    Unlike the Tec-9, it is not frequently used by criminals, the official said. The manufacturer said the long barrel increases accuracy and range. “The superior precision is also very useful against small or partially covered targets at shorter range,” Kel-Tec said on its Web site. “The amount of training to master the SUB 2000 is only a fraction of that required for a handgun.”

    A Kel-Tec customer service representative named Bill — company policy allows employees to use first names only so that they cannot be identified and threatened by someone who wants guns — said the Sub 2000 is good for hunting and target shooting. The company sells 2,000 or 3,000 of them a year.

    Suggested retail price: $390.

    Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, in his testimony on Wednesday before the Senate committee, urged that suspects on terrorism watch lists be blocked from buying guns and explosives.

    “When gun dealers run background checks, should F.B.I. agents have the authority to block sales of guns and explosives to those on the terror watch lists — and deemed too dangerous to fly?” the mayor asked. “I believe strongly that they should.”

    Wednesday, the Government Accountability Office has released data showing that suspects on the terror watch lists were able to buy guns and explosives from licensed dealers in the United States more than 1,100 times from 2004 to 2010. Such a statistic seems irrelevant in Mr. Shahzad’s case, as he was on no such list in March.

    It is unclear whether, in the 50 days Mr. Shahzad was a registered gun owner, he ever once pulled the trigger.



  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    2 comments: Teddy Kennedy is still on the No-Fly list, and I was absolutely amazed at the amount of totally useless, irrelevant and minute and yet somehow completely accuratedetail about the specific firearm, the gun store, the firearm manufacturer, and the firearms industry as a whole that was presented in that article.

    It appears that we finally got our wish - someone who knows about guns writing for the newspapers. Now if we could just get them to stress the reality of politics and security drama.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    skidmark wrote:
    2 comments: Teddy Kennedy is still on the No-Fly list, ...

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    I for one am thrilled to know that I can count on never having that particular corpse in the next seat--even knowing that it was well-embalmed for years prior to its assumption of corpse status.

  15. #15
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    We are getting there. Instead of portraying the terrorist as a gun nut to smoke screen additional gun control, they went straight for the "gun lobby" and gun owners.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

    Terrorists who want to buy guns have friends on Capitol Hill

    Is the NRA a terrorist organization?

    By George W. Bush's standard -- you're either with us or against us in the fight against terrorism -- NRA chief Wayne LaPierre should be just a few frequent-flier miles short of a free ticket to Gitmo right about now. Seems he and the rest of the gun lobby are fighting for terrorists' right to buy firearms.

    The Bush administration urged Congress to pass a law barring people on the terrorist watch list from buying explosives and guns. The gun lobby objected. Now the Obama administration is urging Congress to pass the same legislation, and the gun lobby continues to object.

    On Wednesday, New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg and NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly, using the star power they acquired in the apprehension of the Times Square bomb suspect, came to Capitol Hill to plead for Congress to change the absurdity in the law that keeps those with alleged terrorist ties off airplanes but enables them to legally buy guns and explosives.

    The New Yorkers' case was strengthened by the news that the Times Square suspect bought a gun in Connecticut as he set his plot in motion and had the gun with him when he drove to the airport Monday.

    "At a time when the threat of terrorism is still very real, as we in New York City know all too well," Bloomberg told a Senate committee, "I think it's imperative that Congress close this terror gap in our gun laws and close it quickly."

    "Failure to do so places this country at even greater risk," seconded the commissioner.

    Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), who has joined the cause, warned that if a terrorist uses a gun that he buys legally, "there would be blood on our hands."

    The hearing, before Joe Lieberman's homeland security panel, provided a rare chance for gun-control advocates to take the offensive in a debate that has mostly gone against them in recent years. More broadly, the issue allowed Democrats to exploit the war on terrorism in a way Republicans have been doing for years.

    The bill to close the gun loophole isn't on the radar of Democratic leaders, making it unlikely that it will reach the Senate floor. Still, Lieberman's hearing was fascinating because it forced the pro-gun crowd to take their philosophy to its logical extreme: Are they so absolute about the Second Amendment that they'd risk national security by fighting for the right of would-be terrorists to own guns? Alarmingly, they are.


