quote:

ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/05/obama-gun-control-extremist-groups?INTCMP=SRCH

“The number of anti-government, far-right extremist groups has soared to record levels since 2008 and they are becoming increasingly militant, according to a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
It says the number of groups in the "Patriot" movement stood at 1,360 in 2012, up from 149 in 2008 when Barack Obama was first elected president, an increase of 813%. The report said the rise was driven by opposition to Obama and the "spluttering rage" over federal attempts at gun control.
Those who were identified as "militia" groups or the paramilitary wing of the Patriot movement, numbered 321, up from 42 in 2008, the SPLC said in its report.”

So I’m sure there are those will say this surge in supposed extremist groups are nothing but paranoids and racists. Since I’ve yet to see any of them actually do anything unlawful to that I say “so what?” Trying to force change on some, will only earn you greater resistance. The SPLC wants to know if the government has the resources to do deal with some potential threat from these groups. I’d have to say yes. Just enough to eventually get them all, but not enough to do it all in one sweep. And that’s if this number of groups remains unchanged. And the attempt at these groups’ destruction I’m sure would only cause the creation of more that were of a smarter variety understanding the concept of best remaining unseen and unheard. Some will cite Timothy McVeigh as an example and that’s a poor example. He did hang out with the Michigan Militia folks but he was never a part of them. A federal witch hunt determined that. The total conspirators behind the Oklahoma city bombing was less than eight people.

McVeigh and Nichols (I believe, going off memory so I might be incorrect in that name) were idiots when it came to forensics and actually getting away. Seriously, taking a license plate off a car and then carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. Just a good way to get caught.

Our law enforcement from the FBI to the ATF has said the most dangerous domestic threats will come from lone wolves who act without letting anyone ever know what they are doing. Examples are Chris Dorner, Adam Lanza, the guy behind the Aurora Movie theater shooting, the Cho fellow behind the Virginia Tech shooting, the Gabby Giffords shooter (Mark Kelly got found buying an AR-15 with 30 round mags, oh the delicious hypocrisy). In 1927 a single man used a bomb (killed 36 kids and two adults) who was a lone wolf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster.

So far the best reaction we’ve seen from the left is the call to disarm the public and ensure security for murderers, robbers, rapists, and terrorists. If we somehow take away guns folks won’t go onto youtube and figure out how to make explosives.

If anything, the larger groups should demonstrate two things. It’s not that dangerous and that these groups are largely harmless. If there was a lone wolf, or a terrorist, incident every month then there might be some cause for concern. Or if there were attacks being carried out with no one claiming responsibility then there might be cause for concern. But right now this country is a happy peaceful place. In fact it is safer now than it was twenty years ago (even Chicago and D.C. are relatively safer). You’re more likely to win the lottery twice than be a victim of a gun crime unless you live in certain areas, like the border with Mexico, Los Angeles, D.C., Chicago, NYC.

I do read occasional British periodicals because I like to get some sense of how the other side sees things. I don’t mean to say that Europeans and Lefties share the same perspective, but they certainly don’t share mine. As I understand England is having its own growth of extremist groups as of late. I mean P.A. Lutty got himself busted again not that long ago. And to think England was afraid of the IRA.

For a sense of radical extremists in England http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21767326, “They included Terence Gavan, a former British National Party (BNP) member, who was jailed for 11 years in 2010 after 50 explosive devices and more than 30 guns were found in his concealed room in Batley, West Yorkshire.” Where did he get all those guns? Doesn’t England have some of the most stringent anti-liberty gun control policies that make the Nazis blush with envy?

With some of that said here’s some observations. The more that is done to publicize these groups, the more these groups will grow. A government afraid of its citizens is a government to be feared for those in power who fear those without power are the most likely to abuse their power. The more that is attempted to disarm these groups, the larger these groups will grow. The more that is done to crack down on these groups, the more people will either join them or start their own in greater secrecy. Mind you the numbers for these groups are based off those that have some kind of Internet or otherwise public presence. To have a public presence and belong to one of these groups is sheer stupidity. Even preppers are catching heat for the far right and all they want to do is to be able to feed and care for themselves and their families should society collapse. I know preppers and most of them are hippies of some kind, they are not Republicans, and for some reason that escapes me why they vote Democrat.

