Posted on 10/22/2013 4:03:48 PM PDT by IChing
When I saw the story, my jaw dropped and I was almost afraid to read on, lest I find the headline too good to be true.
But it’s true–ABC News obtained an exclusive interview with Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble at the organization’s annual assembly in Cartagena, Columbia, taking place this week. For the news report summarizing the interview, ABC ran this headline:
After Westgate, Interpol Chief Ponders ‘Armed Citizenry’
You read that right, 2nd Amendment guardians. The man in charge of Interpol, the venerable international law enforcement organization, has gone on record suggesting that gun-owning citizens are a realistic countermeasure to terror attacks on “soft targets” such as the prolonged massacres at Westgate mall in Nairobi, Kenya, one month ago, and in Mumbai, India over the course of three days in 2008.
Noble, who is an American and used to be in charge of law enforcement at the U.S. Treasury Department, held a brief news conference with reporters following the opening of the assembly. He expressed the extremely difficult mission faced by law enforcement when contemplating the increase of newer, developing threats posed as terrorists are turning their focus away from increasingly “hardened” targets–prominent landmark buildings and government symbols such as those attacked on September 11, 2001–and are instead shifting their plots toward sensational murder sprees in less-protected public areas where large crowds of people gather, like shopping malls and campuses where access is more open.
Noble emphasized Interpol’s goal of making it harder for terrorists to move from country to country, through passport screening and information sharing among countries. But he also brought up the real challenges involved in attacks in places like Beslan and Nairobi.
“How do you protect soft targets? That’s really the challenge. You can’t have armed police forces everywhere,” Noble told reporters.
Later, in his exclusive interview, he homed in on the subject of armed civilians helping to secure soft targets.
The U.S. and the rest of the civilized world have to decide, Noble said–either turn such public spaces into heavily fortified secure zones, with access strictly screened and controlled at the perimeter, or simply allow citizens to be armed so as to protect themselves.
“Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem,” Noble said. “One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.”
Referring specifically to the Westgate mall massacre in Nairobi, Noble posed the question of how, or whether at all, such a horrific attack would have played out in regions of America where many citizens are armed.
“Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?” Noble asked. “What I’m saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, ‘Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?’ This is something that has to be discussed.”
“For me it’s a profound question,” he continued. “People are quick to say ‘gun control, people shouldn’t be armed,’ etc., etc. I think they have to ask themselves: ‘Where would you have wanted to be? In a city where there was gun control and no citizens armed if you’re in a Westgate mall, or in a place like Denver or Texas?’”
Noble’s words are like a soothing balm to those of us 2nd Amendment champions who, despite holding the line in many legal battles, have been to various degrees distressed and beleaguered by the all-out campaign of propaganda and legislative blitzkriegs executed by gun-control advocates lately.
Further, his remarks give support to those of us who have been arguing that armed civilians could have stopped or reduced the carnage done by crazed shooters at horrific incidents such as the Aurora, Colorado theater massacre, the Sandy Hook school massacre, Virginia Tech, and other infamous attacks where absurd gun laws kept good people from access to the immediate means to thwart the murderers.
Let’s help spread Ronald Noble’s words to the far corners of the cyber-sphere, and the Earth. An armed society is a polite–and safer–society.
Interesting that you only post pretty much stuff you’ve “written” yourself:
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:iching/index?tab=articles
Nobody else up to your standards?
Or maybe just indulging in a bit of self-promotion?
Governments know that the ability to protect one's self from terrorists also means the ability to protect one's self from an oppressive government.
Most governments will pass.
I have devoted my life to trying to obtain flame comments from hubrisgunner.
Unfortunately, you’re probably right.
Here to protect us from the bloggers.
How did we ever survive without him?
He truly is a blessing, isn’t he?
Noticed that Obama himself said something negative about blogs and bloggers a few days ago, probably a *birds of a feather* thing :)
I have watched you for a long time, humblegunner, and just don’t understand where you are coming from.
You attack people constantly, not just IChing, but anyone who seems to infringe on your peculiar sensibilities, usually imagined, regarding FR decorum.
You are a nuisance, a shrewish nag, and a relentless inquisitor attacking others who you dislike, for some arcane reason. The rest of us welcome friendly posts to articles and other conservative websites we might enjoy reading.
None of us ever elected you to be the ‘net police for us. Give it up, already. Step back, and re-evaluate your notions of how you think it ought to be.
Perhaps you are one of those paid trolls I read about, who go around trying to discredit conservatives?
Freeper “Mazey” (who usually lurks, rarely comments) alerted me to humblegunner’s latest charge at you.
Don’t get a swelled head over it, he attacks lots of posters.
Usually for reasons that seem a bit “off”, if you get my drift. Maybe we should pray for him, because he seems like someone who is in deep distress, and has “anger issues”.
Not that I am qualified to diagnose, but I do recognize displaced anger when I see or hear it.
Not complaining to you or anyone else here, but I have a number of friends here in Miami who are from COLOMBIA (Columbia is that school that our president allegedly went to in NYC).
lol
I actually feel a bit sorry for him.
I apologize for not understanding your point. Did I say something you found offensive?
If so, please let me know, for I am clueless. Perhaps it is my age.
I didn’t get the Columbia reference either. ?
Had a problem with your link.
Hope this will work better to lead those interested to your article, and the comments at ClashDaily.
Hmm, weird, dunno why, but thanks.
1. You must be bored.
2. My motivations elude even me sometimes.
You attack people constantly, not just IChing, but anyone who seems to infringe on your peculiar sensibilities
I fail to see how pointing out young Itchy's posting history is an attack.
I'm sure you are very proud of him and think he's wonderful
but I personally don't care for his attitude. Show me any other
n00b who shows up acting like he's God's gift to the forum
and pushing his own material and I won't like his attitude either.
You are a nuisance, a shrewish nag, and a relentless inquisitor attacking others who you dislike, for some arcane reason.
I pretty much just explained that, but I like the "relentless inquisitor" part.
The rest of us welcome friendly posts to articles and other conservative websites we might enjoy reading.
Young brer Itchy's post aren't "friendly".. he's rather arrogant.. and
he's not posting articles he's found that we might enjoy reading or
could benefit from. He's pushing his own material.
This would be the "self promotion" mentioned in my original post.
None of us ever elected you to be the ‘net police for us.
You seem to have no trouble policing my comments without benefit of election.
You've noted a behavior you dislike and are addressing it.
This is exactly the same thing I have done.
Give it up, already. Step back, and re-evaluate your notions of how you think it ought to be.
No, I think not. It's become a habit and I'm comfortable with it.
Perhaps you are one of those paid trolls I read about, who go around trying to discredit conservatives?
Pointing out Itchy's posting history discredits him?
Anyway that theory has been posited before, more than once:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2630004/posts
I hope this has provided some clarity or at least a moment's entertainment.
Have a great day and be safe.
Pure poetry, hubrisgunner. You worked long and hard on that important post, putting aside your other pressing life activities, and the recognition you receive is well-deserved!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.