Gun Control, Terrorism, and Mumbai

Great article by Abhijeet Singh over at American Thinker.

Since the horrific attacks in Mumbai, I’ve read a few articles and accounts of the ineptitude of Indian law enforcement authorities, due in large part to lackluster training and outdated weaponry and armor. Lee-Enfield-style .303 rifles. Tin helmets from the World War II era. This, from The Times of India:


In the absence of a firing range and of ammunition for practice, members of the law enforcement agencies have not opened fire in the last ten years. ‘‘I’ve been in the police force for a long time, but I had no occasion to open fire for practice,’’ a senior inspector of police said.

As per the police manual, officials ranking from constable to assistant inspector get rifles with 30 rounds each, and those with the rank of police sub-inspector and above get revolvers, also with 30 rounds each.

Ten terrorists attacked six targets. Ten. That means that they were often in groups of two or less. They went on a rampage for days and days, and had undoubtedly picked targets where they knew resistance would be especially light.

The American Thinker piece goes into personal-level detail not so much about the attacks, though it does mention a cameraman who during the assault on the train station opined that he wished he “had a gun rather than a camera,” as well as bystanders at the city’s Jewish outreach center who bravely–but in vain–attempted to fight off terrorists by throwing stones (stones!), as it does into the attempts made by the government there to disarm the people.

I read somewhere last week that the group of Pakistani terrorists had hoped to kill 5,000 people. With a couple more people, they might have been able to. Yet, just like that animal at Virginia Tech (I don’t care to use his name, even if I could remember it) might have been stopped short of killing 32 people with two handguns–including a .22-caliber Walther–by one single student or teacher with a concealed weapon and a permit, I cannot help but wonder if the Pakistani terrorists in Mumbai would have had the same unfettered access and killing ability should the Indian people have been permitted or even encouraged to protect themselves, or if they would have even tried it knowing as much.

Here in the States, after all, where gun ownership is vilified by so many on the political left, I’d be willing to bet that such a brazen attack–ten terrorists for six targets–would be considered, from the perspective of those who planned the attacks, to be woefully undermanned.

Share

Comments

  1. gailbullock says:

    There is still the effort to ban guns in the United States. And, don’t forget about the Civilian Military Army. Sorta smack of un-American, I’d say.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Gather up your guns and ammo people because these crazy loons are seriously talking about re-writing our Constitution.

    Our fore fathers fought for ourfreedoms as I will for my childrens freedoms.

    I will not set still for these self interest commimies, socialist, marxist, muslims no more.

    This our country and we had better not give it up with out a serious fight…to the death if needed.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83364

    Read this…if this doesn't make you want to stand up then I guess that you may want to lay down now.

    All of this garbage is blamed on God and his Chistian followers but it is really over gold, oil and the power it theoreticly contains.

    I believe in the Lord my God and Jesus is the son of God. I have no fear of where I will be in the end and because of that I will fight for what is right.

    My constitution is my right to openly be a Christian! I will fight for that.

  3. Anonymous says:

    And thank God we still have the right to defend ourselves in SOME places here in America. There is no other reason why we are still a nation but the Second Amendment.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Did the gunman at VT have a permit, No! so why should we the people have to have a permit, to carry a gun, I do not think any body would have cared if you had a permit, if you blew his ass away.

    Right’s do not equal permits.

  5. Richard says:

    To Anonymous,

    The “crazy loons” have already re-written the Constitution. The 5th Ammendment was erased several years ago by the Kelo case in Connecticut. We are all now officially serfs, sharecroppers, glorified renters, etc.. You pick the term. The right to bear arms was within 1 vote of also being erased. Anyway, hold onto to that firearm and I’ve got your back!

  6. Anonymous says:

    I bet if any of the teachers at Virginia Tech had the guts to get the gunman they would be the ones prosecuted these days. Sadly, we’ve already been terrorized…in spirit.

  7. midnight rider says:

    Amen. Responibilty for your own safety. And those around you.

    “The purpose of carrying a concelaed firearm is not for personal protection or safety, it is to allow you to control your immediate surroundings when required.”

  8. Anonymous says:

    Anonymous @ 1:41AM — Amen!

    Even those few founders who were not Christian understood the value in basing our government upon Biblical principles. We get the government we deserve based upon what is in our hearts.

    Re: guns, for those considering purchase, please consider attending an inexpensive NRA workshop where you can get neutral info and be fitted before going someplace only interested in selling you a gun. Many different programs all over the US.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Legal Notice to Patrick Fitzgerald Regarding Barack Obama
    December 11th, 2008
    CitizenWells has this evening posted a legal notice whereby he calls on Patrick Fitzgerald of the US Justice Department to issue Barack Obama with an indictment or criminal complaint (the following is the Conclusion of the notice):

    The names of Blagojevich and Obama were mentioned regularly
    during the Rezko trial. Since Blagojevich and Obama were not
    on trial at the time, much information known about them was
    withheld………
    article continues here:
    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1858

  10. Anonymous says:

    I just got this E mail from a friend – mighty scary.

    Subject: Has Anyone Else Heard Of This?????????????????????

    Here we go folks!! The party has started!!

    SENATE BILL S. 2433 – THE GLOBAL POVERTY ACT

    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2433/text

    SENATE BILL S. 2433 – THE GLOBAL POVERTY ACT

    According to David Bossie, President of the group ‘Citizens United for American Sovereignty’, based out of Merrifield Virginia, {website: http://www.citizensunited.org/} the above mentioned Senate Bill (S. 2433) is a piece of legislation in the works that all Americans need to know about……….. and know now!

    This bill, sponsored by none other than Sen. Barack Obama, with the backing of Joe Biden on the Foreign Relations Committee, and liberal democrats in Congress, is nothing short of a massive giveaway of American wealth around the world, and a betrayal of the public trust, because, if passed, this bill would give over many aspects of our sovereignty to the United Nations.

    The noble sounding name of this bill, ‘The Global Poverty Act’ is actually a Global Tax, payable to the United Nations, that will be required of all American taxpayers. If passed in the Senate, the House has already passed it, this bill would require the U.S. to increase our foreign aid by $65 BILLION per year, or $845 BILLION over the next 13 years! That’s on top of the billions of dollars in foreign aid we already pay out!

    In addition to the economic burdens this potential law would place on our precarious economy, the bill, if passed in the Senate, would also endanger our constitutionally protected rights and freedoms by obligating us to meet certain United Nations mandates.

    According to Senator Obama, we should establish these United Nations’ goals as benchmarks for U.S. spending. What are they?

    1. The creation of a U.N. International Criminal Court having the power to try and convict American citizens and soldiers without any protection from the U.S. Constitution.

    2. A standing United Nations Army forcing U.S. soldiers to serve under U.N. command.

    3. A Gun Ban on all small arms and light weapons –which would repeal our Second Amendment right to bear arms.

    4. The ratification of the ‘ Kyoto ‘ global warming treaty and numerous other anti-American measures.

    Recently, the Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Relations (where Sen. Joe Biden sits) approved this plan by a voice vote without any discussion! Why all the secrecy? If Senators Obama and Biden are so proud of this legislation, then why don’t they bring it out into the light of day and let the American people have a look at it instead of hiding it behind closed doors and sneaking it through Congress for late night votes.

    It may be only a matter of time before this dangerous legislation reaches a floor vote in the full body of the Senate.

    Please write or call, email your representatives, the White House, the media, or anyone you think will listen, and express your opinions regarding this Global Tax giveaway and betrayal of the American people at a time when our nation and our people are already heavily burdened with the threats to our freedoms and economic prosperity.

    Please send this email to as many folks out there in your networks as you can. And ASAP!

