Think "No guns for Terrorists" is a good idea...THINK AGAIN....

[virginia mountainman]

Supportive of "no fly, no buy"? Just think GWB's secret list is a great "tool" to keep guns away from terrorists? And that anyone who would oppose such "sensible" legislation is just an NRA Shill???

Read this artical...

A few "Tid bits"....

Reporting from Washington — FBI agents improperly opened investigations into Greenpeace and several other domestic advocacy groups following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, and put the names of some of their members on terrorist watch lists based on evidence that turned out to be "factually weak," the Department of Justice said Monday.

However, the internal review by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine did not conclude that the FBI purposely targeted the groups or their members, as many civil liberties advocates had charged, after antiwar rallies and other protests were held during the administration of President George W. Bush.

But Fine said the FBI tactics appeared "troubling" in singling out some of the domestic groups for investigations that lasted up to five years, and were extended "without adequate basis." He also questioned why the FBI continued to maintain investigative files against the groups.

"In several cases there was little indication of any possible federal crimes," Fine said. "In some cases, the FBI classified some investigations relating to nonviolent civil disobedience under its 'Acts of Terrorism' classification."

The FBI conducted a full investigation into Greenpeace's planned protests at shareholder meetings for two companies in Texas, and kept the investigation open "for over three years, long past the shareholder meetings that the subjects were supposedly planning to disrupt." In addition, the bureau classified its investigation as an "Act of Terrorism case" and placed several Greenpeace members on its federal watch list.

I wonder if those that think No fly, no buy, is a good idea, are still supportive of it, if they knew it would be used to take away civil rights from peace activists, animal rights supporters several other domestic advocacy groups??

Like say Move On....

http://www.wdbj7.com/la-na-fbi-activists-20100921,0,6526824.story

[The Magistrate]

1. We On The Left Are Used To This Sort Of 'Enforcement', Sir

The security organs have a distinct bias to the right, and are as unwilling to aggressively enforce the law against rightists in arms as they are eager to stretch the law against left groups who do not pose the slightest real threat of violence.

[virginia mountainman]

3. I can't even wrap my head around the fact...

That many on the left, are pushing the very laws, that can be used against them..

They just don't see the danger in attaching a civil liberty, to secret watch list...

[The Magistrate]

5. It Will Not Change Much Of Anything For Us, Sir

For better or worse, the left in this country has pretty solidly chosen to eschew violence as a political tool. This has not stopped law enforcement agencies from treating left organizations as potential violent revolutionaries, nor has it prevented the right from accusing the left of violent intent.

[spin]

24. At this time there is absolutely no reason to resort to violence ...

The United States has often faced times like we see today and survived all the commotion and hysterics without problem. History shows that bad economic times cause anger and discontent among the citizens, and we are just coming out of some serious economic problems.

The possibility always exists that some time in the future our form of government may be replaced by a far more dictatorial power and at that time a revolution may be the only choice for those who appreciate the freedoms we enjoy today. The success of such a revolution will depend on many factors and may well fail.

It's wise to allow the option of revolution open rather than submit to a total or partial gun confiscation which might embolden a power grabbing government to turn us into a nation of without freedom.

[The Magistrate]

32. Well, When It Comes To Statements Like This, Sir

The thing turns to actually comprehending what revolution entails, and very few people commenting on gun rights strike me as likely to last a week at opposing a tyrannical government. The first need is not guns but experience at underground living and operation in the face of the police....

[spin]

48. While I agree, you have to consider ...

that our government has invested an enormous amount of money into training some very capable soldiers over the last few decades. Many of these soldiers have gained battlefield experience in several foreign hell holes and could make an effective and extremely dangerous insurgent group.

We also have trained a large number of people in our special forces and many of these soldiers have successfully conducted classified missions in foreign countries. Of course, there are the snipers we have trained and who have also proven themselves on the battlefield.

The average gun owner or militia member may have a Walter Mitty fantasy of rebellion and as you suggest would not last long. These are not the people the government would have to worry about.

And of course, in a situation where a truly dictatorial and tyrannical government would have replaced our current one, there is no guarantee that the military and the police would not decide to support the insurgency. The are a lot of patriots in the military.

Also it's important to remember that the United States is the most armed nation in the world.

The United States has the largest number of guns in private hands of any country in the world with 60 million people owning a combined arsenal of over 200 million firearms.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/four_b/casestudy_art29.shtml

USA Buys Enough Guns in 3 Months to Outfit the Entire Chinese and Indian Army
Law abiding US citizens bought on average 3,177,256 guns every 3 months in 2008.

EveryTown, USA - -(AmmoLand.com)- In just 3 months Americans bought enough guns to outfit the entire Chinese and Indian army’s combined.

“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” – Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto WWII

You also bought 1,529,635,000 rounds of ammunition in just the month of December 2008. Yeah that is right, that is Billion with a “B”. This number takes no accounting of reloading or reloaded ammunition.

This is an evaluation of overall firearms and ammunition purchases based on low end numbers per Federal NIC instacheck data base Statistics. The numbers presented are only PART of the overall numbers of arms and ammunition that have been sold. The actual numbers are much higher.
http://www.ammoland.com/2009/04/22/usa-buys-enough-guns-in-3-months-to-outfit-the-entire-chinese-and-indian-army/

Of course, that's today. Since I don't foresee any need for a revolution in the next 10 to 20 years, we might not have the same number of trained individuals in the future and possibly the gun control groups will be able to reverse the trend by then and successfully ban and confiscate firearms.

[The Magistrate]

50. Military Training, Sir, Is Not Quite The Ticket

Insurgency is much closer to criminal conspiracy in the practiced skills required for success. Skill with weapons, particularly fire-arms, really is not that important. A well-honed sense of who really is 'one of us' is the most important item, along with the ability to keep a straight face and control the affect of one's personality to present something inconspicuous, something the policeman expects to see....

