Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumGun control debate fueling ‘explosive’ rise in far-right extremist groups: report
By Karen McVeigh
Tuesday, March 5, 2013 20:28 EST
The number of anti-government, far-right extremist groups has soared to record levels since 2008 and they are becoming increasingly militant, according to a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
It says the number of groups in the “Patriot” movement stood at 1,360 in 2012, up from 149 in 2008 when Barack Obama was first elected president, an increase of 813%. The report said the rise was driven by opposition to Obama and the “spluttering rage” over federal attempts at gun control.
Those who were identified as “militia” groups or the paramilitary wing of the Patriot movement, numbered 321, up from 42 in 2008, the SPLC said in its report.
Concern over a “truly explosive growth” of groups on the radical right, along with a rise in domestic terrorist plots, has prompted the SPLC to write to US attorney general Eric Holder and Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano, warning of the potential for domestic terrorism and urging them create a new, inter-agency task force to assess whether it has adequate resources to deal with it.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/05/gun-control-debate-fueling-explosive-rise-in-far-right-extremist-groups-report/
How pathetic are these gunners? What kind of loser joins a far-right extremist group? I also liked how the article references the "spluttering rage" of these asshats.
I'm sure they all look like this guy:
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and what are the defining as a group? What are they defining as "far right extremest group"? How much is it gun control and how much is it is something like this
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/05/politics/obama-drones-cia/index.html
How about left wing extremest groups that may have the same issues?
Those are important questions to ask.
thucythucy
(8,080 posts)The Southern Poverty Law Center has a decades long history of uncovering, reporting, and in some instances nonviolently confronting racist and far-right hate-based terrorist organizations, including the KKK and Aryan Nations. This is necessary and courageous work. Gun control shouldn't enter into it, unless you believe folks actively involved in advocating, plotting, and carrying out domestic terrorism have a right to bear arms.
As far as a "left/right" equivalency, you may find a few far left groups in the US willing to advocate and perhaps even use violence, but even those groups are less about pure hate of a particular ethnic group, race, religion, sexual orientation or what have you, and more to do with ideology. SPLC specifically monitors "hate groups"--which are, in this country anyway, far far more likely to be right than left.
Anyway, my main point is that I would take anything the SPLC says about the far right and domestic terrorism very seriously. In my book the Southern Poverty Law Center folks are golden.
Here's a link to their website which will explain more.
http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/hate-and-extremism
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Violent left wing terrorists were more European in the 1970s. AFAIK, the nearest thing to that in the US would be PETA or Earth Liberation Front.
thucythucy
(8,080 posts)what makes you think he or SPLC would lump people "who show up with a Gadsten flag" in with far right hate groups?
And you honestly believe that SPLC would use "he disagrees with us on gun policy and drives a pick up truck" as criteria for what constitutes membership in a right wing hate group? For someone who admires Morris Dees and says he doesn't doubt the superlative work SPLC has done in taking down, for instance, the United Klans of America, you sure seem eager to question their motives, entirely on the basis of what, exactly? A Rawstory report posted on DU?
SPLC is saying the perceived threat to gun rights is in part driving an increase in far right extremism including hate groups, and your response is to call into question the motives of a group that has over the past four decades done courageous work confronting domestic terrorism. That's my take on it, anyway. If that's not what you're doing, then maybe you could spell it out with a little more precision.
I can't think of any group, including the US Justice Dept., that I trust more on the issue of right wing domestic terrorism than the SPLC. Like I said, I would take what they say on this topic very seriously indeed.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)report what the document said.
I don't believe any such thing, and I never said that. I said I don't take anything on blind faith. I also like details instead of blanket statements. For example, are they new groups with new members, or just existing groups splitting off and starting on their own. Or, a little of both?
