Domestic Right Wing Terrorists!

[nathanm]

Gaspar, please continue to ignore our almost complete success in eliminating the use of machine guns, grenades, and the like in crime. It makes it a lot easier to dismiss everything else you say when you ignore history.

[Teatownclown]

Republicans Blasted Obama Administration For Warning About Right-Wing Domestic Terrorism

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/08/07/645421/right-wing-extremism/

The gunman in the shooting at a Sikh temple over the weekend has been labeled a potential domestic terrorist — defined as one who incites politically-motivated violence against his or her own country. In Wade Michael Page's case, that political motivation was likely white supremacy, a growing problem in the United States.
But when, in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security reported that white supremacy is the US's biggest threat for domestic terror, it was met with harsh criticism. Conservatives blasted the department for defining terror threats too broadly, instead of focusing on potential Islamic terrorists. Then-House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) was one of those who berated DHS, saying that they weren't focusing on the real threats the US faces:
[T]he Secretary of Homeland Security owes the American people an explanation for why she has abandoned using the term 'terrorist' to describe those, such as al Qaeda, who are plotting overseas to kill innocent Americans, while her own Department is using the same term to describe American citizens who disagree with the direction Washington Democrats are taking our nation. Everyone agrees that the Department should be focused on protecting America, but using such broad-based generalizations about the American people is simply outrageous.
The report was titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," and it named white supremacists, radical anti-abortionists, and a few "disgruntled veterans" as most susceptible to recruitment by extremist groups, or to harboring resentment that may lead to domestic terrorism. DHS stressed that, during recessions, these threats go up, and law enforcement should be on the lookout for such extremism:
DHS/I&A has concluded that white supremacist lone wolves pose the most significant domestic terrorist threat because of their low profile and autonomy—separate from any formalized group—which hampers warning efforts..[...]
Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.
The report's findings were congruous with previous studies that indicate right wing extremism is responsible for more instances of violence every year (with the exception of 2001, when the September 11th attacks happened) in the United States than Islamic extremist. It also tracks with the rise of hate groups in the US since 2000.
Sec. Janet Napolitano ended up withdrawing the report and apologizing to veterans who felt they'd been called out, stressing that the threat was limited to a very small number of veterans.
Page, the Sikh temple shooter, was one of these veterans. According to Oak Creek, Wisconsin law enforcement, he served in the army from 1992 to 1998. He was administratively discharged in 1998, and had a known "patterns of misconduct." After leaving the service, he was arrested twice, once for a DUI and once for criminal mischief — both in the 1990s.
The gunman had also been tracked by the Southern Poverty Law Center for around a decade because of his ties to white supremacy groups. While he apparently "popped up" on the FBI's radar about six years ago, it seems they had no active investigation.

[Ed W]

Sounds like lots of other things we have attempted to outlaw.

Our typical process:
1. Identify the problem.
2. Ignore the problem.
3. Treat the symptom because it's easier.
4. Be shocked because the problem persists.

I think we're well acquainted with the problem of gun-related violence.  We differ on how to attack it.  

On one hand, a re-interpretation of the Second Amendment as having as it's main purpose the establishment of a well regulated militia could by itself go far toward reducing the number of firearms in circulation.  The individual right to keep and bear arms would be subordinate.  Membership in the state militia would be required of anyone desiring to keep and bear arms.

We can all imagine the outcry.  The NRA would be loudest, and any politician who endorsed the idea would likely face well-funded opposition.  Judges who re-interpreted the amendment could expect to see impeachment proceedings, deserved or not.  (In fact, I heard earlier today that one of the tea party ideas in Kansas is to bring an end to an independent judiciary, an idea that is antithetical to our system of government.  But that's another thread.)

Someone pointed out the story about Holmes psychiatrist contacting the police.  This is the other side of the equation, the other immovable rock.  OK, so he contacted the police.  What are they to do?  He hadn't committed a crime, so he couldn't be arrested.  He amassed weapons and ammunition, but that's perfectly legal.  And while he may have confided thoughts about killing to his doctor, thoughts, fantasies, and the like aren't crimes.  What would we have the police do?  They cannot simply walk into his house and confiscate everything.  Remember, up until committing a crime, he has the same expectations of privacy as any of us.

We could establish a list of people we believe are pre-disposed to commit violent crime, a sort of national snitch list not unlike TSA's no fly list.  Doctors, police, employers, and other 'qualified' people could make recommendations on whether someone is pre-disposed to violence, and the presence of their name on the list would bar them from legally purchasing guns or ammunition.

It wouldn't work, of course, because there are plenty of guns to be had illegally.  And it would be another useless bureaucratic tool peppered with bad data, just like TSA's list.  

The only way to reduce the number of illegal guns would be by going house-to-house searching for them.  Washington DC barred all firearm possession at one time.  I don't know if that is still true, but imagine the response if our police departments began searching our houses.  There's not one judge in the country who would sign off on a search warrant for an entire city or town.

Any attempt to rein in gun violence brings conflict between two cherished rights, the right to keep and bear arms and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.  Which one would you sacrifice?

[Teatownclown]

Take a look back into this thread......revelation?