    The NRA, restating its opposition to the bill a few months ago, said it is all part of a conspiracy by "politicians who hate the Second Amendment" and who "think that more gun owners can be placed on the list over time." At Wednesday's hearing, a representative of the conservative Liberty Coalition made a similar argument: "The bill should be titled the Gun Owners Are Probably All Terrorists Act."

    Faced with a choice between conspiracy theories and the testimony of the heroes of Times Square, it was no surprise that pro-gun Republican senators on the committee such as Tom Coburn (Okla.), John McCain (Ariz.) and John Ensign (Nev.) declined to participate in the hearing. Also taking a pass was pro-gun Democrat Jon Tester (Mont.).


    The lone pro-gun lawmaker to engage in the fight was the fearless Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who rolled his eyes and shook his head when Lieberman got the NYPD's Kelly to agree that the purchase of a gun could suggest that a terrorist "is about to go operational."

    I'm not so sure this is the right solution," Graham said, concerned that those on the terrorist watch list might be denied their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

    "If society decides that these people are too dangerous to get on an airplane with other people, then it's probably appropriate to look very hard before you let them buy a gun," countered Bloomberg.

    "But we're talking about a constitutional right here," Graham went on. He then changed the subject, pretending the discussion was about a general ban on handguns. "The NRA -- " he began, then rephrased. "Some people believe banning handguns is the right answer to the gun violence problem. I'm not in that camp."

    Graham felt the need to assure the witnesses that he isn't soft on terrorism: "I am all into national security. . . . Please understand that I feel differently not because I care less about terrorism."

    But Lieberman wasn't going to let him get away without a challenge. "I must say I'm troubled by your concerns about this proposal," the chairman said. "I don't see an argument that holds up."

    That was particularly so because, as various participants in the hearing had pointed out, the Government Accountability Office found that people on terrorist watch lists had bought guns or explosives from U.S. dealers 1,119 times over the past six years -- largely because the federal government has no power to stop them.

    "Can I take a shot at that?" Graham asked when Lieberman finished. After some laughter, he added: "Probably a bad choice of words."

  16. #16
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    Here comes Helmke.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/op...6gcollins.html

    Congress, Up in Arms

    There seems to be a strong sentiment in Congress that the only constitutional right suspected terrorists have is the right to bear arms.

    “I think you’re going too far here,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday. He was speaking in opposition to a bill that would keep people on the F.B.I. terrorist watch list from buying guns and explosives.

    Say what?

    Yes, if you are on the terrorist watch list, the authorities can keep you from getting on a plane but not from purchasing an AK-47. This makes sense to Congress because, as Graham accurately pointed out, “when the founders sat down and wrote the Constitution, they didn’t consider flying.”

    The subject of guns turns Congress into a twilight zone. People who are perfectly happy to let the government wiretap phones go nuts when the government wants to keep track of weapons permits. A guy who stands up in the House and defends the torture of terror suspects will nearly faint with horror at the prospect of depriving someone on the watch list of the right to purchase a pistol.

    “We make it so easy for dangerous people to get guns. If it’s the Second Amendment, it doesn’t matter if they’re Osama bin Laden,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

    Graham wanted to make it clear that just because he doesn’t want to stop gun purchases by possible terrorists, that doesn’t mean he’s not tough on terror.

    “I am all into national security. ... I want to stop reading these guys their Miranda rights,” he said.

    The Obama administration has been criticized by many Republicans for having followed the rules about how long you can question a terror suspect before you read him his rights. These objections have been particularly loud since the arrest of Faisal Shahzad in the attempted Times Square bombing. No one seems moved by the fact that Shahzad, after being told that he had the right to remain silent, continued talking incessantly.

    “Nobody in their right mind would expect a Marine to read someone caught on the battlefield their rights,” Graham said.

    Terror threats make politicians behave somewhat irrationally. But the subject of guns makes them act like a paranoid mother ferret protecting her litter. The National Rifle Association, the fiercest lobby in Washington, grades every member of Congress on how well they toe the N.R.A. line. Lawmakers with heavily rural districts would rather vote to legalize carrying concealed weapons in kindergarten than risk getting less than 100 percent.

