Far Right In Frenzy Over Possibility of Gun Legislation

[cer7711]

Source: Southern Poverty Law Center

One particular rant that has gained traction on white supremacist websites was posted on Dec. 28 by a blogger named Bob Owens and is entitled “What you’ll see in the rebellion.” In the piece, Owens speculates about what would happen if the “gun grabbers … confiscatory fantasy plays out.” It has already received more than 160 comments on Owens’ website, including this one: “Everyone talks of dying for their cause, because it’s glamorous. Killing for our cause is what it will take.’’

In Owens’ vision, the enactment of legislation being proposed in Congress would result in civil war and a targeted campaign of assassination that forces the president to stay in “his gilded cage except in carefully controlled circumstances.’’

“Even then he will be forced to move like a criminal. He will never be seen outdoors in public again. Not in this country.’’


Read more: http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2013/01/03/far-right-in-frenzy-over-possibility-of-gun-legislation/
..........................................................

Sobering. Especially when you consider that there are now more than 1,100 identified racist hate groups operating in this country stock-piling arms, preaching hate and itching for war against the federal government. The "United States" is positively a-swarm and seething with fascist organizations of every reactionary color and stripe: neo-Confederates and nazis, Klansmen, Aryan Nation spin-offs, white nationalists, skinheads, white power motorcycle clubs, far-right political organizations, home-grown militias, criminal gangs and other odd, one-off groupings of low-information losers, gun-fondling maniacs and fundamentalist, misogynistic misfits—with more springing into existence every day . . .

[MightyMopar]

1. Like an abusive husband they love old USA so much they would kill it rather than see it move on

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. I would strongly urge...

...an analogy brush-up class.

[Lizzie Poppet]

3. It's not remotely just the "far right."

Concern over pointless, knee-jerk reactions to the Sandy Hook atrocity goes far beyond just the Teanderthals.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

4. Dying for your cause vs. killing for your cause?

Somebody's a fan of the movie "Patton".

I think it's just (as you said) a frenzy. Nothing will come of it, as nobody is going to "round up all the guns".

[DemDealer]

5. "Nothing will come of it"

Is a dangerous assumption. We make a lot of fun of rightwing nuts, but they believe in what they're doing. It isn't like you're raising taxes - we're talking about an attack on their human rights (I agree that all living beings have the implicit right to self defense, and any effective means of doing so). Its easy to think the other guy is a coward right up until he shoots you.

Some things are best left alone. If we have to deal with 18,000 dead every year to avoid 30 million dead in a civil war, with who knows what left over of the country in the aftermath, we shouldn't be so quick to ignore the other side's complaints. Some goals aren't worth the cost. Heck, making that cost too high is one of the reasons they have those guns in the first place. The 2nd is as or more important to them than the 1st is to us.

[gejohnston]

6. that's assuming the 18K would still not commit suicide or be murdered

and not be offset by people who died seriously harmed because they could not defend themselves effectively.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

7. A civil war? Are you kidding?

Nobody's going to try to "round up all the guns", not anytime soon. So there's nothing to trigger a civil war, even among the crazy-far-right.

At most, we'll see universal NICS checks, magazine size restrictions, bans on "assault weapon" features. NICS will be an inconvenience and a nominal expense, not a trigger for a civil war. Magazine size? Ok, you can't carry two 30-round magazines. But you can carry six 10-round magazines. If you practice, a magazine change doesn't take very long. No trigger for a civil war there. Assault weapons feature bans? Live without a flash-spreader or a bayonet lug? Ok, I'll grumble, but nobody's going to war over it.

There will be a storm of harrumphing, much of it here on DU, but in the end, "gun grabbers" will be as disappointed as "gun nuts", and we'll move on the some other issues.

Until the next crazed-gunman episode.

[DemDealer]

12. I've lurked DU for a long time before making an account to post

and one thing I've noticed that many posters have in common is a lack of willingness to listen to the "other side" with any degree of thoughtfulness or belief. Conflicts are settled, in my opinion, by talking TO ones opponents and not just talking about them.

