Gun Politics (as Usual) in D.C.

[This blog is a report by CSGV Director of Communications Ladd Everitt, who attended a D.C. Council hearing yesterday on the “Firearms Amendment Act of 2011.”]

Yesterday, I attended a public hearing of the D.C. Council’s Committee on the Judiciary regarding a new piece of gun-related legislation, Bill 19-614, the “Firearms Amendment Act of 2011.” The hearing provided a perfect snapshot of the way gun politics operate in the District, with the usual cast of characters in lead roles on the pro-gun side.

Everyone is familiar with the District of Columbia’s tough gun laws, but the “Firearms Amendment Act” would actually address many of the criticisms of pro-gun activists and eliminate some existing regulations. Specifically, Bill 19-614 would:

• Allow D.C. residents to take their guns to firearms safety and training courses before they have officially registered them with the city.


• Eliminate the vision testing requirement to register a firearm. Those who are legally blind would still be prohibited from registering firearms.


• Accept military training, or the possession of a state firearms license for which comparable training was required, to satisfy the District’s mandatory training requirement to register a firearm.


• Repeal the requirement that registered handguns undergo ballistics identification testing.


• Require the Metropolitan Police to take photographs for use in the registration application process, rather than requiring applicants to supply their own photographs.

All of these changes were initiated by Judiciary Committee Chairman Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), who sought to accommodate pro-gun activists in the District after meeting with them personally to hear their concerns. You never would have known that sitting through yesterday’s hearing, however. Pro-gun activists spent the morning and afternoon browbeating Mendelson and issuing additional demands in a manner that was frequently impolite and sometimes downright rude.

First up to testify was Emily "I'm meh on voting rights" Miller, the Senior Editor of the Washington Times Opinion pages (which embrace even the most bizarre conspiracy theories perpetuated by the NRA) . Miller has become something of a cause célèbre in the pro-gun movement because of her “Emily Gets Her Gun” blog at the Times website. The blog basically gives Miller a platform to complain about D.C. gun laws ad nauseam. But there are fun features for people who really like weapons, too, like gun porn photos and a poll that allows them to vote on which semiautomatic handgun Emily should buy to take down “bad guys” with.

Miller spent about 20 minutes at the hearing complaining about the process needed to satisfy the training requirement for registering handguns in the District, which is strange, because she successfully completed that training more than two months ago, and Bill 19-614 would make it even easier for future applicants to do so. Nonetheless she made it clear to Chairman Mendelson that the list of 46 certified firearms instructors supplied by the Metropolitan Police Department (MPDC) was grossly insufficient. Why? Because she did not want to travel to the home/office of one of these “armed strange men” and put herself at personal risk to undergo the training. [Miller was presumably referring to pro-gun activist Ricardo Royal, one of the 46 who was on hand to testify.]

Let me get this straight… Miller is scared to spend a few hours with a firearms instructor that’s been certified by the MPDC (i.e., multiple, thorough background checks), but thinks she’ll be safer if the “strange men” of Washington, D.C. can arm themselves under far less stringent oversight? At the hearing, Miller praised Virginia laws that allow someone to walk out of a store with a handgun in just 10 minutes, no training required. “It’s much easier to shoot a gun than drive a car,” she told Mendelson. “Anyone can do it.” Except perhaps Miller. She inadvertently revealed that she has sometimes violated the basic rules of firearms safety that were taught to her by instructors (e.g., by placing her finger on the trigger of a gun before she was prepared to fire it).

Miller also showed little grasp of facts, boasting at one point that “gun ownership is at its highest [level] in 30 years.” In reality, data from the General Social Survey tells us exactly the opposite—that only one in five Americans now owns a firearm.

Finally, Miller apparently associates with criminals. “Anecdotally, a lot of people have come up to me and said, ‘I have a gun, I don’t register it,’” she told Mendelson. So much for that “law-abiding citizens” thing the NRA likes to shout about.



Back to the topic of “strange men,” the next pro-gun activist to testify, James Collier, told Mendelson that he wanted the city to legalize the civilian version of the military’s M-16 rifle (the semiautomatic-fire-only AR-15) so he could shoot feral pigs in the swamps of South Carolina with it. No, I didn’t make that up.

George Lyon, the President of the D.C. Chapter of the Community Association for Firearms Education (CAFE), said he needed to carry a loaded handgun while walking his dog at 1:00AM. The dog wasn’t on hand to offer his own view about the wisdom of such behavior.

NRA Lifetime Member/Plaintiff Absalom Jordan compared D.C.’s elected officials to Virginians who sought to keep schools segregated from the 1950s-70s. He also falsely accused Mendelson of offering Bill 19-614 only because of the threat of gun lobby litigation—which was later rebutted by pro-gun witnesses.

But the strangest man of all is Dick Heller, the lead plaintiff in the Cato Institute lawsuit that overturned D.C.’s handgun ban in 2008 (the five Supreme Court Justices who wrote the D.C. v. Heller opinion are the same five who decided corporations have a right to free speech in Citizens United). Heller’s testimony took the form of a bizarre presentation on “Firearms Development” in which he showed Mendelson multiple home-printed photos of guns. During this presentation, Heller claimed that the AR-15 assault rifle is “the most safest rifle…to use” and proudly told a story about how his friend in West Virginia bought his five-year-old daughter a pink AR-15. Heller also expressed support for allowing D.C. residents to carry loaded, concealed handguns in public with no screening or training, including on college campuses.

Heller didn’t want to talk much about his current lawsuit against the District of Columbia, which has gone nowhere. As Daniel Vice, the Senior Attorney for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, noted at the hearing, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has upheld D.C.’s licensing/registration laws and its assault weapons ban in Heller II, writing, “none of the District’s registration requirements prevents an individual from possessing a firearm in his home or elsewhere.”

For more information on Dick Heller, visit the Heller Foundation website, where Heller supports voter suppression backed up by the threat of political violence, claims the American Nazi Party is supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement, and quotes virulent racist/insurrectionist Jeff Cooper. To put it simply, the fact that longstanding, democratically-enacted gun laws in the District were overturned on this man’s behalf is nothing short of shameful.

Not a single pro-gun witness thanked Chairman Mendelson for sitting down with them, listening to their concerns, and offering the “Firearms Amendment Act of 2011.” They were there only to harangue him and make additional demands.

Like Mendelson, MPDC Police Chief Cathy Lanier stood in stark contrast to the pro-gunners with her willingness to listen, reach compromise, and accommodate. In her testimony at the hearing, Chief Lanier defended the city’s licensing-registration process, laying out four ways that it helps preserve public safety: 1) It allows law enforcement to verify the eligibility of firearm owners; 2) It ensures that firearm owners have a body of knowledge about D.C. gun laws and firearms safety; 3) It allows police to quickly distinguish between legal and illegal firearms in the field; 4) It helps track firearms that have been lost, stolen or used in a crime.

But Lanier also suggested several ways that the process can be made more convenient for gun owners. She said the department believes it can use information technology to eliminate subsequent visits to MPDC for background checks when registrants renew their licenses. She also was open to revisiting training requirements, suggesting that classes can be shorter and conducted at MPDC facilities. Finally, the MPDC is now providing office space for Federal Firearms Licensee Charles Sykes, so registrants no longer have to make multiple trips between his office and MPDC headquarters.

