Al Qaeda Spokesman Instructs Terrorists To Stock Up At Local Gun Shows
June 03, 2011 7:24 pm ET by Chris Brown
In a video released today Al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn encourages terrorists to use American gun shows to arm themselves for potential Mumbai-style attacks. Gadahn's video laid out a new tactic for Al Qaeda to continue their murderous terrorist agenda:
America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?
At
gun shows buyers can purchase guns from private sellers without passing
a background check. An investigation by the City of New York showed
that even buyers that identified themselves as people who "probably couldn't pass a background check" were able to purchase guns at gun shows. The investigation also showed the wide variety of guns available at gun shows.
In
addition, people on terrorist watch lists are not forbidden from
purchasing guns and many have done just that. Gadahn's instructions come
in the wake of Associated Press reporting that showed that more than 200 people with suspected terrorist ties bought guns legally in the United States last year. Following the AP report Representative Mike Quigley introduced
an amendment to the Patriot Act that would give the Attorney General
the authority to block gun sales to individuals on terror watch lists.
The amendment was voted down.
Following the assassination of Osama bin Laden Huffington Post contributor Cliff Schecter wrote about the threat of suspected terrorists with largely unfettered access to guns:
If you don't think we should get on this forthwith, just remember, there are those who will want to take revenge for bin Laden's killing. And there are those who will continue to plan attacks on the United States because it is such a tempting target. They may not have the capabilities to pull off a large scale attack like the one on 9/11. But by allowing them to purchase Jared Loughner's Glock with an assault clip, or (God help us) explosives, we are asking for trouble.
Hopefully most of remember what happened in Mumbai, India. It only took guns, some explosives, a few cell phones, and a hijacked fishing vessel to terrorize an entire city and commit mass murder at train stations, luxury hotels and in the streets. Could it happen here?
Footage from Gun Show: Undercover
Former
head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosive
National Tracing Center Jerry Nunziato discussing gun shows and showing
anti-aircraft ammunition he purchased at an Ohio gun show:
You guys better wake up before it's too late.
Govt gun control is not the answer but a solution to the socialists who want to take over this country and strip us of our freedoms.
"It's oduma and his buddies working with them (al-Qaeda)
in addition to all the other muslims."
Obama and his administration are "working with" al-Qaeda, the very terrorist group dedicated to destroying America and its allies by killing as many innocent people as humanly possible? That is what you just said, isn't it? Do you make any distinction between Muslims and al-Qaeda terrorists?
"..obama.. supports the muslims and wants to befriend them."
Is it okay to be friends with any Muslim people, like Egyptians, or Libyans, or Saudi-Arabians, or Iraqis...or American muslims? I don't understand. Can you be more clear about this?
"Govt gun control is not the answer..."
Now, if you think that denying the Attorney General the authority, i.e. just enough "Govt gun control" to stop an identified al-Qaeda terrorist suspect from buying a gun to kill Americans is a good idea, isn't selling them guns then supporting terrorists? I don't understand. Could you be more clear about this?
"Enablers do need to close the loopholes"
Wouldn't such an amendment to the Patriot Act qualify as one of the "loopholes" you just now agreed that need closing? Which "loopholes" in U.S. gun laws do you think need to be closed? Could you be just a tad specific about this.
Please be patient with me. You see, like most regular folk, I need just a bit more information before can I decide that you are right and that I am properly "awake" to the alarm you are sounding. I seem to have missed out on a lot of really important stuff, as you probably can tell.
Considering that Saudi Arabia attacked the United States on 9/11, I don't think that it is ok for us to be friendly with that country.
I know, I know, the CIA isn't a credible source for these kinds of things. At least, Bush/Cheney didn't seem to think so.
How many of the guys in that linked document are Iraqi? Afghani? Pakistani?
I fail to see how 15 Saudis,, two guys from the UAE, an Egyptian and a Lebanese guy constituted an attack by Iraq.
Apologies, my previous number of 16 Saudis was flawed. I missed the Lebanese guy when counting non-Saudis among the 9/11 hijackers.
The alleged mastermind of the Mumbai attack was reportedly blown away 3 days ago in Pakistan by a hell fire missile from a U.S. Predator UAV – reportedly due to intelligence provided by the Pakistanis. If true, following the demise of Bin Laden, way to deal with terrorists. Death from above. Precision intelligence and righteous fire power. Slam dunks, Obama. LOL
People like Barb are the TRUE enemy of progress and prosperity.
In my view, people like Barb are an impediment to progress and prosperity. It is the creators and perpetrators of the fog of misinformation and mythology filling Barb's head who are the TRUE enemy.
