"Right-wing extremists" are now a national security threat? Are we headed for civil war?

Can you say Timothy McVey?

@Judi

You took the words right out of my mouth. Plus, the poster left out the reasons for this prediction- historically, economic hard times have led to more disaffected right-wingers. Of course, just pick up the paper almost any day now and see yet another mass shooting…

I sure as hell hope so.

Given how well right wing extremists are armed it might be a very short war.

Well, there has been a recent spate of right wing murder sprees.

Left-wing extremists don’t generally, for example, shoot up churches to kill those damn conservatives.

@drew r, so you’re advocating sedition, eh?

Were youone of those Republicans who questioned people’s patriotism? Because that would be adorable.

@Qingu I am by no means a Republican and neither am I a Democrat. Call me a Constitutionalist I guess. I question Dems and Repubs patriotism equally as both seem to want to rape the Constitution.

The old and the new Administrations and Congress have commited Sedition and Treason against the Constitution. Not I.;)

These guys are nothing new. Militias have been around forever and it’s good to keep the government on its toes. Most of these guys are two beers shy of a six pack. Although they bring up some good points as to establishing sensible immigration laws and re-establishing the states as the voice of the people once again. As the article states even the central government is not considering any real threats:
“threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts.”
Any large group of good ole boys at a gun show or monster truck rally can cause problems but nothing free coupons for pork rinds at Walmart won’t quickly defuse.

And so the real patriotic thing to do is kill a bunch of Americans in a civil war?

Also, how exactly is Obama raping the constitution?

Well, first off were you outraged when the Bush administration began pushing for more surveillance of American citizens?

Also, have you heard of the guy in Pittsburgh who shot three cops?

Are you always so swayed by the media event of the day? Do you realize that by reacting to these things so quickly makes you a slave to the media cycle?

@fireside
Much lurve for the “Naked Truth” on that Huffington Post link
“Top Chef” host Padma Lakshmi, E! talk show host Chelsea Handler and “Dollhouse” star Eliza Dushku.

This is a PDF.. LEFT-WING EXTREMISM: The Current Threat

Brilliant.. Fake outrage. This shit was written under the Bush administration.

Extremists are usually dangerous no matter their cause but we can’t start rounding up people because they have an unpopular opinion.

What dangerous left wing extremists are there? The worst I can think of nowadays is the occassional animal rights firebomber. They never kill anyone.

@Qingu
Obama’s stance and former voting record on gun control is sedition and treason against the Constitution.

I would rather convince the population to with hold their taxes than get into a fire fight but if it takes a fire fight to get our country back I will join in a N.Y. minute.

But the wiretapping under Bush was cool?

Please be specific, drew. What did Obama do that was treasonous re: gun control?

He hasn’t done shit about guns. No laws about guns have passed or even been discussed.

@Qingu
Every Bill brought up in Congress during his short term as a Senator that was pro gun control he voted for. That, by the Constitution was wrong. The Federal government can not in state any form of gun control by the Constitution.

He is sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution as has been every Congress person and president. Instead they rape it.

Cite a bill and a passage that contradicts the constitution please. also, guncontrol=treason?

Also, when the Feds come after you for not paying your taxes, are you going to shoot them?

@Qingu
During his tenure in Congress none of them passed. ;)

I may not be the brightest crayon in the box but I can say unless there were a majority doing the same I wouldn’t. Of course I don’t pay taxes at the moment. I make no money. We live off of my wifes VA disability which is not taxable. ;)

@johnpowell

On the contrary my friend. Maybe no Bills that are directly gun control. They have been slipping them into thigs such as the Stimulus package and other Bills. Check out Gun Owners of America’s website. They have them listed.

So you are paranoid and a coward.

Those who qualify as extremists, left or right wing, and willing to carry out violence against fellow citizens, are few and far between. Generally, they are underachievers, and use their extremist views to justify everyday crimes like robbery and assault. Often, they claim some religious justification.

Give me a second.. I will link to Dailykos… Get my point?

@DREW_R – so you live off government money but think people should stop paying their taxes?

i hope the president bans ALL assault weapons ASAP! no need for them in society

@fireside

Yep

Our pay could come from excise and tarrifs while the rest are dumped. Those are the only taxes authorized by the Constituiton. They are enough for the government to take care of itself and the men and women that have served it, my wife and myself.

How did you serve the constitution?

Aside from making empty threats to shoot people who you believe contradict it, of course.

@Qingu
We are both former military sworn to uphold and serve the Constitution of the United States.

I do not recall making any threats at all on here and none were implied. How you read things is your problem.