But the bottom line is that since January 2009, only 2,115 total firearms have been registered in the District of Columbia. Mendelson had it exactly right when he said at the hearing, “People in the district, it’s an urban environment, there isn’t a lot of hunting in the city … Within the culture of the city, [there is] not as much of a desire to have guns as was thought or speculated.”

We should salute Mendelson and other D.C. Council members for being willing to listen to all D.C. residents and consider all points of view, no matter how extreme. That’s democracy at work. At the same time, we should be aware that pro-gun activists do not appreciate such gestures and will not stop until they have imposed their far-right-wing political values on our city and eradicated our gun laws entirely—even if/when this involves voiding the democratic decisions of D.C. residents. Monday simply provided additional evidence of that unfortunate fact.

[To watch a full video of the hearing, click here. Dick Heller’s testimony starts at the 3:29:40 mark and is worth watching.]

The Inconsistent Insurrectionist

Though Stephen Colbert and his political satire show The Colbert Report are found on Comedy Central, they occasionally provide serious and noteworthy news missed by the major media networks. Such was the case on June 7 when Colbert aired a segment focusing on comments made by U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) on Sean Hannity’s radio show on May 27.
In that conversation with Hannity, Paul stated:

I would say the reason we failed in Ft. Hood is people who were mentioning that this man was either unstable or was radicalized to a radical form of Islam. People knew that and that’s what we need to target our resources towards—people who would attack us—and not spend time searching and patting down 6 year olds ... I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders but it wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after. They should be deported or put in prison.

Sen. Paul then doubled down on his comments at a press conference in Bowling Green, Kentucky, on June 3:

I think we’ve taken too much of the approach that everyone is a possible terrorist … We are not spending enough specific time on those who are coming from certain countries … I want targeted action towards terrorism … We’re…searching millions of innocent Americans and wasting time on that, and not doing a thorough job on those who are coming from these Middle Eastern countries who I think need to be thoroughly vetted before they enter our country.

But if Paul truly believes that anyone who attends speeches “promoting the violent overthrow of our government…should be deported or put in prison,” then he, too, should begin packing his bags. Colbert pointed to Paul’s attendance at the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot in Westpoint, Kentucky in April of this year, where the lead singer of the band Pokerface gave the following speech:

[Obama] is basically the exclamation point on the globalist takeover of the United States ... Too many of us are waking up and too many are heavily armed. They are going to push and we are going to shove back. The second American Revolution will commence.

Violence against government was certainly the fad at Knob Creek, with vendors selling a wide range of “Militia literature,” including the U.S. Militiaman's Handbook, “a step-by-step guide for ‘R-2,’ the second American Revolution.” Here’s one excerpt from the handbook: "When municipal, township, county, or local area law enforcement agents attack or seek to confine or control the U.S. Militia or its individual members, those agencies should be totally eliminated in the initial attack ... Do not allow any law enforcement agents to escape. Kill them all."

Then there was March 27, 2010, when Sen. Paul attended and spoke at a Second Amendment Rally in Frankfort, Kentucky where a Congressional candidate named Matt Locket made a speech openly embracing insurrectionist ideology. Citing Federalist Alexander Hamilton (who would have found his ideas treasonous at best), Locket said:

We cannot stand by and let our rights to firearms be taken away ... Alexander Hamilton...states clearly that there exists the right of self-defense against a tyrannical government and it includes people with their arms ... Are we there or are we close to a tyrannical government? ... We need to tell the government...to fear us because it’s we the people that are in charge—not them!

And Rand Paul has made his own share of not-so-subtle threats toward our government. In June 2010, he attended a gun show in Louisville and said, “We must be ever vigilant of our Second Amendment rights. We must continually remind Washington that a majority cannot vote to take away our Second Amendment rights.” At the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot in August 2009, Paul made bizarre, paranoid comments about “Big Brother” and the enforcement of U.S. gun laws:

They can come into your house. They can plant listening devices in your house ... And let’s say they happen to be in your house snooping about something they thought you said something bad about the government and they find you’ve disabled your trigger locks or you’ve maybe done something to your guns that they say is illegal ... This is not to say we’re all criminals and afraid of the government, but we want our privacy.

Later in the same speech, he hypothesized that Americans could elect the next Adolf Hitler if they fail to remain “vigilant”:

If we get economic calamity even worse than we have now, you will lose your rights if you’re not vigilant and watch. What happened in Germany when the Weimar Republic printed up so much money you could carry it around in wheelbarrows? There was a collapse and they actually voted in a Hitler. You could get something like that in our country if we’re not careful and vigilant.

It seems clear from Sen. Paul’s statements that he’s particularly concerned about potential violence against our government by Muslims. And he has no problem with our government going after them aggressively—civil rights be damned. When it comes to the Senator’s white, gun-toting, government-hating friends who are ready to launch a bloody revolution, however, all bets are off. Any U.S. government that would address that threat is akin to a mass murdering dictator who butchered six million people.

Unfortunately for Paul, you can’t embrace a double standard and say that the threat of political violence is justified depending on one’s citizenship status or religion. You either believe that political violence is legitimate in our democracy or you don’t. Our Founding Fathers certainly stood in the latter camp.

Thugs and Criminals

While Republican Senate candidates Sharron Angle (Nevada) and Rand Paul (Kentucky) have drawn a great deal of attention lately for their proposed “Second Amendment remedies,” they are far from the only Tea Party candidates with curious ideas about our Constitution. "The militant wing of the Republican Party" has been quite active this election cycle, and it has not been shy in affirming its view that the Second Amendment is “for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government.” Consider the following recent examples from states across the country:

In Connecticut, Republican-endorsed candidate Martha Dean is running for attorney general on a platform that threatens the rule of law. At a "Second Amendment March" organized by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, she exclaimed, "If government is legitimate and truly is the voice of the people, it need never fear the people themselves when they’re armed. Only a government that uses secrecy and force to impose improper laws [to] which the people do not consent need fear the wrath of its law-abiding citizens at the ballot box or, ultimately, with arms … Our right of free speech and to back it up with arms if necessary if our government becomes tyrannical and unjust as King George’s was to the colonists are the most essential of the rights we as Americans have.” But Dean didn’t stop there—she then advocated that private citizens have access to the same firearms as our military: “I will oppose all efforts to create nonsensical distinctions that are nowhere supported by our constitutions between different types of firearms. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government gets the effective firearms and the people the ineffective ones. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that the government gets the modern firearms and the citizens only get the antiquated ones.”

Two candidates for elected office in Alabama have used equally strident rhetoric on the campaign trail. Dale Peterson, who ran in the Republican primary for the Alabama Agriculture Commission, aired an ad attacking the “thugs and criminals” in Alabama’s government. Brandishing a rifle at the end of the ad, Peterson warns, “I’ll name names and take no prisoners.” After placing last among the three Republican candidates in the primary, Peterson ran an even more bizarre follow-up ad endorsing former opponent John McMillan. Again brandishing a rifle, Peterson threatens, “I better not catch any thugs or criminals stealing [McMillan’s] yard signs.” As a man in overalls approaches a McMillan yard sign, Peterson fires a shot into the air, sending him fleeing.