Barb--someone we can't know--is just a human vessel whose belief system is based in a truncated and impenetrable map of reality.
This seems to be the theme with all of the pro-death people. They want zero restrictions on anyone's ability to have and carry weapons right up until some psycho manages to shoot 30 or so people at a political meet-and-greet.
I am a gun owner, and I will tell you that if you want to take my weapons, come on. Bring at least 25 people because I have 24 shots and I don't miss.
But I have to ask all of the people who are against restrictions on gun ownership: Why do you want criminals to have more guns than they already have? After all, nobody has suggested anything that would even curtail law-abiding citizens' abilities to purchase weapons. Is ther a problem with having to wait a few days while a background check is performed?
Other than the fact that your Socialist conspiracy theories are delusional, let me tell inform you that I possess the following:
HK91. 500 rounds
Mini 14. 1,000 rounds.
SKS. Got to buy ammo.
Glock 17(50 round clip). 2,000 rounds.
Ruger 10/22. 10,000 rounds.
Now look up this link and weep.
www.liberalswithguns.com
Thanks for the link. MMfA needs more comments that help people think beyond the simplistic knee-jerk left-right paradigm.
( A knee-jerk reaction is an unreflective response, conditioned by a person's world view )
Please explain how exactly KF's statement of easily proven facts that are a matter of public record is " the dumbest post of the year".
I can back that argument up better than you can back yours up.
You'll notice I removed your " it was decades ago " comment; frankly, arming violent fanatics isn't something that should be allowed to go in and out of style like a haircut.
(And I'm pretty sure you used the word(?) "deterrment" wrong.)
And finally, a photo of Ronnie with some of his pals.
What a maroon, as Bugs Bunny would say.
Which brings me to my point. It heartens Americans everywhere that, despite being on the FBI terrorist watchlist, a member of Ron's free-loving Taliban will not be stopped from buying an armful of AK-47s in our country. Thank you, House Republicans. Thank you.
Proving once again that brainwashed rightwing morons are allergic to factual reality
An interesting statement, coming from a defender of Fox News.
We have a serious problem in this country. People who should never be allowed within yards of a deadly weapon are able to legally purchase said weapons. To a sane person this suggests that we need some ideas for new laws governing the sale and possession of firearms. Alas, people like our friend Barb scream bloody murder whenever anyone suggests any kind of rational national policy on the sale and possesion of firearms. This forces me to conclude that something in these peoples history or character leads them to believe that they would be excluded by even the most minor restrictions.
In the interest of full disclosure: I'm a lifelong hunter, shooter, and general gun enthusiast. I even worked for many years in the ammunition industry. I fully support the ownership of firearms by those who are mentally and morally capable of handling the responsibility. This would not include anyone who would leave their firearms unsecured where any child or burglar could walk off with them. It would not include anyone who would sell firearms or ammunition without checking the background of the purchaser. It would not include anyone with any history of violent crime. It would not include a whole lot of people.
What we need to do is to make all sales of firearms and ammo meet the standards of a "conceal/carry" permit. And? The only people who should be able to make a sale should be aware that they would be held liable should they knowingly sell firearms and/or ammo to those who are deemed ineligible.
Boy are you STUPID. I would tell you to wake up but your brain is gone. You may achieve nominal conciousness but higher brain function will forever be far beyond your capablities. I love the way he worked with al Queda by KILLING THEIR LEADER. How hard do you have to work to believe six impossible things before breakfast?
Oh, and by the way, you are a LIAR.
So by conservative logic, the NRA is in cahoots with Al Quida.
Here we are at the crux of the issue, if these folks won't bend when it comes to commonsense regulation, they won't bend for anything anytime. This mentality makes it hard to cut down on useless gun deaths and other violent crime simply because one side views any regulation as tantamount to complete capitulation.
Will one of our mouthy conservative visitors take a stab at justifying this?
As the Republicans have REPEATEDLY proven, since January of 2009, they will not even consider anything proposed by a Democrat, no matter how much sense it makes, no matter even if it was originally a Republiteatard's idea. (This was not a (R) or (T) idea, by the way, just reminding folks of their previous stances)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/02/british-intelligence-ruins-al-qaida-website
Now surely ATF and Homeland Security can figure a way to enlist the help of gun shows to help catch the Jihadhis.
/snark
Compare with the problem of "Motor vehicle nuts".
But of course "nuts" are a very tiny proportion compared to those responsibly involved with either guns or motor vehicles.
And the effective use of law enforcement is to enlist the help of the vast proportion of responsible users. – "Report Drunk Drivers", for example.
My guess is that "second amendment" types are quite receptive to cooperating with authorities in dealing with jihadhis after the 9/11 attack on the U.S.
Well yeah. How about if they cross check their buyers' names to the terrorist watch list? That is probably something the Attorney General would require that they do-- IF Congress had given him the authority to do so. Well....so much for your idea.
Unless......oh wait. I think I get it now. You don't want gun sellers to be "required" to withold guns from terrorist suspects. You want them to be "enlisted" to voluntarily, pretty please, don't sell guns to terror suspects. Let the free market decide. Rand Paul might approve.
"Well hell yeah, I sold the guy a machine gun. He wasn't wearing a turban or anything. How did I know he was going to start yelling "Allah whatever" and shoot up the place?"
Statements like yours does nothing to forward the argument and only serves wave your ignorance in public. Stop that. You're only making yourself look foolish.
Think.
But can a gun be used as anything BUT a weapon?
Given all that, why do you think Al-Qaeda would advise buying guns at local gun shows?
Take your own advice and think.
Oh, and stop using 9/11 as an excuse and a cause for whatever lame argument your trying to forward. Even though you right wingers may not realize it, you do not have the monopoly on 9/11 and you do not have the right to use the memory of 9/11 when you have no other recourse.
Identifying the terrorists is the answer, not regulating gasoline sales to the general public.
Using the logic that they like to use when they say that Obama, who wants to be friends with non-violent Muslims, supports terrorism.
Even without using that flawed logic, anyone who is against stopping terrorists from obtaining a weapon inside our borders, MUST then be pro-terrorism, and, by extension, anti-American.
And those "same techniques we would use" would be? What?
We know the techniques employed by the TSA, but hardly universally effective outside a controlled environment. You are again implying that non-specific "techniques" voluntarily employed, are preferrable to legislation that details preventive measures.
I mean, in the prevention of mass destruction of human life that's an certainly area of federal law where you'd want as much ambiguity as possible.
You know it is just too damned bad that Ayn Rand didn't
cover all this in her books or you might a few more specifics to offer up other than bland platitudes and catch phrases.
That those 200 people were known demonstrates that the techniques of tracking are working. The guy that shot Congresswoman Gifford was also known. And the state of Arizona had specific peventive measures available under their law exceeding those in other states.
In the case of the 9/11 terrorist attackers, a local FBI office knew of and warned the central office of them. If you want to improve the techniques, specifically analyse what more could have been done in the Arizona and 9/11 pre-crime investigations.
Ayn Rand ?
Ann Rand....well, okay....I just let that one rip.
The Shruggie detector in my head was going off.
In the few minutes I have right now, I'll just say right off the top of my head, that techniques are methods developed by the responsible agents of government. Legislation grants authorizations and and imposes limitations to those methods. Policies tend to mandate methods within a specific context of law. The Patriot Act authorizes agencies to adopt and use certain methods with the assumption or expectation that they will yield desired results. The current Patriot Act extension does not grant to the chief law enforcement in the land specific authority to block sales of guns to suspected or presumed terrorists.
If the AP story is accurate, then there is some more explaining to be done regarding just what in the hell we are expecting to accomplish with the techniques, the policies, and the legislation currently in effect.
The gun owners/private sellers that I know (a small amount really) would not sell privately to someone who wouldn't be able to pass background checks that are required for regular handgun purchase, and a lot of the guys I know who are private sellers will go to a gun shop/store with the potential buyer to have the shop run the background check for them before they sell.
That being said, as mentioned before, the small amount of people that I know, are very responsible and law abiding citizens, and while I would hope that this would be a large percentage of gun owners, I doubt it.
So, why the rant? Even though I am a gun owner, and I like to shoot, and possibly buy additional firearms, I also think that the loopholes should be closed off. But, if the loopholes are closed, private sales can still happen just not at gun shows themselves.
Guns, like door locks, are part of the American idea that 90 % of our activity is about personal responsibility and self reliance. In the case of guns for self protection.
Government’s role, such as in calling the cops, is there to provide some back up assistance, but the 12 gauge solution is essential first aid for a human home invasion, or wild animal attack.
That kind of thing can be a problem in much of North America.
You are shooting at a rat in a much more valuable, I guess, automobile's engine, right?
Had to 'blow it away'.
I have lived in midwest (il, in, ky area) for 10 years.
Unless you actually keep your weapon close at hand AT ALL TIMES, it is going to do you absolutely zero good in the event of a home invasion, burglary, or any other crime.
Even given that, however, I don't really care how many guns you own. As long as you have been thoroughly checked out in order to purchase them.
I also don't have a problem with the government making it a little more difficult for whackos to get their hands on them.