Do you think that the government would be able to get all of its military funding from tariffs and excise taxes? I imagine that would put us in a pretty tenuous situation when other countries didn’t like our policies.

Not to mention health care…

What did you do to uphold the constitution during your stint in the military, exactly? I don’t recall it being threatened in the past, oh, 150 years?

And excise and tarriffs can pay for your food, equipment, quarters, etc?

@fireside
There is not supposed to be a standing federal military in the 1st place. The states were supposed to supply the militia.

The Healthcare and several other issues are not a federal problem either. They are also delegated to the states by the Constitution.

LOL. This is so LOL.

@Qingu
Read reply to fireside.

There is not supposed to be a standing federal military in the 1st place. The states were supposed to supply the militia.
Yes. The centralized U.S. military machine is a threat to world peace itself. There should be regional militias, perhaps groupings of states and then when instances of the urgency of war were raised there would be more checks and balances against such horrific abuses of power as the Iraq agression.

rightwing gun nuts crack me up. they dont care about health care, jobs, the economy, nothing, just fu*king guns!

@DREW_R You are aware of the fact that the Constitution is not a fixed document, right? It can be amended, as per article V of the Constitution itself. Thus, even though the 2nd amendment is held near and dear to the hearts of some people, eventually, it can be modified. Also, the legislature is empowered to make laws, and even vote to modify the constitution, so your argument that by simply voting to modify gun laws a legislator is committing treason is wrong on its face.

Yeah, let’s have a nice revolution here in America in 2009 amidst the economic crisis we’re already facing along with war in Afghanistan and Iraq and North Korea resuming their nuclear program. Things are looking very positive.~

What exactly does a “well-regulated militia” mean?

@shilolo

You are wrong. To change an Amendment, add one or delete one the move has to ratified by a 2/3rds vote of the states, not the legislature.

Also, the 16th was declared Ratified falsly.

@DREW_R
2/3 of the legislatures of the States

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;”

@SeventhSense

I believe that ads up to 2/3rds of the states. I also stand corrected by fireside. It is more than 2/3rds and stands at 3/4’s

Someone just sent that to me… ugh…

@ubersiren
???

Hold on, Drew.

You expect the government to pay you for “defending the constitution” for your work in the army. (Doing what?)

You simultaneously believe that the U.S. should have no army and that work should be done by state militias.

Okay. So how should the states fund their militias? Where is your money coming from in your ideal little world?

This all assuming that the 2nd amendment really does bar gun control in the first place.

What the hell was ubersiren referring to?

@SeventhSense Thank you! Few people understand the history of the 2nd ammendment.

no problemo my buttery friend

@SeventhSense : Yeah, that didn’t make sense out of context. Someone emailed me the National Security Report. It’s a load of bs.

so you were answering them..ok i just thought i’d might be losing my mind. :)

@Qingu
The Constitution doesn’t keep states from collecting taxes. But it only allows Tarrifs and excize taxes to be collected to run the federal government. ;)

@DREW_R See @fireside‘s comment. The legislature may propose amendments, which are then turned over to the states for ratification. So, I think we can all agree what exactly the Constitution states. Feel free to look it up.

@DREW_R, the 16th amendment doesn’t allow federal taxes?

@Qingu

No, the Constitution doesn’t. The 16th was not properly radified either. So in fact the 16th is null and void. There has been extensive research on the subject. If the Suprem Court wasn’t so political they would have dropped it as un- Constitutional.

http://political-resources.com/taxes/16thamendment/default.htm

Drew, all amendments are unconstitutional. The point of an amendment is to change the constitution. Like that second amendment you like so much. (any records for that amendment’s proper ratification?)

Here is a link about the ratification date.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0749825.html

and one on the history of the 2nd Amendment

http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html

Your first link doesn’t link to any debate as far as I can tell. It just says #16 was ratified.

Please explain precisely why you believe opposing the 2nd amendment is “treason,” but not the 16th. (And I’m being charitable by saying gun control opposes the 2nd amendment, which has a large number of interpretations.)

Also, please don’t link to anyone else’s argument. I can’t debate with websites. Make your own argument. You can cite sources if you like, but you need to make and defend your own points.

The 2nd was ratified by the States in the Union at that time. The 16th was not legally ratified if you noticed in the link I sent you. Thus the 16th is a non-law, for lack of a better term, that you can still go to jail for not obeying. Not being ratified, makes it in my mind, not an amaendment. Thus you can’t consider it treason to not obey it.

From your link:

”(The proposed amendment was sent to the states July 12, 1909, by the Sixty-first Congress. It was ratified Feb. 3, 1913.)”

Same language as for all the other amendments post bill of rights.

Praytell, why do you think it was illegally ratified?