Peterson’s violent approach was more than matched by fellow Alabaman Rick Barber, who contended for a House seat in the Republican primary in the state’s 2nd Congressional District. Barber’s first campaign ad unapologetically promoted armed insurrection against our government with the supposed approval of America’s Founding Fathers. Barber is shown sitting in a pub talking to Benjamin Franklin, Sam Adams and George Washington. At the table is a copy of the Constitution and several pistols. Barbers tells the three Founding Fathers that he would impeach President Obama and suggests that the “progressive income tax” amounts to tyranny. At the end of the ad, a clearly angered George Washington exclaims, “Gather your armies.” Barber was apparently unaware that Washington, as president, presided over the first federal tax levied on a domestic product—the whiskey tax—and then enforced collection of the tax with a federalized militia force of 13,000 men when armed mobs in Pennsylvania rebelled against it.

In his second ad, Barber sits in the same pub, this time speaking to George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Barber compares taxation and "the tyrannical health care bill" to slavery and the extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany. "We live in perilous times ... We are all becoming slaves to our government," Barber warns. The "army of voters" depicted in the ad includes Dale Peterson, who is again openly armed. In a follow-up editorial in the Washington Post, Barber makes reference to "the possibility of evil conducted on a grand scale" and states, "Totalitarianism doesn't come all at once ... The road to serfdom is a long one, but I fear that we are well on the way."

Barber, a newcomer to politics, distorts the views of Lincoln, who in his first inaugural address said, “It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.” As he asked the country to go to war to protect its sovereignty against secession, Lincoln added, “And this issue embraces more than the fate of these United States ... It presents the question, whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration…can always...break up their government, and thus practically put an end to free government upon the Earth.”

Whatever Barber’s confusion, his violent rhetoric fell short at the polls. Montgomery City Councilwoman Martha Roby soundly defeated him in the primary on July 13.

Finally, just last week in Alaska, supporters of Tea Party candidate Joe Miller openly carried assault rifles and handguns during a popular community parade in Eagle River and Chugiak while young children marched alongside them. Miller is running against Senator Lisa Murkowski in the Republican primary and has been endorsed by former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, who described him as a “true Commonsense Constitutional Conservative.”

It remains to be seen whether the national GOP leadership will summon the courage to speak out forcefully against such insurrectionist shows of force by Tea Party candidates that have adopted its standard. As one commentator recently noted, “A party that is intimidated and silent in the face of its extremes is eventually defined by them.”

Self-Destructive Tendencies

This year, threats against Members of Congress are up 300%. According to the FBI, “The suspects [responsible for the threats] are mostly men who own guns, and several had been treated for mental illness.” Equally striking is that several of the legislators that have been threatened are ardent advocates for weak gun laws that allow dangerous, mentally incapacitated individuals to obtain firearms with little difficulty.

Case in point is U.S. Representative Heath Shuler, a Democrat from North Carolina’s 11^th District. Shuler received a message on his office voicemail on February 5, 2009 in which the caller stated, “If you vote for that [economic] stimulus package, I’m gonna’ kill you. Simple as that.” An FBI investigation traced the call and found out that it was made by John Jackson Adams, a 70-year-old North Carolina resident with a “history of mental illness and a cache of guns.” When FBI agents confronted Adams, he admitted making the call and explained, “I was trying to work the political scene.”

Adams was charged with threatening to kill a federal official, a felony offense punishable by up to ten years in prison. After a psychiatric evaluation, however, a North Carolina court declared Adams “mentally incompetent” and the charges were dropped on the grounds that he was not fit to stand trial. His current whereabouts are unknown to the public.

Shuler has told the media he was badly shaken by the incident. “You get a threat like that, and you start to rethink your priorities,” he said.

His newly reorganized priorities, however, seem bizarre in light of what he went through. For starters, Shuler obtained concealed handgun permits for himself and his wife. In doing so, he ignored a study published in the American Journal of Public Health last year that showed that carrying a gun makes you more than four times as likely to be shot.

His next move was even more puzzling. Shuler became one of the few Democrats to appear at the National Rifle Association’s 2010 annual convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Clearly proud of his A-rating from the gun lobby, Shuler bragged to the NRA faithful that there “isn’t another Member of Congress that buys more ammunition in a year” than he does. He also fondly recalled hunting wild hogs with his young son and boasted, “it just wasn’t any gun...it was his own AR he was using,” referring to a semiautomatic version of the military’s M-16 rifle. “Keep up your good work,” he encouraged the NRA leadership.

That work, however, has not always focused on the interests of responsible, law-abiding gun owners. The NRA seems to be equally concerned with preserving the “rights” of criminals, the mentally ill, and other individuals who are prohibited under federal law from buying guns.

For starters, the NRA filed lawsuits in nine states challenging the “Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act” after it was signed into law in 1994. The Brady Law established a mandate for background checks to be conducted on all sales of firearms by federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) in the country. The NRA claimed that its only issue with the Brady Bill was the five-day waiting period the original bill created for handgun purchasers (which was phased out in 1998 following the introduction of an instant computer background check system), but contradicted themselves when they asked the Supreme Court to void the entire Brady Law. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not compel states to submit records to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), but otherwise left the law intact. The result, however, is a NICS system that is missing millions of state records that should disqualify dangerous individuals from purchasing guns.

The NRA also created a loophole that allows private individuals to sell firearms without conducting background checks of any kind. In 1986, the NRA-drafted McClure-Volkmer Act (aka “Firearms Owners Protection Act”) established that parties “not engaged in the business” of dealing firearms are exempt from the background check requirement. A national survey by the Department of Justice found that approximately 40% of gun purchases occur through unlicensed sellers. Who exactly is buying guns in this manner? We don’t know—there is no paper trail for law enforcement to follow.

Finally, the NRA is currently urging the passage of the “Burr Amendment,” which would allow veterans deemed “mentally incompetent” by the Department of Veterans Affairs to purchase firearms. The proposed amendment requires a court ruling before a veteran can be placed in NICS, but without establishing a mechanism for such a ruling to occur. This is particularly disturbing given recent reports about the effects of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and the efforts of anti-government extremists to recruit returning veterans.

The NRA itself is certainly no friend of government. NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre has declared that “the people have a right to take whatever measures necessary—including force—to abolish oppressive government.” Specifically, the NRA has opined that the Second Amendment gives American citizens the right to take violent action when they deem their government has become “tyrannical.” “The guys with the guns make the rules,” LaPierre tells us. Is this not the same insurrectionist mentality that John Jackson Adams embraced when he threatened Shuler’s life because of his anger over the stimulus bill?

Does Shuler not understand that the NRA’s polices make it easier for deranged individuals to obtain guns? Does he not grasp that the gun lobby’s leadership is providing intellectual and constitutional “cover” for such individuals to respond violently to their grievances with government?

It’s one thing to put your constituents’ safety at risk for endorsements, PAC funding, and votes; but another altogether to put your own family on the firing line. Recently, another A-rated, NRA-backed politician asked, “What line will we not cross for the NRA? At what point do we say, ‘That’s too much’?”

Apparently, no line we’ve seen yet—even when self-preservation is at stake.

