First Step To Delegitimizing Any Opposition -- DHS Fabricates "Radical Right" Threat

Great Debates
81

Congratulations. That is the most condensed ignorance I’ve seen all year.

Just to list some of the more stupid assertions contained in two sentence

  1. Everybody lives alone, and there is no such thing as communal firearms storage or purchase.

  2. Every firearms collector is either a dangerous wingnut or a career criminal.

  3. You can hunt rhinos, squirrels, deer and ducks with an air rifle.

  4. Anybody who even thinks about using firearms for target shooting is a dangerous wingnut or a career criminal.

  5. Anybody who wants to keep a spare firearm or keep a spare of a favoured discontinued line is a dangerous wingnut or a career criminal.

I could go on with the other ridiculous assertions made in those two sentences. But I’ll stop here.
And you still didn’t answer the question:what is the evidence or even the reasoning that you used to conclude that there are more “dangerous wingnuts” (define that however you will) amongst people who stockpile firearms than amongst the general population?

Not an assertion that they must be. Where is your evidence that they are?

82

That’s why we have courts. The trouble with this is that your “loopholes” and “technicalities” and my “legal rights”. Who do you propose to to decide justly what is a loophole without due process?

That is begging the question. When I ask “How can something be extremist if it is legal” and you respond that the law is written to explicitly favour that thing you are making your position weaker and not answering my question.

"How can something be extremist if it is not only legal but actually favoured by the law?

I would say no, by definition. If a view is held to be legal in a democracy then how can it be held to be extremist?

And this is the problem with the word extremist. It is either a meaningless slur or synonym for legality. If we define extremist actions as falling within the law then who gets to decide what is an extremist? Can I call you an extremist and have you spied on? How do you prove that you are not an extremist, but are merely a minority free thinker? Are you now or have you ever been a communist?

In short, how does an “extremist” differ in practice from a “witch”?

83

By being extreme ?

Legality and democracy is irrelevant as to whether or nor something is extremist. Extremism is about being extreme, not about legality or popularity.

Extremists burn witches, not the other way around ?

84

Once again your response is simply begging the question. How can someone’s actions be extreme if they are not only legal but actually favoured by the law? It’s turtles all the way down.

In short, who gets to decide what constitutes extreme if not the majority? And if the majority are happy with a behaviour then how can it be considered extreme? Extreme is a relative term. Extreme from what in this case? Obviously not extreme from the norm since it has nothing to do with popularity.

So some group that can only be defined as “What I am pointing at when I say witch/extremist” burns another group that can only be defined as “What I am pointing at when I say witch/extremist”

So how can you know that witches don’t burn extremists? I point at the people doing the burning and say witch. How do you know I’m wrong?

85

The law has nothing to do with it. The law does not define sane or insane, rational or irrational. A law can be an extreme law.

:rolleyes:

The point I was ( obviously ) making is that the people doing the burning are the extremists, because burning people alive is an extreme act.

86

So in a democracy, where everyone gets to vote on the laws, the law isn’t a guide to what is extreme?

So I repeat: what does extreme mean? Extreme from what. You’ve established that it isn’t extreme form the standard views of what society finds tolerable. So what is an extreme of? Where is it measured form? In short, how do I know whether my views are extreme or not? Who gets to decide that?

Because if you can’t address those questions (and it appears you can’t) then there is no practical difference between calling someone an extremist and calling them a witch. It’s an unprovable allegation to which there can be no possible defence.

Is it? What is that based on? How do you know that it is extreme? And how can you demonstrate that to the people doing the burning and the people being burned?

Because I’m sure the people doing the burning would argue that placing curses on people was an extreme act.

87

Well, statistics for 2005 show that guns were used in violent crime more than all other weapon types combined.

Now, if we define “dangerous wingnuts” as those prone to violence for political reasons (as opposed to those who just espouse fringe ideas) I think it stands to reason that those people will opt for guns. Not because guns make you a dangerous wingnut but because if you are contemplating violence guns are the best choice to achieve your violent ends.

I am hard pressed to think of any case where a “dangerous wingnut” chose to run around stabbing people or hitting them on the head with a bat rather than use a gun to achieve their ends.

Now, if you are law enforcement tasked with protecting the safety of the populace how do you go about your job? There are 350 million people in the US and unfortunately dangerous wingnuts don’t helpfully wear t-shirts (generally) proclaiming themselves as dangerous.

If you were tasked with ferreting out those who would do criminal harm how would you set about choosing who to focus on? I imagine you’d focus on fringe groups that openly espouse violence against this or that group. Within that group see which ones have already shown a tendency towards violent behavior. With that list in hand I think it simply prudent to notice if those people are stockpiling weapons and pay closer attention to them (pay closer attention to them anyway but gathering a large pile of guns would add another red flag).

Say you had a neighbor with whom over the years was violently opposed to you. He/she killed your dog when it strayed on their property, had numerous times threatened you and your family and so on. Now imagine you start noticing them stockpiling weapons. Are you telling me you’d just think, “Well, it’s their right, no big deal, nothing to worry about here!” I bet you’d start to get very worried.

88

Nope not at all. Government harassment of leftist organizations did not abate by any measurement during the Clinton administration.

Another way to say it, is that leftist organizations are monitored all the time. Right-wing organizations are monitored only during leftist administrations.

89

So your premise is that as long as a majority approve of some law then by definition it cannot be “extreme”?

Imagine we repeal the 13th Amendment and then a law is passed that says all females, upon reaching the age of 12, are given to men via a lottery system. The females are the property of the men to do with as they wish.

Yeah, I know, absurd but intentionally so to illustrate the point. Just because a law makes a thing legal does not make the law not extreme.

Tyranny of the majority and all that jazz.

90

Well, I’d say leftist organizations prone to violent behavior do not generally mitigate their behavior when left-leaning administrations are in power. As long as the spotted owl is in danger or dogs are used for experiments or some trees are going to get chopped down or whatever these groups will continue in their efforts. They’d only stop if the left-leaning administration met their goals which is unlikely.

Right-wing organizations on the other hand may feel one of their guys is in the White House and congress is on their side and while they may not kick all the Jews out of the country they are more content to cool their heels. Once the lefties get in power those right-wing organizations now feel threatened and start to fight back more actively.

Certainly we saw the rhetoric ramp up as a black man (and Democrat) looked to become president.

I dunno…just thinking out loud.

91

Yeah, because the Reagan administration never did anything against The Order, Aryan Nations, or The Covenant, The Sword and The Arm of the Lord and the Bush I Administration’s FBI never launched the Ruby Ridge siege.

92

Whack-a-Mole There is not convincing evidence that anti-semitism exists more on the right than on the left. So your bit about kicking out all the Jews is odd considering right wing Evangelicals are more likely to be rabid Zionists than anti-semites.

FriarTed Fair point, maybe it was just the Bush II admin that showed such favoritism. Or more specifically targetted left-wing organizations purposefully.

93

Meh…was just an offhand example. If it is in error my apologies. Choose whatever right-wing extremist favorite pet cause you like and plug it in there.

94

Sure. But you don’t want to expand on your point?

95

Just saying right-wing fringe groups are likely to get more amped up when a liberal government is in power. They will feel more marginalized and more in fear of “bad” things happening. The echo chamber they live in becomes more cacophonous. As such they will probably get more aggressive in defense of whatever it is they are on about. Some folk are pretty close to the edge already so when you move it a bit some topple over to violent opposition.

I do not think liberal fringe groups feel “safer” when there is a liberal government. They are always marginalized so are not likely to become more or less violent with a change in government.

So, when a liberal regime assumes power and the rhetoric on the far right increases it makes sense for law enforcement to pay closer attention to them.

96

I think that happens on both sides. I knew a lot of leftists who had a chip on their shoulder about the government disapproving of their politics. To a certain degree that paranoia was a binding force that brought a lot of people together. Extremists on both sides tend to think the government is after them.

Really this is much ado about nothing, DHS says it’s going to watch extremist groups. That’s really it’s position. They just got ahold of an internal policy memo that was breaking down the categories further.

Right.

Yes, I agree. But at the same time I think DHS is just watching out for extremist groups in general and the memos here were just split into two, one regarding liberal extremists and one regarding conservative extremists.

97

FYI, this link typically shows up as a hate site and should probably be considered NSFW.

98

What sort of people stockpile weapons in the 21c.,perfectly normal people or nut jobs?

Think of all the different weapons you need to shoot squirrels.

99

… okay. I’m going to break this down for you.
In my family, there are three shooters. We shoot small clay discs, thrown through the air. Trap, Skeet, and Sporting Clay are the varieties of sport. We use shotguns. You may be familiar with the classic arcade game, ‘Duck Hunt’. That’s the same sort of thing.

My dad is left handed. I am right handed. My mom is small.

My dad’s shotgun is customized to fit into a left shoulder, and has a distinct kink to the butt to fit to the left. Mine is the same for the right. My mom’s is customized to the right, and a 20 gauge instead of a 12 gauge. (it’s smaller.) We can not share the same guns, therefore.

For Trap, which involves a single disc flying in a unpredictable motion, you want a single barrel shotgun, preferably break action (literally, the action breaks open and you put a shell in.) which can only fire one shot before reloading. Further, you want a long barrel for maximum speed and distance. My 36" barrel is a bit extreme, but it keeps a smooth swing.

For Skeet, which involves shooting two discs in a predictable pattern, both launched at once, you want a double barrel, over/under break shotgun, with a slightly shorter barrel. A 32" or so. Clearly, the Trap gun can not be used for Skeet. The Skeet gun can be used for Trap, but not optimally, the added weight is a factor. (We are talking about several pounds of metal here. Not so bad with a predictable swing, not so good with an unpredictable one.)

For Sporting Clays, you have unpredictable speed, disc size, and angle, two at once. Very advanced shooting. For that, you want a much shorter barrel, because the distance is less, and you need the speed of motion and the spread of the shot. A 26" barrel will do nicely, in double action break, or even automatic. You could use a pump for Trap or Skeet… but not for Sporting Clays, generally.
So that’s nine different shotguns, for a simple round of variant sports in one chosen field of shooting.

Plus my Mossberg pump they keep under the bed. (I don’t think it’s the world’s best idea, but it’s useless for sport, (the shells fly out of it when you pump, which makes it rude to use at the club))

Note that none of the sporting guns I’ve described are really any good for self defense. For that, I’d want a pump or automatic, in 12 gauge, loaded with double ought.

It’s a lot like golf, here. Proper club for the proper situation.

(I don’t shoot squirrels. I have shot nutria, which were eating the ducks in the pond at night. For that? Air rifle, scope. All you need. Kills the varmit, keeps the neighbors from being upset.)