Even more so, I would like to read the original document to get a better picture of what they are talking about and how they came to that conclusion. IOW, I'm curious about their methods and sources. Healthy skepticism is different than disbelief. From what I understand, Mr. Dees retired and is no longer in charge.
thucythucy
(8,080 posts)I was concerned because, as I've said, I have terrific admiration for the SPLC. I'm sure there are folks at DU, even on this thread, who have little or no knowledge of their history or the work they do, and I didn't want people coming away with the idea that it was just another fly-by-night "polling" group or astroturf organization pushing some dubious agenda out of some sort of hidden motive.
Best wishes.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)drew it's conclusions. I find the reporter's surname to be quite ironic.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Seems like a pretty diverse cross section of hate groups.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Southern Poverty Law Center. I wrote that I was interested in seeing the data they used. It came from somewhere. If they generated it, that would be i formation that should be provided.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Kinda makes it ruff if you're in the middle. Everybody hates me. (Chris Rock)
spin
(17,493 posts)and I am sure some are fat and out of shape and others are in great shape.
Still we need to be aware that such groups can pose a threat to our nation.
Some extremely conservative pundits are portraying Obama an evil politician planning to destroy our nation and convert it into a socialist paradise. They often claim he wishes to disarm all Americans in order to achieve his goals.
Such inflammatory rhetoric is irresponsible and dangerous and it might cause a fringe group to commit some violent acts. If so, the gun control the conservatives fear may well finally happen. Throwing gasoline on a smoldering fire is a poor idea.
Honestly Obama has been extremely fair to gun owners and has actually supported gun rights during his first term. He even got an "F" rating from the Brady Campaign.
Gun control group gives Obama an ‘F’
By Michael O’Brien - 01/19/10 06:00 AM ET
President Barack Obama on Monday received a failing grade from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence for running away from gun control.
The group, which endorsed Obama in 2008, gave him an “F” on every issue it scored, including background checks, gun trafficking, guns in public, the federal assault weapons ban, standing up to the gun lobby and leadership.
***snip***
When Obama was elected, gun rights supporters feared the new president would take away their guns; their worries spiked gun sales in the days and weeks before Obama’s inauguration. The National Rifle Association (NRA) said Obama would be the most anti-gun president in U.S. history.
But the Brady Campaign, a leading advocacy group for stricter gun laws, said Obama actually has done little to clamp down on firearms since being elected. Instead, the president has signed into law two bills that favored gun-rights supporters.
Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/76717-gun-control-group-gives-obama-an-f#ixzz2MuEvfwAJ
It is true that Obama currently is pushing for another assault weapons ban but I feel he is using this support as a bargaining chip to discard in order to get some much needed improvements to our current gun laws.
thucythucy
(8,080 posts)"pouring gasoline on a smouldering fire."
As I've said elsewhere on this thread, the Southern Poverty Law Center has done incredible, superlative work investigating, confronting, and taking down (by filing lawsuits on behalf of victims of hate crimes) groups such as the United Klans of America and the White Aryan Resistance. The folks who work there are truly our front line defense against domestic terrorism, especially from the right. They do this work, even when the US Justice Dept. (for instance, under Reagan) refused to be an ally. They did it even after their headquarters were fire bombed and their workers were and are the focus of death threats and murder conspiracies.
I'm just hoping they continue their work, and that their warnings are heeded in a timely and effective manner.
Pullo
(594 posts)... it has ZERO chance of passing, and everyone knows it. I seriously doubt abandoning the AWB push in return for the opposition supporting something like universal background checks has any leverage at all.
Speaking of UBC, I think the admin is looking at the polls and would rather keep the UBC issue alive as a weapon in 2014 instead of passing a compromise bill now. Coburn's line in the sand about record keeping will likely give the NRA the room to maneuver to kill UBC from passing, if not in the Senate than in the House or even in Conference Committee.
I realize a UBC law would basically be unenforceable w/o a record keeping requirement. It would just be an honor system thing. That's something that can be advanced during the next gun control push, as the heavy lifting has already been done. And, they either call Coburn/NRA's bluff and give the opposition very little wiggle room, or the Admin can parade the most significant gun control advance in decades, with bipartisan support, and hail it as a victory. I think they want to save the UBC for an election issue instead to thwart any blowback at the ballot box for pushing for gun control in the first place.
av8r1998
(265 posts)Check... I'm one of those pro-gun Democrats out there.
I stayed Home in '08, not because of rhetoric, but because of a PROVEN TRACK RECORD of gun control.
After 4 years, I went to the polls confident that Obama would not try gun control, and voted for him.
Now, I am disappointed.
Progressives defend and believe in rights. They don't try to eliminate them.
spin
(17,493 posts)Unfortunately this may be a poor tactic as it could hurt our party in the future.
Many gun owners like you voted for Obama as they believed he would not push for "feel good" gun control. Now they may well decide that the Democratic Party is still the gun control party and vote for Republicans.
I actually feel that Romney would have been a far larger threat to gun rights than Obama ever will be. He had a long history of supporting strong gun control and if he was in office today, I feel he would support a new assault weapons ban and it might well pass as he would have support from many Republicans.
The Democratic Party has been and should be the party of the common man. The Republican Party has been and still is the party of the rich. The rich ruling class in our nation has often favored strong gun control as they fear the lower classes.
I feel the Republican Party has supported gun owners as they see this as a method to attract voters. Indeed this tactic has been very successful.
Our Party's support of gun control has cost us many close elections. It might well be the reason that Al Gore lost to Bush the Younger and our nation ended up fighting a useless war in Iraq.
I agree with your statement, "Progressives defend and believe in rights. They don't try to eliminate them." Unfortunately many Democrats today who claim they are progressive are happy to shred the rights that our progressive founding fathers granted us.
Eleanor Roosevelt felt the Bill of Rights was a very important document in human history. She was definitely a progressive and very active in most of the important social movements of the 20th century.
Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Human Rights Commission, United Nations
By Jone Johnson Lewis, About.com Guide
***snip***
On December 10, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution endorsing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In her speech before that Assembly, Eleanor Roosevelt said:
"We stand today at the threshold of a great event both in the life of the United Nations and in the life of mankind. This declaration may well become the international Magna Carta for all men everywhere. We hope its proclamation by the General Assembly will be an event comparable to the proclamation in 1789 [the French Declaration of the Rights of Citizens], the adoption of the Bill of Rights by the people of the US, and the adoption of comparable declarations at different times in other countries."...emphasis added
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/1stladyroosevelte/a/human_rights.htm
Perhaps I should also point out that Eleanor Roosevelt was also a gun owner.
In the case of Romeny, and Obama particularly.
You are correct, but. In 2008, as I mentioned I stayed home. (I actually believed that Hillary learned her lesson about staying away from the gun debate when Bill Clinton was in office)
In '12 ... I had no reason not to vote for Obama (and I am disappointed over the gun things... many of my gun friends have been telling me "I TOLD YOU SO" ever since Sandy hook. Then again they own shares in tin foil hats... everything's a damn gov't conspiracy)
but I agree... Romney was probably a greater threat to gun rights, esp. with a GOP congress and Dem Senate. Why? Harry Reid is pro-2A.
Senate repubs would LOVE to send him a defeat, and will horse trade to support their President. Most Senate Dems are anti-gun, and they would no longer need Harry Reid to raise a bill.
There are MANY anti-gun repubs. In the House, they would have enough support from Dems, and Boehner is a lap-dog. If Romney were president, Boehner would do what he wanted.... F the Tea Party. He wouldn't have to worry about them with a Repub president, and could get a blue state win.