CSGV Mailbag

Here at CSGV, we are frequently reminded by gun rights activists that they care about lives lost to gun violence, too. We have been blessed to receive regular communications from firearm enthusiasts who have serious, thoughtful ideas about how to create a more peaceful America. And with April 19 celebrations in full swing among those who understand that God granted them their Second Amendment rights, our mailbox was more full than ever!

We heard from those who were ready to help the survivors of Columbine by informing them that guns had nothing to do with the tragedy...

From: Bishop_Dave@comcast.net
Subject: Gun violence
Date: April 21, 2010

I have heard Mr. Mauser's plea to join this organization because he lost his son in the Columbine tragedy on a radio spot. It is so frustrating that Mr. Mauser seems to still ignore two factors relating to Columbine. Yes the two killers had guns, however they had made home made bombs and placed them throughout the high school, which then completly neutralized the SWAT teams efforts for about 3 hours. This allowed the two killers time to go through Columbine grid by grid to find their victims. Secondly, there have been two school shootings in Colorado within the last couple years. In both cases there were no explosive devices, but mass amounts of ammo being carried by the shooters. In one case, a man tackled the shooter after two shots rang out and the event ended. In another case the shooter was cornered, and shot one victim after being cornered. Though both are tragedies, in one of those two cases there was no loss of life. The one factor that changed the outcomes, explosive devices !! That's it. So rather than continue your misguided assult on the 2nd Amendment, and filing frivolous lawsuits against gun makers, which I realize helps keep you damn lawyers rich beyond belief because you snatch 40% up front ! Do something worthwhile, and go after all the bomb making crap readily available via the internet. That is where the two Columbine killers exceeded all other school shooters. Shut down your anti-gun operation and go after the internet bomb making recipies readily available there !!

Dave Bishop

We heard from those who evoked the elocution of our Founders…

From: itchitup@gmail.com
Subject: Horwitz: "Our founders got rid of violence with Constitution"
Date: April 19, 2010

Josh Horwitz, you are a cock sucking, cunt. The founding fathers offered the constitution/bill of rights in exchange for our God given inalienable rights, to form a greater good. Anytime the government becomes "intolerable", we have a DUTY to ... History proves that the longer the train of intolerable abuse, the more difficult and violent the struggle. Stop sucking Pelosi/Napolitano cock and get off your knees. Millions of strong fighters have died for freedom and we are left with weak metro fucking pissasses like you...

Michael Mitchell

We heard from men of few words…

From: redneck@rcn.com
Subject: gaynes
Date: April 19, 2010

homo

We heard from those with a beautiful vision for our country...

From: info@republicofarizona.com
Subject: Thank God
Date: April 16, 2010

One other issue .................. thank God the founding fathers of this nation did not have to contend with the likes of you regarding our over throw of the repressive British regime. There does come a time when violence is the only answer. After all, how do you plan on ever disarming the millions of gun owners that will never allow ANY government, foreign or domestic, to take our firearms ......... period? When asking nicely doesn't work, then what? A citation? A lecture?

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Steve Grant
Republic of Arizona

From: chanbates@comcast.net
Subject: RE: Political Violence is Not an American Value
Date: March 31, 2010

Imagine a future free of criminals and war. Then imagine a future free from gun violence. You have one vivid, ridiculous imagination. Until you and your ilk provide all of us with 100% security from such threats (and I believe you will be totally unpersuasive with criminals and religious fanatics from overseas), I will preserve my own life, the lives of my loved ones, and any other innocent person—including you—from the evil in the world, and I will probably use a firearm to do it, violently.

Chan Bates

We heard from attorneys for the National Rifle Association who think that GOOGLE doesn’t exist...

From: cbmonfort@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Let's Leave "The Wild West" in the Past
Date: March 25, 2010

I'm interested in making a donation to your organizationm though I do have a couple of preliminary questions. Do you think all of the states that have shall issue CCW policies have become the wild wild west? Do they have higher violent crime rates than states that hardly issue CCW permits? I'd be interested to hear your responses to these questions before I make any donations to your organization. Thank you!

Clint B. Monfort

We heard from lawnmower salesmen...

From: Bullseye5477
Subject: What loophole?
Date: February 14, 2010

What the fuck does a gun show have to do with anything. What's next? The guvment tellin' me I can't sell my lawnmower to someone because they might take it home and run over their kids foot?

We heard from Mondays with Mike fan Larry Mattera...

From: matteralarry@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: Looking Forward to a New Year

You suck ass! I want all your funding to dry up for my Christmas present! I wont miss Mondays with fatass.

Larry Mattera

We heard from those who understand the public health threat presented by caffeine...

From: izaktaylor@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Todays email Major Nidal Malik Hasan
Date: November 19, 2009

so allegedly Major Nidal Malik Hasan went crazy 10 years after the permit. he had traumatic violent experiences that alter his perception of reality. The concealed weapon permit had nothing to do with it whatsoever. You could claim he was the 5 person whote drank pepsi that commited a mass murder as well, it just wouldn't serve your limited political agenda.

Isaac Taylor

We heard from winners...

From: forestofdeadtrees@sbcglobal.net
Re: New Blog on Protester with AR-15 Assault Rifle
Date: August 28, 2009

You are a loser.

Sincerely – Jeremy Parish

We heard from those who were eager to express condolences...

From: tlooft@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: CSGV Statement on the Passing of Senator Kennedy
Date: August 26, 2009

About damn time that old SOB kicked off, a great day for USA!!!

Terry Looft

We heard from those who are particularly concerned about the eight children and teens who die every day in the U.S. from gun violence...

From: tomfinnegan13204@yahoo.com
Subject: Violent Hangun Deaths in Children
Date: August 13, 2009

Including suicides in the CSGV's blanket statement of 8 deaths a day is certainly misleading. Many youth bent on killing themselves will surely find another means to do so if a gun is not available. In fact, according to the wisqars report on the CDC site, almost 30% more youths who commit suicide use a means other than guns to do it (535 gun suicides versus 761 suicides that do not involve guns)

The reason I brought up gang violence in our conversation was that most hardcore juvenile gang-bangers have been involved in an extremely violent lifestyle for many of their formative years. Is this tragic? Certainly. But your site, as evidenced by the cutesy little crayon drawing of innocent little children, next to the erroneous statistic of 8 gun deaths a day, is obviously meant to bring out an emotional response in those who this portion of the site is meant for. It is not based on truth or reason. And reason indicates that even with more stringent gun laws, criminals will still get guns. Ergo, gang members will still kill each other.

Even if you think that it is valid to keep suicides and gang-related deaths in your total number, what you report and what the total numbers actually are "do not jive." The true number then would be 6.3 deaths a day, not 8.. This does not surprise me though. The vast majority of what passes for intellectual rigor among Liberals is based on emotive response, not logic and reason.

Tom Finnegan
Syracuse, NY 13204

And finally, we heard from someone who momentarily forgot about that peace thing...

From: MurphyMURPH1176@aol.com
Subject: gun violence
Date: August 2, 2009

love to see evening news reports , include the number of shootings that occur each and every day in the united states

richard

These Second Amendment "Rights" Need to Be Exorcised

Following a summer that saw far-right-wing activists bringing guns to political events across the country, two more recent incidents suggest that it wasn’t just the heat driving the “open carry” craze.

