SternFanNetwork Archive - Dearborn, Michigan: Muslim caught in park with AK-47 assault rifle...

SternFanNetwork Archive > Other Talk > Politics & News

Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.

Dearborn, Michigan: Muslim caught in park with AK-47 assault rifle... - Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics

banner

Pages: [1] 2

Dearborn, Michigan: Muslim caught in park with AK-47 assault rifle... - Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics

Stonewall

Dearborn, Michigan: Muslim caught in park with AK-47 assault rifle

A third-year medical student -- which fact recalls the recent Doctors' Plot in the UK, and the news that came out at that time of large-scale attempts by jihadists to recruit doctors and other professionals.

But let us not rush to judgment. Maybe he was hunting squirrels.

Video here (thanks to Ray).

Coverage is very sparse. Here is a story from the thrice-weekly Press & Guide, "Man with AK-47 assault rifle arrested after leaving Dearborn's Hemlock Park":

DEARBORN - Houssein Zorkot, a 26-year-old Dearborn resident, was arraigned Tuesday in 19th District Court on multiple felony charges, including carrying a dangerous weapon with unlawful intent — a five-year felony.

Zorkot, a third-year medical student at Wayne State University, was allegedly armed with an AK-47 assault rifle and dressed in black clothing with camouflage paint covering his face when he was arrested Saturday in Hemlock Park.

According to police, Zorkot was observed attempting to leave the park in a black SUV after officers had received reports of a man carrying a rifle in the area. He was placed under arrest and is scheduled to undergo a preliminary examination at 9 a.m. Sept. 21 in 19th District Court.

Zorkot has also been charged with one count of possession of a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle and one count of felony firearm. He remains in custody on a $1 million bond (cash, no 10 percent).

Jihad Watch

Ass Boil

Any muslims caught shoplifting this week?

How about any jihadist speeding tickets?

coward.

NC-Stern-Mark

I'm not surprised, it's Dearbornistan.

Seems the dude has his own website too.

Enjoy http://www.zorkot.org/Houssein2.html

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Any muslims caught shoplifting this week?

How about any jihadist speeding tickets?

coward.

Don't be too quick this judge this. This guy is starting his personal jihad in America. That's according to his website.

The Start of My Personal Jihad (in the US)

Stonewall

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
I'm not surprised, it's Dearbornistan.

Seems the dude has his own website too.

Enjoy http://www.zorkot.org/Houssein2.html

Very impressive site.

I wonder what he was up to?

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Very impressive site.

I wonder what he was up to?

By impressive, what do you mean?

I think the site had ideological nutjob written all over it.

I assume this is the same guy in the article. How many 26 year med students with same name in Dearbornistan? He shows a black truck in his photo gallery too.

I also wonder what the fuck the guy was up to with an AK-47 in a park. Maybe he was going to start shooting people.

I guess he's pissed off about Lebanon.

jtheweirdo

I'm scared.

Stonewall

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
By impressive, what do you mean?

I think the site had ideological nutjob written all over it.

I assume this is the same guy in the article. How many 26 year med students with same name in Dearbornistan? He shows a black truck in his photo gallery too.

I also wonder what the fuck the guy was up to with an AK-47 in a park. Maybe he was going to start shooting people.

I guess he's pissed off about Lebanon.

Impressive as in presentation.

It's strange how the mainstream media has chosen to ignore this story... :)

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by jtheweirdo
I'm scared.

Avoid parks in Dearbornistan for awile and buy your own rifle. :D

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Impressive as in presentation.

It's strange how the mainstream media has chosen to ignore this story... :)

It'll get out. It's too juicy.

JTProcess

You guys are awesome... you'll scream and cry about stuff like this... but when someone tries to pass a law that would prevent people like this from actually obtaining an AK-47 you will scream and cry about the 2nd ammendment.

congratulations on holding yet another conflicting viewpoint.

Reverend Tyler

Quote: Originally posted by JTProcess
You guys are awesome... you'll scream and cry about stuff like this... but when someone tries to pass a law that would prevent people like this from actually obtaining an AK-47 you will scream and cry about the 2nd ammendment.

congratulations on holding yet another conflicting viewpoint.

Exactly...

Stonewall

If a State or City or Town wants to ban firearms, I have no problem with that. The Second Amendment only applies to the National Government. For now anyway.

Max-the-Silent

It's good to know that someone was doing their job.

Having looked at the guy's website, how much would you like to wager that he was under surveillance?

NC-Stern-Mark

Talk about jumping to conclusions! You just jumped off a cliff.

Can you please point out where anyone screamed or cried? Oh... that was just your imagination.

I even advised the other guy who said he was scared to buy his own rifle. :)

You don't get it. If armed citizens are in the vicinity when a nutbag pops his cork, the odds are even. If citizens are stripped of their second amendment rights, only nutbags will have weapons and the citizens can only duck, bob and weave and hope they make it to cover till a cop shows up, which could be 4 or 5 minutes and many times much longer.