There has been some recent concern over the President’s refusal to state openly that Drones won’t be used in the United States to kill citizens. This only causes more growth of these groups. This looks like the case of the dog beater getting angry at the dog they beat that bites them. If you don’t beat a dog and you treat it kindly it doesn’t have cause, fear, or desire to bite you. You abuse a dog it either is shattered mentally or it becomes a ticking time-bomb of violence ready to snap at the point it is pushed too far or a point where it sees it has the advantage. The left wishes to point out these groups then seemingly act like cowards towards them while launching insults and making calls for these groups to be investigated or destroyed. This is beating the dog. The smartest thing in my opinion is to leave them alone till there is legitimate proof they are doing something criminal. If they are doing something criminal then it would be time to move in and arrest them. But that too will also cause groups to grow.

The murders at Waco and Ruby Ridge only cause the extremist movement to grow. To assume further murder would stop it is folly in my opinion, regardless of who is to blame. What it would take to stop these groups would be right out of a Nazi Guestappo or Soviet NKVD playbook, and that might have worked in those countries but I don’t see it working here. Folks have gotten wise to a lot of things. Unfortunately the U.S. government isn’t in the business of backing off. Its will cannot be ignored it believes. It cannot be resisted, again look at Waco, Reno made the call to put an end to it and damn the collateral damage. The U.S. government is a bureaucracy bent on feeding like a parasite till the host (the job and wealth creators) is dead believing the host will never die. It only consumes more and more, it resists cutting its budget or resisting the need to continue growing its budget. It cannot turn a blind eye to those it deems extremists. To do so would undermine its budgetary justifications and claim to hold on power. All the while oblivious or uncaring to those whom it puts in the crosshairs of any side.

I have no dog in anyone’s fight. I’m only for me and mine. The rest of the world can burn for all I care, I’ll sift through the ashes of what’s left. The best thing one can do is strive to be a better person, forgive the offenses of others, and help themselves become as self-reliant as they possibly can. Should that self-reliance mean surviving a nature-made or man-made disaster then so much the better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The Southern Poverty Law Center monitors hate groups and other extremists throughout the United States and exposes their activities to law enforcement agencies, the media and the public. We publish our investigative findings online, on our Hatewatch blog, and in the Intelligence Report, our award-winning quarterly journal. We’ve crippled some of the country’s most notorious hate groups by suing them for murders and other violent acts committed by their members.

Currently, there are 1,018 known hate groups operating across the country, including neo-Nazis, Klansmen, white nationalists, neo-Confederates, racist skinheads, black separatists, border vigilantes and others.

Since 2000, the number of hate groups has increased by 69 percent. This surge has been fueled by anger and fear over the nation’s ailing economy, an influx of non-white immigrants, and the diminishing white majority, as symbolized by the election of the nation’s first African-American president.

These factors also are feeding a powerful resurgence of the antigovernment “Patriot” movement, which in the 1990s led to a string of domestic terrorist plots, including the Oklahoma City bombing. The number of Patriot groups, including armed militias, grew by 755 percent in the first three years of the Obama administration – from 149 at the end of 2008 to 1,274 in 2011.

This growth in extremism has been aided by mainstream media figures and politicians who have used their platforms to legitimize false propaganda about immigrants and other minorities and spread the kind of paranoid conspiracy theories on which militia groups thrive.

http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/hate-and-extremism

Why is this report important? Obama had not even begun to speak of gun control before Sandy Hook. Instead, all the angst was bred by insecurity and lies.... and guess who was putting those out.

1,360 in 2012... up from 1274 in 2011. I can see 86 groups being upset solely because of the gun control.