On December 20, 2009, Leonard Embody walked into Radnor Lake State Park in Tennessee with a loaded AK-47 pistol, reportedly with the intention of testing a new state law allowing those with concealed carry permits to bring their handguns into state parks. One woman who encountered Embody in the park reported, “He was wearing military boots and a black skull cap. He didn’t look like the friendliest of guys. It was scary.” Soon, park rangers appeared on the scene and questioned Embody at gunpoint.

The rangers were apparently confused about whether his AK-47 was a rifle, which would have been illegal in the park. On OpenCarry.org, Embody wrote that one of the rangers said he “had never heard of a 7.62x39 handgun” (the 7.62x39mm cartridge was originally designed during World War II and is common in military-style rifles). The practice of shortening assault-style rifles into pistol-sized handguns to make them more easily concealable began in the late 1990s. According to the Director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis, Dr. Garen Wintemute, (who has photographed these weapons at gun shows across the country), “Less than 24 inches long, [these guns] use the same ammunition and high-capacity magazines that the rifles do. With the magazine detached they are easily concealed.”

After Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents arrived at the scene and confirmed that the firearm was indeed a pistol, rangers released Embody in accordance with the law without pressing charges. On OpenCarry.org, Embody has stated that he plans to openly carry the same handgun again at Bicentennial Mall, a Nashville State Park.

This issue has been a controversial one in The Volunteer State. Counties and municipalities have been permitted to opt out of a law allowing handguns in parks that they manage, and approximately 70 of them—fearing threats to public safety—have done so.

Another disturbing example of “open carry” occurred on January 2, when a crowd of over 300 people gathered at a busy intersection to protest the Obama Administration in Alamogordo, New Mexico. The rally, organized by the local Otero Tea Party Patriots and the Second Amendment Task Force, was a response to recent health care reform efforts, as well as a demonstration of Second Amendment “rights.”

Many of the attendees at the rally openly carried handguns and/or rifles (one woman even strapped a .32 caliber handgun to her dog’s back). New Mexico law allows residents to openly carry a firearm in most public places, as well as concealed weapons with a state-issued permit.

Several individuals who carried guns at the rally indicated they were doing so to exhibit “responsible gun ownership.” Others, however, admitted a darker purpose. One man stated that his handgun was a “very open threat” to the “socialist communists” in the Obama Administration. “The government fears the people, and a disarmed people are slaves,” he said. “Political power comes from the barrel of a gun ... They’re pushing us to our limits.” Jim Kizer, a veteran of the Korean War who carried at the rally, echoed this sentiment: “I’ve fought Communists all my life, and now our government is being taken over by them. That’s why I’m here.”

The rally kept law enforcement well occupied. Although the protest was not as large as anticipated, Alamogordo Department of Public Safety officers and the New Mexico State Police drove through “the intersection at no less than five-minute intervals during the two-hour event.” The constant patrolling of the protest distracted law enforcement from their regular duties, depriving the surrounding community of valuable resources.

Dan Woodruff, the founder of Alamogordo’s Second Amendment Task Force chapter, opined that the rally “put a positive light on gun ownership.” Others were not so convinced. Walt Rubel of the Las Cruses Sun-News questioned the benefit of “inviting every yahoo with a weapon in southern New Mexico to gather at the busiest intersection in Alamogordo and wave their firearms at the passing traffic.” Denise Lang, a counter-protester on the scene that day, offered, “I'm very much a pro-gun rights person. I come from a military family. My late husband was a gunsmith, [and] I think gun use is OK in an appropriate time and place. Wearing guns to a protest, to me, is extremely juvenile."

Beyond scaring their fellow citizens (“It’s a shock value thing,” admitted one handgun-toter), distracting law enforcement, and presenting potential threats to public safety (at political events that typically involve heated discussion), armed protesters present a more fundamental challenge to the integrity of our democracy. Their belief that the Second Amendment allows them to use force to bypass non-coercive, peaceful avenues of change undermines the First Amendment rights of all those who disagree with them. Perhaps “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” (as Chinese Communist leader Mao Tse-tung stated in 1938) in a totalitarian state, but not in a functioning democracy.

Ron Browne of Alamogordo, a bystander at the January 2 rally, grasped that armed protest leads to something far different than “freedom.” “I see this as the seeds of terrorism being born,” he said. “You have the guns. Eventually, you'll have the hate, then someone will actually take it one step further and try to hurt the president. Hate has to start somewhere and grow. This is it, right here. You're looking at it. If this keeps expanding, we're going to have a civil war.”

Gunning for the President

The nation, sadly, has become well acquainted with the phenomenon of individuals bringing loaded guns to town hall meetings, presidential speeches and other political events. Initially, these shows of force were headline news and covered nationally. Recently, however, two disturbing incidents occurred that barely made a blip on even the local media radar.

On the evening of September 9, President Barack Obama was at the U.S. Capitol preparing to address a joint session of Congress on the subject of health care reform. At approximately 8:00 p.m., Joshua Bowman, 28, of Falls Church, Virginia, attempted to drive his Honda Civic into a secure area near the Capitol. U.S. Capitol Police stopped him and, searching his car, found a rifle, a shotgun and 500 rounds of ammunition. Bowman was arrested on the spot and charged with two counts of possession of an unregistered firearm and one count of unlawful possession of ammunition. An Associated Press article noted that “Bowman’s intentions were unclear.”

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington has stated that they have decided against prosecuting Bowman on more serious charges. It is difficult to imagine, however, what legitimate reason there might have been for bringing that kind of firepower to the Capitol when so many important elected officials were gathered in one place.

Three days later, Josh Hendrickson of Rogers, Minnesota, traveled to a rally outside the Target Center in downtown Minneapolis, where President Obama was giving another speech on health care reform. Hendrickson, a concealed carry permit holder in Minnesota, was carrying a .40 caliber Glock 22 handgun in a holster on his hip, and a Kel Tec 380 in his pocket. “The Second Amendment isn’t suspended just because the president’s in town,” he explained. He was questioned by Minneapolis police and Secret Service agents, but no charges were pressed.

Hendrickson described himself as a “pretty laid-back guy,” a National Rifle Association member who always takes his keys, wallet and guns when he leaves the house. In reality, Hendrickson is a “Truther” with a violent criminal history. In fact, he was recently released after serving a 60-day stint in jail for pepper spraying a customer at the Cub Foods where he worked as a security guard. The woman had parked illegally, Hendrickson claims, and was being belligerent. “It didn’t cause a commotion,” though, he assured a reporter. Nonetheless, Hendrickson was fired, charged with fifth-degree assault, and convicted.

Nor was that his only contact with law enforcement. Hendrickson described two other incidents, one “a disorderly conduct charge involving a parking lot argument as his son’s school” and another “a dispute over a neighbor’s dog, in which police were called.” A search of the Minnesota Trial Court Public Access website reveals a total of 9 convictions for Joshua David Hendrickson, born in November 1976: 1 for 5^th degree assault, 1 for Disorderly Conduct—Brawling or Fighting, 3 for Disorderly Conduct, 1 for Reckless Driving, 2 for Driving While Intoxicated, and 1 for Interfering with an Emergency Call.