This is an easy question for me really. I like to shoot, because I think it's fun. I like to punch holes in paper with the guns that I have, and I take my firearm ownership very seriously, and ensure that the safety of the firearms that I do own are assured in my home (I have a gun safe where the weapons get stored, and the ammo is kept in a separate locked box in a different location in the house). Shooting is something also that my wife and I do together. We can go out and shoot targets together.
So for me, it's just fun. I don't do it because I think I'll have to defend my home someday, but, I will say, putting rounds down range does hone your skill, and in the unfortunate circumstance where I WOULD have to shoot for protection, I feel as if I can do it.
I believe that children that are raised with a healthy respect for (rather than fear of) firearms are far less likely to accidentally use those firearms. Teaching children that guns are NOT toys, and should NEVER be treated as such, goes a long long way toward preventing any accidents should a weapon accidentally get left where that child can gain access to it.
Buying your kid a toy gun, no matter how unrealistic it looks, is not a good idea, ESPECIALLY if you do not actively and aggressively teach them the difference between play and real guns.
cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/23/eveningnews/main20035609.shtml
here's a little fact about project gunrunner that your FOXPAC brain didn't look in to:
So the operation was set up under Bush and probably extended under Obama with the usual amount of political arm-twisting the republicans have become famous for in the past 2 years
nice try though
FOXPAC: "How dare Obama's ATF actually force gun shop owners to sell weapons to known members of Mexican drug cartels? It started under Bush? no it didn't! that was 'Project Gunrunner' this is 'Project Fast and Furious' it has a different name so it's totally two different things."
Why are we worried about gun show sales, when the government is helping arm criminals. If Al Qaeda wants guns, maybe they should call the ATF.
But I'm not defending the program any more than you are admitting it was a republican idea signed into law by Bush under the Patriot Act
I'm not defending Bush. Bush made mistakes. That's not the point. The point is, why worry about gun shows when the government is knowingly helping criminals get guns. You may have noticed, if you read the story I gave a link to, that it was the people selling the guns who were telling the government 'there is something wrong here'. The gun shops didn't want to sell them the guns, but the government told them to.
No fly list? your on it? NRA says you can buy a gun.
Are you willing to take someone's rights away because they have the same name as someone else? Are you willing to take someone's rights away because of a mistake made by someone else?
This from the people who are okay with rendition, torture and Guantanamo despite their long history of doing exactly that.
Prove it
You have no idea what I believe. You have no idea what my compatriots believe. You have no idea who my compatriots are. You made a claim. Provide proof to support your claim.
So, I know that you believe that oil companies don't control oil prices by restricting supply, I know that you don't believe that we should do anything about them gouging gas customers, and I know that you don't believe that they actually gouge. Other than that, I know that you believe in bumper stickers.
For example, my former boss, who is a MAJ in the US Army was put on a no fly list, because he gave some grief to a TSA agent at an airport.
Do they know these people are criminals? that I can't prove, I can prove they don't care one way or the other as long as they get their millions in membership dues.
Then it is not a fair comparison. ATF KNEW the people buying guns were trouble, but said sell them a gun.
"You can't send anyone in to work for these people, they're criminals and you know it"
Well, what the hell. I knew that story wouldn't say what you said it did before I even clicked on it.
So....guns make America a safer place and serve to protect an otherwsie vulnerable public eh?
OK...explain this one away. In 2008 there were over 39,500 gun related deaths in the USA. The same year in the UK where guns are all but illegal, there were 42.
Guns make America safer.... hmmmmmm
I'm not sure of all of the rules but I"m sure that Former head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosive National Tracing Center Jerry Nunziato, will be able to answer all of your questions. I'm pretty sure Mr. Nunziato, will have all the ins and outs of the "Project Gunrunner".
Remember how the provisions of the Patriot Act were all good when it was Bush doing it? Remember how the TSA (formed by Bush and Congress as a response to 9/11) could do no wrong until a Democrat took the oval office?
Same difference.
BORDER PATROL AGENT BRIAN TERRY MURDERED BY GUN USED IN "PROJECT GUNRUNNER".
http://www.usembassy-mexico.gov/eng/texts/et080116eTrace.html
Wow, add that to the things that W needs to be prosecuted for.
BORDER PATROL AGENT BRIAN TERRY MURDERED BY GUN USED IN "PROJECT GUNRUNNER".
http://www.usembassy-mexico.gov/eng/texts/et080116eTrace.html
It is the second amendment of the Bill of rights ( In article 5 of the constitution ) - "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"Assault rifles" are a type of "arms" ( firearms ), which can be carried ( borne, as in to "bear arms" ) by an individual . The second amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, for lawful purposes, such as self-defense.