Just my take on all this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Did you know that the SPLC has been convicted of discriminating against minorities.
I have met the founder and his words and actions made me thing he would be more comfotable in the klan but there is more money in what he does.
I've also met his brother who says pretty much the same thing.
I mention this only to put their view in prespective.
Keep in mind that they have declared the Boy Scouts and Civil War reenactors to be extremist organizations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The Southern Poverty Law Center monitors hate groups and other extremists throughout the United States and exposes their activities to law enforcement agencies, the media and the public. We publish our investigative findings online, on our Hatewatch blog, and in the Intelligence Report, our award-winning quarterly journal. We’ve crippled some of the country’s most notorious hate groups by suing them for murders and other violent acts committed by their members.

Currently, there are 1,018 known hate groups operating across the country, including neo-Nazis, Klansmen, white nationalists, neo-Confederates, racist skinheads, black separatists, border vigilantes and others.

Since 2000, the number of hate groups has increased by 69 percent. This surge has been fueled by anger and fear over the nation’s ailing economy, an influx of non-white immigrants, and the diminishing white majority, as symbolized by the election of the nation’s first African-American president.

These factors also are feeding a powerful resurgence of the antigovernment “Patriot” movement, which in the 1990s led to a string of domestic terrorist plots, including the Oklahoma City bombing. The number of Patriot groups, including armed militias, grew by 755 percent in the first three years of the Obama administration – from 149 at the end of 2008 to 1,274 in 2011.

This growth in extremism has been aided by mainstream media figures and politicians who have used their platforms to legitimize false propaganda about immigrants and other minorities and spread the kind of paranoid conspiracy theories on which militia groups thrive.

http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/hate-and-extremism

Why is this report important? Obama had not even begun to speak of gun control before Sandy Hook. Instead, all the angst was bred by insecurity and lies.... and guess who was putting those out.

1,360 in 2012... up from 1274 in 2011. I can see 86 groups being upset solely because of the gun control.

Just my take on all this.

I recall seeing on TV, a very silly woman claiming that "Obama was just waiting for a something like this(Sandy Hook) so he could take our guns away"


My thought was that the stupidest people in the world were waiting for something like Sandy Hook so they could claim that the President was trying "to take our guns away".

quote:

I have met the founder and his words and actions made me thing he would be more comfotable in the klan but there is more money in what he does.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Did you know that the SPLC has been convicted of discriminating against minorities.
I have met the founder and his words and actions made me thing he would be more comfotable in the klan but there is more money in what he does.
I've also met his brother who says pretty much the same thing.
I mention this only to put their view in prespective.
Keep in mind that they have declared the Boy Scouts and Civil War reenactors to be extremist organizations.

quote:

The U.S. government is a bureaucracy bent on feeding like a parasite till the host (the job and wealth creators) is dead believing the host will never die. It only consumes more and more, it resists cutting its budget or resisting the need to continue growing its budget. It cannot turn a blind eye to those it deems extremists. To do so would undermine its budgetary justifications and claim to hold on power. All the while oblivious or uncaring to those whom it puts in the crosshairs of any side.

quote:

Surely its author intended us to see it as a joke.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic

Yeah liberals haven't asked Americans to disarm...hmmm.... so California, the 1986 machine gun registry ban, the New York Safe Act, Senator Feinstein, Senator Schumer, what's gone on in Chicago and D.C. for decades, the proposed legislation coming from Democrats in multiple states, oh Colorado now on the list, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, renewed calls for a new Assault Weapons Ban. Yeah no requests to disarm there. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration.html. Or the Democratic Mayor of New Orleans Ray Nagin and that mass disarmament of civilians in the face of an absent or impotent police force post hurricane Katrina.

Kind of the point is that making a big deal over a group of people just draws more attention to an issue that doesn't merit it. The more you draw attention to it, and then engage in action, the more you suffer. History shows that. We have the new black panthers but I ignore them and I tell all white people to ignore them. Unless they go back to their bits in the sixties and seventies (read David Horowitze's "Hate Whitey") of murdering people and stockpiling illegal arms on top of the drug dealing. So you get upset at the Klan when they are not out murdering people, at worst they're doing silly demonstrations and screaming profanity. Big whup, let them smoke their meth and be left alone. Hate will always exist, it exists in Africa where the populaces are essentially the same but for some tribal differences that justify in some people's minds the idea of taking a machete and killing their next door neighbor. You can get caught up in it and react poorly to it, or you can move on with your own life and try to be a better person.