[Conan71]

Take a look back into this thread......revelation?

Take a valuum & chill.

[AquaMan]

The only point I was making was that arms ownership is protected under the constitution where voting is not. Whatever you think it should be, voting is a privilege granted by thevstates.

But one seems to be protected with far more veracity than the other.

Ya know, that was a good point too. Sorry I just couldn't quite get it earlier. I do think we should amend the constitution to include voting as a protected right at least equal to arms ownership. I don't trust the states to allow me anything I really want.

[Conan71]

Ya know, that was a good point too. Sorry I just couldn't quite get it earlier. I do think we should amend the constitution to include voting as a protected right at least equal to arms ownership. I don't trust the states to allow me anything I really want.

Can't count on the state for liquor after 9pm or Sundays.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I think we're well acquainted with the problem of gun-related violence.  We differ on how to attack it.  

On one hand, a re-interpretation of the Second Amendment as having as it's main purpose the establishment of a well regulated militia could by itself go far toward reducing the number of firearms in circulation.  The individual right to keep and bear arms would be subordinate.  Membership in the state militia would be required of anyone desiring to keep and bear arms.

Really?  That would be the re-interpretation brought about by "public school graduates".  Everyone should realize from their elementary school English, that the first part (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state) is by definition a subordinate clause.  Which means - also by definition - that is unable to stand alone as a sentence, which means it's only purpose is to serve as a component of the sentence to provide further clarification or explanation in support of the main part of the sentence.  (Sadly, it didn't do just a great job of that in this case.)

Nevertheless, the rest of the sentence - the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed - IS the main part of the sentence - the independent clause - and as such, is able to stand alone as a complete sentence, thereby fulfilling the requirement of an independent clause that it BE able to stand alone as a complete sentence.  Also contains the phrase "the people" - long interpreted in ALL other parts of the Constitution to bestow an individual right.  And finally, just in the last couple of years, judged to also apply to the second amendment.

Basic 6th grade English.  Sad that so many can't even understand to that level....


2nd Amendment
As ratified by the states and certified by Thomas Jefferson while Secretary of State -
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.

[AquaMan]

Really?  That would be the re-interpretation brought about by "public school graduates".  Everyone should realize from their elementary school English, that the first part (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state) is by definition a subordinate clause.  Which means - also by definition - that is unable to stand alone as a sentence, which means it's only purpose is to serve as a component of the sentence to provide further clarification or explanation in support of the main part of the sentence.  (Sadly, it didn't do just a great job of that in this case.)

Nevertheless, the rest of the sentence - the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed - IS the main part of the sentence - the independent clause - and as such, is able to stand alone as a complete sentence, thereby fulfilling the requirement of an independent clause that it BE able to stand alone as a complete sentence.  Also contains the phrase "the people" - long interpreted in ALL other parts of the Constitution to bestow an individual right.  And finally, just in the last couple of years, judged to also apply to the second amendment.

Basic 6th grade English.  Sad that so many can't even understand to that level....


2nd Amendment
As ratified by the states and certified by Thomas Jefferson while Secretary of State -
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.

Is the arrogance necessary H? Private school kids do badly in English courses too you know. My rejoinder is that context and comprehension are just as important as sentence structure and analysis.

Second amendment enthusiasts are anxious to strictly construe its language. They share that with fundamentalist religious sects, as though the words are more important than the meaning or intent. Thus, Christians today find the sentence, "easier to thread the eye of a needle with a Camel than a rich man to enter the gates of heaven..." as being somewhat strange (sorry, I am quoting from memory not the book itself). We all understand the sentiment but most believe that the wealthy do have a chance to enter heaven as well if they follow certain guidelines. In fact, the correct translation for Camel was actually hemp.

So, is that it? Is it a religious thing for this zealous second amendment behavior? Do you think that the time period, the context of the writing, the difference in elocution, the intent of the framers, the change in technology, the change in population, the change in the operation of the government, the massive differences in the world 225 years later...has no bearing on its application?

[TheArtist]

We as Christians are taught to pray  ... Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven.   In Heaven it is said... the laws are written not in books or scrolls, but in the hearts and minds of men.

In so many discussions whether it be about abortion, drugs, guns, crime in general, poverty, poor health, etc. etc.  it almost always seems to me that we eventually get to the point that, well if instead of fighting about this or that law, our society would spend our time effort and money on adequately learning about and teaching the basics like good decision making skills and good life habits, we would put a serious dent in all of the above problems.  

There are far too many people plucking away at the leaves of the tree of evil and far too few hacking away at it's roots.

[heironymouspasparagus]

We as Christians are taught to pray  ... Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven.   In Heaven it is said... the laws are written not in books or scrolls, but in the hearts and minds of men.

In so many discussions whether it be about abortion, drugs, guns, crime in general, poverty, poor health, etc. etc.  it almost always seems to me that we eventually get to the point that, well if instead of fighting about this or that law, our society would spend our time effort and money on adequately learning about and teaching the basics like good decision making skills and good life habits, we would put a serious dent in all of the above problems.  

There are far too many people plucking away at the leaves of the tree of evil and far too few hacking away at it's roots.