[spin]

58. Are you at all familiar with special forces or seal teams?

The United States Navy Sea, Air and Land (SEAL) Teams (commonly known as the Navy SEALs) are the Navy's principal special operations force. SEAL teams are trained and have been deployed in a wide variety of missions, including direct action and special reconnaissance operations, unconventional warfare, foreign internal defense, hostage rescue, counter-terrorism, and other missions. Without exception, all SEALs are male members of either the Navy or the Coast Guard<2>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_SEALs#Persian_Gulf

Special forces are versatile and agile military assets capable of providing discreet reconnaissance, surveillance and capacity building to other states' security forces. They are suited to operating against informally structured, irregular and asymmetric forces and capable of operating independently, or in direct support of either conventional military forces or other government departmental requirements. They are high value assets, commanded at the strategic level that deliver effects disproportionately to their size.<1>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_forces

or snipers ...

A Special Reaction Team with an M24 Sniper Weapon System in 2004.


A sniper is a highly trained marksman who shoots targets from concealed positions or distances exceeding the capabilities of regular personnel. Snipers typically have specialized training and distinct high-precision rifles.

In addition to marksmanship, military snipers are also trained in camouflage, field craft, infiltration, reconnaissance and observation.<1> Snipers are especially effective when deployed within the urban terrain of urban warfare, or jungle terrain of jungle warfare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper

Do you remember the Beltway sniper attacks in October 2002.


An unidentified woman crouches while pumping gas at a gas station near Route 95 in Alexandria, Va. Four sniper shootings have taken place at gas stations.

Can you imagine how much more panic a trained squad of soldiers would have caused than one man and a minor?

Let's assume that our military is ordered to take over a rebel city in the heartland where they would face an entrenched and well armed civilian force. Would they shoot their own countrymen? Would they fire artillery at a block of houses knowing that they would kill women and children?

How successful would our army be, even if they did support the tyrannical government. The fight would be similar to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan except it would be on our soil. You have to admit that we didn't overwhelm either Iraq or Afghanistan with our superior forces and technology.

You believe that a revolution would be a total failure and I believe that it might actually succeed. In reality, the truth is probably somewhere in between our positions. At a minimum there would be a considerable amount of bloodshed and our economy and lifestyle would be seriously disrupted. Our infrastructure is very vulnerable and a well planned but simple attack could easily disrupt power over a large area of our country. An attack on the highway system and the rail system could disrupt the flow of essential items such as food.

But fortunately we are nowhere close to needing a revolution to continue our freedoms and the government the founding fathers designed. Any attempt at revolution today would fail because it would lack the support of the majority of the citizens.

[The Magistrate]

60. It Is Not My View Revolution Necessarily Would Fail, Sir, Though in Fact Most Do

It is my view that most people talking of revolution from a 'gun rights' point of view, have a mistaken notion of what is involved, and lack the skill sets necessary for success at it. You seem to view it as a military matter primarily, and it is not. Revolution is predominantly a political endeavor, and succeeds or fails on political terms. Not only its political but its military work is dependent on skill at evading police and operating in the face of their surveillance and energetic repression. A fellow who had been a successful fence, or a narcotics courier, would be of more use in terms of demonstrated skills, than just about any former soldier.

[spin]

61. You do make a valid point ...

but you also have to realize that the very people you describe may also join the revolution. Most dictatorships are more strict on criminals than our form of government. Criminals tend to disappear or face extremely severe punishment and torture.

We both agree that a revolution has a chance if the circumstances are right. I feel that it would require the support of a high percentage of the citizens. These citizens would have to be so disgusted with the situation that they would be willing to risk their lives to help the cause. It would take a lot of oppression to reach that point.

I have been watching the discontent in Iran and I believe that the situation is close to a boiling point.

The Iranian people have an interesting choice — submit and obey, or resist and be raped, tortured, or killed. Because there is no widespread ownership of guns, they are precluded from shooting back at the troops and police when they’re fired upon or when the troops or police come to cart them away for indefinite incarceration, torture, rape, or execution.

Of course, there are many American gun-control types who say, “Well, that sort of thing could happen in Iran or Europe or elsewhere, but it could never happen here in the United States.”

That position, needless to say, is the height of naïveté. Anything is possible. Human nature is human nature. There’s nothing special about American human beings as compared to other human beings. There will always be those in every society, including the United States, who thirst for power over the lives of other human beings and who are all-too-ready to convince themselves that the assumption of omnipotent, tyrannical power is necessary to save the nation. And there will always be those who are ready and willing to loyally obey orders, especially when their superiors tell them that what they're doing is saving the nation.

Likely? Of course not. America’s long tradition of democracy and due process makes the likelihood of a tyrannical regime assuming power, say in a coup, extremely unlikely.

But not impossible.

And that’s where the right to keep and bear arms comes into play. It’s the insurance policy that Americans have in the unlikely event that would-be American tyrants were ever to assume power in our country, prohibiting elections, rounding up dissidents and critics, torturing and raping them, and executing them without due process of law.

In fact, the right to keep and bears arms actually serves as more than an insurance policy, it also serves as a deterrent. For when would-be tyrants know that the citizenry is well-armed, they think twice about imposing tyranny.

In the case of Silveira v. Lockyer, Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski summed up the importance of the right to keep and bear arms:

The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=501

[The Magistrate]

66. Merely Illustrating The Skill Set, Sir, Not Setting Recruitment Policy

Criminals are pretty poor material for revolution, as they are for war. Self-interest and the resolve to get over on others, being the root values of the personality's orientation, make them unreliable material for group endeavors. People mistake the nature of criminal codes of silence and the like; they are adhered to through fear, and because working the trade is impossible to someone not known as a 'stand-up guy'. Loyalty has nothing to do with it. One of the more entertaining mistakes of New Left revolutionists back in the sixties was the idea that a revolutionary force could be recruited from prisons and street gangs.

Still, it is that sort of ability and experience that is essential for successful revolutionary operations. Persons who have lived under extremely repressive and totalitarian government acquire some degree of these skills naturally, as they are more or less required in daily life. Very, very few people in this country have both the skills and personal orientation to be useful even for basic tasks, at least in the face of a genuinely tyrannical government come into being with some abruptness.

Another point to bear in mind about revolution, Sir. Oppression does not produce revolution; oppression is a constant in human affairs, and if it produced revolution, revolution would be a constant campaign, damned near everywhere. The real essential for revolution is a sense it might succeed, a whiff of weakness in the governing authority. Individuals may act in the despair of feeling even death is better than this, but the mass does not, and the individuals, whatever their hope, will not spark the mass. The mass has to feel there is a decent shot, or it will remain inert, no matter what is done to individuals within it. There are three factors that can suggest such a chance: complete military defeat, complete economic collapse, and complete imbecility in the ruling class. Generally, evolution has a chance of success in a major power only when all three factors are present, and there have in fact only been three such revolutions, in Bourbon France, Czarist Russia, and Ch'ing China, though the latter has some complicating features. Once revolution is in the air, the deciding feature is the attitude of the country's armed forces. If these remain loyal, or mostly loyal, to the government, revolution will fail.

[spin]

69. Do you remember the role Lucky Luciano played in WWII...

During World War II, the U.S. government reportedly struck a secret deal with the imprisoned Luciano. United States Army Military Intelligence knew that Luciano maintained good connections in the Sicilian and Italian Mafia, which had been severely persecuted by Benito Mussolini. Luciano considered himself to be a loyal American who was devoted to Sicily, the Mafia, and the United States alike. His help was sought in providing Mafia assistance to counter possible Axis infiltration on U.S. waterfronts, during Operation Avalanche, and his connections in Italy and Sicily were tapped to furnish intelligence and ensure an easy passage for U.S. forces involved in the Italian Campaign. Albert Anastasia, who controlled the docks, promised that no dockworker strikes would arise. Both during and after the war, the U.S. military and intelligence agencies reputedly also used Luciano's Mafia connections to root out communist influence in labor groups and local governments. In return for his cooperation, Luciano was permitted to run his crime empire unhindered from his jail cell.

In 1946, as a reward for his wartime cooperation, Luciano was paroled on the condition that he depart the United States and return to Sicily. He accepted the deal, although he had maintained during his trial that he was a native of New York City and was therefore not subject to deportation. He was deeply hurt about having to leave the United States, a country he had considered his own ever since his arrival at age ten. During his exile, Luciano used to meet US military men during train trips throughout Italy, and he enjoyed being recognized by his countrymen and tourists, taking photos and even signing autographs for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_Luciano#World_War_II.2C_freedom_and_deportation

There have been rumors in the recent past about the army asking soldiers if they would be willing to shoot American citizens in case of an insurrection. I remember hearing reports of this questioning but some quick research on the net linked me to sites that seemed to indicate that the government was planning to round up citizens and haul them off to concentration camps. I will not bother to post such links here.

I do agree that the success of a revolution would largely depend on the attitude of the military. There is always the possibility that if a group of individuals decided to totally ignore our Constitution and set up a dictatorship, our military might overthrow the government. This would eliminate the need for a revolution and save the country a lot of pain and grief.

But again such events, if they ever occur, will not be in the near future. Our form of government will survive the current economic problems and move on without a major insurrection.

[The Magistrate]

76. Certainly, Sir, But Remember, This Is Co-Operation With A Government

Much safer than operation against it, and profitable, too. This was of some importance in the U.S., but had little influence on the course of fighting in Sicily.

Unfortunately, the most likely course of military involvment in our country's politics is in furtherance of right wing seizure of authority. There is no question the officer corps is dominated by persons of rightist affiliation, and none that they attempt to inculcate this in the rank and file. One of the weaknesses of a volunteer army, from the social and political point of view, is that it comes to consider itself not only separate from civilian society, but superior to civilians, conceiving themselves as embodying the true heart and patriotism of the nation. This makes it easier for officers to both conceive of acting against a civilian government, or tendency in civilian society they disapprove of, and to succeed in moving their soldiers against that government or tendency. The florid fantasies of militia types that the military will act in the interests of the left are extremely delusional, even by their standards.

Conscript armies have the virtue, in literate and solidly democratic societies, anyway, that their rank and file will pretty much share the social and political views of the civil populace, and that the allegiance of the rank and file lies more with civilian society than with mlitary structure. This is a prime anodyn against military adventurism in government.

There is a reason the men who wrote our Constitution inveighed frequently against large standing armies....

[spin]

78. It's interesting to discuss a violent revolution ...

or to read fictional books based on the concept.

Let's just hope that we never have to live through one.

[PavePusher]

81. Respectfully, the military will be on the side of the Constitution.

If you want them to be on the side of "the interests of the left", you would be well served to see to it that such interests are more in line with the Constitution than their opposition.

To date, I can only surmise that in such an instance, the military would be a third party, for the most part. Read that as you will.

[The Magistrate]

82. That Is The Civics Text-Book Answer, Sir

"The future is hard to predict on account of it ain't happened yet."

[PavePusher]

83. Well, having been in the USAF for 20 years now....

I could be wrong, but I think I have some familiarity with the subject a bit deeper than a Civics book.

[The Magistrate]

88. The Easy Answer, Sir, Is Not So Easy On Examination

There are, for instance, people running today for national office who hold that Social Security and Federal unemployment compensation are un-Constitutional. What people mean by 'on the side of the Constitution' is not necessarily the same. Certainly what members of the armed forces are instructed is or is not 'upholding the Constitution' could come to be an active and, shall we say, interesting question, as our politics develops, particularly in a period of national decline and racial angst....

[one-eyed fat man]

91. You don't want the answer.

......and yet you already have it.

The last time push came to shove the President of the United States offered command of all Federal Armies to a general who, as a matter of conscience, turned him down.

Today were are still using his front lawn as a graveyard.



Each soldier will make his own choice as to which side is the enemy of the Constitution he swore to uphold.

[The Magistrate]

93. Why Does It Not Surprise Me, Sir, You Are A Fan-Boy Of Treason And Secession?

[one-eyed fat man]

96. Are you blind to reality?

There are many on the Left now, if not openly hostile to military service, view it as suitable career choice for only for rural bumpkins. Evidenced by the fact that very same elite colleges that provided the bulk of volunteers for the most demanding and dangerous services, Air Corps, Naval aviators, the submarine service, PT boats, and the OSS in World War 2 now bar all military recruiters from campus.

The draft-dodgers of the Sixties are now themselves in their sixties and have become all they are likely to be. With the military an all-volunteer force and their offspring reared with the notion the Army life is for losers, they have pretty much ensured that only those whose worldview has not been colored by psychedelic images of burning ROTC buildings will be the bulk of those who ARE in the military. Not unlike the Roman citizens who discovered when they eschewed service in the Legions that the barbarians they hired were a lot more loyal to each other than to Rome.

