Profiling-Crazed Right-Wingers

A newly released Homeland Security report has broadly lumped gun owners, veterans, and many others as potential terror threats based on their political beliefs, including a support for the Second Amendment. So it would seem, according to Janet Napolitano, such people exhibiting these attributes are non grata in the USA.

According to the report, right-wing extremism is defined as hate-motivated groups and movements, hatred of certain religions, racial or ethnic groups. It went on to say, "It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

One has to wonder what is meant by a “hatred of certain religions” when it was Obama who asked Georgetown University officials, a Jesuit run school, to cover up the name of Jesus so it wouldn’t be displayed during his speech. The question that begs to ba asked is, could the term “hatred of certain religions” pertain to the Muslim religion?

Also, is it any coincidence that this report was made public the day before tax day, the day before the Tea Parties? It was definitely a political statement.

The State of Missouri came out with their own report on potential terror threats. Sighted in the report:

“The Feb. 20 report called "The Modern Militia Movement" mentions such red flags as political bumper stickers for third-party candidates, such as U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, who ran for president last year....”

I guess to some people it’s no big deal that state troopers are being trained to recognize third party candidate supporters as potential domestic terrorists but profiling of Muslims is considered scandalous.

Where is the ACLU now? Hordes of lawyers would have descended upon the DHS if instead of gun owners, Christians, and veterans, it was Muslim stereotyping and profiling. This puts Barrack Obama’s words, “bitter people who cling to guns and religion” in a clearer context.

As it turns out the WSJ reports that the FBI has been investigating veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan as an ongoing investigation into right-wing extremist groups. This investigation was on-going at least two months before the DHS came out with their report.

Understandably veteran groups are furious over the accusation. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the assessment refusing to apologize except to say she was sorry that some vets were upset about the report.

Here is the pattern I see. The DHS report isn't really about keeping terrorist out of our country but redefining patriots as domestic terrorist and finding ways to deal with this new threat?

Arguably this report strongly references the white supremacists. Although, I don't understand what white supremacist have to do with right-wing extremism. White supremacists and Nazis follow collectivist totalitarian ideologies whereas the far right advocates something much different, which is individualism and individual liberty.

Other than semantics, Communism and Nazism are virtually the same thing. In the Soviet Union you had socialism and an extreme dictator, “Joseph Stalin.” In Germany there was “National Socialism” or “Nazism” and an extreme dictator, “Adolf Hitler”. So on one hand you have state ownership and state control and on the other you have some private ownership and state control. Both Nazism and communism advocate that man be a sacrificial lamb sacrificing for the greater good of society, which is a collectivist ideology. Either way they both led to nationalized economies, dictatorships, and enslavement. So, no matter how one spins it, white supremacists are NOT extreme conservatives or Libertarians they are collectivist totalitarians.

So it would seem collectivism is a far greater threat than the right-wing here in America. As despicable racist-supremacy is there are certainly more violent groups out there such as MS-13, Islamic extremists, and rogue states like Iran and North Korea.

America’s Lack of Gun Control is to Blame for the Violence in Mexico

“Never let a good crisis go to waste”.

I knew (as many others did) as soon as the drug violence in Mexico became headlines it wouldn’t be long before the anti-gun crowd would use the crisis to their advantage and begin to try to implement their wish list.

It wasn’t long after “Drug Violence in Mexico” made headlines that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was on the news accepting Americas blame in the crisis sighting America’s addiction to drugs and lack of gun control. No mention however, of the lack of border security or immigration enforcement. In a speech she went on the attack blaming military-style assault weapons calling for a new “Assault Weapons Ban.

“Mrs Clinton said the use of military-style assault weapons was a particular concern, and she would discuss reimposing a ban on their sale.

A previous US decision to lift a ban on such sales had been a mistake, she told the NBC television network.

...Mrs Clinton said assault weapons did not belong on anyone's street.”

Over the past few months the anti-gun crowd in Washington, and over at the Brady Center, have been drooling over their anti-gun wish list now that Democrats control both the executive and legislative branches of government. Here is a short description of their wish list.

A new “assault weapons" ban: This is not a repeat of the Clinton ban. Many in congress and the Brady Center are calling for a California style ban which is far more restrictive than the Clinton Gun Ban. They want to ban out right AR-15’s, AK 47’s, M1’s, M1 carbine’s, Mini-14’s and other magazine fed semi-automatic rifles. They also want ban all semi-automatic shotguns and .50 caliber rifles.

Their stated goals are also to ban all magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds and require federal registration of all semi-auto rifle and pistol magazine fed firearms.