Go ask the kids at VT how long it took for the cops to show up...

NO ONE ADVOCATED GUN CONTROL!

Reverend Tyler

Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
If a State or City or Town wants to ban firearms, I have no problem with that. The Second Amendment only applies to the National Government. For now anyway.

You dont really understand that whole Bill of Rights thing do you? No, no city or state could ban all guns - as it would be unconstitutional...The Bill of Rights cover every American and no city, state or town could overturn that...quit being a fucking moron

Stonewall

Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
You dont really understand that whole Bill of Rights thing do you? No, no city or state could ban all guns - as it would be unconstitutional...The Bill of Rights cover every American and no city, state or town could overturn that...quit being a fucking moron

I'm sorry but that is not correct. The Supreme Court has not incorporated the 2nd Amendment, thus it cannot be said to apply to the States.

There are other provisions in the Bill of Rights not yet incorporated and applied to the States.

Stonewall

Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
It's good to know that someone was doing their job.

Having looked at the guy's website, how much would you like to wager that he was under surveillance?

What on that website is extreme? To me it looks normal.

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
It's good to know that someone was doing their job.

Having looked at the guy's website, how much would you like to wager that he was under surveillance?

Zero and maybe none! :)

The police were called to report a man with a rifle in the park. If he was being survailed, they must have missed carrying that AK while his face was done up with camo...

Max-the-Silent

"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 ."

Various city and state laws restricting firearms possession have been upheld. Hold on, the D.C. case might go to the S.C.

I see no problem restricting access to firearms of those individuals that fall into the prohibited classes, but the time will come where the law generally holds that restricting firearms from the populace as a whole is unconstitutional - the D.C. court has so held, as has the 5th circut court.

Max-the-Silent

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Zero and maybe none! :)

The police were called to report a man with a rifle in the park. If he was being survailed, they must have missed carrying that AK while his face was done up with camo...

Or possibly allowing the situation to develop. Observe, document and investigate. See how many fellow travelers you might identify.

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
"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 ."

Various city and state laws restricting firearms possession have been upheld. Hold on, the D.C. case might go to the S.C.

I see no problem restricting access to firearms of those individuals that fall into the prohibited classes, but the time will come where the law generally holds that restricting firearms from the populace as a whole is unconstitutional - the D.C. court has so held, as has the 5th circut court.

Hopefully it will go to the SCOTUS and get settled, once and for all.

Stonewall

I'm sure the time will come, maybe. It ain't here yet. One has to look at the State Constitutions for protections or lack thereof.

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
Or possibly allowing the situation to develop. Observe, document and investigate. See how many fellow travelers you might identify.

You may be right. It's hard to imagine they would let him roam a park with a rifle because he sounds as if they caught him in the car, after he left the park.

He charged with a weapon in a vehicle...

There is more to this story than what is in that article.

NC-Stern-Mark

Are you saying that because the DC law was finally struck down? That didn't stop them for many, many years.

Stonewall

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
You may be right. It's hard to imagine they would let him roam a park with a rifle because he sounds as if they caught him in the car, after he left the park.

He charged with a weapon in a vehicle...

There is more to this story than what is in that article.

From the article:

"Zorkot has also been charged with one count of possession of a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle and one count of felony firearm."

So, the jurisdiction he was caught in apparently outlaws this weapon. Maybe.

Stonewall

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Are you saying that because the DC law was finally struck down? That didn't stop them for many, many years.

D.C. is not a State.

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
From the article:

"Zorkot has also been charged with one count of possession of a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle and one count of felony firearm."

So, the jurisdiction he was caught in apparently outlaws this weapon. Maybe.

No. There are laws on how you can transport and it would depend how it was displayed, what kind of weapon and whether he was licensed to carry.

Open carry is often prohibited in public places as well.

In NC it is called displaying a firearm to the terror of the public.

Max-the-Silent

Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I'm sure the time will come, maybe. It ain't here yet. One has to look at the State Constitutions for protections or lack thereof.

Thomas, for one, has made it fairly clear that he believes that the 2nd recognizes a right of the individual. I can't remember the case off hand, but in another decision the SC made reference in the dicta that the phrase "the people" in the 2nd Amendement means "The People" - the whole body of the citizenry.

The 5th Circut in Emerson and the DC circut in the recent case is the writing on the wall. Law abiding citizens can't be restricted from owning firearms as a group.

Stonewall

Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
Thomas, for one, has made it fairly clear that he believes that the 2nd recognizes a right of the individual. I can't remember the case off hand, but in another decision the SC made reference in the dicta that the phrase "the people" in the 2nd Amendement means "The People" - the whole body of the citizenry.

The 5th Circut in Emerson and the DC circut in the recent case is the writing on the wall. Law abiding citizens can't be restricted from owning firearms as a group.

Emerson is not really useful because it simply struck down a Federal prosecution. The Feds were prosecuting using a law that was judged foul to the Constitution. It did not rule in any way what a State may do.

D.C. is not useful because D.C. is not a State.

It all hinges on incorporating the Second Amendment. And, in no way are the "Originalists" on the Court going to incorporate the second amendment... no way.

Stonewall

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
No. There are laws on how you can transport and it would depend how it was displayed, what kind of weapon and whether he was licensed to carry.

Open carry is often prohibited in public places as well.

In NC it is called displaying a firearm to the terror of the public.

Yes you are right, "felony firearm" could mean anything really.

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Emerson is not really useful because it simply struck down a Federal prosecution. The Feds were prosecuting using a law that was judged foul to the Constitution. It did not rule in any way what a State may do.

D.C. is not useful because D.C. is not a State.

It all hinges on incorporating the Second Amendment. And, in no way are the "Originalists" on the Court going to incorporate the second amendment... no way.

It's a done deal.

"the people" only means one thing.

You can't assign it one meaning in the second amendment and another meaning in the rest. People have been waiting for this day to come for a loooong time.

Stonewall

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
It's a done deal.

"the people" only means one thing.

You can't assign it one meaning in the second amendment and another meaning in the rest. People have been waiting for this day to come for a loooong time.

In this case the original meaning still applies. The 2nd Amendment is a restraint on the National Government not the State. That is just the way it is. It might change one day but it will not be changed by this current court.

DUDE-HERE

he has a painting of mohammed on it his site

i wanna kill him ..images of mohammed is blasphemy

DUDE-HERE

also dearborne is the largest population of iraques in exile

JTProcess

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Talk about jumping to conclusions! You just jumped off a cliff.

Can you please point out where anyone screamed or cried? Oh... that was just your imagination.

I even advised the other guy who said he was scared to buy his own rifle. :)

You don't get it. If armed citizens are in the vicinity when a nutbag pops his cork, the odds are even. If citizens are stripped of their second amendment rights, only nutbags will have weapons and the citizens can only duck, bob and weave and hope they make it to cover till a cop shows up, which could be 4 or 5 minutes and many times much longer.

Go ask the kids at VT how long it took for the cops to show up...

NO ONE ADVOCATED GUN CONTROL!

Alright cowboy that's a great solution... let's degenerate our society back to the way it was during the old west... when the only rule of law was "he who holds the gun makes the law"

I have nothing against sane rational people without extremist agendas owning guns, I just find it "ironic" that "gun nut types" are the first to scream terror when there's some crazy running around with a fully automatic weapon... and yet those same people will kick and scream when someone tries to put through legislation that would've prevented said "crazy" from obtaining the gun in the first place.

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by JTProcess
Alright cowboy that's a great solution... let's degenerate our society back to the way it was during the old west... when the only rule of law was "he who holds the gun makes the law"

Boy are you confused.

It was called the wild west because people who had firearms mostly terrorized people who did not have them. Back then, with limited law enforcement, thugs had only one thing to fear and that was the armed citizen. It was not nearly as wild as the movies would have you believe because most folks carried a firearm for their own safety.

Some things have not changed. Michigan has good carry laws. They even reciprocate with NC as do 26 other states. I can legally carry my fireman in Michigan and those other states with my NC carry permit and vice versa. We don't have to go back to the wild west at all JT, that's in the past and has no relevance to the topic at hand.

Now, here's a scenario for you. You happen to be in that park and this time, the nutbag decides he's gonna start shooting. I don't give a damn what you reply you come up with but you would be damn glad and damn lucky if there was a police officer nearby and he was willing to engage a guy with an AK. You'd be even luckier if there happened to be citizen with a firearm and they were willing to engage the guy and possibly stop the threat.

You would be very unlucky if you happened to be the person the nutbag was shooting at and none of the above applied and you yourself were unarmed.

If you choose to not arm yourself, well fine. I guess the rules of the old west will apply there because thats how most killings in the old west went. People shot unarmed people or they shot them in the back. Those gunfights at noon were mostly for the movies.

Worst of all would be the citizen who wants to arm himself and the government takes his right away. If that person is staring down an aggressor that has a firearm and intends to use it, the Government has just committed murder.

If you don't want to defend yourself, that's fine JT but don't try and take away another citizens second amendment rights. The police are not there to follow you around and protect you. They are there to catch the guys that kill, rob, beat and rape other people. Your own personal safety is your own responsibility.

Quote: Originally posted by JTProcess

I have nothing against sane rational people without extremist agendas owning guns, I just find it "ironic" that "gun nut types" are the first to scream terror when there's some crazy running around with a fully automatic weapon... and yet those same people will kick and scream when someone tries to put through legislation that would've prevented said "crazy" from obtaining the gun in the first place.

First of all, no one screamed terror. The guy is being held on one million dollars bail and has a website that proclaims the start of his Jihad in America. Excuse the fuck out of anyone for their speculation on those facts.

Second of all. There is no gun control legislation that has EVER PROVED TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE.

None, nada, zilch.

There are more guns and more people carrying concealed firearms in this country than any other time in history and crime has continued to go down while gun ownership has gone up.

Max-the-Silent

You can look into it for yourself, but this sums it up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Emerson

"The Court engaged in an extensive analysis of the text and history of the Second Amendment and its attendant caselaw (including many state supreme court decisions), and it ultimately determined that the Second Amendment does guarantee individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Nonetheless, the Court held that the particular deprivation of the right to bear arms in the case before it did not violate the Constitution"

Read between the lines, in the absence of actual criminal behavior, individuals have a right to possess firearms. It may be that various restrictions on individual types of firearms could be found Constitutional, but blanket bans fail the test.

For one of the best examinations of the Second Amendment, from a self described supporter of gun control:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html

Stonewall

Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
You can look into it for yourself, but this sums it up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Emerson

"The Court engaged in an extensive analysis of the text and history of the Second Amendment and its attendant caselaw (including many state supreme court decisions), and it ultimately determined that the Second Amendment does guarantee individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Nonetheless, the Court held that the particular deprivation of the right to bear arms in the case before it did not violate the Constitution"

Read between the lines, in the absence of actual criminal behavior, individuals have a right to possess firearms. It may be that various restrictions on individual types of firearms could be found Constitutional, but blanket bans fail the test.

For one of the best examinations of the Second Amendment, from a self described supporter of gun control:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html

The Second Amendment only stops the National Government. That is all. I agree it is an individual right as far as the National Government is concerned. Being that it has not been incorporated, that means you must look to your State Constitution for your rights or lack thereof. That has worked for over 200 years, and is best left just like it is.

mingmen

armed citizens? :rolleyes:

to reduce violence? Because most people are so responsible.

Max-the-Silent

Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
armed citizens? :rolleyes:

to reduce violence? Because most people are so responsible.

California has some of the strictest laws in the nation wrt firearms. it hasn't slowed down crime one bit. Here's an interesting set of statistics:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/AWregstats.pdf

Assault weapon registrations by county. No California registered Assault Weapon has been used in a crime in Ca. since the initiation of the program.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf...suances2006.pdf

California is not concealed carry friendly, but the above link has the numbers of licenses, by county. Again, no civilian CCW licensee has commited a crime using their weapon.

mingmen

Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
California has some of the strictest laws in the nation wrt firearms. it hasn't slowed down crime one bit. Here's an interesting set of statistics:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/AWregstats.pdf

Assault weapon registrations by county. No California registered Assault Weapon has been used in a crime in Ca. since the initiation of the program.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf...suances2006.pdf

California is not concealed carry friendly, but the above link has the numbers of licenses, by county. Again, no civilian CCW licensee has commited a crime using their weapon.

I am not buying it. Counter-intuitive.
I am more afraid of collateral damage, self-inflicted, kids getting the weapons, drunken assholes, tweaker assholes, etc.
I cannot believe that more guns = fewer deaths.

JTProcess

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Boy are you confused.

It was called the wild west because people who had firearms mostly terrorized people who did not have them. Back then, with limited law enforcement, thugs had only one thing to fear and that was the armed citizen. It was not nearly as wild as the movies would have you believe because most folks carried a firearm for their own safety.

Some things have not changed. Michigan has good carry laws. They even reciprocate with NC as do 26 other states. I can legally carry my fireman in Michigan and those other states with my NC carry permit and vice versa. We don't have to go back to the wild west at all JT, that's in the past and has no relevance to the topic at hand.

Now, here's a scenario for you. You happen to be in that park and this time, the nutbag decides he's gonna start shooting. I don't give a damn what you reply you come up with but you would be damn glad and damn lucky if there was a police officer nearby and he was willing to engage a guy with an AK. You'd be even luckier if there happened to be citizen with a firearm and they were willing to engage the guy and possibly stop the threat.

You would be very unlucky if you happened to be the person the nutbag was shooting at and none of the above applied and you yourself were unarmed.

If you choose to not arm yourself, well fine. I guess the rules of the old west will apply there because thats how most killings in the old west went. People shot unarmed people or they shot them in the back. Those gunfights at noon were mostly for the movies.

Worst of all would be the citizen who wants to arm himself and the government takes his right away. If that person is staring down an aggressor that has a firearm and intends to use it, the Government has just committed murder.

If you don't want to defend yourself, that's fine JT but don't try and take away another citizens second amendment rights. The police are not there to follow you around and protect you. They are there to catch the guys that kill, rob, beat and rape other people. Your own personal safety is your own responsibility.

First of all, no one screamed terror. The guy is being held on one million dollars bail and has a website that proclaims the start of his Jihad in America. Excuse the fuck out of anyone for their speculation on those facts.

Second of all. There is no gun control legislation that has EVER PROVED TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE.

None, nada, zilch.

There are more guns and more people carrying concealed firearms in this country than any other time in history and crime has continued to go down while gun ownership has gone up.

alright you make some good points.

saying that "no gun control legislation has ever proved to reduce gun violence" though is debatable... I'm sure you could prove that if you cherry pick statisics but just remember that at least in my field of political vision no gun control law I would approve of would impede a sane person like yourself from getting a gun... however, I would support gun control legislation that say... prevented people like our friend Mohammed AK-47 Jihad here from obtaining fully automatic weaponry... or even making it illegal for him to possess weapons like that. People that have shady pasts or history of violence SHOULD BE PREVENTED from getting weapons that could kill a multitude of people quickly... can we at least agree on that?

mingmen

Like the Panthers did I think is fine. Unconcealed. :D

mingmen

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by JTProcess
alright you make some good points.

saying that "no gun control legislation has ever proved to reduce gun violence" though is debatable... I'm sure you could prove that if you cherry pick statisics but just remember that at least in my field of political vision no gun control law I would approve of would impede a sane person like yourself from getting a gun... however, I would support gun control legislation that say... prevented people like our friend Mohammed AK-47 Jihad here from obtaining fully automatic weaponry... or even making it illegal for him to possess weapons like that. People that have shady pasts or history of violence SHOULD BE PREVENTED from getting weapons that could kill a multitude of people quickly... can we at least agree on that?

JT, what's not debatable is the number of firearms in this country has gone continually up and crime has steadily dropped. More guns, more concealed carry permits issued has equaled lower crime. Even with the sunset of the assault weapons ban that was supposed to cause blood to flow in the streets four years ago. :rolleyes:

One thing, don't take people who support the second amendment to automatically want free distribution of firearms with no restrictions. My own position couldn't be further from that. We have enough laws on the books now, I would like to see some of them strengthened even more and do not want to turn back the clock in any way.

What I'm afraid of is the gun-grabbers. They're are politicians in Washington who are supporting the so-called reauthorization of the assault weapons ban. A ban that was never really a ban but a feel-good measure. This time however, they have added in many more restriction and many more weapons to be truly banned, permanently.

One is the M1 Carbine. Google it if you want. They were used in WW2, Korea, Vietnam and distributed to friends of the US all over the world as Military aid. It's a semi-auto, not full auto.
They are extremely collectible and fun to shoot. I was lucky enough to buy one from the Civilian Marksmanship Program, this past spring.

The Civilian Marksmanship Program is chartered by congress. It's mission is to sell surplus rifles and ammunition given to it by the army and support youth shooting programs through-out the US. They do a great job. The army released these carbines to the CMP and I believe they sold out of over 12,000 of them in a little over 2 weeks. To make a long story short, the new assault weapon ban also bans the M1 carbine...

This little rifle is not a threat. Christ, it's been around since WW2. The gun-grabbers don't care about history, collectors or shooters. They just want to ban and grab from citizens who already paid good money for them, worked on them countless hours and treasure them as prized possessions. Fuck that. That's what "from my cold dead fingers" was all about.

Here's a picture of the little rifle.

Anyway, sure I want sensible laws but we already have enough and we don't know if the guy in Michigan had a full auto or a semi=auto. In all likely-hood, it was a semi-auto. I don't know where he got it but if he is a med student and hasn't committed any crimes, he probably bought it legally.

Bist Meshugeh

We need a president like FDR and put all these muslims in camps like we did the Italians and Japanese during WWII

Max-the-Silent

Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
Like the Panthers did I think is fine. Unconcealed. :D

The Panther's action pushed the California Legislature into changing California law, restricting the carrying of firearms unconcealed, for lawful purposes.

BTW, you don't have to "buy" what I posted wrt California registered Assault Weapons and Concealed carry Licensees - its fact.

No difference with weapons and devices registered under the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act. Since the law was instituted in 1934, only one crime has been committed with a registered N.F.A. weapon, and that crime was committed by a Law Enforcement Officer.

People that comply with laws generally comply with law across the board.

The people that you're worried about don't comply with the law, and aren't likely to be deterred by another law on the books.

Max-the-Silent

Here's a non-biased source:

http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/...n_control.shtml

The GAO report on Background checks:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/g100064.pdf

BJS index of gun related government studies:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

NC-Stern-Mark

Strange things happening...

wxyz.com the site that had the story, looks like it has a DOS attack going on.

I can't access the site at all.

:bigthink:

Stonewall

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Strange things happening...

wxyz.com the site that had the story, looks like it has a DOS attack going on.

I can't access the site at all.

:bigthink:

That's OK, it's not "news" anyway. Had it not been for Jihad Watch no one would have heard about it outside Dearborn.

Don't want to create more terrorists by having this get out.

NC-Stern-Mark

Can you get at that site?

Maybe it's my ISP, they have been having problems all week.

harley-davidson

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Can you get at that site?

Maybe it's my ISP, they have been having problems all week.

I did, must be your ISP. dial up ?

Stonewall

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Can you get at that site?

Maybe it's my ISP, they have been having problems all week.

Actually Yes.

Try this...

http://www.pressandguide.com/

The link in the first post still works too.

Mr Zaremba

Laws that ban guns only apply to law abiding citizens......Tell me how that would stop criminals from having them?

I await your response

For the record.....I am licenced to carry

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by harley-davidson
I did, must be your ISP. dial up ?

Dial up?

Hell no!

I have road runner but they have been fucking up all week. I've never had a problem in over 6 years and now that they are rolling out tiered service, all of a sudden there is a huge slow-down. This sucks.

harley-davidson

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Dial up?

Hell no!

I have road runner but they have been fucking up all week. I've never had a problem in over 6 years and now that they are rolling out tiered service, all of a sudden there is a huge slow-down. This sucks.

I use Com cast high speed with power boost, want to really aggravate yourself...cancel the high speed and go back to dial up, I did that once, I was ready to walk out to my roll away and get a hammer, I've had very few issues with Com cast, BUT IT'S NOT CHEAP. 45 a month

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by harley-davidson
I use Com cast high speed with power boost, want to really aggravate yourself...cancel the high speed and go back to dial up, I did that once, I was ready to walk out to my roll away and get a hammer, I've had very few issues with Com cast, BUT IT'S NOT CHEAP. 45 a month

No joke. I'm into time warner for 150 a month for internet, cable, dvr box and alarm monitoring. :rolleyes:

fastfingersfunk

this story is about a possible jihadist and you turn it into an argument on gun control. hamas says thank you for your support and warmth towards their cause.

harley-davidson

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
No joke. I'm into time warner for 150 a month for internet, cable, dvr box and alarm monitoring. :rolleyes:

Jesus H , I'm into Com cast for 90/ month with my TV thrown in their ...but I have no premium programming, the amount of TV we watch it's just not worth it......get this, back in '88 when me and the wife first moved on our own, my rent 225 a month, my cable bill was 32 a month with the works
HBO,SHOW TIME and CINIMAX.....ask me if I miss those days ?

Stonewall

Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
this story is about a possible jihadist and you turn it into an argument on gun control. hamas says thank you for your support and warmth towards their cause.

It does not matter...

The big news today is O.J. getting questioned in this burglary thing. A Muslim who understands Islam with an AK-47 running around in a park, that's not news...

:)

JTProcess

kill yourself.

fastfingersfunk

Quote: Originally posted by JTProcess
kill yourself.

i rest my case.

fastfingersfunk

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3b1_1189699177

guy was dressed in dark and had his face camo'd out. they had to tazer him to get him under control. lmao.

fastfingersfunk

mingmen

Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
BTW, you don't have to "buy" what I posted wrt California registered Assault Weapons and Concealed carry Licensees - its fact.

Just not convinced that it is a causal relationship.

soulman313

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Can you get at that site?

Maybe it's my ISP, they have been having problems all week.

WXYZ works ok here Mark,Im local to this, Dearborn is 3 miles away :rolleyes: ill keep an eye on the news and update ya(BTW buy a cordless phone! :p )

NC-Stern-Mark

I guess it just hit the major media. I just a teaser for the story on my local news channel.

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
I guess it just hit the major media. I just a teaser for the story on my local news channel.

WOW! They just spent 30 whole seconds on the story...

mingmen

But do gun laws slow down crime in and of themselves?

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
But do gun laws slow down crime in and of themselves?

?

The gun laws that are in effect now?

:lol:

mingmen

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
?

The gun laws that are in effect now?

:lol:

I guess what Max is suggesting.

Is the rise in crime in CA. due to its tighter gun control? Are they directly related?

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
I guess what Max is suggesting.

Is the rise in crime in CA. due to its tighter gun control? Are they directly related?

I don't see any stats on rising crime.

Max-the-Silent

Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
But do gun laws slow down crime in and of themselves?

In my dept., in my experience, and in the experiences of the other armorers/instructors/firearms examiners that I know, the California AW law and the various Federal restrictions have had no noticable effect on the numbers of AW's confiscated.

It's worth noting that we grab more AW's, and weapons in general, from investigations and stops not involving actual violence - the weapons turn up in residences and vehicles involved with warrant service or complaints not involving weapons or violence, or in run-of-the-mill traffic stops.

It's also worth noting that there are weapons on the import ban list, and the Ca. State AW law ban list that have never been used in crime (as far as can be determined from forensic examination) and no examples exist in LE reference collections in the state of California.

When the state of Ca. passed the first AW ban, the Roberti-Roos Assault Werapon Control Act, the State DOJ had to prepare a reference guide for LEO's to instruct them as to what was and wasn't legal. The DOJ contacted every municipal and county agency in California, requesting that they provide examples of confiscated weapons for inclusion in the guide. Every agency had an AR, or an AK, or some variation of the TEC weapons, some agencies had a Garden Variety HK 9 series weapon, fewer still could come up with a FAL, and there were no SIG's, CETME's, original AR10's, Beretta's, MAS 223's, Beretta AR-70's, Steyer AUG's, Sterling MK-6, etc, etc. The DOJ had to contact the manufacturers of many examples for information and photos of the weapons in question.

mingmen

Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
I don't see any stats on rising crime.

OK, whatever :jj:

I am sure you have no idea where I am going with this.

mingmen

Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
In my dept., in my experience, and in the experiences of the other armorers/instructors/firearms examiners that I know, the California AW law and the various Federal restrictions have had no noticable effect on the numbers of AW's confiscated.

It's worth noting that we grab more AW's, and weapons in general, from investigations and stops not involving actual violence - the weapons turn up in residences and vehicles involved with warrant service or complaints not involving weapons or violence, or in run-of-the-mill traffic stops.

It's also worth noting that there are weapons on the import ban list, and the Ca. State AW law ban list that have never been used in crime (as far as can be determined from forensic examination) and no examples exist in LE reference collections in the state of California.

When the state of Ca. passed the first AW ban, the Roberti-Roos Assault Werapon Control Act, the State DOJ had to prepare a reference guide for LEO's to instruct them as to what was and wasn't legal. The DOJ contacted every municipal and county agency in California, requesting that they provide examples of confiscated weapons for inclusion in the guide. Every agency had an AR, or an AK, or some variation of the TEC weapons, some agencies had a Garden Variety HK 9 series weapon, fewer still could come up with a FAL, and there were no SIG's, CETME's, original AR10's, Beretta's, MAS 223's, Beretta AR-70's, Steyer AUG's, Sterling MK-6, etc, etc. The DOJ had to contact the manufacturers of many examples for information and photos of the weapons in question.

I guess I am not talking about assault weapons. I thought you were advocating a more extensive concealed carry program in the thoughts that would reduce crime and/or violence. And generally arming our nation more.

bcmiller

Quote: Zorkot has also been charged with one count of possession of a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle and one count of felony firearm. He remains in custody on a $1 million bond (cash, no 10 percent).

A story like this gets out and people will call for tighter gun laws or be thankful that we could charge this guy with these crimes.

Where has our courage gone? This guy may want to start his own Jihad in this country, but if we really had our freedoms protected he would not get far and he would think twice before dressing up like Jihad Joe in the park.

Gun laws only work against law abiding people and they do not normally kill people. Does anyone think that the police would be able to save you fast enough if this guy decided to start shooting?

To the guy who suggested that States and Counties could pass gun laws and it would be okay is wrong. The states cannot violate the bill of rights. The only places that can prevent you from carrying a gun, according to the constitution, are private property owners.

We must support our rights under the 2nd amendment and all of our freedoms and liberties as well. I do not mean handguns or just for hunting, I mean the for the full intent of the second amendment.

Not to mention the fact that we would not incite all of this hatred if we just stuck to invading countries with bad movies and McDonalds instead of interventionist preemptive wars. Also, we would have much less street crime and more freedom if we ended the war on drugs. There would not be a reason for illegal drug trade anymore, just like you do not see many alcohol dealers on the street. Stupid people have the right to ruin their lives.

I know a guy who wants to do all of that... Ron Paul

Max-the-Silent

Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
I guess what Max is suggesting.

Is the rise in crime in CA. due to its tighter gun control? Are they directly related?

No increase or decrease in crime can be traced to one single factor.

It's been my experience, and the experience of the guys that I know in other departments that have indentical responsibilites, that the passage and enforcement of laws banning or restricting a particular type of firearm has no noticable effect.

mingmen

Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
No increase or decrease in crime can be traced to one single factor.

It's been my experience, and the experience of the guys that I know in other departments that have indentical responsibilites, that the passage and enforcement of laws banning or restricting a particular type of firearm has no noticable effect.

But in your opinion...what should our policies be?
Just curious.

NC-Stern-Mark

Quote: Originally posted by bcmiller
A story like this gets out and people will call for tighter gun laws or be thankful that we could charge this guy with these crimes.

Where has our courage gone? This guy may want to start his own Jihad in this country, but if we really had our freedoms protected he would not get far and he would think twice before dressing up like Jihad Joe in the park.

Gun laws only work against law abiding people and they do not normally kill people. Does anyone think that the police would be able to save you fast enough if this guy decided to start shooting?

To the guy who suggested that States and Counties could pass gun laws and it would be okay is wrong. The states cannot violate the bill of rights. The only places that can prevent you from carrying a gun, according to the constitution, are private property owners.

We must support our rights under the 2nd amendment and all of our freedoms and liberties as well. I do not mean handguns or just for hunting, I mean the for the full intent of the second amendment.

Not to mention the fact that we would not incite all of this hatred if we just stuck to invading countries with bad movies and McDonalds instead of interventionist preemptive wars.

I know a guy who wants to do all of that... Ron Paul

Well said. Welcome to the forum. :)

Max-the-Silent

Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
I guess I am not talking about assault weapons. I thought you were advocating a more extensive concealed carry program in the thoughts that would reduce crime and/or violence. And generally arming our nation more.

Ming, 30 some odd states have "shall-issue" Concealed Weapon license laws on the books, and the blood hasn't flowed like water down the gutters, as predicted by the anti-gun/anti-self defense advocates.

Do I want any swinging dick that comes down the pike to carry concealed? No. I want anyone carrying to be be trained, vetted, and I want them to qualify at least annually in order to be licensed. The program has been tested, and it works. Check the links in my earlier post, the Bureau of Justice Statistics link. They have comprehensive studies about the effects of concealed carry laws.

mingmen

I am not talking about laws restricting or banning forearms. I am asking what freedoms you advocate.

mingmen

Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
Ming, 30 some odd states have "shall-issue" Concealed Weapon license laws on the books, and the blood hasn't flowed like water down the gutters, as predicted by the anti-gun/anti-self defense advocates.

Do I want any swinging dick that comes down the pike to carry concealed? No. I want anyone carrying to be be trained, vetted, and I want them to qualify at least annually in order to be licensed. The program has been tested, and it works. Check the links in my earlier post, the Bureau of Justice Statistics link. They have comprehensive studies about the effects of concealed carry laws.

But you would expand these programs?

mingmen

Quote: Originally posted by bcmiller
We must support our rights under the 2nd amendment and all of our freedoms and liberties as well. I do not mean handguns or just for hunting, I mean the for the full intent of the second amendment.

Oh, well thanks for interpreting the Constitution for everyone. :jj:

Pesky scholars :jj:

NC-Stern-Mark

I would add there are still significant restrictions on CC here in NC.

You can NOT carry in any establishment where alcohol is consumed, any place that charges admission to enter, any Bank or financial institution, parades or public gatherings, schools and school grounds, federal and or state government offices and buildings and wait, it gets better, riots, public disturbances or any area declared an emergency...

If you are approached by an officer. You have to volunteer the information to the officer that you hold a concealed carry permit and whether you have a weapon with you or not.

"Hi officer, I'm a CCH holder and I have a Colt 1911 strapped on my hip, how are ya?" :D

Max-the-Silent

Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
But in your opinion...what should our policies be?
Just curious.

Ming, I posted this in another thread, but I stand by it.

"Here's my universal gun control plan, guaranteed to piss off just about everyone.

Statutory:

All gun control law comes under federal control.

All firearms owners are required to attend and pass a basic 40 hour training class on firearms safety, owner responsibility, physical security (securing firearms from theft or unauthorized access) use of force issues and basic marksmanship instruction. Only after passing this class could an individual be allowed to purchase and possess any standard title I firearms - handguns, shotguns or rifles. After passing this class, the individual in question would be issued an I.D. card identifying the bearer as being authorized to possess title I firearms in any state, city or county in the nation.

All firearms owners would be required to have an approved method of securing all firearm(s) in their possession from unauthorized access.

"Shall-issue" concealed weapons permits to be legal in all 50 states, subject to additional training and testing past the level of the initial licensing requirements.

All semi-auto versions of G.I. issue rifles, carbines, belt-fed MG's, BMG .50 caliber rifles in any flavor, etc. get included under N.F.A. rules.

An Amnesty period for registration of all N.F.A. covered weapons currently held, but not registered, as was done in the 1968 amnesty.

Eliminate the discriminatory CLEO sign-off restriction for N.F.A. weapons and devices. N.F.A. weapons and devices to be legal in all 50 states.

Repeal the manufacturing restriction on transferable MG's included in the FOPA.

Repeal regulations restricting the importation of spare parts for legal firearms.

Enforcement:

Simple possession of a firearm w/o permit: 5 years Minimum Mandatory

The carrying of a concealed weapon w/o permit: 10 years minimum mandatory.

The carrying of a concealed weapon during the commission of a crime, (non-violent, non-bodily injury) 20 years MM, aside from any charges wrt the crime. Example: Robbery 3 - 5 years, to be served after the initial 20 MM.

Possession of any firearm during the commission of a crime, (non-violent, non-bodily injury) same as above.

Assault with a firearm resulting in injury (non-fatal) Life. No parole.

Murder w/ a firearm. Death penalty."

mingmen