Back in 1994, the question has actually been asked, and answered.

http://www.29palmssurvey.com/survey.html

The speed with which reports and rumors of this survey percolated through the military community was amazing. That it was being discussed at Fort Knox, Kentucky by Army tank crewmen within a week of being administered to Marine infantrymen at Twenty-nine Palms, California is testimony to the stir it caused. Just freshly retired from active duty then, many of my fellow soldiers and I were troubled not only by the questions but also who wanted to know the answers and why. That the questions were framed in the context of confiscation of firearms from American citizens was especially alarming. And too chillingly believable.

While it was part of a research project by a student at the Naval War college many wondered if it was another of the DoD surveys we had all seen in the past. Even as an academic exercise, to soberly consider the modern equivalent of joining the Army of Northern Virginia was uncomfortable.

While you are scurrilous in your slurs about treason and sedition, if you expect a half million soldiers to blindly follow orders you are looking at the wrong Army. As the author of the 1994 survey discovered if you pick a divisive enough issue and force soldiers to choose, they will divide. He concluded that many combat units would become ineffective or openly refuse. You will note, even today, individual soldiers have asserted their conscience, and faced the consequences of their actions regardless of your views. Soldiers have declared them selves gay. Soldiers have refused deployment in what they felt was an immoral war. There is a colonel right now refusing orders until he sees the President's birth certificate. This is not some idealistic kid making a statement without regard to his future. Mistaken and misguided as he might be, this is someone who has spent a good chunk of a career in the military and has picked a hell of a time to throw it all away.

What you forget is a mutiny is a coup that fails. If you intend to foment a mutiny from without, it'd be great idea to have folks who agree with you within.

George Santayana is right; ignore his advice at your peril.

[The Magistrate]

97. You Do Not Much Like Leftists And The Left, Do You, Sir?

You love traitors and secessionsts, of course.

[one-eyed fat man]

98. Nah, it's simpler than that

Doctrinaire dolts disturb me, regardless their stripe.

"Don't call me Sir; I work for a living."

(Those that know the quote will understand, those that don't, don't matter.)

[The Magistrate]

103. Then Down Here, Sir, You Must Be In A State Of Perpetual Disturbance

Indeed, your own company you must find nearly insupportable....

[one-eyed fat man]

39. The LEFT has eschewed violence?

Bombing the Pentagon is 'civil' disobedience? Bombing research facilities by ALF is non violent? Burning down ROTC buildings doesn't count? The Immigration protesters who carried brass knuckles, maced those opposing amnesty and then stomped on them, as reported in the SF Weekly, were merely intense debaters? The ELF torching car dealerships not count? What about the vandals torching cars at all the G8, G20 etc conferences? Code Pink firebombing military recruiting offices?

Your memory is either short, selective, or both.

And "plausible deniability" doesn't work. PETA claims it doesn't condone violence, yet they use their collected money to pay legal fees for ALF members charged with felonies.

The extremes on both sides have always been violent. Many of the real butchers were Leftists. They promoted armed revolution until they got in power then, disarming their citizens, used State sanctioned thugs to keep the population in line. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Tito, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez, need anyone add to the list?

There are plenty of lefties that support violence if it is for achieving their goal. Ignoring or, worse, denying that fact merely makes the rest look stupid or blind to reality. You might be against violence, but you have "allies" that aren't if you don't as vociferously condemn them as you do right-wing wackos.

[The Magistrate]

49. Damn, Sir! Are There Things Such As You Allowed Out Of Doors Down Here?

This sounds like an old John Bircher's fantasy reel.

[hendo]

71. ELF and ALF are decidedly left wing

and both often resort to violence.

[The Magistrate]

77. You Have A Death Toll, Sir?

Have they killed as many people as the anti-abrtion fanatics of the right?

Killed as many people as the 'sovereign citizen' types of the right?

Killed and robbed in the style of the Phineas Priesthood?

Maintain armed camps and regularly exercise with firearms in the woods in rural areas?

You make my point, Sir, with what you think may undermine it....

[one-eyed fat man]

79. Do you want to start with Truman assassination attempt?

Earlier??

The bombing of the Los Angeles Times on October 1, 1910 killed 21 people. The prepetrators of this crime were the McNamara brothers (James and John McNamara), two Irish-American brothers who wanted to unionize the paper. The McNamaras became a cause célèbre amongst the labor movement in the United States, though their support eroded when they admitted their guilt. Are bombs with a Union label a conflicted idea for a non-violent Leftist?

In late April 1919, approximately 30 booby trap bombs were mailed to a cross-section of prominent politicians, including the Attorney General of the United States. The Galleanists intended their bombs to be delivered on May Day, the international day of communist, anarchist, and socialist revolutionary solidarity. (Ya gotta admit, that's pretty stereotypical Left wing.)

The mail bombs were wrapped in bright green paper and stamped "Gimbel Brother's - Novelty Samples." Inside the paper was a cardboard box containing a six-inch by three-inch block of hollowed wood about one inch in thickness, packed with a stick of dynamite. A small vial of sulfuric acid was fastened to the wood block, along with three fulminate-of-mercury blasting caps. Opening one end of the box (one end was marked "open") released a coil spring that caused the acid to drip from its vial onto the blasting caps; the acid ate through the caps, igniting them and detonating the dynamite.

On the evening of June 2, 1919, the Galleanists managed to blow up eight large bombs nearly simultaneously in eight different U.S. cities. These bombs were much larger than the April bombs. One used twenty pounds of dynamite, and all were wrapped or packaged with heavy metal slugs designed to act as shrapnel.

The Galleanists detonated a bomb at 12:01 p.m. on September 16, 1920, in the Financial District of New York City. The blast killed 38 and seriously injured 143. It was more deadly than the bombing of the Los Angeles Times building in 1910. It was the deadliest bomb attack on U.S. soil until the Bath School bombings in Michigan seven years later.

The attack on the US Capitol in 1954, or how about in your life time?

How about the Weather Underground?

Oh,Susan Rosenberg and Bill Ayers who on June 18, 1969 authored the founding document calling for a "white fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement" and other radical movements to achieve "the destruction of US imperialism and achieve a classless world: world communism."

The Haymarket Police Memorial bombing October 7, 1969

Park Place Police Station bombing, February 1970

New York City, Judge Murtagh's home firebombed, February 1970

Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, March 1970 (Aw too bad, the bomb they were building to bomb a dance at the Fort Dix NCO club exploded prematurely. Do the dead bodies of mechanically inept leftists count?)

Timothy Leary prison break, September 1970

The bombing of the United States Capitol on March 1, 1971.

The bombing of the Pentagon on May 19, 1972.

The January 29, 1975 bombing of the United States Department of State Building.

Plot to Bomb Office of California State Senator John Briggs (1977)

Brinks robbery (1981)

May 19th Communist Organization

The May 19 Coalition (also variously referred to as the May 19 Communist Coalition, May 19 Communist Organization, and various alternatives of M19CO), was a US-based, self-described revolutionary organization formed by members of the Weather Underground Organization. The group was originally known as the New York chapter of the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee (PFOC), an organization devoted to legally promoting the causes of the Weather Underground. This was part of Prairie Fire Manifesto change in Weather Underground Organization strategy, which demanded both aboveground mass and clandestine organizations. The role of the clandestine organization would be to build the "consciousness of action" and prepare the way for the development of a people's militia. Concurrently, the role of the mass movement (i.e., above ground Prairie Fire Collective) would include support for, and encouragement of, armed action. Such an alliance would, according to Weather, "help create the 'sea' for the guerrillas to swim in." The Weather Underground members involved in the May 19th Communist Organization alliance with the Black Liberation Army continued in a series of jail breaks, armed robberies and bombings until most members were finally arrested in 1985 and sentenced as part of the Brinks Robbery and the Resistance Conspiracy case.

The (BLA) was an underground, black nationalist-Marxist militant organization that operated in the United States from 1970 to 1981. Composed largely of former Black Panthers (BPP), the organization's program was one of "armed struggle" and its stated goal was to "take up arms for the liberation and self-determination of black people in the United States." The BLA carried out a series of bombings, robberies (what participants termed "expropriations"), and prison breaks.

According to a Justice Department report on BLA activity, the Black Liberation Army is suspected of involvement in over 60 incidents of violence between 1970 and 1976 and the murder of 13 police officers.

On October 22, 1970, the BLA planted a bomb in St. Brendan's Church in San Francisco.

On May 21, 1971, the shootings of two New York City police officers, Joseph Piagentini and Waverly Jones.

On August 29, 1971, the murder 51-year old San Francisco police officer John Victor Young.

On the 3 November, 1971, Officer James R. Greene of the Atlanta Police Department was shot and killed. His wallet, badge, and weapon were taken. Two men had attacked the officer to gain standing with their compatriots within Black Liberation Army.

United Freedom Front, a small American Marxist organization active in the 1970s and 1980s. Between 1975 and 1984 the UFF carried out at least 20 bombings and nine bank robberies in the northeastern United States, targeting corporate buildings, courthouses, and military facilities. Brent L. Smith describes them as "undoubtedly the most successful of the leftist terrorists of the 1970s and 1980s."

The Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) was an American self-styled, far left "urban guerrilla warfare group" that considered itself a revolutionary vanguard army. The group committed bank robberies, two murders, and other acts of violence between 1973 and 1975. Among their most notorious acts was the kidnapping and the brainwashing of the newspaper heiress Patty Hearst.

Venceremos

Unisight

Earth Liberation Front (ELF) Environmental activists using arson, vandalism, and bombs in lieu of protest signs is a more recent development. The Earth Liberation Front has been classified as threat only since 2001.

Animal Liberation Front (ALF) Animal rights activists had a history of committing low-level criminal activity in the U.S. dating back to the 1970s. PETA feigns non-violence, but, in fact, routinely pays the legal bills of persons they deny are members, but who have been arrested for bombings and other criminal acts.According to ALF statements, any act that furthers the cause of animal liberation may be claimed as an ALF action.

In 1982, letter bombs were sent to all four major party leaders in England, including the prime minister, Margaret Thatcher. The letter bombs were claimed by the Animal Rights Militia (ARM)

In June 1990, two days apart, bombs exploded in the cars of Margaret Baskerville, a veterinary surgeon working at Porton Down, a chemical research defense establishment, and Patrick Max Headley, a psychologist at Bristol University. Baskerville escaped without injury by jumping through the window of her mini-jeep when a bomb using a mercury-tilt device exploded next to the fuel tank. During the attack on Headley, which involved the use of plastic explosives, a 13-month-old baby passing by in a stroller suffered flash burns, shrapnel wounds to his back, and a partially severed finger.

Nine American and two Canadian activists calling themselves the "family," engaged in direct action in the name of the ALF and ELF. Environmental and animal rights activists have referred these acts as the "Green Scare." The incidents included arson attacks against meat-processing plants, lumber companies, a high-tension power line, and a ski center, in Oregon, Wyoming, Washington, California, and Colorado between 1996 and 2001.

You sure you still want a body count? Or will you concede that violence used by groups who want to effect change rather than established political processes is Left-wing extremism, and it is as reprehensible and as morally bankrupt as the use of violence by the Right wing.

[The Magistrate]

80. Deaths In the United States, Sir, In The Present Day

That is the subject at hand.

If you have some principled objection to violence per se, one wonders what you are doing down here....

[one-eyed fat man]

85. I have a very principled view to violence.

Having spent 26 years on active duty, combat service in two wars I have a very good idea of how to inflict violence. I also have a pretty well-developed personal moral code and would only resort to violence when unavoidable, justifiable, legal and necessary for defense. In that event, it would be total, merciless, by any means at hand.

It was your contention that the Leftists are incapable of such tawdry behavior. The only thing I might concede, based on the examples of the 60's and 70's is that crop American Leftist Radicals were often "millionaire Marxists." The spoiled and pampered off spring of successful upper class families wasting their parents' money, cutting classes in Ivy League schools, spouting slogans, fancying themselves downtrodden proletariat while wearing designer jeans made in some Third World sweatshop.

Since they tended to eschew military service and manual labor they blew themselves up almost as often as they blew up the capitalistic lackey dogs they targeted with bombs that would have been better built if they had taken a high school shop class.

Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolf were effective partly due to their use of their military training and experience to at least build competent bombs. A dope smoking draft dodger was unlikely to sitting in a class on improvised explosives. The neat thing about the training, is not only to you learn the theory in the classroom. You actually build explosive devices and detonate them on a training range to see how well they work. I am certain that compounds I learned to make from ordinary household chemicals in 1968 will still work as well to day.

What I have an objection to is to those who refuse to see the bombing of military recruitment offices by Code Pink as criminal because they agree with Code Pinks "objectives" It goads me as much as Jane Fonda saying despite the torture, repression, and everything else the North Vietnamese did she couldn't bring herself to say anything bad about a Marxist regime.

I gave you a century's worth of Leftist bombings and murders, in the United States, you dismiss out of hand. You want something more current



A black bloc is a tactic for protests and marches, whereby individuals wear black clothing, scarfs, ski masks, motorcycle helmets with padding or other face-concealing items and often carry some sort of shields and truncheons. The clothing is used to avoid being identified, and to, theoretically, appear as one large mass, promoting solidarity or creating the illusion of a larger group.

The first recorded use of the tactic in United States of America was in 1989 at a protest at the Pentagon. Other early use in the US were the Earth Day Wall Street Action in 1990 and the February 1991 protests against the Gulf War. These were initiated by Love and Rage, a revolutionary Leftist organization active in New York.

They garnered significant media attention when a black bloc caused damage to property of GAP, Starbucks, Old Navy, and other retail locations in downtown Seattle during the 1999 anti-WTO demonstrations. They were a common feature of subsequent anti-globalization protests. During the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto, a black bloc riot damaged an Urban Outfitters, American Apparel, Adidas Store, Starbucks and many banking establishments.

Back to the original question, as you say Leftist organizations eschew violence, is it your contention that none of those organizations are/were Leftist?

If they are Left wing do you contend that bombing, killing, looting, rioting, vandalism, arson, assault are not violent if they do it?

If roving bands of people committing crimes supporting causes you agree with do you condone their methods?

Did the 1924 Democratic National Convention end with a large celebratory cross-burning?

Was not the Ku Klux Klan the "action wing" of the Democratic Party's "solid South" from the end the Civil War until Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

You need to know where the skeletons are buried, because the other side sure does. To blithely deny the sins and excesses of the past by asserting the Left is too pure to have done any such nasty things as those evil right wingers is ludicrous.

Lust for power, greed, corruption, violence are not the exclusive to EITHER extreme. I thought the Patriot Act and all that secret no-fly terror watch list was an unconstitutional power grab by an over-reaching Bush Administration. Now Frank Lautenberg and a boat load of "Leftists and Progressives" (sic) think the very same bogus list they RAILED against when it was the Shrub's is just the PERFECT tool for the Obama Administration to use to deny gun sales.

Yeah, it's bogus unconstitutional power grab, but now it's OUR unconstitutional power grab?

If you buy that crap, be my guest, I'll pass.

[The Magistrate]

86. Deaths In The United States In the Present Day, Sir

"Tits ---or sit the fuck down!"

[X_Digger]

87. Feel free to put those goal posts down, they must be heavy.

"against left groups who do not pose the slightest real threat of violence."

"the left in this country has pretty solidly chosen to eschew violence as a political tool."

What were the examples that one-eyed fat man posted if not 'violence as a political tool'?

[The Magistrate]

89. A Death Toll, Sir, Was Askd For, Directly: None Has Been Provided

All that was provided was a farago of left-hating dreck one would expect to encounter on Free Republic rather than Democratic Underground.

Neither of the comments you have excerpted amounts to a statement the left is wholly pacifist, in this country, but being a person who speaks English, you were of course aware of that....

[X_Digger]

90. Yes, that was one goal post move.. your point?

Another was 'yes, yes, but anything RECENT'?

That's two hefts that I can see on casual perusal. They must be made of styrofoam.

[The Magistrate]

94. On Consideration, Sir, Your Pecking Is Not Even Worth An Attempt At Humor

You just go on and live in a world where the United States is stalked by violent leftists.....

[X_Digger]

100. Dropped the posts and picked up some straw, eh? n/t

[shadowrider]

101. Once again, SIR, you remind me, SIR, why your use of the word, Sir, as you use it

is condescending and arrogant. Speaking down your nose to the great unwashed, you preach as if you are the know all, end all.

Examples of leftist violence have been given, you deny them. Present day. Define that. Today? Within the past week?

You, SIR, have successfully reminded me why I adjusted my personal setting so as to avoid seeing your posts.

Congratulations, SIR, you have done it again.

[The Magistrate]

102. Always Good To Hear From A Satisfied Customer, Sir

"Honi soit qui mal pense."

[hendo]

84. deleted

deleted

[Katya Mullethov]

20. And how we burned in the camps later, thinking , Sir

What would things have been like , Sir . If only , Sir . We had a fucking clue , Sir .

[bluestateguy]

2. Indeed

I wonder if progressives would support gun control if such lists were used to strip blacks and Muslim Americans of their rights to own guns.

[divideandconquer]

4. No big surprise that the gun pushers support terrorism

No terrorists are any good, left, right or moderate, damn them all straight to hell with their guns in their cold cowardly hands.

Reminds me how the gun pushers were bragging about the great job the Iraqi terrorists and their guns were doing on our soldiers in Iraq, well they lost.

[cleanhippie]

6. What the hell are you talking about?

who are the "gun pushers"?

[Abq_Sarah]

7. Apparently, guns are being compared with drugs

:rofl:

I can't get all worked up over that kind of emotional comparison anymore. I just laugh and move on.

[SteveM]

52. Where you find one prohibition, you're likely to find another.

[Katya Mullethov]

62. The pusher is a monster

A gun dealer however , will sell you lots of sweet dreams .

[rrneck]

8. That was almost poetic.

Incoherent, but poetic.

[obxhead]

11. I tried I really, really did.

After rereading that nonsense 3 times I've given up.

:wtf: are you talking about?

[TheWraith]

13. No surprise you'd suddenly put yourself on George Bush's side just because guns became involved. nt

[virginia mountainman]

14. Just so we are clear...

These are the "terrorists" about which you speak..

Greenpeace and several other domestic advocacy groups following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, and put the names of some of their members on terrorist watch lists based on evidence that turned out to be "factually weak," the Department of Justice said Monday.

...Checkmate...

[AtheistCrusader]

34. What if being a member of DemocraticUnderground was used as prima facie evidence that you are a

violent subversive, and put on the no fly list?

You wouldn't even know until you tried to get on an airplane.
Same list for purchasing firearms.

[benEzra]

35. Another fan of the Bush secret blacklists, I see.

You do realize you are describing the late Senator Edward Kennedy as a "terrorist", right? Along with nonviolent anti-war protesters and Greenpeace?

[Glassunion]

43. And me....

:(

I never did nothin to nobody...

[Euromutt]

95. Technically, the list didn't describe Ted Kennedy personally as a terrorist

The name "T. Kennedy" was placed on the list because some suspected terrorist had supposedly once used it as an alias, and as a result, anyone with the last name Kennedy and a given or nickname starting with T got hassled; aside from "Ted" Kennedy, there had to be countless Tamaras, Taras, Terrences, Theresas, Thomases, Timothies, and Tobiases (among others) who all got denied boarding passes as well.

[SteveM]

51. Another rip-roaring, mud-splattering hippo...

fart.

BTW, you really think "Mission Accomplished" THIS time?

[lawodevolution]

9. the Brady Campaign would.

and the rest of them.

in response to "I wonder if progressives would support gun control if such lists were used to strip blacks and Muslim Americans of their rights to own guns." -- indeed

[lawodevolution]

10. there is a danger

in removing the rights of an individual who has not been convicted by a court of law. They want to use this list to remove the rights of an individual who is still a law abiding citizen. They can put anyone's name on that list.

[divideandconquer]

12. Yeah, tell that to all the victims of gun terror

Keep watering that tree of liberty with the blood of innocents and bragging about how great it all is. America is the land of psuedo freedom with the world's largest prison population, distrust among it's citizens and an endless arms race among it's fearful citizens. Damn gun pushers to hell.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[divideandconquer]

17. Yeah, the wonderful gun lobby and it's minions are so full of love and understanding!

:puke:

[jazzhound]

26. Yeah, the wonderful minions of gun "control" are so full

of intellectual curiosity, integrity and respect for civil rights!

:puke:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

22. deleted...

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. Gun pushers like the Thomas Merton Center?

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10264/1089149-53.stm

Justice criticizes FBI over probes of Merton Center
Inspector General report calls agency activities 'troubling'
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
By Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The Justice Department harshly criticized the Pittsburgh office of the FBI for providing misinformation, misleading testimony and false reports in connection with surveillance conducted at a 2002 anti-war rally sponsored by the Thomas Merton Center.

The 209-page report from the Inspector General's office was prompted by a 2006 congressional inquiry into whether the FBI was improperly spying on domestic groups and activities protected by the First Amendment.....

...The decision to attend the Nov. 29, 2002, rally in Pittsburgh was simply designed as an "ill-conceived 'make-work' " assignment for a new agent.

Instead of admitting the original reasons for sending an agent to the rally, officials within the FBI's Pittsburgh office tried to reconstruct evidence after the fact for a better justification for the assignment so as to avoid embarrassment, concluded Inspector General Glenn Fine....

[lawodevolution]

18. If you want to live in a gun-free society, move to Nigeria

"12. Yeah, tell that to all the victims of gun terror"

Based on the 2007 small arms survey they are the nation with the lowest gun possession rate on earth among civilians and they have SharesUnited's qualification for being a violence free society, total gun and ammo ban. If you follow your blind Faith about gun control you will have no fear of moving there. I can't find any info on murder rates there so use your Faith.

[divideandconquer]

27. Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Ireland, there are much better choices

[Glassunion]

28. Have a nice flight...

:hi:

[rrneck]

29. Why are they much better? nt

[cleanhippie]

33. Enjoy your trip.

Stay a nice long, long time.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. Japan is openly racist . The others are overwhelmingly white.

Japan has a far higher suicide rate than the US, and racially exclusive immigration laws.

Australia and New Zealand only want immigrants with essential skills and/or money.

Ireland's economy is in worse shape than ours.


Do you have any other fantasies waiting to be muddied by reality?

[hendo]

73. Much of the world is openly bigoted, whats your point? n/t

[lawodevolution]

46. Each country you listed has a higher civilian gun ownership rate than Nigeria

Considering legal and illegal firearms.

[hendo]

72. Violent Crime has risen in all four countries since they banned firearms

Australia: http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html
NZ: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/29843/violent-crime-up-despite-government-crackdown
Japan: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20080207-117408/Gun-violence-jumps-in-Japan--police
Ireland: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/violent-crime--on-the-rise-14296793.html

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong.

[Euromutt]

19. Woah, talk about conflating issues

(First, a PSA from the grammar police: "it's" is a contraction of "it is." If you intend to use the possessive form for an object of neutral gender, the word is "its"; no apostrophe.)

Speaking as someone who grew up in western Europe and has visited a number of places in the Middle East and the former Warsaw Pact, I can say with some authority that actually, the United States tends to intrude upon the freedoms of its citizens to a far lesser extent than any other country I've ever been in. Sure, it's less liberal, by and large, where sexual freedoms and recreational substances are concerned, but in little everyday things, American government--federal, state and local--are much less of a pain in the ass. The Dutch government (the one with which I am most familiar) has practically made an art form of levying taxes in return for which it provides no service. For example, it levies a "rent tax" on the tenants of privately owned housing, in addition to charging the landlord property tax; understand that the government doesn't actually maintain the property, it simply charges you for the privilege of having a roof over your head. It also imposed a €45 tax on all transatlantic flights after the EU-US "Open Skies"
agreement was finalized; again, without providing any service in return, just for the privilege of being able to fly to the US less expensively.

Okay, sure, the United States has the highest percentage of its population incarcerated of any country in the world; at least, the highest percentage that anyone will admit to (I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that China and Russia, say, have higher percentages, but mask the numbers by labelling certain groups of inmates with euphemisms). It is remarkably easy to get imprisoned in this country, for offenses that would merit at most a suspended or non-custodial sentence in many European ones, if they are offenses at all. But you can't blame gun laws or gun owners for that; the American voting public in general, gun owners and non-gun-owners alike, are susceptible to promises on the part of politicians running for office (which, in the US, frequently includes public prosecutors and judges) to be "tough on crime," primarily by putting more people away for longer periods of time. Nobody is by definition immune from this: I've read plenty of posts in this forum by anti-RKBA types who advocated that the slightest infringement of firearms laws (including ones that do not exist, but which they also favored being introduced) should be prosecuted as felonies and punished with prison sentences counted in years, not months. Here in Washington state, liberal candidates for the state supreme court against Justice Richard Sanders (who is of a small-l libertarian bent, and is as such the staunchest defender of civil liberties on the court) have smeared him as "the criminal's best friend."

It's not just gun owners who love to lock people up in this country; most everybody does.

The United States also does not, in my experience, have a higher level of "distrust among its citizens" than many other countries I've lived in or visited. Personally, I feel less safe in urban areas in the UK or the Netherlands than I do in most parts of the US (with the exception of some neighborhoods I've driven through in Buffalo, NY). Americans tend to be more friendly toward each other than western Europeans (many Europeans like to say "yeah, but that's just superficial," to which I reply that I'll take superficially friendly over sincerely surly any day).

And honestly, if anyone here seems to have an issue consisting of distrust and fearfulness, it's you with your pathological aversion to people who you don't know, who have never done a thing to harm you, but who own a device that you have imbued (in your imagination) with powers of evil. Oh yeah, being an atheist, I don't believe in Hell or damnation; damn me all you like, it makes no difference. We're all worm food in the end.

[cleanhippie]

21. You can post ANOTHER inflammatory comment but cannot respond to your others?

Weak tea, buddy. Seems like you are just trying to disrupt. I will add your nonsense to ignore.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[derby378]

38. Do you consider Switzerland, Poland and the Czech Republic civilized?

All three nations are similarly armed, and in the Czech Republic, you can legally own and fire full-auto with a government license.

It can be done.

[cleanhippie]

41. At least you are good for one thing...

and that is a laugh.

[Euromutt]

47. Wielding your usual criteria for what constitutes "the civilized world"...

...namely not the stringency of the country's gun laws, but that its homicide rate be lower than that of the United States.

I've pointed it out ad nauseam by now: we can list plenty of countries with tighter gun laws than the United States that nevertheless have higher homicide rates, but for some unclear reason, those aren't comparable in your book.

[SteveM]

54. "third world gun pusher wet dream?" Most 3rd world countries ban guns. Why dat?

[shadowrider]

55. You want to live in a first world country? Give me the top 3 on your list n/t

[lawodevolution]

64. Germany, France, Canada, Finland, Switzerland all...

Allow their citizens to own AR15 (what your type call "assault rifles") so it's better stay out of those countries.

[derby378]

65. I thought Germany taxed AR15s out of the reach of the average Joe...

...am I mistaken here?

[benEzra]

68. You mean *this* civilized world?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x335420

You do realize that "Europe" and "The UK" are not synonymous, yes?

(Yes, they allow "assault weapon" ownership in Sweden, Finland, France, Germany, Switzerland, Norway...)

[SteveM]

53. 5CR/3RD?

[ManiacJoe]

63. English translation?

[SteveM]

99. Right here...

Fifth Column Republican/Third Rail Democrat?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

23. I don't want terrorists to be able to own guns.

That being said... PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that EVERYONE (and I would even settle for 90%+) on that list IS ACTUALLY a terrorist. This, of course, is impossible because there is no due process involved with any of these secret lists.

[spin]

25. You just summed up the problem. (n/t)

[RSillsbee]

30. Seems to be in direct contradiction to this

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;r shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I don't think I could support any type of "watch list"

[slackmaster]

31. The "terror watch list" is nothing more than a suspect list, and should be treated as such

It's a tool for law enforcement people to share information about who they believe bears scrutiny.

[benEzra]

37. It's not even a suspect list, strictly speaking.

It's a "let's watch this person to see if we should suspect them of anything, because they once attended this mosque" list. Except it's moved beyond even that, into the realm of "let's watch this person because I haven't met my weekly watchlist quota yet", or "let's watch these people because they are actively protesting the war in Iraq."

Actual terrorism suspects are typically excluded from the lists to avoid tipping them off that they are under surveillance, from what I understand.

[one-eyed fat man]

42. Careful now.......

You keep quoting stuff like that, written by a bunch dead white subversives who fought an armed revolution against their King, you'll get certain folks all upset.

First, you bust their bubble and tell them that 200 odd years ago some bunch of farmers thought every FREE man had a right to defend themselves with personal arms. Now you wanna point the same people who railed against the Bush secret watch lists think they are the greatest thing since sliced bread now that they are Obama secret watch lists?

They are "enlightened progressives" who adamantly oppose heavy-handed, illegal, repressive State sponsored schemes, UNLESS they are used against the people THEY hate.

[hendo]

74. and that my friend is the problem ;) n/t

[derby378]

40. Two words: DUE PROCESS

Either gun-control activists believe in due process, or they don't.

Either they believe a person is innocent until proven guilty, or they don't.

They're not going to weasel out of this with statements like "you're only law-abiding until you're not" or calls for a Department of Pre-Crime.

[Glassunion]

44. My thoughts... Bit of a rant...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=316113#316153

[virginia mountainman]

56. It's a CRIME, what you have been put thru..

And DU'ers really need to know about it...

[benEzra]

57. For those here who have forgotten why the secret Bush blacklists were and are a bad idea...

Here are some reminders...


No-Fly Blacklist Snares Political Activists


Innocent People Placed On 'Watch List' To Meet Quota


Infants on the list


Criticism from the Boston Globe


Due process is the absolute foundation of our legal system. Regardless of how one feels about lawful gun ownership, throwing due process out the window would do more harm to America than "terrorists" ever could.

[one-eyed fat man]

92. The problem is

They are no longer the Bush secret nasty despicable watch lists.

The Patriot Act hasn't been repealed. None of the over-reaching power grabs made by any previous President have ever been relinquished by his successor, regardless of party affiliation.

The Bush watch lists became the Obama watch lists and are defended just as vigorously by this bunch in the White House as the last.

"Executive privilege."

[Bold Lib]

59. I've been apposed the the no-fly list from the beginning. I remain so. n/t

[lawodevolution]

67. their next step could be to...

ban the 1st amendment rights to people on the terrorist list. They can delete anything you post or write online if you are on that list.

[spin]

70. Wow, that could be misused!!! (n/t)

[hendo]

75. That is already in the works, and we have good ol' Harry

and the rest of our leadership to thank for it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9177970