Gun question

[Gloer]

Sniper is killing people in the US.

Justice minister Ashcroft denies police the use of ballistic fingerprints that would able the police to identify the gun that has fired 10 dealy bullets.

At the same time mr. Ashcroft is violating all the civil rights of people of his choosing. People he suspects might have become terrorists. they are "detained" indefinately.

How come this sniper's 2nd Amendmend rights are protected at the same time ?

Why is mr. Ashcroft not breaking down ont the National Rifle Association?
What is this nonsense?
What is this hypocrisy?

Why is this man allowed to walk the streets and shoot citizens and FBi is hindered?

[Legolam]

It's a good question.

I heard on the news over here last night that none of this ("this" being the Washington State Sniper) has brought up the question of gun control in America. It's been raised in the media here, but for some reason the American media is unwilling to draw the same conclusions.

I'm willing to bet that the sniper is using a perfectly legal gun to kill innocent members of the public.

On the second point, it's ridiculous that people are being detained without charge. I suppose it's all part of the ploy by certain countries to stop things happening before they actually do (anyone seen the Tom Cruise film "Minority Report"?).

I agree that the whole thing is very hypocritical.

[Grond]

LOL! Gloer your level of righteous indignation amazes me. Ballistic fingerprinting of weapons would only show which weapon (if it were legally bought in the U. S.) fired the bullett. It would give Law Enforcement another avenue of investigation but would not likely lead to the killer. This guy surely isn't using a weapon registered to him.

As for detaining non-Americans for suspicion of terrorist activity... I'm not aware of that happening. People (suspected of terrorist links) are being held because of visa violations and revocations. America is using a technicality to fully investigate any suspicious people. You call it a violation of rights... you call it racial profiling.... I call it erring on the side of caution and trying to protect us from further terrorist attacks.

[Parrot]

If it was legal and fingerprinted do you really think, knowing this, he wouldn't find another weapon that wasn't? Please. Actually, this could easily be done with a sporting weapon, which I believe are legal in your countries also, are they not?

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Grond
LOL! Gloer your level of righteous indignation amazes me. Ballistic fingerprinting of weapons would only show which weapon (if it were legally bought in the U. S.) fired the bullett. It would give Law Enforcement another avenue of investigation but would not likely lead to the killer. This guy surely isn't using a weapon registered to him.

As for detaining non-Americans for suspicion of terrorist activity... I'm not aware of that happening. People (suspected of terrorist links) are being held because of visa violations and revocations. America is using a technicality to fully investigate any suspicious people. You call it a violation of rights... you call it racial profiling.... I call it erring on the side of caution and trying to protect us from further terrorist attacks.

Actually, it's not just detaining of non-Americans. I think the guy is named James Ujaama... he's from Denver... he is a native of this country and a citizen and was held for almost a month with no charges filed, before they eventually decided to file charges against him based upon what amounts to "secret evidence".

Treating American citizens in such a fashion is entirely unconstitutional, and there is nothing to say that our rights cannot be protected along with our lives.

As for ballistic finger printing of guns... It's okay to finger print people when they go to get a driver's license or an identification card, and ballistic finger printing of guns is a big scary deal . . . ? Doesn't make sense to me.

[Ciryaher]

It's not that ballistic fingerprinting is scary, it's that it isn't effective enough to be practical. A gun barrel can be rebored, a firing pin changed, new barrels (and thus, new riflings) can be purchased. Any number of things can be changed so that the system wouldn't work.

I would be all for ballistic fingerprinting if it weren't so easy to manipulate.

[JanitorofAngmar]

Hmph!

Heil America!

Ever heard of the Brownshirts?

All in the name of "peace"...right?

Wonder what Gore Vidal (or however he spells it) has to say about all this. Perpetual War for Perpetual [Idiocy] Peace

[Rangerdave]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
It's not that ballistic fingerprinting is scary, it's that it isn't effective enough to be practical. A gun barrel can be rebored, a firing pin changed, new barrels (and thus, new riflings) can be purchased. Any number of things can be changed so that the system wouldn't work.


It's even easier than that. If the weapon in question has a removable barrel, the balistic signature is changed slightly every time the weapon is cleaned. Although the total change per cleaning is very little, it is cumulative. This means that a well maintained weapons will be dramatically different in as little as a year depending on use.

