On Monday, I looked at proposals to empower the Attorney General to unilaterally block U.S. citizens from buying firearms, merely by "determining" that they might be terrorists. No conviction, no indictment, no formal charges necessary. In fact, the AG would have the power to make the accusation, and any grounds on which it is based, secret, so there could be no fighting the "terrorist" designation. As I pointed out Monday, one does not need to be particularly concerned about gun rights to be outraged by such a blatant attack on the concept of innocence pending proof of guilt--the cornerstone of our justice system.
"But," you might say, "I'm a law-abiding citizen, who does nothing to draw the attention of federal authorities--why should I worry about the kinds of people who might be accused of terrorist links (Sen. Kennedy notwithstanding).
To answer that, let's take a look at another bill that was introduced during the last Congress, and will quite likely return in some form during this one. I refer to H.R. 1955, the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007." Obviously, terrorism, whether "homegrown" or not, is something we ought to seek to prevent, so what's the problem?
Let's take a look.
SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this subtitle:
(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.
(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.
Call me the suspicious sort, but I see all kinds of potential for a sufficiently zealous administration to consider it "extremism" to point out that the Second Amendment exists as 10% of the Bill of Rights specifically to protect the people's means to kill would-be tyrants and their agents--a position I have long and loudly advocated, and intend to continue to do so as long as I have the breath to form the words. My fellow Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea probably said it best:
So if we react to an outrage by reminding our countrymen of Jefferson's "Tree of Liberty" quote, or cite the Declaration of Independence, or even worse, the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking up Arms, what risks will we now assume?
Some sort of "terror gap loophole" bill will almost certainly be introduced this year, and a "violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism" bill is fairly likely, too, I'd wager. Either one would be a nightmare for liberty, especially with an anti-bill of rights zealot like Eric Holder as Attorney General. The combination of both, though could only be a signal that the government wants to turn patriotic Americans into "terrorists." So be it--if this be treason . . .
One more thing--H.R. 1955 never came up for a vote in the Senate, but passed by a vote of 404-6 in the House. If anything has changed in both houses of Congress since then, it has gotten more statist.
- National Gun Rights Examiner: The 'evolution' of Kirsten Gillibrand
- Los Angeles Gun Rights Examiner: Virginia Tech again: when will they learn?
- Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner: What if crimes by pen were treated like crimes by gun?
- Austin Gun Rights Examiner: Children safest population group around guns (Part 2)
- DC Gun Rights Examiner: DC taxpayers will pay for City Council's gun ban redux
- Milwaukee Gun Rights Examiner: Time to change our attitude about guns
- Denver Gun Rights Examiner: Blind justice
- Minneapolis Gun Rights Examiner: The folly across the river
Comments
If more states join in on the 10th amendment declaration band wagon, this sort of thing might stop. Michigan's declaration is nice, but New Hampshire's calls the current president out on "involuntary servitude" among other things. Worth a look if you want to read state legislature resolutions.
This is terrifying. One of my biggest fears is to somehow, innocently get caught up in our screwed up legal system. Thanks for the article, Kurt.
Something every citizen of this nation should consider. We are already terrorists, if the term means striking terror into the hearts of others.
Because you see,the powers that be are terrified of a free people. Especially a free people who are not defenseless.
We shouldn't be worried about the people in our boarders.
Well, at least you're just ADMITTING that Timothy McVeigh the personal hero of every Gun Nut.
As a gun owner, i even thought this snippet to be kinda ridiculous.
Wow, Kurt, you got three responses in a row from idiots. You must be doing some good if they have to attack you.
Chad, SA wasn't calling you an idiot--a comment was deleted.
Maven--I seriously doubt that every "gun nut" shares the same personal hero, and if there IS some consensus about such a hero, I seriously doubt McVeigh would be anywhere on the list. In any event, I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself.
Al, it might be "ridiculous"--I'd rather overreact to what I perceive as threats to liberty--even unlikely ones--than "underreact"--you know: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
I don't intend to be ruined.
"Our" entire government is already guilty of violating sections 2 and 3. No surprise, however. I already knew the government was overrun with terrorists.
I could probably care less, but I'm not sure how.
And number 4, too.
So I'm no more a terrorist than my "own" government.
Just wait until the Liberal Stormtroopers come and try to take your guns...get yours today, you may need it tomorrow.
We'll show them what CHANGE is all about!
oops...does that make me a terroist now...:p
This cannot be 'won' through votes and
courts. Eventually, the right mix will
be in charge and they will have the
power to do whatever they wish.
We cannot possibly hope for an equal
stance when facing off against those
who have the power to write the laws.
( Even if only temporarily )
If they ever do manage to pass the
legislation they are pushing for, the
day will not be remembered for any legislative victory.
It will be remembered for the aftermath
that will follow.
Not surprising at all, when you consider that none of us has to "do" anything to find ourselves on the "no-fly" list, either, as millions of Americans have already been included, without their knowledge. The list continues expanding by thousands each week, so, it's only a matter of time before we're all on in it. We, the American people, are the new "terrorists." We will be the target when martial law is declared.
www.infowars.com,
www.thefreezone.garyrea.com
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!