search
top

The New “Terror Weapon”

The Kel-Tec Sub 2000, because anemic pistol caliber carbines are obviously now the new sprayers of death and destruction, and weapon of choice for terrorists. See, it’s scary because it’s a rifle, but it’s really a pistol. This rifle folds up for compact storage, but it’s unusable in its folded state. New York Times worries that it’s all too easy for them to carry out a Mumbai style attack with one of these.

There’s a reason he didn’t do that kind of attack. He was going for something spectacular. If he had gone for a mass shooting in Times Square, well, it’s been done before, and “shot by police” isn’t exactly the headline your typical jihadist wants. The key difference between Mumbai and here is that our police officers, even the ones in New York City, can generally hit what they shoot at, and aren’t uncomfortable employing their pistols or employing rifles in a Mumbai kind of situation. Even in New York City, where its citizens are forbidden from protecting themselves, I’d give a Times Square shooter about two or three shots before the NYPD drops him.

Bloomberg’s solution is to use the terror watch list to prevent things like this from happening. Which seems to have worked oh so well for keeping this guy out of the country in the first place. These are the people Bloomberg demands we put our lives in the hands of. Personal protection isn’t an option in his world.

UPDATE: To be fair to the New York Times, I thought their article was at least researched. Years ago the ignorance they would have displayed in regards to the guns form and function would have been astounding. They are still playing their old games, but at least now they are getting basic facts right.

36 Responses to “The New “Terror Weapon””

  1. Peter Hamm says:

    Sebastian! Please! Good God in heaven, man, how can you keep a straight face and say that allowing the Attorney General of the United States to deny a gun to someone that the FBI considers too much of a terrorist risk to get on an airplane should have unfettered gun purchasing rights?

    Do you know that this will marginalize your side with the American people so severely that you will lose credibility for years to come? Are you insane? Or are you just really so blind that there is nothing, nothing, that you could ever, ever support to keep anyone, anyone, from buying any weapon they wish?

    God. This one is so simple. I cannot believe that you and your commenters can be opposed to this and call yourselves American patriots. It’s put up or shut up time, gunners.

  2. NJSoldier says:

    Seems that the NY Times was far more concerned about the “fearsome” appearance of the Kel-tec than its actual capability.

    I’m sure he has breaking numerous laws bringing this rifle into NYC and the airport parking lot.

  3. NJSoldier says:

    Peter,

    Are you reading a different post than the rest of us?

    Personally, I get a little concerned over losing a Constitutional right because I’m on somebody’s shit list.

  4. Peter Hamm says:

    It was a backup tool, it seems to me. He wanted a scary looking weapon to use as a last resort if he got cornered. In that situation, it wouldn’t matter if the firearm worked well or not, because it would be just about game over.

    I agree with you on that, Sebastian. But I still urge you to support the terror gap bill. Please don’t start saying “slippery slope” — letting this guys buy guns is the slippery slope. Let’s agree on something for a change.

  5. Peter Hamm says:

    NJ, then you’ll clearly never be for anything when it comes to gun restrictions, you’ve drank the Kool Aid, you’re a lost cause, and the country should roll right over you and pass that bill. If you’re against this bill, you’re not only not in the mainstream, you’re out of touch with reality.

  6. Turk Turon says:

    I read the NYT article and thought it was astonishing that they would point out that Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal to prohibit gun sales to anyone on the Federal lists was “…irrelevant in Mr. Shahzad’s case, as he was on no such list in March.”

    Equally troubling, to me, were the news reports that the cops consulted the CIA to see if they had any objections to reading the suspect his Miranda rights. An American citizen (albeit a scumbag) on American soil and the CIA gets to decide if they will honor his Fifth Amendment protections? Outrageous.

  7. Peter Hamm says:

    Yeah, let’s be outraged he has Miranda rights, but for God’s sake, don’t mess with his firearm rights.

  8. Sebastian says:

    Peter:

    Remember, we’re talking about a constitutional right. A fundamental constitutional right, if we win McDonald. That means you don’t deny American Citizens that right without due process. Due process is not the Attorney General putting people on a government list.

    Yes, that means terrorists who are American Citizens will be able to buy guns through legal channels, provided they have no criminal history. Just like the right to a trial by jury, the laws against search and seizure, habeus corpus, and many of our other freedoms, and generally open society, also makes life easier for terrorists.

    I don’t want terrorists to have guns any more than you do, but I also want to live in a free country that honors its constitution and bill of rights. I’m very comfortable opposing you on this ground.

  9. Mr Hamm, are you honestly saying you support a secret list of a million Americans with no independent oversight and limited means of redress is a reasonable means of limiting a Constitutional right? If so, I don’t claim to know what the mainstream opinion is, but I consider _your_ position perplexingly insane.

    Extending the prohibited persons list to include people _convicted_ of activities related to terrorism might be reasonable. Making the whole of the standard “a government employee thinks you should be watched” is flatly unacceptable.

  10. Peter Hamm says:

    Goodbye, Sebastian, and the rest of you. You’ve left me incredulous, and you’ve removed any hair of hope I once had that you can be reasonable.

    You are not patriots. You worship only your guns. Good luck with that.

  11. Very interesting. I’d thought for a moment that, with his repeated replies, Mr. Hamm would actually engage on the issue rather than driveby-ing like another anti-gun troll who comments here. It’s disappointing to see him flounce as soon as the logical flaws in his position are articulated.

    It’s also very interesting to see the branding on this gun control push. “Do you know that this will marginalize your side with the American people so severely that you will lose credibility for years to come?” Maybe this is targeted to your specific style, Sebastian, but it’s kind of telling that Hamm evidently thinks his best approach with this one is to persuade gun rights advocates not to fight.

  12. I also just noticed that Mr. Hamm doesn’t seem to have actually read the comments. Turk said it was “outrageous” that the NYPD would consider not Mirandizing the suspect, and Hamm replied:

    Yeah, let’s be outraged he has Miranda rights, but for God’s sake, don’t mess with his firearm rights.

    Skim. Insert ignant-redneck-conservative stereotype. Reply.

    Are people like Hamm really incapable of understanding that some of us respect _all_ civil rights, not just the ones we like in a given case?

  13. Turk Turon says:

    I was trying to express my dismay that the police would even consider violating a suspect’s Fifth Amendment rights; an American citizen, arrested in the U.S., not on some foreign battlefield.

    Harvard Law prof Alan Derschowitz was once quoted on this subject, and I think I can paraphrase it pretty closely: “Foolish liberals who are trying to write the Second Amendment out of the Constitution because it’s not an individual right or because it’s a threat to public safety, don’t see the danger in the big picture. They’re making it easier for other groups to use similar means to get rid of parts of the Constitution that *they* don’t like.”

  14. FishyJay says:

    Peter Hamm, the problem is that this proposal doesn’t go far enough.

    Although the Supreme Court established that the RKBA is a Constitutional right, we cannot let Constitutional rights stand in the way of the war on terror. Suppose someone is on the terror suspect list (who is on the list is classified, as is the criteria for being on it). It is not enough to deny their 2nd Amendment right to buy a gun, since they could already have some at home. So we need to also deny their 4th Amendment rights and search their homes without warrants. We also need to question them as to why they wanted a gun, without any right to remain silent. So we must also deny their 5th Amendment rights and punish them if they don’t tell us what we need to know.

    This is the logical next step in the Bush war on terror policies — in fact, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was a supporter of this very proposal on behalf of the Bush administration. Previously, the Bush administration only supported the denial of Constitutional rights to those who were actually arrested for terrorism. The next step, as we are discussing here, is to deny Constitutional rights to those whom we just put on a list because we (for some reason) just suspect them of some sort of terrorist sympathy.

    Mr. Hamm, I hjad not known that you were a supporter of Bush/Cheney-type war on terror measures, especially such an escalation — but welcome aboard!

  15. AntiCitizenOne says:

    Considering that some people call the Tea Partiers “terrorists,” and are actively pushing the FBI to mark them as such, Hammy is pushing for the disarmament of individuals solely based on political belief.

    Not surprising.

  16. Heather from AK says:

    And I’m sure Peter wouldn’t mind it if his name ended up on one of these terror watch lists for no reason and he was denied his constitutional rights.

    I mean really. People on these watch lists are not all terrorists, or even suspected terrorists. My husband is on it, for goodness sake, probably because of some unfortunate coincidence in name.

  17. Dave says:

    Oh our anti gun opponents aren’t against due process. I’m sure the simple fact that we want guns and: #1 we aren’t a LEO, #2 active duty military or #3 a politician looking for a gun to pose with in a photo op trying to convince flyover country folks to vote democrat counts as reasonable suspicion in their eyes.

  18. Carl in Chicago says:

    Peter Hamm … I just read your first comment.

    You utterly fail to see the forest for the trees.

    This is a due process issue … an “innocent until proven guilty issue. This is FAR from an issue narrowly involving terrorists and firearms. If these suspects are truly terrorists, I’d rather have them jailed or killed. Wouldn’t you? You are using very strong terms in your comment … terms that you are not justified to use. Don’t fool yourself, and please, don’t fool us. If you don’t understand what our opposition to this issue is based on, then you fail to understand our nation and our rule of law at the most fundamental of levels.

    We can never, ever allow the government to deny fundamental liberties without due process of law. Never. We have to oppose secret lists, cloak-and-dagger government, etc.

    And yes … I do absolutely consider things like warrantless wiretapping to be wildly unconstitutional.