    The Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on “Terrorists and Guns: The Nature of the Threat and Proposed Reforms,” concerned a modest bill sponsored by Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey. It would allow the government to stop gun sales to people on the F.B.I. terror watch list the same way it does people who have felony convictions. Because Congress has repeatedly rejected this idea, 1,119 people on the watch list have been able to purchase weapons over the last six years. One of them bought 50 pounds of military grade explosives.

    Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City and his police commissioner, Ray Kelly, dutifully trekked down to Washington to plead for the bill on behalf of the nation’s cities. The only thing they got for their trouble was praise for getting the city through the Times Square incident in one piece. And almost everyone had a good word for the T-shirt vendor who first noticed the suspicious car and raised an alert. Really, if someone had introduced a bill calling for additional T-shirt vendors, it would have sailed through in a heartbeat.

    Gun legislation, not so popular.

    Lautenberg’s bill has been moldering in committee, and that is not going to change.

    “Let me emphasize that none of us wants a terrorist to be able to purchase a gun,” said Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who nevertheless went on to argue against allowing the government to use the terrorist watch list to keep anyone from being able to purchase, um, a gun.

    “Some of the people pushing this idea are also pushing the idea of banning handguns,” said Graham, darkly. “I don’t think banning handguns makes me safer.”

    The terrorist watch list is huge, and some of the names on it are undoubtedly there in error. The bill would allow anyone denied the right to purchase a firearm an appeal process, but that would deprive the would-be purchaser some precious gun-owning time. Before we subject innocent Americans “to having to go into court and pay the cost of going to court to get their gun rights back, I want to slow down and think about this,” said Graham.

    Slow is going to be very slow, and the thinking could go on for decades.







  17. #17
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    Forget your gun rights, how about you just forfeit your Citizenship :what:

    http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/33125/

    Stripping Americans Connected With Terror Groups Of Citizenship Is A Bad Idea
    It’s an idea that has been proposed by Senator Joe Lieberman, and while even some Democrats expressed support for it initially they’re beginning to back away.

    And for good reason, I think.

    I think Lieberman’s bill probably would be unconstitutional, but beyond that I think that even if it were constitutional it shouldn’t be a power we want to give government. Nor do I think that giving government such power is necessary to fight terrorism.

    If we say that, in some circumstances, it is ok for the government to strip us of our constitutional rights then what is to stop the government from expanding those circumstances? If we say that it’s ok when the citizen in question is associating with a known terrorist group, what is to stop the government from diluting the definition of “terrorist” group?

    Look at how many liberals around the nation suggested, right off the bat, that the Times Square bomber might have been a tea partier. Look at how former President Bill Clinton tried to equate the tea parties with Timothy McVeigh. What happens if some branch of the limited government movement gets defined, by politically-motivated politicians, as a terrorist organization? Do all of those associated with said branch stop becoming citizens and lose their constitutional protections?

    And why do we need policy like this? It seems to me that we can be effective in our national security efforts while still respecting the rights afforded by the constitution.

    We are treading into dangerous territory with Lieberman’s proposal, and I’d like to see it shot down immediately. After all, our rights are unalienable. Not something that can be taken away from us when the powers that be decide that we’re too dangerous to wield them.

  18. #18
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plu...inst_lieb.html

    Schumer comes out against Lieberman's citizenship-stripping plan

    Okay, it turns out that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y) is not supporting Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman's new proposal to strip the citizenship of those who are involved with terror groups. In fact, he's coming out against it forcefully, saying it's likely unconstitutional and not a good way to fight terror.

    As I noted below, Lieberman is set to introduce the new proposal at a presser tomorrow. Schumer had reportedly claimed that it was something he could support.

    But Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon emails me to say that Schumer was blindsided by a reporter's question and doesn't support the measure at all:

    The senator was approached abruptly in the hall of the Capitol by a reporter before he had even heard about the legislation or what it did. Having learned about the proposal, he believes it would be found unconstitutional in this context and would also be ineffective. There are much better ways of obtaining information from terrorists.

    That last line is key.


    Lieberman's proposal is designed to strip citizenship from terror suspects in order to make it possible to sidestep the need to Mirandize them. Lieberman has sided with Republicans on the Miranda question.

