You, too, can be a 'terrorist'

February 11, 1:14 AMSt. Louis Gun Rights ExaminerKurt Hofmann

Previous Next

15 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

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