  19. Carl in Chicago says:

    Peter Hamm Said : Goodbye, Sebastian, and the rest of you. You’ve left me incredulous, and you’ve removed any hair of hope I once had that you can be reasonable.

    You are not patriots. You worship only your guns. Good luck with that.

    Sure. Write this off as “the insanity of gun worshippers.” Methinks you presume far too much, Sir, and methinks that you won’t get far with this end-run on due process (which is arguably mostly about a gun control win during desperate times for your pet issue).

  20. Peter,

    I am a US government employee, yet for some reason, I am on the watchlist. Maybe there is someone with a similar name that wants to do something bad. I get hassled every time I fly. I am not alone. The late Sen Ted Kennedy was on the list, our previous Senator’s wife (Cat Stevens) was on the list, and there are stories of active duty US military returning from the war zone who get held up because they are on the list.

    I oppose restricting 2A rights for people who are on a classified government watchlist with no judicial oversight. But I also oppose restriction of 1A, 4A, or any other rights based on this reasoning. Should people on the terrorist watchlist be allowed to use email? To write op-eds? Why do the police need warrants and probable cause to search their homes? The ACLU and SPLC must be in bed with the NRA!

    Frankly, the legal and regulatory infrastructure to deal with this is already in place. Felons are prohibited from possessing firearms. If you plot a terrorist attack, you can be found guilty of conspiracy. You are then a felon and a prohibited person. This provides due process and checks and balances.

  21. BC says:

    You are not patriots.

    I’m not going to take lectures on patriotism from a windbag who demonstrably could not give a runny shit about the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantees.

  22. Sebastian says:

    I think Peter would probably like to believe there’s common ground to be found on this issue. The thing is, there is, but we’re living in it. I don’t think most of us would argue that it’s a problem to remove gun rights from people convicted of certain crimes. When you get down to it, I don’t even really have a big problem with the idea of background checks (provided they are instant), even though there are problems with the current system. In short, people convicted of crimes can be denied rights, and the government can do some reasonable things to promote the interest of keeping guns out of the hands of those people. But not to the point of destroying or interfering substantively with the right. Being denied a purchase without due process is destroying the right for that person.

  23. Dixie says:

    … the country should roll right over you and pass that bill.

    You mean figuratively, and not *literally*, right, Petey? Oh, wait…

    [And *we’re* the violent ones!]

    Goodbye, Sebastian, and the rest of you.

    Good night, sour troll. And lovers of guns mock thee to thy rest.

  24. Ronnie says:

    Id bet that Peter Hamm is still a big time Obama supporter, the type who would just rather have his opposition totally shut up than to try having an open and honest debate on anything.

  25. Sebastian says:

    They seem pretty pissed at Obama if you ask me. I think they pine for the days of Clinton.

  26. Carl from Chicago says:

    What I find amazing is that a Brady campaign advocate is warning gun owners about marginalization and loss of credibility.

    Maybe they speak from experience … but I am inclined to call the bluff on that one.

  27. Joe Mama says:

    Goodbye, Sebastian, and the rest of you.

    [Curly Bill] Well, bye. [/Curly Bill]

  28. Ronnie says:

    The neo-Marxist Obama bunch will start attacking the second amendment and our RKBA as soon as they work their way through all of their other America-destroying policy goals, with libtards like Peter Hamm cheering it on every step of the way.

  29. kaveman says:

    Petey’s reaction is understandable. He knows that if this can’t get traction in the congress then absolutely nothing will.

    He’s scared the Brady Bunch has started its death spiral and that fear is very justified.

    McDonald will finish them off, even though it may take awhile.

    Petey knows we won, they lost now let’s get to work.

  30. Patrick says:

    Peter Hamm can’t find an issue if it smacked him in the head. The terrorist list should be canned. Anyone can be added to it for no reason known to anyone but the Attorney General. You can’t find out that you are on it until you try to fly (maybe, if they actually stop you). There is no easy way to get yourself removed if there is a mistake.

    The very fact that a US Senator like Ted Kennedy can be put on it shows you that it is a bullsh*t list. Peter Hamm, I can’t believe you actually support the thing. One thing you definitely are not is a lover of liberty. You would see everyone locked up if it means you are safe. What happens when they come for you? Oh that’s right. You’re a liberal. You don’t believe the government will EVER make a mistake.

    This isn’t about guns you toad. It’s liberty. If you deny an American his rights in the pursuit of stopping a terrorist, they’ve won. I cannot believe I even live in this America. Peter, you make me weep.

  31. Matthew Carberry says:

    I think several folks above are right. He’s grandstanding on this withdrawal, I’m sure his “even-minded attempt to engage in dialogue” will be touted and its failure blamed on our “closed-mindedness”.

    More likely his initial purpose in joining in was to try to draw stereotypical responses on one of the more rational and “legitimate:” gun blogs, responses that could be used against us in other fora.