RD

[Gloer]

I wanted to pin point every reader that this man that is somehow seated in office of a great nation, this irrational man, this hypocritical man, this man with a narrow enough world view to fit through .223 caliber barrel, this Ascroft has danagerously little understanding for republican division of powers, non what so ever for civil rights, and even less for morality and none what so ever to aesthetics.

A man who declines to appear to press infront of a statue - a piece of fabulous symbolic art - statue that represents the naked justice - that man irrevokably proved his poor judgement. And nothing of his doing has yet to prove otherwise.

Bush should let him go.

[Gloer]

I do understand that ballistic fingerprinting might well have very little impact or use, nevertheless the fierce aggressive defense against this kind of idea at this situation is only motivated not by the inefficiency of the fingerprinting, but fear of any gun control.

And this fear is not rational, there is no rational way to discuss any measures to hinder this kind of incidents (sniper) that involve gun control.

But at the same time there are all kinds of Orwellian measures set against people trying to get a flying certificate. Let's think about it:
Mr. bin Laden will not be going to flying school, he will just buy a .233 and start banging. And even worse: it doesn't need to be bin Laden. It can as well be mr. Smith, your neighbour next door.

All kinds of control is acceptable in the name of war against terror, all kinds except gun control. Why ?

[Grond]

Originally posted by Gloer
...All kinds of control is acceptable in the name of war against terror, all kinds except gun control. Why ? Because it is a Constitutionally guaranteed right of the citizens of the U. S. to bear arms. Until the people of the U. S. decide that the Constitution needs to be changed, it will continue to be our right.

And before you throw out that the N. R. A. controls the country, let me point out that three Hollywood moguls last week, contributed more money to the Democratic National Committee in one week that the N. R. A. made in political contributions last year.

[Gloer]

I am not so much infavour of gun control here.
The problem is elsewhere.

We just had a mad 19-year old bomber here. Still I am not in favour of banning chemistry experimenting or studies. You see, this young man could as well have been a target shooter like over there.

I only would like N.R.A. stand up for the civil rights of the terrorist suspects as fervently as tehy do with 2nd ammendment.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Gloer
I am not so much infavour of gun control here.
The problem is elsewhere.

We just had a mad 19-year old bomber here. Still I am not in favour of banning chemistry experimenting or studies. You see, this young man could as well have been a target shooter like over there.

I only would like N.R.A. stand up for the civil rights of the terrorist suspects as fervently as tehy do with 2nd ammendment. Last time I looked, the single largest terrorist event in U. S. history (if not the world's history) was carried out with box-cutters and airplanes. The N. R. A. has lobbied to have pilots and sky-marshals with guns. Those two things would likely have prevented 9/11. The facts don't bear out your argument Gloer.

[Gloer]

You are right. Guns are not the issue, it is the complite ignorance of more important civil rights such as right to freedom.

I just heard you have someone held. Good. I hope he gets put into a mental institution.

[Ciryaher]

And why in the name of Winchester would the NRA (The National Rifle Association) stand up for suspected terrorists' rights? It's not their job by any means.

[Gloer]

Are you sure?
Have you ever thought of violent actions?
Have you ever acted violently? If so do you consider yourself a threat? If not then do you still harbour violent thoughts?
How do you manage your aggression?
do you consider your self an aggressive person?
Do you own a gun?
Why?
Do you think you could manage aggresion by using a gun?
Have you practised to shoot? Have you ever thought if you could shoot a person? Why? Could you shoot a man?

I think it is not safe to let you go just yet. We need to investigate further. You are a suspect.

[Ciryaher]

Are you a terrorist?
No
Are you sure?
Quite
Have you ever thought of violent actions?
Many times
Have you ever acted violently? If so do you consider yourself a threat? If not then do you still harbour violent thoughts?
No. No. No.
How do you manage your aggression?
I shoot inanimate objects.
do you consider your self an aggressive person?
No.
Do you own a gun?
Yes, and a bow.
Why?
Because I like to shoot inanimate objects with them.
Do you think you could manage aggresion by using a gun?
If I had a gun in my hand and someone was insulting me, of course I could control my aggression. If someone was attacking me or another person, I would use the gun as needed.
Have you practised to shoot?
Yes, many times.
Have you ever thought if you could shoot a person? Why? Could you shoot a man?
I have never considered shooting a person that was doing something to me. But I could easily kill a person without remorse given adequate reason.

