they also prefer you don’t shoot back
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership:
“In countries like the United States it’s perfectly legal for members of the public to own certain types of firearms. If you live in such a country obtain an assault rifle legally, preferably an AK-47 or variations.”
– AL QAEDA TRAINING MANUAL
Like the Brady Camp, Al Qaeda seems to be either 1) confused or 2) misrepresents gun laws. An AK-47 made after 1986 is illegal to own in this country. A semi-automatic variant of the AK-47 made after 1989 must meet certain import requirements but, assuming those requirements are met, is lawful to own (1989 is the year the import restrictions went into effect; 1986 was when the FOPA went into effect). That said, here’s what the Brady Bunch is yammering about:
In the last few weeks, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Congressman Peter King (R-NY) have introduced bills which say that people on the terrorist watch list should not be permitted to buy guns. Most people are shocked when they learn that this common-sense step in fighting terrorism is not already in place.
We welcome and applaud this effort by the Bush Administration and Congress to begin to plug the terrorist loophole in our nation’s gun laws, and the gun loophole in our nation’s war on terror. Under current law, suspected terrorists who are deemed too dangerous to fly on airplanes, are not classified as too dangerous to buy assault weapons or other guns unless they fall into some other prohibited category. This makes no sense.
That’s right, denying constitutional rights without due process of law is a common-sense step.
I wonder if they support denying people the ability to buy box cutters, gasoline, and fertilizer?
Update: In comments, thirdpower points out:
Doing a little Googling, it’s not from the (or any) AQ training manual. It’s from some crappy little pamphlet alledgedly printed in the UK by “Azzam Publications”. So a little more disinformation from the BC and the VPC.
Ayup. Here’s one such manual. The quote is even wrong.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
I should think, the way things are trending, the Brady-cats would be more concerned with banning tar and feathers…
Waiting periods and ‘gun-free’ zones have proven to be little more than a serious threat to life. Castle doctrine and similiar laws are popping up quickly enough to give a dandelion a run for its’ money. More cases of justified self-defense are making the news. The court decision in DC, probable SCOTUS review of the 2A under circumstances which are making the gun-grabbing bastards unhappy – If this trend continues, Sara B may well be selling apples on the corner, seeing as the market for bull manure seems to be going downhill.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Using guns for attacks on Americans does not fit with the Al Qaeda MO. As we’ve seen, they prefer big, organized, mass-killing events. Bombs, airplanes, etc. Nobody in Al Qaeda is stupid enough to think they can come over here and do any damage with a gun… except perhaps in gun-free zones.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Actually it’s 1968, isn’t it? 1968 closed registry for foreign-made automatic weapons, afaik. I may just be fuzzy today…
May 29th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Two points:
1. Let them try to buy AK’s – it sheds a light on them, making them easier to catch.
2. Travel watch lists barring citizens from traveling should be as unconstitutional as banning people from owning firearms just because some ‘crat doesn’t like their haircut.
and a snark:
— Some of those anti-gun people shouldn’t be allowed to breed.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Doing a little Googling, it’s not from the (or any) AQ training manual. It’s from some crappy little pamphlet alledgedly printed in the UK by “Azzam Publications”. So a little more disinformation from the BC and the VPC.
May 29th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Not sure what the big deal is… it’s not as if ordinary Americans wind up on the “no-fly” list for no discernible reason whatsoever.
People like Ted Kennedy, for example. 😉
May 29th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
86 was when transfers of new machine guns was banned. 1989 was when the import restrictions on weapons went into effect.
May 29th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Actually, this Lautenberg/King proposal is even more dangerous than what you’ve concluded.
Once you condition the possession of a protected right on a certain status, you create a “due process” right to challenge that status. Worse yet, you may create a situation where one can be deprived of a “liberty interest” only with due process of law. In other words, you can only be listed only after notice and a right to a hearing on whether you are legitimately a terror suspect.
The net effect, if the Lautenberg/King proposal becomes law, will be that it will become more difficult to watch terrorists because you will have to first “prove” that there is probable cause before listing suspected terrorists on a “terrorist watch” list.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
The families of the VTECH victims should file a lawsuit against the college for denying the consitutional rights of the students.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:31 am
The media gave little exposure when Mrs. Brady purchased a Remington .30-06 rifle. It was for her son, but it was effectively a straw purchase, but after a series of checks it was deemed legal even though her son never had a background check. I have no personal problem with what she did because one should be able at least purchase for a relative, but she of all people should not be hypocritical or from a political standpoint be purchasing a firearm. One post on this at http://www.mail-archive.com/firearmsregprof@listserv.ucla.edu/msg00190.html
May 30th, 2007 at 9:32 am
[…] SOME BRADY CAMPAIGN AL QAEDA disinformation. […]
May 30th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Perhaps all we need to do is to accuse suspected terrorists of domestic abuse. That will keep them from buying guns and you don’t even need to have proof.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:12 am
In fairness, it should be pointed out that the Jihad manual cited also promotes good citizenship! :
“Respect the laws of the country you are in and avoid dealing in illegal firearms. One can learn to operate many arms legally, so there is no need to spend years in prison for dealing in small, illegal fireams. Learn the most you can according to your circumstances and leave the rest to when you actually go for Jihad.”
May 30th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Uh, amr…that’s what they are, that’s what they do….
May 31st, 2007 at 9:39 am
I looked it up, several places point to 26 USC 5844 as “proof” of inability to import NFA weapons after 1968.
IIRC this is why exist such things as “pre-86 samples”.
That would mean no AKs after 1968.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:11 am
[…] in reasoned discourse, Mr. Helmke. You know, like the time your organization lied about an Al Qaeda training manual mentioning lax US gun control. Or the time you lied and said the NRA was pushing handgun carry at colleges. Or when your lying […]