    That failed and instead he was regularly, courteously but firmly, taken to the woodshed with facts and quite sophiticated Constitutional and philosophical arguments in response to his sallies.

    This final “terror gap” attempt to “win one” for gun control appears to be dead in the water with the general public. Hamm and his ilk have shot their last remaining good bolt and there’s thus no point sticking around to have his ass handed to him anymore.

  32. Alpheus says:

    But I thought Ted Kennedy *was* a terrorist! After all, he had the anti-American gall to disagree with me on all the important issues…gun control, health care, taxes, spending, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.

    I can’t think of anyone else who would better deserve to be on the Terror List…oh, wait. Obama’s in the White House now, isn’t he? That means Kennedy wouldn’t be a terrorist anymore, but I am now.

    Darnit!

  33. Newbius says:

    Mr. Hamm,

    When they perfect the Department of Pre-Crime, then I might be willing to at least listen to you. Until then, expect no “reasonableness” on the abridgment of fundamental rights guaranteed (not granted) by the Constitution.

    Your continued advocacy for the infringement of fundamental rights causes me dismay. You, who advocate for “reasonable restrictions” on something that “shall not be infringed”, are nothing more than a “useful idiot”, in the classic Stalinist definition. As such, if what you advocate eventually comes to pass, you will be treated to the same fate that Stalin treated his “useful idiots”.

    The ultimate end for the position that you advocate is a monopoly of force by the Government. Nowhere that this has ever been tried has it turned out well for the People. An honest assessment of history would reveal this to you. That is, if you were interested in honesty.

    As far as I can tell, none of the laws that you and Bloomer advocate for would have prevented this. Up until the point at which the Times Square bomber assembled his bomb, he had broken no laws. Are you proposing that we should have stopped him based on some profile? Or based on his heritage? Or based on his religion? Or based on his relatives? Because all of those sound suspiciously like prejudicial bigotry. Just plug in Black, or Jew, or “Jap” into the formula, why don’t you?

    Terror gap? Get real… Your perception of fundamental liberty is seriously flawed. I guess it is a good thing that the people in power now like your policy positions. The Founders would have had you jailed for treason…

  34. Mike w. says:

    Hey petey, what other rights should we deny people simply because they’re on a secret list and don’t know it, can’t see it, and have no means of being removed from it?

  35. Charles P says:

    Why don’t ANY of you get this right?
    This law is meant to HELP the terrorists to KNOW WHEN THE GOVERNMENT is doing an under-cover investigation!
    HOW:
    A terrorist knows that he has no criminal convictions, and so he should be alowed to go and buy a legal gun. He goes and tries to buy one, and IF TURNED DOWN, he then KNOWS that the feds ARE watching HIM!!!
    HE has an EARLY WARNING that he is being investigated, so he destroys ALL EVIDENCE, and finds a discreet way to leave the USA, for the safety of some muslim run nation, to avoid arrest/questioning/etc.
    My Point: This CAN BE USED BY LARGE terrorists groups, also.
    HOW:
    If they are finding NEW MEMBERS TO JOIN THEIR GROUP, they send them to buy a legal gun. If they are allowed to, they know that they can let the person join thier terrorist group. IF HE FAILS, they stop associating with the person (because the KNOW he is under investigation) and maybe they even kill the person to prevent feds from using the guy as a witness against them!!
    This law would be “telegraphing” to the terrorists what and who the feds are watching, and they find out for the relatively low price of a gun!
    And if they want to know if they are safe in the future, they just buy a gun EVERY MONTH OR SO. TO SEE IF THEIR STATUS HAS CHANGED!!
    What will this REALLY DO?
    CAUSE MORE GUNS TO BE SOLD, ACROSS AMERICA. And WHO IS BUYING THEM?
    THE VERY TERRORISTS THAT THE ANTI-GUN GROUPS CLAIM THE LAW IS STOPPING!!!
    And what would a terrorist DO with all of these guns, purchased to determine if they are under investigation??
    USE THEM TO KILL??
    OR SELL THEM TO OTHERS, AT A PROFIT, TO PEOPLE WHO CANNOT BUY GUNS THE HONEST WAY, because they are criminals!!!
    THIS MEANS THE LAWS PUT MORE GUNS ON THE STREETS, AND ENDANGER LAW ENFORCEMENT WHO MAY BE A PART OF INVESTIGATIONS INTO THESE VERY SAME TERRORIST SUSPECTS!! The suspected terrorists will BE LOOKING FOR FEDS, IF THEY FAIL TO PASS THE “GUN BUYING TEST” !!!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Freedom Has Consequences | Snowflakes in Hell - [...] Peter Hamm seems to be rather insistent this morning that I get on board with their “Terror Lo...: Sebastian!…
top