[Gloer]

You answered calmly and thought you are on safe grounds because you know you are innocent. And then you expect to be let go, right.

What if you weren't?
What if you are just informed that you are detained because the other guy doesn't believe you or just doesn't want to let you go.

I would get very angry.

[Rangerdave]

Have you ever thought of violent actions?
Only in the defense of either myself or others.

Have you ever acted violently? If so do you consider yourself a threat? If not then do you still harbour violent thoughts?
Yes. In the course of my duties as a soldier in the US Army I was called upon to use extreme violence in mutiple conflicts in various engagements. However, I do not harbor any ill will or resentment to those I have had to fight against

How do you manage your aggression?
I play billards and read escapist literature

Do you consider your self an aggressive person?
No, but I have been trained to use violence when necessary

Do you own a gun?
Yes. I own the following: .45 Colt 1911a1, 9mm P35 Browing Hi-Power, .380Walther PPK/S , and a .45 Smith&Wesson model 457

Why?
Personal defense and recreational target shooting

Do you think you could manage aggresion by using a gun?
No. Aggression is managed by the prepared mind.

Have you practised to shoot?
Yes, Approx 3 hours weekly

Have you ever thought if you could shoot a person?
Unfortunately I have killed another human being. no I will not discuss it

Why?
Yes. In the course of sanctioned military action

Could you shoot a man?
Yes, but only when all other options have been exhausted


I think it is not safe to let you go just yet. We need to investigate further. You are a suspect.
In that case, would you please be so kind as to notify the US Embasy and present them with my whereabouts and inform them of the charges against me. Also, I would very much appreciate the services of an attorney. Thank you.


This is an honest response, In my service to the US Army, I was served as a LRRP with the 2/75 Ranger Battalion, a Foreign weapons specialist in the 1st Group Special Forces and as a Counter Intelligence Opperative assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency. Also I am fully trained in sniper, demolitions and urban warfare.

I possess advanced academic degrees in History and Political Science. I am politically and socially active.

The reason I present this information is to show that I am the very person most foreign powers would consider a potential terrorist. This is why, when traveling abroad, I take great care to be polite, cooperative and unassuming.

Thank you. This was an interesting exercise
RD

[Gloer]

... I guess that was my point also I guess.

I hope no one got offended. I don't suspect anyone.

I actually ment that everybody could be thought as potentially dangerous and that is not enough to hold a man indefinately if he is not tried in court for a specific action.

RD here made me a bit scared... maybe we should lock him up.

;)

[Grond]

RangerDave is one of those brave and unheralded people who stand on the wall and make it safe for all of us (Americans and others alike). He stands in the way of terrorists and foreign governments and all those who would threaten specifically the security of the United States of America but also generally the security of any NATO member nation.

I am proud that RD has stood on the wall and served our country... because in serving his country... he serves and secures its people...

Thank you RD. I know you don't hear it enough but I am proud and thankful for men such as yourself. :)

[JanitorofAngmar]

RangerDave,

While you certainly seem to be a level headed guy. I must point out that your govt., the same one that you worked for is not I repeat, is not going about dealing with detainees as your last response indicated

In that case, would you please be so kind as to notify the US Embasy and present them with my whereabouts and inform them of the charges against me. Also, I would very much appreciate the services of an attorney. Thank you.

No. Since the horrible day of 9/11 (and NO just because I hate your govt. does not mean I support terrorism - quite frankly I dislike my govt. alot too) the u.s. govt has NOT allowed contacts of other govt. embassys (or appropriate substitutes) by suspects and detainees in numerous instances. I really doubt if that has been dealt with in your mainstream media down there.

Oh here's a good one:
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/10/21/arar_021021

Not to mention numerous other articles and reports of Canadians (and other nationals) that have been held without contact, legal aid, or anything of that nature because they are "suspects". And that's how the u.s.a. govt. treats it's "friends".

That is one of the issues I have contention with. This from a country with "human rights"... Otherwise I often tend to agree with most of what you say on this and the other thread.

I just HAD to point that out..

JoA

[Ciryaher]

Stick to the topic, Janitor.

This thread, I think, is about gun identification or registration and its relevance to the recent sniper shootings.

Neither registration, nor identification would prevent crime at all. It might help with catching a criminal, but it won't prevent any crime. Stiffer punishments and more effective police forces are the only things that can have any chance of reducing gun crimes.

[Gloer]

I started this thread to bash Ascroft for being partial when he reads your civil rights (amongst other flaws).

You know - I think the second ammendment is probably
written in a much larger font
in his constitution.
And that is the only one his poor eyes can read well.

I think Ascroft for his own integrity's sake should have stood up straight and tramped all over the second ammendment just as he does to the other ones - remember - those he needs to be reminded of all the time.
Like the one about right to be tried in a fair trial.

Sorry Ciryaher if the start was misleading to think only about the gun issue here.

BTW: the first al Quada suspect to be tried had his trial started today - in Germany. It seems to proceed without any panic or extraordinarities.

And to Janitor: I think Ranger actually wanted to pin point the exact same thing you uttered in plain words. I must applaude his suttle suggestive style.

[Ciryaher]

Isn't Zacharias Moussoui being tried as well? Ah well.

I agree with your argument that Ashcroft (and I will myself add the rest of the Executive and Legislative branches to that list) is treading upon the rights of many people. I think that an argument needs to be put forth on the detention of hundreds of Americans of Middle-Eastern descent and/or Muslims in general. It seems to me that only "Islamic" organizations are being sought when there are far more, including various "Christian", environmental, and other groups with twisted agendas. It does not matter whether a group as a whole *participates* in terrorist activities, but if their ideologies support or permit the use of violence and terror-tactics, they need to be dismantled.

[Gloer]

Moussa-man is ... hmmm is he in trial?
Anyhow he was taken in as an "ordinary" terrorist suspect. the kind we used to have before 911.
Anyhow - the western world is heavily greatful that we have US armed forces.

Most Europeans do not understand that our international weigth matters only during the peace that is guarranteed by US army. Europeans do not understand that our armed forces is a laughing stock in the M-E and China. Especially because we have no idea how to start taking action. without US army no one would listen Tony Blair or schröder for that matter... why would they?

So RD - don't worry about travelling in EU. but be nice anyways.

[Walter]

Are you a terrorist?
No.

Are you sure?
Definitely!

Have you ever thought of violent actions?
Yes, too often...

Have you ever acted violently?
Other than occasionally banging my fist at a table or my head against the wall, no! (that was when I was a lad; No further comments on that one, please...;))

If so do you consider yourself a threat?
No!

If not then do you still harbour violent thoughts?
At times...

How do you manage your aggression?
Sports, reading, meditating...

Do you consider yourself an aggressive person?
Not more than average...

Do you own a gun?
Surely not, I loathe firearms...

Do you think you could manage aggresion by using a gun?
No!

Have you practised to shoot?
Yes, but only during my time serving in the Austrian Army. I've been trained on almost every carry-able firearm (as sort of a Ranger) maintained by the Austrian army back then.

Have you ever thought if you could shoot a person?
After a few years I found out that I would not be able to kill another human being. Hence I resigned and fulfilled my service as a supplies officer...

Could you shoot a man?
Nobody knows what the future may hold, but I think I could not - see above...

I have advanced university degrees in chemistry and technical sciences and am socially active and politically opinionated.

To sum it up, I could possibly be considered a potential terrorist too, though I would consider myself rather a pacifist at heart, but that doesnt show in any of the files which I may or may not be registered in.

I have the uttermost respect towards a human life (without any exceptions, "only ifs" and "buts"), but unfortunately that wouldn't show in any of those files either...

----

I still think that some form of rigoros gun control together with a better education and social system could prevent a lot of problems in that area - as I have already clearly stated elsewhere...

[Asha'man]

Are you a terrorist?

Hardly.

Are you sure?

Positive.

Have you ever thought of violent actions?

Of course. I am human, after all.

Have you ever acted violently?

Not particularly, unless you count hitting stuff (like a punching bag! how dare you).

If so do you consider yourself a threat?

Only if threatened.

If not then do you still harbour violent thoughts?

Naturally.

How do you manage your aggression?

Profanity, computer games.

Do you consider yourself an aggressive person?

Only on the road, and not in a crazy way.

Do you own a gun?

Yes, several.

Do you think you could manage aggresion by using a gun?

Absolutely, if I had a range that was closer to my house.

Have you practised to shoot?

Not nearly as often as I could wish.

Have you ever thought if you could shoot a person?

If I had to. If I or someone important to me was in danger from that person, I would and could take them down.

Could you shoot a man?

See above answer.

Asha'man