How to disarm the citizenry in 3 easy steps

   The proud display of this symbol is seen by some as
   justification for more restrictive gun laws

Proponents of gun control (which I generally refer to as forcible citizen disarmament) have been perfecting another approach to furthering their gun prohibition agenda, one that potentially could prove horribly effective.  I refer to the practice of citing terrorism as justification for more draconian gun laws.

We've talked a bit about that before.  First, it was the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), and their report claiming that display of the symbol at the right warrants greater scrutiny, as a possible indicator of militia activity (the report listed concern and anger over the possibility of more restrictive gun laws as one of the motivating factors behind this activity).  Worse, and more unforgivably, "militia" has been largely redefined in the public perception as being more or less synonymous with "terrorist."  The uniquely American tradition of citizen-guardianship of liberty has been blasphemously tarred with the "terrorism" brush.

Then, we learned that this thinking was not limited to Missouri--that the federal government had similar ideas, with the Department of Homeland Security on the lookout for "right-wing extremists," a group to which just about anyone who believes in the supremacy of the Constitution could be seen as belonging.

To make matters worse is proposed legislation like H.R. 2159, which would empower the Attorney General to deny a gun purchase by anyone suspected of terrosism (National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea has more on that).  Actually, on Wednesday, we learned that there will soon be two such bills in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Now for the latest stroke of evil genius by the forcible citizen disarmament lobby:

An April 7 report from the Department of Homeland Security branding some conservative groups as “rightwing extremists” is enough reason to revive former President Bill Clinton’s idea of an assault-weapons ban, according to an executive of a gun-control group--the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. 
 
"I think it certainly helps to make that case because what that report suggests is that there is a rise in the kind of paramilitary activity that we saw actually in years before the Oklahoma City bombing,” Dennis Henigan, the vice president for law and policy at the Brady Center, told CNSNews.com Wednesday
 
Henigan talked about the years before the 1995 Oklahoma City tragedy--when “rightwing extremist militia groups (were) out training with assault weapons, training for war against the United States government, training to shoot federal law enforcement,” he said. 

“Now, unfortunately there is very credible evidence that that is beginning to happen again,” Henigan added later. “So, there is no place on our streets for these kinds of military weapons.” 

So now, any Constitutional militia group that trains for the eventuality of defending liberty is justification for banning semi-automatic rifles.

It's brilliant, really:

Step 1) Form a rabidly anti-gun administration, and have at least one prominent official float the idea of a draconian new gun law.  Check.

Step 2) Imply that those who most vehemently oppose such legislation are potential terrorists.  Check.

Step 3) Point to those potential terrorists as justification for the very laws that supposedly provoked the would-be "terrorists."  Checkmate.

The citizen disarmament advocates may indeed eventually get their "terrorist" incident.  The question is this: are they trying to forestall that, or to provoke it?  At some point, some concerned patriot is going to wonder if it's time to paraphrase Patrick Henry (one of the original "right-wing extremists"): "If this be terrorism, make the most of it."