Require micro-stamping of ammunition: This will require stamping serial numbers onto the casings and bullets linking the owner to the bullets in a federal gun-owner registration database. This would virtually be cost prohibitive sending the cost of ammunition sky rocketing to pay for the program. This would also prohibit private transfers of ammunition. Say your and your buddy are at the gun range and he runs out of ammo and you give him a box, this would be considered an illegal transfer sense the serial number on the ammunition does not match the person who is in possession of it.

Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA): This protects the personal information of legal gun owners/purchasers. This of course does not affect illegal firearms since there is no paper trail for illegal purchases.

Require all firearm sales to go through NICS and allow the FBI to retain the records of all NICS-approved firearm transfers: Again this does not affect illegal purchases only legal ones. This will also allow a NICS check to reject someone whose name is on an FBI watch list which is flagrantly flawed.

Prohibit the sale of more than one handgun to a single individual in a 30-day period: This is thought to be a way to thwart "large-volume" illegal gun traffickers.

The consequences of these bills will put a huge burden upon the law abiding citizen and do little to stay the illegal gun trade. This will in effect ban all private transfers of firearms and amunition, ban millions of commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and pistols, ration sales, and give new powers to the BATF to harass law abiding gun owners and legitimate gun dealers.

Does Gun Control Work?

If all guns were banned I think the first thing you will see is a drastic underground market and the rise of crime organizations smuggling guns into the country just like drugs. I also think you turn hundreds of thousands if not millions of otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals because many Americans will not give up their guns or seek guns on the black market. You give up the legal gun trade for the illegal gun trade but guns will still be out there.

In order to find out how gun laws affect crime the non-pragmatist would take a look in places where strict gun laws exist to find the results.

Before the Washington DC gun ban went into effect gun crime was already dropping, after the ban the murder rate rose.

John Lott speaking on the Heller vs. D.C. case stated, “The DC brief specifically points to Great Britain's handgun ban in January 1997. But what wasn't mentioned in the brief was the fact that the number of deaths and injuries from gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years from 1998 to 2005.”

In 1996, Australia outlawed semi-automatic rifles and many pump action shotguns and other semi-automatic weapons. As of 2000, the Australian government confiscated and destroyed about 660,000 privately owned firearms. However between 1996-1998 armed robberies rose 73 percent, assaults rose 16 percent, and unlawful entries rose 8 percent. Murders also rose slightly. -- "Guns down under," Reason, Australia, p. 10, 10/1/00

Germany has some of the strictest gun laws in Europe and like Washington D.C. a gun ready for defensive use in the home is outlawed. Despite this the annual number of firearm-related murders throughout Germany rose 76% between 1992 to 1995. --- Library of Congress, p. 69.

Today we here of a mass shooting in Germany:

WINNENDEN, Germany – A 17-year-old wielding a Beretta 9 mm pistol burst into classrooms at his former high school Wednesday and gunned down students — some of whom died with their pencils still in hand — in a rampage that ended with 15 dead before he took his own life, authorities said.

What information can be extracted from this? Gun control simply doesn’t work.

The Dishonesty of the Anti-Gun Crowd

The arguments of the anti-gun crowd are based in emotionalism and histrionics and the fact that some folks actually exercise self-responsibility is somehow stifling to their soul. Trying to engage the anti-gunner in reasoned discourse just isn’t possible since they tend to be pragmatists.

During the debates on the Clinton gun ban the anti-gun crowd’s arguments were laden with rhetoric, emotionalism, and hysteronics, not facts. What facts they had were all nuanced, or quite frankly made up. What really pissed me off was when the Speaker of the House, Tom Foley, refused to bang the gavel when time ran out. At this point the ban had been defeated by three votes. Although time had run out the anti-gunners in congress managed to sway a few more votes in their favor and Tom Foley quickly banged the gavel before the pro-gun crowed could talk them out of changing their votes. The ban passed and the rest is history.

To showcase this dishonesty here is Dennis Henigan the legal director for Brady Campaign omitting “Of the People” when quoting the second Amendment.



The above video might be argued as an unintentional omission until you see this one and realize he has a pattern of lying:


Dennis Henigan Misquotes the 2nd Amendment - Click here for more amazing videos

Two Supreme Court Justices had this to say:

In 1833 Justice Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution that the right to keep and bear arms provided a “strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers”. Chief Justice Roger Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) listed the right to own and carry arms as one of the rights of citizenship.

In this Gallup poll shows Americans overwhelmingly agree that the 2nd Amendment protects the gun rights of individuals.

The 2nd Amendment Part Two: Original Intent

The founders were united in their belief that private citizens, armed with their own firearms, were vital to a free nation. They observed what happens to citizens when the means of personal defense is kept from them. They observed that the greatest atrocities committed upon humankind have been at the hand of governments.

History is chock full of examples of tyrants who have sought to disarm the people they intended to enslave. Julius Caesar, during the Gallic campaigns, recognized the difficulty of conquering an armed people: “all arms were collected from the town” and “there could be no terms of surrender save on delivery of arms.” King Charles II imposed legislation to disarm the English population nearly 100 years before the disarmament campaign in the colonies, and there are many other examples.

The 20th century has also seen plenty examples of what can happen to unarmed populations such as in Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union, and in Mao’s China, where millions of unarmed citizens were oppressed, abused, and slaughtered. Unarmed citizens will always live their lives at the whims of those who have guns, namely the government and criminals. In fact, dictators throughout history have disarmed their citizenries in order to impose power:

Adolph Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."

Lenin: "One man with a gun can control 100 without one."

Stalin: "We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?"

Mao: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

The founders of this great nation were revolutionaries who went to war against their government, the king of England, because of oppression. If they had allowed the government to disarm them we wouldn’t have the America we know and love today.

The founders felt it important to leave us the legacy of resistance because they understood the nature of man, which it is in his nature, once he gains a little authority to begin to practice despotism. Often the encroachments on freedom are slow, mostly unnoticeable, until one day you wake up with your freedom gone.

As we can see, the founders had a long (founded) history of mistrusting government and of standing armies as dangerous to individual liberty. For this reason it was considered the duty of every male to keep a rifle with few exceptions and this was considered patriotic. The duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those persons who were eligible for military service, this included older males as well.

James Madison, one of the principle architect’s of the second amendment (Bill of Rights), viewed the 2nd Amendment as protecting the right of gun ownership of the population at large. In fact many of America’s framers believed this, and on many occasions stated that the right to gun ownership is a right of the “people”.

Thomas Jefferson commenting on his mistrust of government power said,” Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

According to Thomas Jefferson the primary intent of the 2nd Amendment is to preserve liberty and defend against an oppressive government when he said, "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

John Adams seconds this notion but takes it a step further saying the 2nd amendment establishes right to self-defense against criminals: "Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..."

Thomas Jefferson addresses how gun control laws protect the criminal from his intended victim: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Thomas Paine stated the 2nd Amendment also plays a roll in protecting property rights: "...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property..."

Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society and good friend of James Madison tells us what the term “people” means when it is used in the Constitution. He also mentions the majority cannot deprive the individual of his rights: "The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."

George Mason defines the original meaning of the “militia”: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials."

Thomas Jefferson tells us what to do if there is ever a question of the meaning or intent of the law: "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Though, there may be some vague language in parts of the Constitution, there is nothing vague about “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It is quite clear the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of the people (individuals) to own and carry guns.

The explicit reasons for the 2nd Amendment are: 1. National defense- to come to the aid of one’s country against foreign invaders and to defend liberty from oppressive and tyrannous government. 2. Self-defense. 3. For defense of property.

The 2nd Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with sporting or hunting arms, though these arms are certainly a truly American heritage. Nevertheless, the 2nd amendment is about the right to defense.

The 2nd Amendment Part One: The Militia

The Revolutionary War was fought over government oppression, specifically “excessive taxation”. The founders made sure the legacy of freedom they fought and bled for would be protected by placing restrictions on government through Constitutional restraints. The founders, in their uncanny wisdom, also gave us a backup plan for defending freedom if government, or reason, failed to protect the rights of individuals. They gave us the 2nd Amendment.

That said, the famous “Shot Heard Around the World” happened when colonists converged on the British army to stop them from confiscating private arms from homes setting off the battles of Lexington and Concord—the beginning of the Revolutionary War.

In the minds of many Americans, the Second Amendment may just be the most important constitutionally protected right of all since it serves to safeguard all other rights.

The truth behind the 2nd Amendment is often ignored or misunderstood and therefore gets misrepresented in the debates. One common error is the militia argument. What one needs to understand about the “militia” is that there are different categories of militia.

The militia according to Federal statutes in section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia” states: composition and classes" in its entirety:

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

*Source “We the Unorganized Militia” by Randy E. Barnett. This is a great read on the utility and relevance of the militia in today’s society.

Given this knowledge any interpretation of the “militia” being only members of the military is an illogical and erroneous conclusion.