View Poll Results: How do you feel about this article?

Voters
26. You may not vote on this poll
  • It's garbage, pay no attention to it.

    1 3.85%
  • Kind of concerned, may want to write a representative of the government about it.

    9 34.62%
  • Pretty Scary! Better stock up!

    15 57.69%
  • Just Buried my guns!

    1 3.85%
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Homeland Security on guard for 'right-wing extremists'

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Durham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE...p;pageId=94803

    "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

    "Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of right-wing extremist groups as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government," the report continues. "The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by right-wing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement."





  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    This seems to be popular in the Obama administration. People like Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, et al, are treated as mainstream members, while veterans, people opposed to abortion, anyone with a Ron Paul bumper sticker and NRA members are put on watchlists as potential terrorists.

    By the way, I see that all my online sources for Corbon 9mm Luger 115 gr +P JHP ammo are out of stock. Looks like people are stocking up.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Indiana, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    674

    Post imported post

    It's hard being in the middle.

    I'm all for gay rights, abortion is fine by me, 100% atheist, love guns, think kids today are idiots...

    No matter which side is in charge, I'm lumped in with a target group.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Aran wrote:
    It's hard being in the middle.

    I'm all for gay rights, abortion is fine by me, 100% atheist, love guns, think kids today are idiots...

    No matter which side is in charge, I'm lumped in with a target group.
    Ah, no wonder I rail endlessly about the evils of arbitrary partisanship.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran Nelson_Muntz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    Post imported post

    I voted that it was garbage. I did read it and it infuriated me. When I was being interviewed at a Tea Party I was asked about this report. I remarked at the time that I wanted to see the DHS report on Code Pink, Moveon, ELF, PETA, Earth First, Daily Kos and Al Gore. Got a smile from the reporter.

    Soooooooo.....when I got home I searched for such a report. I found it, although it doesn't name all those orgs I listed above. Mostly environmentalist and animal groups.

    That report was also garbage. I could have written either report in 20 minutes without looking up any facts at all. If you are interested, here it is:



  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Baden, PA, USA
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    I enjoyed reading your report Nelson Muntz, much beter writen then the DHS one.



  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    Why is "Just Buried my guns!" an option? If it's time to bury them, isn't it already time to dig them up and use them?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    What I find abhorent is the idea that some central authority says "This is forbidden" or "You must accept this" or "You must use these words and you are forbidden to say that". Even if a central authority you believe in is in power, things change and one day you'll be on the receiving end of that dictating authority. It doesn't matter if you believe abortion is right or wrong, gaymarriage is right or wrong, etc, etc, etc. The only way for our rights to be safe is if we use persuasive arguments, not the coercive force of a central authority. Those of us insisting on our 2nd Amendment rights ought to be in the forefront of asserting individual freedom. Whenever we support the central government restricting other rights, then all we're doing is assenting to the right of the central government to go beyond its constitutional authority. We're standing in the line of potential victims, and our turn will surely come.It is dangerous to say "I believe in freedom except for (fill in the blank). At least, that's how I see it. I accept your right to agree or not. I have no desire to force you to live by my rules.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    You're absolutely right, Border Bob. When Hurricane Katrina forced an evacuation of a large part of New Orleans, a trailer park was setup on the northern outskirts of Baton Rouge for some of those evacuees. A ranking official of the East Baton Rouge sheriff's department decreed that no guns would be allowed in that trailer park.

    When that official later announced his intention to run for sheriff of EBR Parish, I commented in a blog (maybe it was this one) that he didn't appear to believe that the Second Amendment meant much or that he believed in selective application of that amendment. One retired Louisiana state trooper who was currently working for the East Baton Rouge sheriff's department took me to task, and I include his reply to me at this point:

    "Hmmm... I had forgotten about that. Still, it was special circumstances. It had nothing to do with trailer parks; it had everything to do with the majority of those who inhabit those parks. I'm not saying it was right; but its easy to be critical when YOU don't have to face the heathens;or answer to why they are butchering each other on your watch.

    Anyway... here's a tidbit for you. Greg signs off on just about every Class III transfer application that comes through; as long as there is nothing in the applicant's background that would preclude him/her from being approved. Such is not the case in most other parishes,from what we hear.

    My point is, he has no problem with LAW-ABIDING citizens and their firearms.You can call that selective enforcement, or whatever else you choose to label it. But he knew how those animals were going to act; and he was right, borne out by FEMA's reluctant decision later to arm the security guards after much violence in the parks; and further indicated by the double-digit inflation to Baton Rouge's murder rate since Katrina. Gee... wonder who's responsible for all of that???

    So, yes... on the surface, that "decision" appears to be an abrogation of the Second Amendment. But there is much beneath-the-surface complexity involved.

    And yes, he signs my checks. But I'm in a unique position; I'm retired from state service and don't depend on this job. I work for the sheriff's office because I choose to, yet I owe Greg loyalty because he IS my employer. None of that prevents me from saying what I think, unlike those who DO depend upon their job and keep their mouths shut..."
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the chief deputy (who was the candidate for sheriff) and the people who work for him believe that the Second Amendment can be selectively applied, then none of us are safe, because instead of trailer park residents the next targeted group may be NRA members or Sarah Palin supporters.

    Another LEO in that blog supported the retired state trooper and only one blog member supported my position.

    Because you're not the target today doesn't mean you won't be the target tomorrow.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran Nelson_Muntz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    Post imported post

    A helpful guide to determine which you are:



  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    281

    Post imported post

    Eagle wrote:
    A ranking official of the East Baton Rouge sheriff's department decreed that no guns would be allowed in that trailer park.
    ...
    "Hmmm... I had forgotten about that. Still, it was special circumstances. It had nothing to do with trailer parks; it had everything to do with the majority of those who inhabit those parks. I'm not saying it was right; but its easy to be critical when YOU don't have to face the heathens;or answer to why they are butchering each other on your watch.
    ...
    My point is, he has no problem with LAW-ABIDING citizens and their firearms.You can call that selective enforcement, or whatever else you choose to label it. But he knew how those animals were going to act; and he was right, borne out by FEMA's reluctant decision later to arm the security guards after much violence in the parks; and further indicated by the double-digit inflation to Baton Rouge's murder rate since Katrina. Gee... wonder who's responsible for all of that???

    So, yes... on the surface, that "decision" appears to be an abrogation of the Second Amendment. But there is much beneath-the-surface complexity involved.

    And yes, he signs my checks. But I'm in a unique position; I'm retired from state service and don't depend on this job. I work for the sheriff's office because I choose to, yet I owe Greg loyalty because he IS my employer. None of that prevents me from saying what I think, unlike those who DO depend upon their job and keep their mouths shut..."
    A commentary:
    You start with saying that the Sheriff has no problem with guns for the law-abiding citizens. So far so good. He knew how those people in the trailer park were going to act from his experience as a police officer. Also fine. The problem is, those people still were citizens, presumably not under arrest, thereby falling under the classification of "law-abiding citizens" until such time as they actually committed a crime Therefore, the Sheriff denied the residents of that trailer park their civil right to self defense. The majority of people in the trailer parks might, indeed, have been scumbags. But if they were criminals, then they should have been arrested; and if they weren't criminals, their rights should not have been violated.

    You want to know who holds responsibility for all of the violence? First, the perpetrators of that violence. Secondly, those officials who violated the law in disarming the people in that trailer park. Had the innocents been armed, perhaps they could have dealt with the violence on a case-by-case basis and there would never have been a huge rash of murders and rapes.

    The bottom line is that no amount of "beneath the surface complexity" can justify the violation of our civil rights. Apply that reasoning to any other of the Amendments and see what you come up with. Does any amount of "complexity" justify the violation of the right to free assembly? Free speech?

    Again, I appreciate your position and your openness in describing your connection to the Sheriff. I'm sure he was trying to make the best of a bad situation. But I submit that he needs to be guided in his actions by the Law.

    Regards,
    Rattler

    Edited to reflect Eagle's post below.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    American Rattlesnake, that was not my position. My position was that any law-abiding citizen in that trailer park had the right to keep and bear arms. I was quoting an LEO who doesn't seem to hold the Second Amendment in high esteem. It was he who used the derogatory language toward the residents of the trailer park and sided with the position of the sheriff and his chief deputy that all the residents of the park should be denied their Second Amendment rights.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    281

    Post imported post

    Eagle wrote:
    American Rattlesnake, that was not my position. My position was that any law-abiding citizen in that trailer park had the right to keep and bear arms. I was quoting an LEO who doesn't seem to hold the Second Amendment in high esteem. It was he who used the derogatory language toward the residents of the trailer park and sided with the position of the sheriff and his chief deputy that all the residents of the park should be denied their Second Amendment rights.
    My apologies. After rereading the post with this information in mind, I can see where you were quoting the LEO.

    I have edited my post so that it is not directed at you, but is a commentary on the LEO's remarks.

    Thanks,
    Rattler

  15. #15
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    The DHS 'alert' was the product of Mark Potok, Intel section of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Potock is an acolyate of Saul Alinsky (see Rules for Radicals). It is no surprise by this time that the Obama adminstration is staffed heavily with Marxists, communists and other far, far lefties who will target patriotic Americans with this sort of agitation propaganda. They will do it under color of law. This is only the beginning.

    It is an obvious attempt at cultural profiling (the sort they've railed against previously) in that it targets 'Whites, Christians, and Veterans' specifically. (I have a copy of it in it's entirety in front of me.) There is NO mention of or caution toward any other groups who most of us understand to be actual threats to the securityof the nation. This piece of trash may have well been disseminated by theSTASI of the old DDR.

    Nappy Jan is doin' a tap-dance but it's clear she authorized this DHS alert.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote: This should be very interesting.

    JBT's seem to fabricate a dog alert on a young, telegenic, articulate Baptist minister, then repeatedly tazer him and grind his face into broken glass.

    And then find no drugs or illegal immigrants in his vehicle. While also seizing camcorders from him.

    Oh, this should be very interesting.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Thanks for reading it.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote: snip

    Oh, this should be very interesting.
    +1
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •