• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Homeland Security on guard for 'right-wing extremists'

How do you feel about this article?

  • It's garbage, pay no attention to it.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Kind of concerned, may want to write a representative of the government about it.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Pretty Scary! Better stock up!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Just Buried my guns!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Caveman93

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
64
Location
Durham, North Carolina, USA
imported post

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&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."
 

Eagle

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2008
Messages
11
Location
, Louisiana, USA
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.
 

Aran

Banned
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
674
Location
Indiana, Pennsylvania, USA
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.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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. :lol:
 

Nelson_Muntz

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
697
Location
Manassas, Virginia, USA
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:
 

canadian

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
165
Location
, ,
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?
 

Border Bob

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
13
Location
, New Mexico, USA
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.
 

Eagle

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2008
Messages
11
Location
, Louisiana, USA
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.
 

American Rattlesnake

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
281
Location
Oregon, USA
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.
 

Eagle

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2008
Messages
11
Location
, Louisiana, USA
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.
 

American Rattlesnake

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
281
Location
Oregon, USA
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
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 
Top