Atomwaffen encourages flag desecration, the burning of the United States Constitution, and attacks on the federal government of the United States, minorities, gays, and Jews.[SUP][15][/SUP] Atomwaffen Division has engaged in plans to cripple public water systems and destroy parts of the Continental U.S. power transmission grid.[SUP][15][/SUP] Atomwaffen has also been accused of planning to blow up nuclear plants in order to cause nuclear meltdowns.[SUP][15][/SUP] The organization's aim is to violently overthrow the federal government of the United States via terrorism and guerrilla warfare tactics. Since 2017, the organization has been linked to eight killings and several violent hate crimes, including assaults, rape and multiple cases of kidnapping and torture
Sure. Today this Atomwaffen is "universally considered to be a terrorist organization." In San Francisco the NRA has been defined as a terrorist organization. How long before posting on INGO becomes justification for a red flag confiscation?
Don't believe there's any terrorist attacks that were ever carried out in the name of the NRA, feel free to correct me.
What's your point?
The distinction is irrelevant. The man has been charged with no crime. The gun confiscation was based solely on the man's beliefs, not his actions. If this is allowed to become a precedent the floodgates are open.
Don't believe there's any terrorist attacks that were ever carried out in the name of the NRA, feel free to correct me.
Playing a bit of devil's advocate here because of the irony involved with AM's mission statement.
I think Tombs is right that it’s a dicey case. Let’s be precise in saying what it is. It’s not quite as straightforward as him being disarmed for mere belief. He was disarmed for being a member of a known terrorist group which has carried out deadly attacks in this country.
So let’s test this concept out with some other scenarios. American joining a jihadi terrorist cell in the US, whose members must vow to do violence against the infidels, and they’ve carried out several deadly attacks. Do you confiscate his legally owned guns?
I’m not advocating either position here. I’m just presenting what I think is a more precise understanding of reality than was originally posed.
I agree with this line of thinking. Much more thought needs to go into this, although my kneejerk reaction is that Big Brother over reacted.
My kneejerk thinking is this: members of known religious groups have blown up abortion clinics in this country, causing death and serious bodily injury. Should ALL other members these bombers churches be targeted for what their brothers and sisters in faith have done? My answer would be "no." Ergo, being a member of a group is not enough, in my current opinion, to justify removal of firearms. It WOULD be enough to potentially start an investigation to determine whether this individual presents a clear danger to himself or others, but not the jump to red flagging and removal.
In this case the government had no information saying that he, individually, represented a threat to anyone.
But you are correct in that this is dicey. It reeks of potential overreach and as such is worthy of a very good and in depth conversation. One that would require much libations and comfortable chairs to rest in and ponder points and counterpoints.
Regards,
Doug
It happened here already. Note the word "IF". Seems to me that was a self defense statement.
https://www.oregonlive.com/news/201...gons-new-red-flag-law-took-his-guns-away.html
What about people of the Muslim faith???
Don
What if they’re Christians? Play Led Zeppelin backwards to release the deamons, then hand the guns back.
Idunno. You may not be old enough to get that one.