    But now Schumer is saying pointedly that there are better ways to extract information from terrorists than not reading them their Miranda rights. Given that Schumer is a senior member of leadership who is well respected inside the Dem caucus, earlier reports that Schumer might support Lieberman's idea suggested other Dems might do so, too, which would have been dispiriting indeed.

    But Schumer isn't on board at all. Still, it would be premature to rule out the possibility that other Dems will support it.



  19. #19
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    buster81 wrote:
    I had to laugh out loud at this one. OMG, he had a Kel Tec Sub 2000! I guess this was alow budget Jihad.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/nyregion/06gun.html

    Suspect’s Gun Proved Easy to Obtain

    It is fearsome looking, a carbine hybrid of a pistol and a long gun with a mouthful of a name: the Kel-Tec Sub Rifle 2000. Mr. Shahzad bought it, new, in March for about $400. It was found in the Isuzu Trooper that he drove to Kennedy International Airport on Monday, loaded, with multiple extra clips.

    Because the Kel-Tec Sub Rifle 2000 is classified as a rifle, it required no permit, as pistols do in Connecticut. But with its folding stock, hand grip and appetite for pistol ammunition and not rifle ammunition, the Kel-Tec was about as close as one could get to a pistol that is not technically one.
    OK, I've included a pic of this KelTec at the end of my post for those of you who aren't familiar with this particular firearm.

    First of all, this gun does NOT have a "folding stock". It has a folding barrel. When this gun is "folded up" it is rendered inoperable...

    Second, a LOT of rifles use handgun-sized ammo, including most of the types of small rifles carried by LEOs like H&K MP-5s, and UZIs. We must also remember that MANY of the "cowboy action shooting" rifles are chambered in handgun calibers, so if we ban any rifle that can also shoot a handgun round, there's going to be a WHOLE lot of CASS folks who are out of a hobby, and are going to be cranky as hell about all the money they've shelled out for firearms, costumes, and membership fees...

    Third, this guy bought this gun in March--2 1/2 months ago. At that time he was NOT on the "no fly list", so this purchase was no different than a rifle being purchased by a cop, or a Boy Scout Leader, or you or I.

    How can we pass laws that will prevent people from purchasing firearms or explosives who have committed no crimes? If someone has no criminal record, is not on the "terrorist watch list" or is in no other way suspect, WHO is going to have the ability to say "yes" or "no" for their purchases? Please tell me, how our legal system can see into the future, and determine that a perfectly legal individual may, at some undetermined point in the future, commit a crime?

    Does th eJustice Department have some sort of "Pre Crime Unit" like in the movie "Minority Report" that they're not telling us about? Is there a little room in Washington DC where a team of clairvoyants sit, divining the future for each and every US citizen that they can use to screen firearms purchases of law-abiding citizens?

    I must have missed that memo...

    The idea that this "terror loop hole" even exists is such a monumentally idiotic idea that it is an insult to our intelligence.

    The idea that ANTHING could have been done to prevent this guy from buying a gun TWO AND A HALF MONTHS BEFORE he was flagged on the "no-fly" list is so mind-bendingly illogical that it is almost impossible to address without laughing.

    If this weren't such a brazen attempt by Bloomberg and his gun-grabbing cabal to drum up fear and paranoia, it would be laughable.

    But the TRUTH is that Bloomberg is such a sociopathic, opportunistic liar that he is willing to use "non-linear law enforcement" techniques to deny people their rights BEFORE they ever become a suspect in a crime.

    It's scary. It's illogical. It defies rational thought. His non-linear timeline logic is so convoluted that it reads like a bad science fiction novel.

    And I think he's finally showing his TRUE hand, and that is that he believes that we are ALL guilty of something, and cannot be trusted to conduct ourselves like Free Citizens.

    When will he and his cronies be called out by the media for the treasonous, fascistic sociopathic oligarchs they are? When will the American people see their brazen lies for the liberty-choking, serf-state-producing attack on sovereignty that they are?

    When will the people of America exercise their 15th amendment rights to VOTE THESE BUMS OUT?
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggressionand this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    Oh, heck! There you go using truth and logic again! Not fair!!

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •