Talk in the chat room and get busted?

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
I was watching the reports of the latest terrorists on the news last night who threatened NYC. They were busted through chat room chatter.

With the push for total peeking into phones and internet chatter, if an antigun Pres. got in - using the precedents from the current WOT - how many "Shall we fight folks", "When will we fight", "This is how to form a local resistance to the JBTs" would end up as a story on CNN or FOX news as they arrested as terrorists.

Now, I'm not defending any terrorist - I think they all should be destroyed but I think the use of internet chatter is quite interesting. Some folks here have defended the blanket and without specific warrant use of electronic peeking as it will get at the terrorists. What goes around comes around.
 
N

NukemJim

New member
First the mandatory IANAL :)

My understanding is that (at least in the US ) there must be some sort of action before they can charge someone for talk. In other words talk only (excepting specific threats such as on the presidents life) no arrest talk and buy something, go somewhere, make something get busted.

NukemJim
 
B

buzz_knox

New member
Correct. The majority of time, talk isn't punishable (unless the act itself constitutes treason or is a threat against the President). For conspiracy charges to stick, there must be talk combined with an overt act. In the case of the Miami cell, they went from talk to actively seeking to acquire the material and support needed to carry out the plans. I'd say it's similar in this case. They weren't just talking any longer.
 
S

Sneevil

New member
I guess the message is that if you're going to conspire to kill thousands of innocent civilians, you'd better not do it in a public forum.

Terrorism is a fact of modern life in this world. To equate FBI surveillance of international terrorists with some future, imaginary pogram against American gunowners posting on these boards is a little overreactive, dontcha think?
 
G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
Just thinking out loud. On GT, I specifically remember someone posting that he would teach you how to make a bomb to use against JBTs. Unintended Consequences is full of armed revolution and folks drool over it.

Is it a stretch for an administration not friendly to the firearms world to pay very close attention to and perhaps even move against the 'fight club' if they wanted to. People buying PVC to bury guns to avoid the law - that's certainly an action suggested on the Internet.

BTW - worrying about the future is silly? Damn, the gun internet is just of that on the RKBA issue. All future guns laws that don't exist are perhaps imaginary at this time. :D
 
S

Sneevil

New member
Gimme a break. It's absurd to equate the Continental Army of the American Revolution with modern day Islamic terrorists. There is no equivalence, neither in purpose, reasons, principles, tactics, targets, nor strategies. The Continental Army engaged British forces on American soil after the newly formed Continental Congress declared war on the occupying British.

Not included in the war plans, for example, were trips to England by American forces for the purpose of murdering large numbers of British civilians.

Of course future antigun legislation is of concern. But I question our own abilities to effectively counter such legislation. We're real good at jousting with the windmills of future non-existent threats but do very little to stop the ongoing ursurpations of all kinds of liberties-not only gun rights-that have been steadily continuing for decades. Continually harping and chest thumping about future losses while the attrition continues only makes us look foolish and impotent IMO. :)
 
B

bdarin

Moderator
The only common thread between these 2 wars (1776 & Iraq) is that it was won by the indigenous population defeating an invading force. Like Afghanistan vs. USSR, US vs. Vietnam, etc. Perhaps this is what Antipitas meant.:cool:
 
H

Heist

Moderator
I haven't seen any Iraqi citizenry travelling into the US for terrorist purposes, though. You're thinking Saudis.

t
 
C

Coinneach

Staff Alumnus
Sneevil, terrorism is nothing new. It's been a standard of human behaviour for a million gorram years. There's no gigantic OMGSKARRY looming threat from a bunch of loudmouths in a chat room. The people you need to worry about, you'll never *hear* about, because they keep their mouths shut.

This is, as usual, nothing more than a bunch of idiots flapping their jaws, and another bunch of idiots trying to keep the sheeple scared.
 
A

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
Egads! I really didn't think I had to explain that.

The purpose of this UN commission is to keep guns only in the hands of government. Period.

It's purpose is not to chastise a government for selling arms to another government. Just get them out of the hands of the common people.

Unfortunately, it is generally the common people who need the guns the most... To protect themselves from their own government!

Hence the reference of patriots and terrorists.

In modern day parlance, you might be a patriot, but only if you win your battle against your repressive government, else you are a terrorist.

Hence also the reference to 1776. In that situation, we, Americans, were the traitors, the terrorist (in modernese). We only became Patriots because we won!

Now if you have something else to complain about, the way I think, or the way I use sarcasm, Sneevil, PM me. Otherwise... Give Me A Break!
 
R

Richard Hanson

New member
The American Patriot was certainly a traitor with respect to the King of England, but treason and terrorism are not synonymous. It is not the act of resistance against a government that defines a person as a terrorist, it is the tactic of attacking certain types of targets for the purpose of causing terror in the general population. A person can certainly be either a patriot or traitor without being a terrorist.

Blowing up busses, pubs, commercial airliners, commuter trains, schools, et. el., are all acts of terrorism and easily recognized as such. Victory might discriminate between the patriot and the traitor, but it is character that discriminates between the patriot and the terrorist.

The courageous men who fought for and secured our sacred liberty at such places as Lexington, Saratoga, and Yorktown have forever earned the respect and the gratitude of the American people. They earned it with their life's blood, the horrible deprivations of war, the tremendous hardships of Valley Forge. I can not abide any man who would dishonor the memory of their most honorable service by ignorantly equating their actions to those of terrorists and I hold any man who would do so in utter contempt.


Richard Hanson
 
S

Sneevil

New member
Sheesh! It was an observation, not a complaint. Just a different perspective on the standard knee-jerk reaction to any government action against anybody. Stop worrying. This is still the freest, most representative governed country on the face of the earth in the history of the world. Be vigilant, but be realistic, too.
 
G

GoSlash27

New member
Mr. Meyer,
Well said.
So many around here talk of prying their guns "from their cold dead hands" and how "when it's time to bury 'em, it's time to dig 'em up".

How would you coordinate your revolution when the government is reading your mail, listening to your phone, digging through your reading material, snooping in your finances....

What's going on these days is setting a precedent. We will not always be at war against terrorism, but our government will always be trying to subjugate us. When you look back on your support for trading your liberty for safety.....how will you remember it? Is this a beginning for our victory against terrorism, or our capitulation to tyranny?
 
C

contender6030

New member
antipitas said:
Hence also the reference to 1776. In that situation, we, Americans, were the traitors, the terrorist (in modernese). We only became Patriots because we won!
Click to expand...

Terrorists are cowards! They hit from your blindside,set roadside bombs and send suicide bombers! Are you comparing the American patriots of the 1700s to terrorists? :rolleyes: They may have been traitors but they were damn sure not back shooting cowards!
 
R

Richard Hanson

New member
Terrorists are not cowards. They are extremely motivated and often willing to sacrifice their own lives for the causes in which they believe. To call them cowards is to misunderstand their nature, to underestimate their capabilities. They do not lack physical courage, rather they lack morality. They are evil and act out of hatred and without regard to the human lives they take.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top