  11. Anonymous says:

    Brotnowski v. Bysiewkz #08A469. Application for stay/injunction denied without comment or dissent.

    -Lawdawg

  12. sonicninjakitty says:

    Although this post has very valid points, terrorists do not always choose guns. No amount of carry and conceal can stop bombs, airplanes, and chemicals.

    Although guns are ‘vilified by the left’ they are also glorified by the extreme right to some extent. What happened to “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”? Same can go for protecting: “Guns don’t protect people, people protect people.”

    Terrorism needs to be prevented at the ideology level. Although talking about guns and protection is OK as s side argument, we need to remember where the main focus should be (imho).

  13. C says:

    Jeff,

    You’ve made your point about Gore. It’s vulgar, nauseating, and offensive to many, so you need to take it down.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Jeff:
    The scatalogical humor aimed at Gore makes YOU look bad. You need to decide what YOUR core values are. You can plead justification all day long, but posting it degrades America’s Right.

  15. Ted Park says:

    @ Mr. C

    Al Gore himself and his GW spew is far FAR more vulgar, nauseating, and offensive than this meager bit of artwork. And yet we don’t get to “take it down”.

  16. bluewater says:

    Jeff,
    The Gore gif is Constitutionally protected speech. Isn’t it amazing that people in this country feel it is their right to order to to express yourself differently?

  17. gailbullock says:

    Jeff, America’s Right is your blog. You do not “need” to take down something simply because someone “wants” you to. Sometimes we have to be graphic in order to get a point across.

    Side thought–Karl Rove has an article on WSJ wherein he mentions the growing dependance for news on the Internet for people in the age group of 18-24. I do not subscribe to a newspaper and have not turned on the television in months. I’m 68yoa and get my news from you (America’s Right), email subscriptions, search engines and bookmarks. The MSM is so biased that it isn’t worth my while.

    The article about the three illegal immigrants who slipped through FBI background checks to work in Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff’s home was electrifying. He could have been taken out or kidnapped, etc. (That took a little time to find.) We need to close the drawstring on our borders!

  18. jjones says:

    Update from Leo Donofrio’s site

    [UPDATE]: 11:26 AM – Dec. 12 2008 : Rumors of a decision denying Cort’s application are unequivocally false. A SCOTUS Spokesperson just told Cort Wrotnowski there has been no decision. She indicated there will be no decision until Monday. The conference is sealed, no clerks are allowed in.]

  19. Anonymous says:

    The Virginia Tech killings happened in my building. Very, very sad day.

  20. Sharon says:

    Jeff,

    Check Natural Born Citizen. The case was not denied.

  21. rrobin says:

    Lawdawg’s assertion is NOT correct. He may just be another one of the Obama troll infestation trying to spread disinformation on this site for his own nonsensical purposes.

    Leo Donofrio has just posted this VALID update on his site:

    [UPDATE]: 11:26 AM – Dec. 12 2008 : Rumors of a decision denying Cort’s application are unequivocally false. A SCOTUS Spokesperson just told Cort Wrotnowski there has been no decision. She indicated there will be no decision until Monday. The conference is sealed, no clerks are allowed in.]

  22. Anonymous says:

    Brotnowski v. Bysiewkz #08A469.

    Application for stay granted.

    Oh, I’m sorry, but if a useless unreliable troll like Lawdawg is going to post uninformed and inaccurate annoucements when he knows nothing, then so will I.

  23. Anonymous says:

    Lawdog…who are you and how do you know this?