Sadly, Hendrickson was able to obtain a concealed handgun permit in Minnesota and hold on to it despite this extensive criminal record. Under Minnesota law, Hendrickson’s permit could have been revoked after his conviction for fifth-degree assault. And the law would have required law enforcement to revoke Hendrickson’s permit following his DWI convictions had he been armed during either one of these incidents. Although Minnesota is a “shall-issue” state, Minnesota sheriffs are also permitted to deny permits if they believe there is a “substantial likelihood that the applicant would be a danger to self or others.”

That Hendrickson was able to avoid all these hurdles and carry handguns near the president without being arrested is astonishing. “Now I’m going to be the guy with the assault record—the gun-carrying assaulter of people who’s outside the Obama rally,” Hendrickson predicted.

On that point, he was right. The natural question is now: How many other individuals carrying guns at political events (either openly or concealed) have disturbing criminal histories? And why is the media already losing interest in what should be headline news?

CSGV Mailbag

In the wake of yet another mass shooting by an individual who legally purchased firearms (and obtained a permit to carry a concealed handgun) despite being clearly deranged, the need for sensible gun laws in the United States is more obvious than ever.

Thankfully, it is not only gun control supporters who are committed to preventing such unnecessary acts of violence. Here at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, we are blessed to receive inspiring emails from gun rights activists who are dedicated to ending the suffering that gun violence causes in our country. Over the past four months...

We heard from those who—thankfully—are taking care of their own hygiene...

From: Sinuhe Agrinzoni [sagrin@hotmail.com]
Subject: RE: Tell Congress: Don't Weaken Hidden Handgun Laws!
Date: July 9, 2009

you are an idiot. It is not the people legally carrying hand guns with proper permits that we have a problem with. It is the other wanna be gangsters roaming the streets with no clue or common sense that is the real threat. Get your facts straight and look up how many law abiding citizens are committing gun crimes. The number is staggeringly low. Take me off your ridiculously liberal mailing list. People like you are not qualified to wash my crotch.

Have a good day!

We heard from those who are arming themselves against dangerous practitioners of non-violence...

From: Randall 2 [randall2@randallcounty.org]
Subject: The truth
Date: July 5, 2009

You need to wake up and grow up. There have always been predators---individuals, governments, gangs, religions, in the world and always will be. People have the right, and if they have any family, they have a moral obligation to protect themselves and loved ones as well as their property. If you are too much of a coward to do this, you have no right to live here in America and enjoy the liberties we have. The question is : Why are you afraid of me having a gun? I am a law abiding, patriotic, God fearing, America and family loving citizen. I WILL have my gun to protect myself against YOU !

We heard from fans of CSGV President Mike Beard’s “Mondays With Mike” Blog...

From: lawrence mattera [lawrence.mattera@sbcglobal.net]
Subject: Mondays with fatass!
Date: June 4, 2009

Ted Nugents mental health ? What about your eating disorder,Mike? The fact is your previuos job as lobbyist shows what kind of person you are. Anything for a buck.That fact that you "feed your face" thru a anti gun group that has no "grassroots" support as you claim shows that desperation brings you earn any way you can. How do you live with yourself? From a "lobbyist" to a million mom moron. BRAVO Mike or shall I call you Munching Mike.

We heard from those with great concern for world hunger...

From: Bigdawgbob13@aol.com [Bigdawgbob13@aol.com]
Date: May 31, 2009

Try feeding some children instead of wasting your time on something you can't do. DUH

From: REBARDR1@aol.com [REBARDR1@aol.com]
Date: April 12, 2009

you people make me laugh you can not stop terrorist/ drugs/ drug dealers/ illegal gambling/prostitution/ and everything else in this country but you want to take guns from the ordinary citizen so the criminals will just get another valuable product meaning the fire arm to have in thier corrupt business's WAKE UP you people can not even feed the poor in this country

We heard from those who never explained how you’re supposed to know if someone’s a felon if you don’t run a background check on them; and who missed a recent 20/20 special...

From: slg1373
Subject: Get educated before you post
Date: May 10, 2009

Ther are no gun show loopholes. All sales @ gun shows go thru the same background check as a gun store. The only loophole is a private sale, and the person selling faces a felony if he knowing sales to a felon or someome not legally able to own a gun. Private sales go on everyday. You do not need a gun show. If Wal Mart sells a man a baseball bat and it is used to kill someone, Is Walmart responsible? More guns are used to protect and defend than used in crimes.more people die in car accidents than by guns. Wheres the legilation on banning cars. There are millons of illegal aliens driving without licenses that can't even read road signs, you would save more people by stopping that than banning guns. But doing that is not on the Liberal "feel good" agenda. If you don't beleive the loophole part go to the next gun show in your area and see for yourself.

We heard from those whose signatures stated the obvious...

From: Nathan Jack [nathan.jack95@yahoo.com]
Subject: BS
Date: April 8, 2009

You are all just a bunch of pathetic, wimpy, socialist, and nazi liberals. You think you can get rid of guns? 2nd amendment. Bad guys will always have guns even if you ban them.

A pissed off citizen

And finally, we heard from a heavily armed guy who would have attended that gun show anyway...

From: Rob Snyder [tango_1_alpha@yahoo.com]
Subject: Gun show Loop holes
Date: April 7, 2009

You poor folks are some of the most un-enlighten individuals I've ever come across. Your web site is so full of inaccuracies and false information, it's a wonder you have ever been taken seriously even by the mindless mass media. It's no wonder gun sales and the sale of ammunition are sky rocketing. You're web site might as well have a direct link to the NRA because you are so obviously biased even in the face of the truth. I want to thank you for directing me to attend a gun show. As a result of your "Loop hole" rhetoric, I decided to check it out for myself. I bought a couple of nice hand guns and an "assault rifle" at a great price! I was also able to shop and buy more accessories than I ever knew existed and all the ammo I could carry. The people have spoken, let freedom ring!

The Insurrectionists are Coming!

Since the election of President Barack Obama in November of last year, there has been a marked increase in the promotion of “insurrectionism” in right wing circles in the United States. The insurrectionist idea holds that the Second Amendment gives individuals the "right," in the words of National Rifle Association (NRA) CEO Wayne LaPierre, "to take whatever measures necessary, including force, to abolish oppressive government." The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has argued that not only does insurrectionism degrade the democratic values and institutions that protect the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans; it also poses a direct threat to the very existence of our constitutional democracy.

Two recent examples provide disturbing evidence of this threat, and demonstrate that many individuals on the fringes of American politics—inspired by gun lobby rhetoric and FOX News commentators—feel that our democratically elected government has already lapsed into “tyranny.”

On two separate occasions in June, Hal Turner, a New Jersey resident and white supremacist blogger/radio host, was arrested for making threats against public officials. Turner first drew the attention of law enforcement by calling for the deaths of two Connecticut state legislators on his blog because they sponsored a bill that would have transferred financial power in Roman Catholic parishes from priests and bishops to lay members. “While filing a lawsuit is quaint and the 'decent' way to handle things,” he wrote, “we at TRN (Turner Radio Network) believe that being decent to a group of tyrannical scumbags is the wrong approach. It's too soft. Thankfully, the Founding Fathers gave us the tools necessary to resolve tyranny: The Second Amendment. TRN advocates Catholics in Connecticut take up arms and put down this tyranny by force ... If any state attorney, police department or court thinks they're going to get uppity with us about this, I suspect we have enough bullets to put them down, too.” Turner was soon arrested on charges of inciting injury.

