From FEMA training - the essence of the Second Amendment

[darin]

Online FEMA training presents to ME one of, if not the BEST argument for a very well-armed society.



The very nature of terrorist attacks underscores the importance of preventing such attacks from occurring. First, they typically occur with little or no warning. Second, they often involve multiple geographic areas. And finally, if multiple near-simultaneous terrorist attacks occur, they can be expected to exceed the capabilities of any one entity.

Preventing a terrorist attack requires a unified effort in a time-constrained environment. Therefore, to be prepared to prevent terrorism, the whole community must preemptively build and maintain the needed capabilities prior to a threat, and be ready to put them in action in a coordinated fashion once a threat is identified.

emphasis mine

[Abbey Marie]

A good reminder that with change there are usually unintended consequences. Not that the anti-gun folks will care.

[tailfins]

Imagine being unarmed in Nawlins just after Katrina in 2005.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Imagine being unarmed in Nawlins just after Katrina in 2005.
I have not been unarmed since I was a kid. Not going to be either. They can all kiss a good man's azz.-Tyr

[jafar00]

Paranoia. It's a mental illness.

[revelarts]

Paranoia. It's a mental illness.
So is denial.

[hjmick]

So is denial.


You Can't fool me...

That's a river in Egypt...

[Drummond]

Paranoia. It's a mental illness.

You don't want America citizens to be armed as they would choose to be. You want them to be subject to limitations. Yet, on another thread, you indicated - from a suggestion you made concerning Hamas's current armaments - that America should supply Hamas terrorists with much-upgraded weaponry.

Explain to me why you think that terrorists should be free to acquire state-of-the-art weaponry, to kill en masse and to INTEND to kill en masse, whilst ordinary, law-abiding Americans, simply wanting to defend themselves as is their RIGHT, must have THEIR weaponry-options limited.

[jafar00]

So is denial.

Excepting the "phew! caught them just in time" FBI stings, how many actual terrorist attacks have there been in the US since 9/11?

[Drummond]

Excepting the "phew! caught them just in time" FBI stings, how many actual terrorist attacks have there been in the US since 9/11?

To what extent, since 9/11, have stringent gun controls been introduced ?

[hjmick]

Excepting the "phew! caught them just in time" FBI stings, how many actual terrorist attacks have there been in the US since 9/11?

How many does there have to be? Better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have one...

But, to your question...


Nidal Malik Hasan.

Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar.

John Allen Muhammad.

Michael Julius Ford.

Naveed Afzal Haq.

Sulejman Talović.



There are just a few, and you should see the list of so called "honor killings," what a fucking joke that term is...

[Robert A Whit]

Paranoia. It's a mental illness.

I believe you have been told that over and over about Israel as well.

[revelarts]

Excepting the "phew! caught them just in time" FBI stings, how many actual terrorist attacks have there been in the US since 9/11?

FEMA's terrorist premise is off but the Principal of an armed and ready citizenry is an universally applicable and sound concept. One that was promoted by the founders of the country. and one that's still employed in countries like Israel and Switzerland where every man and women of age is armed with military style weapons for the defense of the country from any external or internal attacks. When's the last time the Swiss have been attacked Jafar? A good defense is a deterrent and wise precaution regardless.

[Robert A Whit]

FEMA's terrorist premise is off but the Principal of an armed and ready citizenry is an universally applicable and sound concept. One that was promoted by the founders of the country. and one that's still employed in countries like Israel and Switzerland where every man and women of age is armed with military style weapons for the defense of the country from any external or internal attacks. When's the last time the Swiss have been attacked Jafar? A good defense is a deterrent and wise precaution regardless.

I am fully in agreement with your remarks. Where Jafar comes from, they don't enjoy our constitution. We have the right to defend ourselves. There are still too many criminals despite this country jailing the most citizens of all countries. Must be a problem with those crooks.

