This week's Time magazine cover story on "The Secret World of Extreme Militias" sounds an alarm that cannot be ignored. The threat of terrorism is real, but it does not originate with Al Qaeda alone. The danger of homegrown right wing political violence is just as real.
The Time article describes, in chilling terms, the proliferation of heavily armed, right wing militias engaged in paramilitary training to resist the perceived "tyranny" of government authority. Time notes that although the groups and individuals of the violent right reflect a "complex web" of ideologies, "among the most common convictions is that the Second Amendment -- the right to keep and bear arms -- is the Constitution's cornerstone, because only a well-armed populace can enforce its rights." For the militias and their ideological soulmates, "any form of gun regulation, therefore, is a sure sign of intent to crush other freedoms."
The connection between the gun control issue and the threat of violence from the right is an important, but largely untold, story. The militias' view that the Second Amendment protects our other rights, by ensuring the potential for armed insurrection against the government, is indistinguishable from the long-held constitutional ideology of the National Rifle Association.
For decades, NRA leaders have insisted that the Second Amendment is not only about duck hunting or self-defense against criminal attack. Rather, as one NRA official so colorfully put it, "the Second Amendment . . . is literally a loaded gun in the hands of the people held to the heads of government." NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre received loud cheers when he told last year's Conservative Political Action Conference that our rights as Americans mean little unless we are ready to defend them against the government by force of arms: "Freedom is nothing but dust in the wind till it's guarded by the blue steel and dry powder of a free and armed people . . . . Our founding fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules."
The Time reporter asked one Ohio militia officer what government action the militia is defending against. He replied, "Most likely it will start when the government tries to take our guns." Of course, the NRA stands alone in its ability to inspire hysterical fears of gun confiscation. During the last Presidential campaign, the NRA maintained a www.gunbanobama.com website and its delusional rhetoric about the Administration's supposed gun-banning intentions has been unrelenting. Looking forward to the upcoming elections, LaPierre seeks to rally the NRA troops by warning of "dark clouds on the horizon," with Democrats "lying in the weeds in wait to pick their time to destroy this freedom."
The determination of NRA leaders to generate paranoia and hatred toward the government has gotten them into trouble before. In a now-infamous fundraising letter sent on April 13, 1995, LaPierre warned his members about the "jack-booted government thugs" of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, who have the "power to take away our Constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us . . . ." Six days later, as NRA members found this noxious letter in their mail, Timothy McVeigh, convinced that the time to resist federal tyranny had arrived, bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City that housed the local offices of the ATF.
The Time article quotes a "self-described colonel" in a Kentucky militia, who channels LaPierre's incendiary rhetoric by predicting war with "the jackbooted thugs of Washington." LaPierre has made a career of spreading the nonsense that the "jackbooted thugs" are always "lying in the weeds" waiting for the chance to take away everyone's guns. It also is revealing that Richard Mack, one of the sheriffs recruited years ago by the NRA to challenge the Brady Bill in court, is now a hero of the violent right. In an interview with the Time reporter, Mack referred to federal agents as "America's gestapo".
What is truly disturbing is that the political influence of the NRA has given its insurrectionist view of the Second Amendment a home in some very high places, particularly within the Republican Party. It's not just Tea Party Republicans like Nevada Senatorial candidate Sharron Angle, with her call for "Second Amendment remedies," to be used "when our government becomes tyrannical." As the Republican Party has become more and more ideologically "pure" in its support of NRA policy positions, insurrectionist talk has made some surprising appearances.
For me, the most striking example surfaced in the legal briefs filed before the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark Heller Second Amendment case. Bush Administration Solicitor General Paul Clement filed a brief which, paradoxically, both infuriated the "gun rights" crowd and endorsed the insurrectionist theory of the Second Amendment. The pro-gun folks were enraged that the Clement brief actually argued for reversal of the D.C. Circuit's ruling striking down the District of Columbia handgun ban. Clement's brief suggested that the case be sent back to the lower court for further fact-finding. Largely unnoticed was Clement's comment that the Second Amendment guarantees "an armed citizenry as a deterrent to abusive behavior by the federal government itself."
This is a remarkable statement by a lawyer for the United States government. Does it not maintain that the potential for citizens to fire upon federal agents is an important constitutional value? Does it not imply that the greatest Second Amendment protection should be given to citizens who are arming themselves against the threat of government abuse, like the rightwing militias now training with assault rifles? Does this theory mean that Timothy McVeigh was engaged in constitutionally protected conduct as he built his bomb, because the threat of violence is "a deterrent to abusive government behavior"? It is noteworthy that Mr. Clement, as a private attorney, represented the NRA in the McDonald case, in which the Supreme Court struck down the Chicago handgun ban.
It will, of course, be loudly protested that the Bush Justice Department did not advocate violence against the government, nor does the NRA and Sharron Angle. This misses the point. The issue is not whether they have advocated violence against the government, but rather whether they have constructed a constitutional justification for violence. When right wing militias, or lone extremists, take that justification seriously, and act on it, no one should be surprised.
For more information, see Dennis Henigan's Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy (Potomac Books 2009)
And yes, machineguns in this country are in the same investment category as any other ultra-rare collectible. The supply was frozen in 1986, and as the existing ones wear out, the new ones get more scarce and valuable every year; the value can only go up, unless the 1986 Hughes Amendment is repealed, and I don't see that being seriously considered.
A transferable Title 2 AK-47 that was a few hundred dollars in 1986 sells for about seventeen thousand dollars now, and I've seen an M16A2 at auction for $74K.
1. What fueled the marked increase in gun & ammo sales following Obama's election?
(a) His prior record on gun-control-related legislation.
(b) NRA propaganda
(c) A and B
(d) Something else
2. In retrospect, was this reaction justified (in your opinion)?
NRA "propaganda" was minimal. Activism from the general gun owning community drove the buy up.
The issues were known hostility of Obama to gun rights, known hostility of his fellow travelers to gun rights, and uncertainty about civil unrest.
2. Retrospection is 20/20, now isn't it? If we'd known that we could nip Obama, Holder, and Pelosi in the bud, then the answer is NO. Given our lack of perfect knowledge, it might be judged a reasonable response. FWIW, I already owned what I needed and did not participate in the frenzy.
A.) Given the rhetoric in the primary (which did not appear in the campaign), and O's record, there was an expectation among some that certain arms might be banned. Those arms flew off the shelf, and the buyers needed ammo for all of their new guns.
D.) The military is using larger quantities of 5.56 and 7.62, so there wasn't enough excess plant capacity to make up for A
With A and D, law enforcement departments saw lead times stretch out so they began to insulate themselves by stockpiling. It rolled downhill from there.
2.) I didn't buy ANY ammo during the shortage as the price was too high. That much being said, it's a bit like the $4 a gallon gas of 2008 - increased demand and not enough capacity in the supply chain. It was more of a market reaction, so it's hard to say it was "justified". It just happened.
I realize that some of you will argue that this debate should already be settled because of a broad & unqualified interpretation of 2A -- and that's fine. But the responses I'm more interested in hearing are ones in which legitimate, MUTUAL concerns can be discussed respectfully and open-mindedly.
What would be required for such a forum to be successful? Would you participate?
The NRA has helped Congress write several gun control laws. When has a gun control group ever acted to protect our Second Amendment rights? When has a gun control group ever taught firearm safety? When has a gun control group ever provided firearm training to police, offered range design and evaluation, trained range officials, etc.?
"What would be required for such a forum to be successful?"
First, no lies from the gun control special interest lobby.
What are the most important pieces of misinformation that you would like to dispel about your side for gun control control-leaning folks? Not talking about BC or their leaders; just rank & file supporters with limited information and background.
-----------------------------
I don't work for BC nor have I met anyone who does. (In fact, I work in health care.)
You probably already know this but we 'control-leaning' folks tend to be uncomfortable with many open-carry practitioners, especially when they're carrying them to political rallies or in alcohol-serving establishments (I believe they are allowed to do this in Tennessee now?).
My wish is that more RKBA folks would discourage these practices (particularly the former) among your own.
As a gun control proponent, I am forced to admit that gun rights advocates appear to have a more accurate read of the founding father's beliefs about the importance of gun ownership over and apart from the maintenance of a well-regulated militia. The reason I admit to this is that I actually read many of the links and citations that were provided to me in threads like this. That said, how FF's words and concerns apply to today's society can and should be a matter for constructive debate.
Despite several attempts last week, TPMMuckraker was unable to get a White House official to respond to requests for comment about their priorities on gun control. Likewise, the Brady Campaign has tried to have a number of meetings with Obama administration officials, but “hasn’t had much luck,” Ramsey said.
ouch.
I will NEVER surrender the means of defending myself from them. Pass any law you like.
Please substantiate this assertion, Mr. Horwitz.
Yeah Grosh. We all know.
The Joyce Foundation, financiers of the majority of anti-gun activity in the US has bought their own private media outlet in order to push their agenda of gun bans and onerous restrictions.
"Media Matters", back in July, received a $400K grant from the Joyces and have dutifully pushed their message of smearing firearm advocates by trying to connect them w/ violent and unhinged criminals. Of course other Joyce Puppets like Josh Horwitz/Grits Jr. then complete the circle jerk by citing MM as 'definitive news'. MM then cites the CSGV etc. And they all go home w/ smiles on their faces for a 'job' well done.
Gun Control 'grassroots' in action folks.
http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2010/10/joyce-foundation-spreading-thelove-yeah.html
But he takes as gospel the words of gun control groups.
Still doesn't explain why he takes their words as automatic truth though, does it guff?
Even the Brady Bunch has stated that the NRA gets AT LEAST 85% of it's money from individual donors.
Aren't you going to take that as gospel?
As might be expected, people who say they have guns in their home are much more supportive of gun rights than are those who do not own guns. Overall, a third of Americans - including 42% of men and 25% of women - say they have a gun, rifle or pistol in their home.
By a wide margin (68% to 28%), gun owners say it is more important to protect the right to own guns than to control gun ownership. The much larger share that does not have a gun in their home (63% of the public) places greater priority on controlling gun ownership by 63% to 31%.
There are substantial gender differences in views about gun control among gun owners and non-owners alike. Fully three-quarters of men who say they have a gun in their home (75%) believe it is more important to protect gun rights than to control gun ownership; a much smaller majority of women gun owners agree (57%). Similarly, most men who do not have a gun in their home (53%) say it is more important to control gun ownership. But an even higher percentage of women who are not gun owners (69%) place a greater priority on controlling gun ownership.
Chumming the waters...
We are here to protect even those who don't realize they need protecting.
1. The NRA lobby is one of the most effective in U.S. history, and;
2. IMO these kinds of gun polls pose a false dichotomy that doesn't reflect the moderate position of most Americans, who seem to BOTH favor gun ownership rights AND harbor some fears about a perceived relationship between firearm proliferation & gun violence. Polls do a lousy job of reflecting mixed feelings on controversial topics like this.
I'm not in a militia in any way, I don't really like the NRA, but I sure wish I could open carry from sea to shining sea. It wasn't that long ago that Americans had this right -- no permit or approval needed.
I wish the NRA well in their efforts to restore our 2nd amendment freedoms and liberties.
As much as Henigan would LOVE to paint gun rights as a distinct partisan issue, the last 15 or so years have seen unprecedented support from Dems for gun rights. In addition to the Dems endorsed by the NRA, let's not forget the smackdown on Holder's proposed reinstatement of the now defunct and highly ineffective '94 Clinton Assault Weapons ban:
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/AWBLettertoHolder309.pdf
As much as the anti-gunners like Henigan would love to paint gun owners with a broad brush stroke as being staunch conservative, insurrectionist, hillbilly, red-state militias, there is a growing bi-partisan support for ALL the rights guaranteed by the COTUS, not just the ones they agree with.
Nice try, Dennis. Maybe Starbucks or Lady GaGa is willing to listen again?
No broad brush strokes in that post...
:O
Now to celebrate the bipartisanship that does exist on this topic:
Other House Democrats endorsed by the NRA include:
Alabama: Bobby Bright
Arkansas: Mike Ross
Colorado: Betsy Markey and John Salazar
Illinois: Debbie Halverson
Maryland: Frank Kratovil
Minnesota: Tim Walz
New York: Scott Murphy and Bill Owens
Ohio: Zach Space
Pennsylvania: Paul Kanjorski and Chris Carney
South Dakota: Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Texas: Chet Edwards
Virginia: Rich Boucher
Wisconsin: Steve Kagan
Veteran House chairmen Reps. John Dingell (D) of Michigan and Ike Skelton (D) of Missouri were also publicly endorsed by the NRA this week.
As much as you libs like to say they only support repubs here is some truth for you.
Would someone really make such an inane statement?
Yep.
civilians should not have sniper rifles, or rifles that they can kill someone at 100 meters distance, for example. -Rebecca Peters, CNN Oct. 23 2002
In the debate, she specifically says:
"I think Americans who hunt -- and who prove that they can hunt -- should have single shot rifles suitable for hunting whatever they"re hunting. I mean American citizens should be like any other citizens of the world. "
They also want to ban all semi-auto's and handguns (boy that sounds familiar). What's left?
BTW. The Brady Campaign, is a member of IANSA.
Just to let you know where they really stand.
http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2008/09/did-she-really-say-that.html
I'm buying stock in tin foil as soon as the market opens tomorrow morning. With so many gun owners convinced that gun prohibition is right around the corner, demand for hats is sure to exceed supply.
Q. Is Brady a "gun ban" organization?
A. No. Brady believes that a safer America can be achieved without banning guns.
We believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms. And we believe there are sensible gun laws that we can and should insist upon when it comes to gun ownership.
First and foremost, we should try to keep dangerous weapons out of the wrong hands, including criminals and children.
Second, there are certain classes of weapons that should be out of bounds for private ownership. They include Saturday-night specials, which are used almost exclusively for crime, military-style assault weapons like Uzis and AK-47s, and .50-caliber sniper rifles, which serve no ordinary sporting purpose.
Third, we believe that those who do own guns ought to be held to the highest standards of safety. They should be well trained in the use of their weapons and they should be required to keep weapons secure, so that neither innocent children nor prohibited persons can get a hold of them.
----------------------
You ant to debat whether or not their goals are achievable or based on good data? Fine. You want to debate the nuances about 2A? Ditto.
But if you continue to lie about the Brady Campaign's agenda, we'll call you on it every time.
Many firearms that are arbitrarily classified as "assault weapons" are in fact used for sporting purposes. .50 caliber rifles are frequently used by civilians for competitive target shooting. The Brady Center's claim is therefore a lie. As the Brady Center is demonstrably willing to rely upon dishonest claims as a means of advancing their agenda, they are not a credible source of information.
No, it is a perhaps an overly broad classification. There are lies, mistakes, and differences of opinions, but to ideologues, there are only "lies" and as soon as you discover one, you illogically (though predictably) conclude that you may therefore discredit everything else the other side says or does.
A compelling style of argument for, say, a fifth grader.
Fairfax, Va. – The Electoral Board in Cook County, Illinois has agreed to dismiss a bogus petition to create a referendum on the November ballot asking if the sale of semi-automatic firearms should be banned in Illinois.