Has Obama said he wants to seize American guns, eh, I'll say no because I can't cite any explicit instances of seizing arms but he does want to take (yes take) certain arms with certain asethic features and magazines that can hold a certain number of rounds off the market, so that is a taking, especially if you consider being banned from owning an item that could be previously owned but now you are not allowed to own any more of it for reasons that appear on their face to be arbitrary. But Obama supporters and buddies do want to do away with the rights of Americans to own arms, so it is guilt by association, you know with that whole Bill Ayers bit in there as well. If the guy was buddies with Ted Nugent no gun owner would have a care in the world, but that's not how it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic

Yeah liberals haven't asked Americans to disarm...hmmm.... so California, the 1986 machine gun registry ban, the New York Safe Act, Senator Feinstein, Senator Schumer, what's gone on in Chicago and D.C. for decades, the proposed legislation coming from Democrats in multiple states, oh Colorado now on the list, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, renewed calls for a new Assault Weapons Ban. Yeah no requests to disarm there. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration.html. Or the Democratic Mayor of New Orleans Ray Nagin and that mass disarmament of civilians in the face of an absent or impotent police force post hurricane Katrina.

Kind of the point is that making a big deal over a group of people just draws more attention to an issue that doesn't merit it. The more you draw attention to it, and then engage in action, the more you suffer. History shows that. We have the new black panthers but I ignore them and I tell all white people to ignore them. Unless they go back to their bits in the sixties and seventies (read David Horowitze's "Hate Whitey") of murdering people and stockpiling illegal arms on top of the drug dealing. So you get upset at the Klan when they are not out murdering people, at worst they're doing silly demonstrations and screaming profanity. Big whup, let them smoke their meth and be left alone. Hate will always exist, it exists in Africa where the populaces are essentially the same but for some tribal differences that justify in some people's minds the idea of taking a machete and killing their next door neighbor. You can get caught up in it and react poorly to it, or you can move on with your own life and try to be a better person.

Has Obama said he wants to seize American guns, eh, I'll say no because I can't cite any explicit instances of seizing arms but he does want to take (yes take) certain arms with certain asethic features and magazines that can hold a certain number of rounds off the market, so that is a taking, especially if you consider being banned from owning an item that could be previously owned but now you are not allowed to own any more of it for reasons that appear on their face to be arbitrary. But Obama supporters and buddies do want to do away with the rights of Americans to own arms, so it is guilt by association, you know with that whole Bill Ayers bit in there as well. If the guy was buddies with Ted Nugent no gun owner would have a care in the world, but that's not how it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic
Yes, but I'm curious to see what the SCOTUS will do over the next few years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic

So in the face of history, the laws passed by liberals, things that have actually happened, the regulations that have been passed, have liberals in any way disarmed Americans?

Can states regulate the sale of firearms? Yes, but I'm curious to see what the SCOTUS will do over the next few years.

Can anyone answer yes or no (besides me) whether or not "regulation" has been used to disarm Americans either intentionally or as a side-effect? Here let me make it easy, I'll provide the definition for disarm http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disarm -

a. To divest of a weapon or weapons.
b. To deprive of the means of attack or defense
There's also: to deprive of weapons

There are liberals who say that England and Australia have excellent policies when it comes to firearms, well guess what folks, they were disarmed. Yes they can own some firearms and if your sole definition of avoiding disarmament is to be able to own some firearms that reflect a pale comparison of previous ownership rights, then with that sole definition you could say they weren't disarmed. When you can't own an item based on the justification of self-defense, guess what? You are disarmed. But hey the Democrats(and plenty of Republicans from certain states) aren't out to destroy the gun ownership rights of Americans. You know Feinstein exempted 2,200 plus "weapons" with virtually none of them being semi-automatics. So no taking there, no seizing, and if you believe that then you believe I shit gold.

Oh and if most Americans want all gun and guns sales registered, why don't we have popular vote on the matter and put an end to the debate? I mean if most folks want it than the vote for it should pass so why doesn't anyone propose it be on the ballot and get the vote going.