[Little-Acorn]

The very nature of terrorist attacks underscores the importance of preventing such attacks from occurring. First, they typically occur with little or no warning. Second, they often involve multiple geographic areas. And finally, if multiple near-simultaneous terrorist attacks occur, they can be expected to exceed the capabilities of any one entity.

Preventing a terrorist attack requires a unified effort in a time-constrained environment. Therefore, to be prepared to prevent terrorism, the whole community must preemptively build and maintain the needed capabilities prior to a threat, and be ready to put them in action in a coordinated fashion once a threat is identified.
Interesting conclusion, especially the part you bolded above.

What's even more interesting, is that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, said almost exactly the same thing. And that was more than two hundred years ago.

They said: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Nice to see the FEMA folks, after racking their brains for months or years, came to exactly the same conclusion.

[jafar00]

How many does there have to be? Better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have one...

But, to your question...


Nidal Malik Hasan.

Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar.

John Allen Muhammad.

Michael Julius Ford.

Naveed Afzal Haq.

Sulejman Talović.

Nidal Malik Hasan - Cracked in the workplace like many others have in the US. This is not a terrorist act.

Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar - a nutter drives his car into people then calls 9/11 to turn himself in. In what way was that terrorism?

John Allen Muhammad - Are all serial killings terrorism now?

Michael Julius Ford - Another workplace shooting. Not terrorism.

Naveed Afzal Haq - Was Wade Michael Page (Sikh temple shooter) also a terrorist?

Sulejman Talović - How is that terrorism? Seems like a normal everyday shopping mall/School shooting you see all the time in the US



There are just a few, and you should see the list of so called "honor killings," what a fucking joke that term is...

I agree with you. There is nothing honourable about "honour" killing.

[logroller]

Nidal Malik Hasan - Cracked in the workplace like many others have in the US. This is not a terrorist act.

Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar - a nutter drives his car into people then calls 9/11 to turn himself in. In what way was that terrorism?

John Allen Muhammad - Are all serial killings terrorism now?

Michael Julius Ford - Another workplace shooting. Not terrorism.

Naveed Afzal Haq - Was Wade Michael Page (Sikh temple shooter) also a terrorist?

Sulejman Talović - How is that terrorism? Seems like a normal everyday shopping mall/School shooting you see all the time in the US




I agree with you. There is nothing honourable about "honour" killing.
the shoe bomber, the 2010 Times Square car bomb, the little rock army recruiting station shooting...and as for fort hood, that certainly qualifies as terrorism-- its just a legal technicality surrounding military jurisdiction that it is classified otherwise. There is no terrorism charge in military justice; so if they said it was terrorism, he couldn't be tried under military law. But because of where he committed the crimes, its solely a military matter.

[jafar00]

the shoe bomber, the 2010 Times Square car bomb, the little rock army recruiting station shooting...and as for fort hood, that certainly qualifies as terrorism-- its just a legal technicality surrounding military jurisdiction that it is classified otherwise. There is no terrorism charge in military justice; so if they said it was terrorism, he couldn't be tried under military law. But because of where he committed the crimes, its solely a military matter.

Ok so explain how a bunch of civilians running about with guns would have changed the circumstances?

[logroller]

Ok so explain how a bunch of civilians running about with guns would have changed the circumstances?
In the bombings, it probably wouldn't. But the casualties from the shootings certainly could have been reduced. Most active shooter situations are committed against "soft targets" and end only after armed confrontation.

[Little-Acorn]

the shoe bomber, the 2010 Times Square car bomb, the little rock army recruiting station shooting...and as for fort hood, that certainly qualifies as terrorism-- its just a legal technicality surrounding military jurisdiction that it is classified otherwise. There is no terrorism charge in military justice; so if they said it was terrorism, he couldn't be tried under military law. But because of where he committed the crimes, its solely a military matter.

Ok

Well, well. At long last, jafar finally agrees that islamic terrorism was indeed islamic terrorism.

If this thread accomplishes nothing else, at least it accomplished that. :clap:

[mundame]

The OP from FEMA sounds like Red Dawn.