The link I sent to you has all the info on it needed to figure that out. Some governors didn’t sign it, some states didn’t even turn it back in and were said to have, the list goes on. The link has it all in there on a chart.

I don’t see any charts. Are you thinking of the right link?

And please make your own arguments. Don’t link me to a website. Explain to me why the 16th amendment is illegal.

The Constitution forbids any taxes other than tarrifs and excize by the federal government to run the government only. Not to provide for all of the socialist B.S. that has been added to it making us a welfare country.

Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, it has always been unconstitutional for the U.S. Federal Government to directly tax We the People in their property, wages, salaries, or earnings.

The chart is in this link

404 not found.

And it does not matter if the Constitution forbids taxes. The point of the Constitution is that it can be changed through amendments. The Constitution is not an immortal holy text. It is weird that you don’t seem to understand this.

@Qingu
I understand that well. I also understand that the deviations being made today are wrong. The federal government is taking our tax dollars illegally and is thus committing Grand Larceny as the 16th was falsely ratified and is in fact not an Amendment and still they imprison law abiding citizens for failure to pay. Then again we hear that taxes are voluntary.

http://political-resources.com/taxes/16thamendment/default.htm

Then the government starts taking away rights granted in the Bill of rights, The Patriot Act from the Bush admin, and Obamas admin keeps the shit Bush started. WOW, big change. So far in the short 2 months he has spent more than Bush had in his whole 8 years and now he wants to counterfit more money to support his massive new 3.6 TRILLION dollar scheme.

Bullshit. It is time to stop it from rolling over our great great grand kids. Hell yes I will join a revolution. Hopefully a peaceful one but if it comes to punches lets rock and roll.

Your source is biased and sort of incomprehensible. Again, I am struck by how you keep on linking to articles instead of explaining your argument yourself.

I completely oppose the Patriot Act. But Obama is doing much to counteract the threats to civil liberties. The man has been in office for 3 months, and he has a lot of a plate. I’m giving him a year or two, and then we’ll see what our civil liberties look like.

As for spending—are you counting the money Bush spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, which was not included in the budget? And what exactly is your problem with government spending? I don’t understand why paying to build infrastructure and supplying food stamps to people is such an affront to you that you would actually participate in an armed revolution.

If you hate government so much, why don’t you move to Somalia, the only country without one?

@Qingu I don’t hate the government. I hate what they have done to our country and become. I feel they need to be reigned in hard and complete sovriegnty returned to the states as it was ment to be, regulated by the Constitution. Food Stamps, Welfare, DEA, BATF and the Dept of Education, healthcare, IRS, and the Federal Reserve, to name a few, are all unConstitutional entities and I feel they do more harm than good. Our overseas policies and those entities named above have successfully bankrupted our country. All of the issues those entities address would be better handled at state levels and with more compassion.

I don’t understand your logic. Instead of one federal government, you want to have 50 state governments. And if you live in a state that does food stamps, welfare, DEA, BATF, has a department of state education, healthcare, and a state IRS and state reserve?

Well, it worked in the Balkans.

No it didn’t.

Read the Constitution as it was written. Our government is getting too big. That was the main fear of the Founding Fathers.

Their main fear was government without representation by the people. They also feared an inflexible founding document, which is why they allowed for amendments.

Let’s get something straight: I am not a fan of government authority. I think the federal government exists to protect my rights. Spying on me without cause is unconstitutional. Taking me prisoner without habeus corpus is unconstitutional. And if someone amended the constitution to allow these things, I would strongly oppose it and likely move out of the country if it got bad enough.

But I don’t oppose government spending for government spending’s sake. Government spending gave us the highway system, satellites and the space program, and the internet. Our economy today—not to mention the computer you’re using—could not exist without these things. I am happy to pay for infrastructure that makes modern civilization possible, and only the government can provide that infrastructure.

Point being, you are confusing government spending with government authoritarianism.

@Qingu I feel most government taxing/spending is without representation. The infrastructure could be paid by tarrifs and excise taxes. I personally feel that if the states handled most of the “human services” we would be better off.

Example: We are near bankrupt if not there and our present admin wants to send and spend billions overseas. That is our tax dollars being siphoned out of our economy. To what gain? none.

@DREW_R, how on earth is it without representation?

Our representatives vote for it.

Our infrastructure is too expensive to be paid for by excise taxes and tarriffs.

Why would transferring services from federal to state governments magically make them better?

As for sending billions of dollars overseas, are you referring to aid for Pakistan? The gain is obvious—the country is under attack internally from the Taliban. Their government and economy needs support. We need to be extremely careful about it—we shouldn’t fund dictators at the expense of the will of the people like we did in our own hemisphere during the 80’s—but this is national defense, and probably a lot more effective than dropping bombs on Iraqi kids to promote freedom.