  24. Jorge says:

    Gun Control: Protecting Terrorists and Despots
    by Ron Paul

    Tragically, over the Thanksgiving holiday, the world was reminded how evil and cruel people can be. According to emerging accounts of the events in India, about a dozen well-armed and devastatingly well-trained terrorists laid siege on the city of Mumbai, killing almost two hundred people, and terrorizing thousands.
    Regardless of the reasons, the indiscriminate shooting on masses of unarmed and defenseless people is chilling and reprehensible. How were these terrorists able to continue so long, relatively unchallenged, killing so many?
    India’s gun laws are her business, of course. However, once the shock of these events and the initial reaction of fear passes, Americans should take away a valuable lesson about real homeland security and gun control from this tragedy.
    Gun control advocates tell us that removing guns from society makes us safer. If that were the case why do the worst shootings happen in gun free zones, like schools? And while accidents do happen, aggressive, terroristic shootings like this are unheard of at gun and knife shows, or military bases. It bears repeating that an armed society truly is a polite society.
    The fact is that firearm technology exists. It cannot be uninvented. As long as there is metalworking and welding capability, it matters not what gun laws are imposed upon law-abiding people. Those that wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns. Gun control makes violence safer and more effective for the aggressive, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a government.
    History shows us that another tragedy of gun laws is genocide. Hitler, for example, knew well that in order to enact his “final solution,” disarmament was a necessary precursor. While it is not always the case that an unarmed populace WILL be killed by their government, if a government is going to kill its own people, it MUST disarm them first so they cannot fight back. Disarmament must happen at a time when overall trust in government is high, and under the guise of safety for the people, or perhaps the children. Knowing that any government, no matter how idealistically started, can become despotic, the Founding Fathers enabled the future freedom of Americans by enacting the second amendment.
    In our own country, we should be ever vigilant against any attempts to disarm the people, especially in this economic downturn. I expect violent crime to rise sharply in the coming days, and as states and municipalities are even more financially strained, the police will be even less able or willing to respond to crime. In many areas, local police could become more and more absorbed with revenue generating activities, like minor traffic violations and the asset forfeiture opportunities of non-violent drug offenses. Your safety has always, ultimately been your own responsibility, but never more so than now. People have a natural right to defend themselves. Governments that take that away from their people should be highly suspect.
    http://www.campaignforliberty.org/

  25. Anonymous says:

    All of the talk I hear will do no good.

    What we need is some positive action.

  26. MIDDLE CLASS GUY says:

    The Right Side of Life is reporting that there is no mention of the Wrotnowski case in the SCOTUS orders listed today.

    Thanks, Ken

  27. Author says:

    SCOTUS- Denied claim false!….No decision till Monday .
    Posted by michelle jauquet on December 12, 2008 at 1:11pm

    [UPDATE]: 11:26 AM – Dec. 12 2008 : Rumors of a decision denying Cort’s application are unequivocally false. A SCOTUS Spokesperson just told Cort Wrotnowski there has been no decision. She indicated there will be no decision until Monday. The conference is sealed, no clerks are allowed in.]

  28. Anonymous says:

    Anonymous said…
    Brotnowski v. Bysiewkz #08A469. Application for stay/injunction denied without comment or dissent.

    -Lawdawg

    From NaturalBornCitizen: [UPDATE]: 11:26 AM – Dec. 12 2008 : Rumors of a decision denying Cort’s application are unequivocally false. A SCOTUS Spokesperson just told Cort Wrotnowski there has been no decision. She indicated there will be no decision until Monday. The conference is sealed, no clerks are allowed in.]

  29. mastershake says:

    In 1959 the prohibition was repealed. But the Indian government rushed in to protect its citizens from themselves and by 1990 the government had banned the import of small arms.
    Permits for owning weapons are available to the citizenry of India but the licensing process is so complex and bewildering that very few citizens make the effort to (legally) obtain firearms. (A brief history of the gun control laws in India is available here and a video exploring the issue here.)
    There is a huge lesson for freedom loving peoples to learn from the massacre in Mumbai: We cannot count on the government to protect us from terrorists who are willing to die to murder us. And without the right to legally own a firearm, we cannot protect ourselves.

  30. Janet says:

    Reading these posts above I am reminded of the many, many reasons why it would be a bad idea to allow Obama to continue to the presidency above and beyond the fact that he is unqualified (not a NBC), beyond the fact that he is so secretive and has hidden much of his past, and beyond the fact that he has laid down with dogs and is full of fleas. I could have said sh*t but I’m a lady.