Then, a few weeks after making bail on this charge, he shifted his attention outside of the tri-state area by asking his audience to kill three Republican-appointed jurists on the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals. In response to a June 2 decision which upheld handgun restrictions in Chicago pending a review by the Supreme Court, Turner explicitly called for the murder of deciding judges Frank Easterbrook, Richard Posner and William Bauer. Turner wrote on his blog, “Let me be the first to say this plainly: these judges deserve to be killed,” and included photographs, phone numbers, work addresses, and room numbers of the judges, as well as a map of Chicago’s federal courthouse which pointed out its “anti-truck bomb” pylons. A search of his home by the FBI after his arrest revealed that he was in possession of three handguns, one shotgun, and 200 rounds of ammunition (including 150 hollow point bullets). Turner is currently in jail awaiting arraignment in Chicago.

Then there is Katherine Crabill, a Republican candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates in the state’s 99^th District. She recently made headlines by calling on Americans to resist the course President Obama has set for the country. Appearing at a “Tea Party” rally on July 15, Crabill quoted a 1775 speech by Patrick Henry and then went further, stating, “We have a chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box. But that's the beauty of our Second Amendment right. I am glad for all of us who enjoy the use of firearms for hunting. But make no mistake. That was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. Our Second Amendment right was to guard against tyranny.” This thought is reinforced on Crabill’s campaign website, where she states the Second Amendment “was clearly intended for self defense as well as, and more specifically, to keep the government on notice of an armed citizenry.”

When the video of her remarks made the rounds across the Internet, Crabill told the Washington Post that she would not back down from her defense of the right to use bullets to address government grievances, citing the “domestic terrorism” and “Marxist agenda” of the Obama administration as legitimate threats. She later clarified this statement, stating, “I have no desire to see this country erupt in any kind of violent revolution. I don’t even own a gun.” She now claims her speech was “less a call to arms than a call for conservatives to mobilize for coming elections at all levels.”

This was not Crabill’s first public expression of support for insurrectionism, however. In the mid 1990’s, a time when right-wing extremism was similarly on the rise, she belonged to a militia group known as the New Mexico Citizens Action Association. An April 1995 article by the Washington Times quotes her as saying that the Oklahoma City bombing, in which Timothy McVeigh killed 168 innocent people, “was the work of our government, which will use it as an excuse to aggressively attack the growing militia movement across the country.”

Turner and Crabill are just the latest insurrectionists to make national headlines. From Wichita to Pittsburgh to Oklahoma City and beyond, 2009 has already been marred by real insurrectionist violence and other attacks that were narrowly averted. And with sales of handguns and assault weapons soaring amidst (unsubstantiated) fears of tougher gun laws under President Obama, those who view our current democracy as a “tyranny” are now better armed than ever.

Anarchy and Vigilantism

On May 31, Americans across the country were shocked to learn that Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider, had been shot and killed in the foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas. Just three hours after the shooting, authorities apprehended a suspect—Scott P. Roeder of Merriam, Kansas—on Interstate 35.

Initial reporting on the case linked the murder to Roeder’s extensive history as a pro-life activist. One Kansas City pro-life protestor, Regina Dinwiddie, commented that Roeder, “believed in justifiable homicide. I know he very strongly believed that abortion was murder and that you ought to defend the little ones, both born and unborn.” A September 3, 2007, post from a “Scott Roeder” on the website www.chargetiller.com reads as follows: “It seems as though what is happening in Kansas could be compared to the ‘lawlessness’ which is spoken of in the Bible. Tiller is the concentration camp ‘Mengele’ of our day and needs to be stopped before he and those who protect him bring judgment upon our nation.”

Subsequent investigation, however, revealed that Roeder’s ties to right wing extremist groups were far more extensive. In the words of Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman, Roeder’s “extremism cross-pollinated between anti-government extremism and anti-abortion activism.”

In April 1996, Roeder was pulled over in Topeka, Kansas, for driving with a homemade license plate. Police found a military-style rifle, ammunition, a blasting cap, a fuse cord, a one-pound can of gunpowder, and two 9-volt batteries in his car. He was subsequently convicted on one count of criminal use of explosives and several driving-related misdemeanors, and ordered to stop associating with violent anti-government groups. The convictions were overturned on appeal a year later, however, after a court determined that the evidence was illegally gathered.

At the time, the FBI listed Roeder as a member of the Montana Freemen, a radical anti-government group. From March-June 1996, the group engaged in an armed standoff with FBI agents who were attempting to serve warrants at their compound. Federal prosecutors had alleged that Freemen members wrote worthless checks and money orders to pay taxes and to defraud banks and credit card companies. Though no shots were fired, the heavily-armed Freemen remained in their Jordan, Montana, compound for 81 days before allowing the FBI to enter. Several of the group’s members were subsequently convicted on a range of charges.

This information suggests that Roeder’s killing of Dr. Tiller could be the latest manifestation of the Department of Homeland Security’s warning that, “the combination of environmental factors that echo the 1990s, including heightened interest in legislation for tighter firearms restrictions and returning military veterans, as well as several new trends, including an uncertain economy and a perceived rising influence of other countries, may be invigorating rightwing extremist activity, specifically the white supremacist and militia movements.” One cannot ignore the parallels between Roeder and right-wing extremists like Neo-Nazi Richard Poplawski, who killed three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in April; Joshua Cartwright, who killed two police officers in the Florida panhandle in April; and Jim Adkisson, who killed two parishioners at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in July 2008.

It is unclear at this point what type of gun Roeder used in the shooting or how he acquired it. Because Roeder’s felony conviction for criminal use of explosives was thrown out in the late 1990s, that would not have stopped him from passing a criminal background check. During a custody battle over a girl Roeder claimed was his daughter, a 2005 court ruling noted that Roeder had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and did not take medication, "which may pose a clear and present danger to the minor child." Had Roeder been adjudicated “mentally defective” or involuntarily committed to a mental institution, he would have been prohibited under federal law from purchasing or owning firearms.

Though the shooting of Dr. Tiller has obvious religious overtones due to Roeder’s pro-life activism, it is also clear that Roeder felt that violence was an appropriate way to oppose what he viewed as an illegitimate government that refused to ban abortion. Such insurrectionist beliefs pose a direct threat to any constitutional democracy, a fact recently noted by conservative FOX commentator Bill O’Reilly, who said, “Anarchy and vigilantism will assure the collapse of any society. Once the rule of law breaks down, a country is finished. Thus, clear-thinking Americans should condemn the murder of late-term abortionist Tiller. Even though the man terminated thousands of pregnancies, what he did is within Kansas law.”

"The WAR wWIL start on the stepes of the Oklahoma State Capitol."

Last month, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Executive Director Josh Horwitz examined the background of Pittsburgh cop killer Richard Poplawski in a blog at the Huffington Post. That piece, entitled “Insurrectionism Goes ‘Mainstream,’” noted that Poplawski feared "the Obama gun ban that’s on its way" and a tyrannical federal government. In the words of Poplawski’s best friend, “if anyone tried to take his firearms, he was gonna' stand by what his forefathers told him to do." Most disturbing was the revelation that Poplawski’s insurrectionist views were nurtured by several “mainstream” media commentators, political figures, and even jurists.

Now comes the news that another insurrectionist attack might have been narrowly averted on the day that blog was posted. On April 15, Daniel Knight Hayden, 52, was arrested by FBI agents after he stated on Twitter that he was going to turn the Oklahoma City “Tea Party” into a bloodbath. Four days earlier, he had tweeted a string of violent, threatening messages:

7:59 pm
The WAR wWIL start on the stepes of the Oklahoma State Capitol. I will cast the first stone. In the meantime, I await the police.

8:01 pm
START THE KILLING NOW! I am wiling to be the FIRST DEATH! I Await the police. They will kill me in my home.

8:06 pm
After I am killed on the Capitol Steps like a REAL man, the rest of you will REMEMBER ME!!!

8:17 pm
I really don’ give a shit anymore. Send the cops around. I will cut their heads off the heads and throw the on the State Capitol steps.

On the day of the Tea Party, he encouraged people to attend the event (“BE THERE! We need warm bodies.”) and issued this final tweet:

12:49 am
Locked AND loaded for the Oklahoma State Capitol. Let's see what happens.

Hayden even openly referred to Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, writing “THE KILILNG HAS ALREADRDY STARTED BEGINIING WITH 168 Oklahoma on 4/1995! KILL THEM BACK!!!” Like McVeigh, Hayden believes that the U.S. Constitution (and the Second Amendment specifically) gives him the right to shoot and kill federal, state and local officials if/when our government becomes “tyrannical.” In a February 19 post on the “Jack Blood—Uncovering the News Behind the News” Forum, Hayden wrote the following:

The only thing that is keeping the New World Order from destroying this nation is the presence of over 100,000,000 guns in civilian hands. When guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns.Since we are already criminals in the eyes of the New World Order, and they intend to enslave us all, and to kill those of us who will NOT submit to their slavery, I say to IGNORE gun "laws" and keep your guns (AND ammo) handy. You only have three options:

1) Submit to total spectrum domination i.e. total enslavement.
2) Be rounded up and sent to a FEMA camp where you will be killed.
3) Die at the hands of the New World Order oppressors by taking as many of them with you as you can.

I recommend option number three and to keep your powder dry.

Hayden talked openly about the “tyranny of the New World Order” and posted an image on his MySpace Page that depicts Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung with the caption, “MASS-MURDERERS AGREE: GUN CONTROL WORKS.” He was obsessed with delusions about being persecuted by the police and the courts, regularly photographed Oklahoma City police cars, and had “begun to think of killing people” as early as June 2003.

Like Richard Poplawski, Hayden was a big fan of conspiracy theorist/online talk show host Alex Jones, who openly supports—and even markets—insurrection. On Twitter, Hayden urged followers, in the wake of his attack, “no matter WHAT happens, to post it on the internet IMMEDIATELY, AND send it to Alex Jones!!!!!!!!!!!!” He was also a supporter of Oath Keepers, a “new patriotic organization” composed of “mostly current, and former military, police and emergency-service personnel” whose “Orders We Will Not Obey” blog includes the following statement:

We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people ... We affirm that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military power of the people so that they will, in the last resort, have effective final recourse to arms and to the God of Hosts in the face of tyranny. Accordingly, we oppose any and all further infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Hayden was arraigned on April 16 and has been released to a halfway house pending trial. There is no word yet on what firearms (or other armaments) were found in his home when he was arrested, or on the extent to which he had planned his attack. Whatever the case, the people of Oklahoma City were well served by law enforcement officials in their state, who acted quickly and decisively in response to this threat.

In light of this latest incident, we hope the nation’s attention will now turn to the threat of insurrectionism and the fact that this dangerous philosophy has been endorsed not only by the National Rifle Association, but also by the Conservative Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Threat from Within

On April 7, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis released a disturbing assessment of right wing extremism in the United States. The Department noted that “the economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.” Recalling the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh, the Department speculated, “The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and 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.”

Of particular concern to the Department was the recent spike in gun sales nationally. The assessment stated that “the high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.”

Richard Poplawski, a Neo-Nazi gun enthusiast who recently murdered three police officers responding to a 911 call from his house, was also mentioned in the assessment. DHS cited Poplawski’s cold-blooded murders as an example of violent right wing extremism and noted, “The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories relating to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled ‘one world government.’”

The Department also voiced concerns about disgruntled military veterans who possess combat skills and experience that right wing extremist groups find attractive. “These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists,” said DHS. The assessment noted that Timothy McVeigh was an Iraq War veteran and referred to a 2008 FBI report that found that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had joined extremist groups.

Unlike insurrectionist activity during the Clinton Administration, DHS was concerned that “the advent of the Internet and other information-age technologies since the 1990s has given domestic extremists greater access to information related to bomb-making, weapons training, and tactics, as well as targeting of individuals, organizations, and facilities, potentially making extremist individuals and groups more dangerous and the consequences of their violence more severe.”

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence recently addressed the increased threat of right wing extremism—and the promotion of anti-government violence through mainstream media news sources—in a Huffington Post blog entitled “Insurrectionism Goes ‘Mainstream.’”

Many other commentators are expressing their unease regarding current right wing paranoia and rhetoric. Eric Boehlert, in an article for Alternet entitled “Fox News' Unhinged, Irrational Obama Attacks Stir up Violent Right-Wing Militants,” states that “What Fox News is doing today is embracing the same kind of hate rhetoric and doomsday conspiratorial talk that flourished during the ‘90s, and Fox News is now dumping all that rancid stuff into the mainstream. It’s legitimizing accusatory hate speech in a way no other television outlet in America ever has before.” Boehlert writes that “the Oklahoma City bombing story broke 18 months before Fox News made its cable-news debut. But if [Fox owner Rupert] Murdoch’s team maintains its current course—if Beck and company insist on irresponsibly fanning the militia-type flames of distrust—there’s the danger Fox News might soon have to cover other episodic gestures of anti-government payback.”

In another article, “Glenn Beck and the Rise of Fox News’ Militia Media,” Boehlert correctly notes that Richard Poplawski is not the first American to be inspired to murder by extreme right wing rhetoric. On July 28 of last year, Jim Adkisson brought a sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee and opened fire on parishioners, killing two and wounding several others. He specifically targeted those on the Liberal end of the political spectrum, and made that painstakingly clear in a suicide note: “Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book. I'd like to kill everyone in the mainstream media. But I know those people were inaccessible to me. I couldn't get to the generals & high ranking officers of the Marxist movement so I went after the foot soldiers, the chickenshit liberals that vote in these traitorous people.” Investigators who searched Adkisson’s house discovered copies of Michael Savage’s Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, Sean Hannity’s Let Freedom Ring, and The O’Reilly Factor, by Bill O’Reilly.

In a post 9/11-era, where terrorist threats from abroad are taken very seriously by the public and law enforcement officials, the threat from within is quickly becoming equally—if not more—grave.