Our reps dont vote the way the people would vote if they would get off their asses and explore the issues the Reps vote on.

Our infrastructure would not be too expensive if there were fair trade tarrifs versus free trade and the excise tax on money made with money by giant corporations would almost pay the federal deficit. Also states are taxed to run government infrastructure.

Transfering services from the fed to the states makes them more managable. It also might make people more aware and in turn responsible for what they are doing at home.

I don’t buy sending our money overseas as being a defence posture. Our mighty liberals feel we are so rich we should send the riches cause there is no possible way we can spend it all improving our country while the conservatives feel that it should be spent on funding more wars and the defence industry.

I don’t feel we have any reason to be anywhere else militarily than on our borders. We missed the scape goat Osama. What makes you think we can get him now?

So our representative government is not truly representative because the representatives don’t agree with you? Spoken like a true conservative.

How much money do you think we could get from “fair trade” tarriffs? Enough to build the highways and fund the space program? Incidentally, how would any single state government raise enough revenue to fund something like the space program? Or the interstate highway system?

And we are rich, and I’m happy to spend some of my tax dollars supporting moderates in Pakistan so extremists don’t take over the country and become the first fundamentalists with nuclear weapons. I’m sorry you disagree, but people who agree with me won the election. In four years you can make your case and try again.

We missed bin Laden (the “scapegoat”?) because we were too busy in Iraq. Though admittingly it’s possible we will never catch him at this point.

People started this country to leave oppression. Now I feel I want to leave this country because it is no longer represents the ideals it was born with.
I don’t want fascism, Marxism and socialism, or European Shit; I want the return of the American Spirit, uncompromised and uncorrupted.
God I am am sorry, I was dreaming again.

Define “American spirit.”

Also, feel free to leave. I know that whole “love it or leave it” business was usually spouted by conservatives, but I made a pretty good effort to get out during Bush’s tenure and move to Canada. I would have regretted it now. But it’s hard—save up some money for immigration, look for jobs.

Where are you thinking about moving? Somalia?

@Qingu

States pay taxes to the federal government for one. Tarriffs and proper excise taxing of corporation would also bring in alot. No loop holes to crawl through for businesses and Corporations, just a flat tax across the board. That would handle the basic federal government infrastructure.

I personally don’t see the space program doing much anymore. Privatize it.

States can do their own roads and highways and roads.

Our social programs can be shuttled down to the state levels too. A state can choose to be a welfare state or a right to work state. Depends on how they wanna tax out of staters and state citizens.

Since you are worried about the nukes in Pakistan send in the troops to collect them and then leave.

The only reason you won the election is because there are/were a bunch of GOP fed up with Bush. I was fed up with him. Still I had an idea that the Dems would get Congress so I voted Republican to try for some balance in our government. Instead the stupid Repulifuckians threw everything out of whack by voting for the dumbacrats. Now we got the same shit different president. What has B.O. done any better than Bush? Oh, I forgot. He has spent more in 2 months than Bush did in his 8 yrs, including the extra war funding. On top of that he has kept a shit load of bushs signing statements, execative privledges and programs intact. WOW, big changes for America. He is sinking our great great grand children. Hell, we get rid of a dictater and get a socialist commie.

By the way, I am not affiliated with the GOP or dem in any way. GOP and Dems suck.

@Qingu
This might be some interesting and educational information for you to mull over with plenty of citations.

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

Number 29 might be of special interest to you. ;)

@quignu: apparently not a good enough effort-you are still here.

@Garebo
Hi, did you get a chance to read the stuff in the link I posted to quignu?

I am always curious I’ll check it out….....so late.

@Quingu: No, if I were to leave this nuclear meltdown, my first choice would be Iceland because they are just starting to cool down, no global warming there. The inflation phase brought on by European banks I think is at its apex and our country hasn’t even begun to inflate; besides, they are very literate society, they have volcanoes and thermal baths, great food (expensive), and great, warm people.

I for one associate far more with the Right Wing than the Left, but have no party loyalty, especially as most of the Republicans as of late seem to be Liberals that got confused and lined up on the wrong side when the whistle was blown.

I often time believe the only way this nation will be saved from the crash course it’s on, is with some extreme violence. Am I a terrorist? Naw, I don’t want scare anyone, am I a threat to national security? Possibly, if the government takes control of any more of the market, or forces any more socialism down my throat, I’d be super tempted to get my gun out and make a scene. Sure I’d be killed, but I’d rather just not be around than deal with that bullshit, life is not nearly interesting enough for me to tolerate that.