  31. Anonymous says:

    Gun Control: Protecting Terrorists and Despots
    by Ron Paul
    Tragically, over the Thanksgiving holiday, the world was reminded how evil and cruel people can be. According to emerging accounts of the events in India, about a dozen well-armed and devastatingly well-trained terrorists laid siege on the city of Mumbai, killing almost two hundred people, and terrorizing thousands.
    Regardless of the reasons, the indiscriminate shooting on masses of unarmed and defenseless people is chilling and reprehensible. How were these terrorists able to continue so long, relatively unchallenged, killing so many?
    India’s gun laws are her business, of course. However, once the shock of these events and the initial reaction of fear passes, Americans should take away a valuable lesson about real homeland security and gun control from this tragedy.
    Gun control advocates tell us that removing guns from society makes us safer. If that were the case why do the worst shootings happen in gun free zones, like schools? And while accidents do happen, aggressive, terroristic shootings like this are unheard of at gun and knife shows, or military bases. It bears repeating that an armed society truly is a polite society.
    The fact is that firearm technology exists. It cannot be uninvented. As long as there is metalworking and welding capability, it matters not what gun laws are imposed upon law-abiding people. Those that wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns. Gun control makes violence safer and more effective for the aggressive, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a government.
    History shows us that another tragedy of gun laws is genocide. Hitler, for example, knew well that in order to enact his “final solution,” disarmament was a necessary precursor. While it is not always the case that an unarmed populace WILL be killed by their government, if a government is going to kill its own people, it MUST disarm them first so they cannot fight back. Disarmament must happen at a time when overall trust in government is high, and under the guise of safety for the people, or perhaps the children. Knowing that any government, no matter how idealistically started, can become despotic, the Founding Fathers enabled the future freedom of Americans by enacting the second amendment.
    In our own country, we should be ever vigilant against any attempts to disarm the people, especially in this economic downturn. I expect violent crime to rise sharply in the coming days, and as states and municipalities are even more financially strained, the police will be even less able or willing to respond to crime. In many areas, local police could become more and more absorbed with revenue generating activities, like minor traffic violations and the asset forfeiture opportunities of non-violent drug offenses. Your safety has always, ultimately been your own responsibility, but never more so than now. People have a natural right to defend themselves. Governments that take that away from their people should be highly suspect.

  32. C says:

    I just emailed both my senators, asking them to vote down the Global Poverty Act when it comes up for a vote. PLEASE DO THE SAME WITH YOUR SENATORS. You can easily find their email contacts online (or send a snail mail for greater effect). Here’s my email, if you don’t have time to write your own and would like to copy:

    Dear Senator ****,

    I’m deeply distressed to learn that the Global Poverty Act, passed by the House of Representatives last September, could soon be voted into law in the Senate, and is sure to be signed when Barack Obama takes office. This bill places an enormous financial burden on taxpayers at a time when our economy is in crisis, and when tens of millions of Americans are facing possible unemployment and poverty themselves.

    Should we decide, as a nation, to send foreign aid in an attempt to alleviate world poverty, the money would be much more efficiently spent by our own government, targeting and implementing programs of our own choosing (where we feel it would do the most good), rather than letting the United Nations make those decisions for us.

    Additionally, I have concerns regarding several United Nations Millennium Development Goal provisions our country would be agreeing to, regarding citizens’ rights in criminal prosecution, military duty, and the right to bear arms.

    The Global Poverty Act also includes U.S. ratification of the Kyoto treaty (which claims Earth is undergoing ‘global warming’ caused by manmade carbon dioxide emissions). There is widespread scientific debunking of this theory, as evidenced by the U.S. Senate Minority Report released December 11, 2008. I oppose Congressional ratification of this treaty, as well as the taxation of American industries for release of carbon dioxide emissions (as proposed by President elect Obama).

    I hope you share my concerns about this bill and will enlighten your fellow Senators as to its drawbacks, so that it may be voted down in the Senate.

    With gratitude for your thoughtful representation all these years,

    ********

  33. gailbullock says:

    Added thought to consider: Wonder why “C” didn’t think the photo of one of the Pakistani terrorists killing nearly 100 people, some of whom were Americans–Why isn’t THAT nauseating and offensive to her? Get over it, “C.” Jeff has a degree in journalism and is a seasoned reporter. We trust his judgment! (I’m “back quiet.”)

  34. MIDDLE CLASS GUY says:

    Jeff,

    There seems to be confusion on some of the sites relative to the status of the Donofrio case. We all know that the emergency stay was denied on 12/12/08. There is speculation as to whether or not the writ of Certiorari is still pending or not. Can you shed any light on this?

    Thanks, Ken

  35. Anonymous says:

    Hi all:

    I’ve just checked out my reliable source re Congressional action, and the Global Poverty Act (S. 2433) is as bad as the posts above describe.

    If you want more detail, go to:
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2433

    There is a particularly useful feature on govtrack.us — you can assign a “Tracker” so whenever there is action on the bill in question, you’ll get an email alert. BHO is the sponsor and the 30 cosponsors read like a Who’s Who of the Democratic Party, other than the 2 Republican Senators from Maine and one from Alaska …

    This is indeed a major violation of conservative principles and of American interests. Contact your Senator and representatives as soon as you can …

    Thanks in advance …

  36. Anonymous says:

    This nation has really changed. I can recall when I bought my first Springfield 30-’06 for just a few dollars from the DoD’s DCM (Director of Civilian Marksmanship.)

    Can you imagine the US Government selling a 30 calibre rifle and ammunition to a 15 year old today?

    No one is trusted today.

  37. Jeff Schreiber says:

    On the Global Poverty Act — I covered it in the spring of this year, before any of this Obama stuff came down the pike.

    Use the search box at the top left, or look through the tag list along the right side. I think there was a decent amount of information on it.

    (I can’t remember, and am too tired to check.)

  38. K says:

    Re: C’s Global Poverty Act letter

    Thank you for sharing. It is the height of arrogance that Obama, of all people, should introduce this act given his track record of charitable contributions.

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmMxMDk1MDNlMjI2NTQwYmE5NjEwZTJkZTM2YjRiNzI=

    He wants to share YOUR wealth, not his. He gave less than 1% (far below national average) until it became politically expedient for him to do so (and even still, a miserly amount, IMO). And then his own relatives that are living in poverty. I am a lady so I won’t say what I am really thinking.

    Jeff, you covered the GPA well in days past, but it was back when I was asleep. Not n’more… eyes wide open now!

  39. Anonymous says:

    I can not, even in my wildest dreams, believe that any responsible congress person would vote for the Global Poverty Act or other like Acts that are totally un-American.

  40. Ted Park says:

    in re comment: “I can not, even in my wildest dreams, believe that any responsible congress person would vote for the Global Poverty Act or other like Acts that are totally un-American.”

    Then you better wake up and pay attention. This is Obama’s favorite. His reason for existence – if you will. This GPA is already on a juggernaut roll, just like the Obama machine itself. It is already a done deal. Unless “we the people” figure out how to stop it.

    Pray believe me. Otherwise we are doomed.

  41. gailbullock says:

    Did you see the African news? They rejoiced that they “Had the White House” or “Took the White House.” Just try the 2 + 2 math– Yes, Obama’s all FOR the Global Poverty Act, which is backed by Democrats. What are we sending those people going to eat, however? Money? We don’t have any. Food? With the population ever-expanding even without the illegal immigrants, can we support our own appetites? No. With the recession and inflating prices of food, whose magic wand is going to feed anybody? Believe Ted Parks. He’s RIGHT!

Speak Your Mind

*