You'll find no shortage in the gun rights movement (and not absolutely all on the right, though mostly) of people who lost all sense of humor about the gun rights debate when some of the details of the Feinstein bill started to be discussed. What I have always perceived as a general wry attitude of "those Democrats are at it again with the guns. to heck with them." became something much more serious. MUCH more serious. I refer not to just the usual tough-guy Internet chatter either, but people I've known for years and their friends and associates. Groups from widely disparate backgrounds.

They're taking this whole business extremely seriously. What I fear is that this overzealous gun control push by the administration, if successful, is going to cross a line in the sand, because many on our side have refused to believe that they were serious when they drew it. Our intentions might be good, but has anyone thought about the consequences if we are wrong?

[chicoguy]

8. A little disingenuous

To go find an article from some far right pinhead and then claim that these are the views of anyone who is opposed to gun control is rather disingenuous. It is just like Piers Morgan having Alex Jones on his show. He makes an implicit connection between some loon and the concerns that rational people have with banning firearms.

This is not a right / left issue, I see both sides doing this all the time, and it is disgusting.

[cer7711]

9. Please Read More Carefully

With all due respect, I think you've missed the point.

The issue is not that all pro-gun people are right-wing racist loons, but rather that a very vocal, violent and aggrieved subset of a larger group: "gun owners" (to which I belong, by the way) is stock-piling arms and sending out both covert and overt calls for insurrectionary violent action. As these groups grow in number, influence and power--and as they issue ever-more incendiary and deranged communiques to their followers and the general public--they constitute a very real and present danger to our democratic republic. They bear watching.

In this respect, the right-winger quoted in the article from the Southern Poverty Law Center is a microcosm of the macrocosm.

[chicoguy]

10. I am not sure there is a point

I can go out and find weird statements from any side of the political spectrum. Are you suggesting that we inhibit their ability to say these things?

I don't think they present much of a danger at all to our republic. In fact, I would say that our current congress (both sides) represent a more real and immediate threat to our republic than any weirdo who wants to have 300 guns in his basement. The only way that an insurrection is going to happen in this country is if a large percentage of the populace is taking part in it, short of that we just have Ruby Ridge or Waco, pretty limited in scope.

[cer7711]

11. Here's the Point: Far Right In a Frenzy Over Possibility of Gun Legislation

Last edited Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:21 AM - Edit history (4)

Are you being deliberately obtuse, Mr. 4-posts? Or are you one of the paid gun manufacturer shills being sent to this site to sow dissension and confusion?

No one is arguing for less freedom of speech. I certainly have suggested no such thing! The article referenced above warned that:

1.) Right-wing militia groups are increasing in number.
2.) Said right-wing groups are issuing ever-more deranged and incendiary rhetoric.
3.) Said rhetoric amounts to stochastic terrorism. (The use of mass communications to stir up random lone wolves to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually all but impossible to stop.)

I think we can have reasonable, responsible gun regulation and control w/o the majority of the country screaming about the FEMA death camps President Obama (that racist, social-justice/community-organizing/false Christian/Muslim/anti-Christ/Kenyan/Socialist/Nazi/Communist) is planning to send them to after their gun magazine sizes have been limited to ten rounds and assault rifles made illegal (like sawed-off shotguns and submachine guns before them).

That would be me. And perhaps you. But Ted Nugent? The right-winger cited in the article?

Insurrection and revolt on the scale necessary to pull off a successful revolution is not going to happen in the near future, I grant you. From the left or the right. But for those lone wolves who murder doctors--or head out to do battle with liberal church goers--or massacre Sikhs because they're just too damn "other"--or attack uniformed police officers because they represent "the system" they hate--their unfettered (in many instances unlicensed, untracked and unregulated) access to high-capacity magazine assault rifles and hand guns are on-going concern to both law enforcement and John Q. Citizen.

And many of these lone wolves first "filter through the funnel" of association with virulent neo-fascist anti-government groups.

The final word is yours.