By far and away the preferred approach - and the one most often "run away from" by our (in particular Oklahoma's) legislators - hacking at education every day.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Is the arrogance necessary H? Private school kids do badly in English courses too you know. My rejoinder is that context and comprehension are just as important as sentence structure and analysis.

Second amendment enthusiasts are anxious to strictly construe its language. They share that with fundamentalist religious sects, as though the words are more important than the meaning or intent. Thus, Christians today find the sentence, "easier to thread the eye of a needle with a Camel than a rich man to enter the gates of heaven..." as being somewhat strange (sorry, I am quoting from memory not the book itself). We all understand the sentiment but most believe that the wealthy do have a chance to enter heaven as well if they follow certain guidelines. In fact, the correct translation for Camel was actually hemp.

So, is that it? Is it a religious thing for this zealous second amendment behavior? Do you think that the time period, the context of the writing, the difference in elocution, the intent of the framers, the change in technology, the change in population, the change in the operation of the government, the massive differences in the world 225 years later...has no bearing on its application?

Arrogance?  Hmmm...maybe just a tiny bit, but much more dismay....that people could actually make it through 12 years of school and not understand that basic structure from 6th grade English.  The only reason I find viable is that the meaning is actually understood, but the hidden agenda is trying to misdirect.  Otherwise, we get back to the point that the education is beyond worthless - be it public or private.  (Many of the worst misdirectors are from private schools.)

There is a large body of writings by the guys that wrote the original that does indeed show their thoughts while writing the sentence.  They actually DID mean what they wrote.  What a novel idea!!  The redefinition is a local/recent phenomenon.  

So now we get to the discussion of how "flexible" the Constitution is - with the attendant propositions that the founders really meant "this" or "that" rather than what they wrote.  The phrase "the people" is clear, unambiguous, used widely throughout, and would seemingly be impossible to not understand.  And yet, it is....we define corporations as people and in the case of the second amendment, try to redefine people as not.

It IS a religious thing for the gun control advocates - an article of faith that says if society takes away guns from law abiding citizens, crime will decrease.  Despite MANY laws and examples - here and worldwide - showing the reality is exactly the opposite.

[AquaMan]

Arrogance?  Hmmm...maybe just a tiny bit, but much more dismay....that people could actually make it through 12 years of school and not understand that basic structure from 6th grade English.  The only reason I find viable is that the meaning is actually understood, but the hidden agenda is trying to misdirect.  Otherwise, we get back to the point that the education is beyond worthless - be it public or private.  (Many of the worst misdirectors are from private schools.)

There is a large body of writings by the guys that wrote the original that does indeed show their thoughts while writing the sentence.  They actually DID mean what they wrote.  What a novel idea!!  The redefinition is a local/recent phenomenon.  

So now we get to the discussion of how "flexible" the Constitution is - with the attendant propositions that the founders really meant "this" or "that" rather than what they wrote.  The phrase "the people" is clear, unambiguous, used widely throughout, and would seemingly be impossible to not understand.  And yet, it is....we define corporations as people and in the case of the second amendment, try to redefine people as not.

It IS a religious thing for the gun control advocates - an article of faith that says if society takes away guns from law abiding citizens, crime will decrease.  Despite MANY laws and examples - here and worldwide - showing the reality is exactly the opposite.

You can't logically argue religion. Its a faith thing. Therefore there can be no logical discussion of second amendment rights.

Why do you think the founding fathers did not include a right to vote for the people within the constitution? Did they not value the people's opinions or was it just an oversight they figured later generations or states would remedy?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Why do you think the founding fathers did not include a right to vote for the people within the constitution? Did they not value the people's opinions or was it just an oversight they figured later generations or states would remedy?

They decided it was a states rights thing - they said when the Federal elections would be, then let the states set who/how/what etc.  Or who couldn't vote.  It was a very exclusive group in most states.  And remained so up until the 19th Amendment and then the Voting Rights Act.

[nathanm]

It IS a religious thing for the gun control advocates - an article of faith that says if society takes away guns from law abiding citizens, crime will decrease.  Despite MANY laws and examples - here and worldwide - showing the reality is exactly the opposite.

Huh, the opposite? Really? Sounds like you've got some religion going on there. You may want to check out crime statistics in the other developed English-speaking countries. There's a lot less murder and a lot fewer shootings. You'll note that they pretty much all have fairly strict gun control. I don't advocate that level of gun control, but if you think that they don't have less gun crime specifically and less violent crime generally, you've got your eyes closed, your fingers stuck in your ears, and are shouting "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU" at the top of your lungs.

There's no sense in acting like the Swift Boaters. I happen to think that other factors have a stronger influence on the murder and violent crime rates than the availability of guns and would rather attack those social issues instead of private gun ownership, but what you wrote just isn't true. You must remember that nothing the NRA says can be trusted. They are lying liars more interested in creating division in the electorate to help their political party than they are at protecting gun ownership by reaching a reasonable consensus on what should and should not be allowed.

At some point, the folks in the cities/states with a far above US average gun violence rate will get fed up and do something rash. That will not serve your ends or mine.