Remember ... Tea Partiers will NEVER vote Democrat, no matter how bad their candidate is
I really don't trust repubs any more than dems on guns ... I tend to look at the individual, so I would no more vote for Romney than I would vote for an anti-choice Democrat for example. Many of us will stay home. I really believe that the gun issue, and overreach on the gun issue almost destroyed Democrats in the 90's, is at least partly responsible for Gore losing, and needs to be excised from the party platform. At the very least be silent on the issue and give me some Pro-2A primary candidates to support.
spin
(17,493 posts)conservative voters many who are gun owners. Some experts believe that 3 million conservative voters stayed home in the 2012 election.
av8r1998
(265 posts)Gun owning repubs by in large supported Ron Paul.
I know many people believe gun owner = repub.
Really we vote for candidates in primaries based on guns.
Absent a better choice, we tend to vote our beliefs on other issues, or stay home.
dtom67
(634 posts)Alienating our southern brothers and sisters is a sure way to keep the South Red.
Of course, the Party is already purple to begin with. ( you go, chained CPI President !!! )
It may well be that there is a rise in groups of armed citizenry because something is obviously wrong in this country. People have different perceptions of what is going on, but it certainly seems that something bad is coming.
The signs are:
Free speech and right to assembly changing from inalienable rights to privileges bestowed by God-only-knows who.
Wealthy Elites seem to be going "all in " to solidify their power.
The obviously bought-and-payed-for "right to work" legislation crammed down our throats here in Michigan by the lame duck congress.
Relentless prosecution of whistle blowers in order to prevent Americans from finding out what our government is up to.
Corporations patenting life forms to control your ability to grow your own food.
buying up of water rights by the Wealthy Elite. this includes rain water collection laws.
Attacks on Social Security and other social safety nets to make the population easier to control.
the rise of the surveillance state
Record corporate profit while real wages decline
HSBC laundering drug money with no real legal consequence. seems like, every week there is a new fraud scandal ( corzine, LIBOR, etc ) that showcases the fact that it is "anything goes " for the Wealthy, and Draconian Law for the rest of us.
QE4ever printing free money for the banks while the GOP and some Dems try to force austerity on Americans
the list goes on...
I would argue that "doomsday preppers" do so because they feel this sense that everything in this country is lining up against the common man and there seems to be no one who gives a damned. So, the only defense for their family is to arm themselves and fortify until the whole thing falls apart. Wishing our society will fall apart seems to be the only option for these people. They don't feel empowered by the system, so they prepare for its demise.
I can relate. I voted for a Democrat and seem to have gotten a "Reagan Republican" instead.
Civil liberties are undermined and many Dems don't even seem to notice. They are all about partisan competition in the "game" of American politics. Their side won the election, that's all that matters. If protesters are beaten; Americans jailed without due process; children go hungry; people lose their homes; seniors are financially squeezed;that does not matter- "we" won the election.
Guns are the least of our worries.
Of course, its an easy issue to get " your indignation on"; you don't have to think too hard to weigh in on gun control after a tragic mass shooting.
Its a lot easier than doing critical thinking about public policy....
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)And I mean that.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Oh the irony.
brindleboxer
(53 posts)The funny thing about the thinly veiled racism and classism (of which that cartoon is an excellent example) of many gun control advocates is that it's only believable to them. I have lived in Texas and Virginia, and in both places I found the crowds at gun shows, stores and ranges to be a pretty proportional representation of their respective communities.
For example, just last week I went shooting at a gun range in VA. The store was relatively busy at 1PM on a Friday afternoon, the group in front of me was a hispanic guy with his two younger daughters (late teens, early 20s?). The first salesperson to help them was a big black guy with dreads halfway down his back, my cashier was a middle aged white guy. The rangemaster was of South Asian descent. There was a black woman and a hispanic woman both shooting and shopping, there separately. When I left the range, I chatted briefly with another employee, a young, fit black guy. Some couples, some young guys, some old guys, some professionals, some military looking types, and probably a few I'm forgetting.
In my experience with gun culture over the last 8 years or so, experiences like this have been the rule rather than the exception.
