Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Terrorists Stockpiled Weapons for an Attack

THIS is an example of why it makes sense to me to limit how many weapons someone can buy at one time, or own over a period of time, without special registration or permits.

I'm sure these gun owners also felt they had a real need for all the firearms, and that they were moral and justified in how they planned to use them.

Dylan And Zakariya Boyd, Brothers In Alleged NC Terror Ring, Face Sentencing

North Carolina Terrorism
First Posted: 12/20/11 09:14 AM ET Updated: 12/20/11 10:07 AM ET(ASSOCIATED PRESS) NEW BERN, N.C. -- Two brothers who pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to support terrorists will learn their sentences Tuesday in North Carolina for their roles in a home-grown terror cell federal prosecutors say plotted attacks under their father's leadership.
Twenty-five-year-old Dylan Boyd and 22-year-old Zakariya Boyd could be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Louise Flanagan to a maximum of 15 years in prison, but both cooperated with prosecutors and expect lesser sentences.
According to prosecutors, the brothers were part of a group of eight men who raised money, stockpiled weapons and trained for jihadist attacks against American military targets and others they considered enemies of Islam. All of the accused were either American-born or naturalized U.S. citizens, or legal permanent residents.
Defense attorneys blame the brothers' involvement on their overbearing father Daniel Boyd.

12 comments:

  1. Now you want to limit the total number of firearms that a person can own? Are there any limits to your desire to take away rights?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great post on a fascinating story. I saw it here first.

    It sure isn't very comforting to think these guys could so easily buy guns on Craig's List or any gun show they can find.

    It sounds like Greg has no problem with that only with something you said. That figures.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Greg Camp said...
    Now you want to limit the total number of firearms that a person can own? Are there any limits to your desire to take away rights?


    Is there any limits to my desire to take away your guns?

    No.

    I want to keep guns out of the hands of those who would hurt others. If that means registering and regulating and even some limited restricting of those firearms so as to keep other people alive and uninjured and not threatened, then I'm fine with that.

    The right not to have to be afraid of dumb asses with weapons is also a right, one which takes precedence over your stupid fantasy world rights.

    But if you can find a better way to eliminate the firearms in the hands of people who use those weapons to hurt others, lets hear it.

    Otherwise, so long as that remains a problem - and while we have dramatically higher death and injury and crime rates with firearms than Europe and Canada and Australia and New Zealand IT IS A PROBLEM - let me know.

    Just punishing people AFTERWARDS by locking them up is NOT a solution, it is not adequate, when there are possibilities for preventing those events before they occur instead. It is closing the barn door after the horse is gone. It is too little too late. It is expensive to us, it makes no one more free, it does not work.

    Worldwide trends are not on your side, and it is only a matter of time for that to change here as well. It has happened with every major social trend in the past - end of slavery, women's rights, social equality and justice, largely peaceful protests that overthrow tyrannies like the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia. With some of those world wide trends we are ahead of the curve, with some we are behind it. This looks like one where we are slower, because of backwards people like you. But it will happen.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The problem is that the Second Amendment right comes with the obligation of Militia service.

    If you are not part of the enrolled militia (National Guard), then you have no Second Amendment rights.

    Well, other than that created by Scaia, but that is extremely limited.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dog Gone,

    So good of you to mention Czechoslovakia--actually, now the Czech Republic. The Czechs have not too bad gun laws. They are able to own firearms, and getting a carry license--without demonstrating need!--isn't difficult. That was one of the freedoms that they were pleased to regain after the end of Communist oppression. There is a thriving firearms industry in the Czech Republic and has been for a long time, as I well know.

    But I'm glad that you've finally answered one of my questions. You want to take away my guns. Don't hold your breath on that one.

    Laci the Dog,

    Repeating that tired old line about serving in the militia doesn't make it so. You do keep saying it, but much of America disagrees with you.

    Mikeb302000,

    I'm suspicious of government claims about terrorist groups in this country. There have been too many sting operations that look a lot like entrapment and so forth for me to trust what I'm told. The quotation offered here doesn't say how many guns we're talking about or what type they are, nor does it say how they were bought. This family may have no record and may have bought them at an FFL dealer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. GC writes That was one of the freedoms that they were pleased to regain after the end of Communist oppression. There is a thriving firearms industry in the Czech Republic and has been for a long time, as I well know.

    And now they Czech republic is one of the centers for illegal firearms. Prague is one of the places Anders Breivik went to acquire his illegal arms prior to his domestic terrorism in Norway, for that very reason. The easy availability of illegal guns as well as legal firearms in the Czech republic parallels our easy access to guns which end up in the hands of the violent gun cartels in Mexico - shame on us for that.

    I would further direct you to studies such as the document "Illegal Firearms Trades Across Europe" which notes, re the Czechs:
    Czech Republic 300 T-65 rifles. The guns, destined for criminal gangs in Honduras were trafficked from the Czech republic. Honduras' Military Chief denied accusations that Honduran troops in the Czech Republic were responsible. 1997 Castle. R. and Musah, 1998.
    13,900 sub machine guns.
    International Study on Firearms Regulation database, August 1999.

    Authorities uncovered an attempt to export 5700 sub-machine guns model 61 on a counterfeit certificate of the armed forces of the Dominican Republic, and a counterfeit certificate of the Sudan Ministry of Defense for purchase of 8200 sub-machine guns mode l 61.

    Weapons are legally purchased from the manufacturer or from the Army of the Czech Republic and then are illegally sold to non-existing, fictitious firms. Counterfeit documents are used. These weapons are consequently sold in the domestic market.

    http://people.exeter.ac.uk/watupman/undergrad/mordecai/firearms_table.htm

    so you may want to back off of your praise for their policies.

    I want people who own larger numbers of guns, ie stockpiles, to have a separate collectors license and to undergo a little greater scrutiny because of the greater potential threat, based on the frequency of such threats occurring.

    Rather I'd love to see those who have a legitimate SAFE desire to collect firearms or to own a large number of them do so, while preventing those who would abuse them from acquiring them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dog Gone,

    1. Actually, no, I'm not going to change my opinion about the Czech Republic. In fact, if things remain the same, it would be pleasant to have a second home there for retirement or the like. They have good beer--including the true Budweiser--and friendly people, and they have--at present, anyway--good gun laws. Not as good as America's, but exceptional for Europe.

    2. There you go, creating new licensing and restrictions. It's a good thing that I don't have to apply to you for permission to own or carry.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Greg Camp's logic seems to go like this:

    "I kin haz teh gunz, 'cuz the bad peopleperps haz teh gunz, 'cuz it's bad to restrict them from hazin' teh gunz, until AFTER they kill people."

    Concise? You bet. Intelligent? Hahahahahahahaha.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Democommie,

    Could you translate your comment into English? My argument is that we deserve rights until we do something that warrants taking those rights away. That's the bargain of democracy and of freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Following Greg's reasoning, it should be illegal to bust someone for conspiring to commit a crime, and no one should be arrested or prosecuted until AFTER they commit an act of terrorism.

    In fact there are lots of things we do which are proactive in preventing crime, and in preventing accidents, and we should be doing more.

    Greg's argument is spurious and specious on the face of it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dog Gone,

    Now you're being an idiot. Conspiracy to commit a crime is itself a crime. It needs to be treated carefully, but as long as the rules of due process are followed, we can prosecute those crimes without any problem.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Greg Camp:

    You know what I said. In case you're having difficulty understanding english, though:

    Greg Camp doesn't want to keep anybody, ever, from getting gunz until they hurt or kill somebody with them.

    You have a void between your ears.

    ReplyDelete