Writer seeking gun-owner input

[gunhobbit]

National writer is looking for gun-owner opinions on this piece.

Ruby Ridge lessons for fighting right-wing extremism

I promised to share on some gun boards.

Read More

 

[IronMonster]

I'm going to read the bit when I get home so I just had to respond to have a marker

 

[Siglvr]

Reading his piece reminds me why I often distrust big government more than any particular group of citizens who may (or may not) have crazy ideas.

 

[DONOTBUGME]

Why does it have to be "right wing" extremists, oh I forgot, the media has to paint the racists and Nazis as GOP members to continue the brainwashing. I have some ideas about some other article topics that are a lot more interesting:

-The rise and terror of the Alt Left ANTIFA fascists

-How the Nazis, KKK, and other hate groups left the democratic party coincided with dems changing their preferred identity politics from southern whites to minorities and illegal aliens. You can focus on what cause the switch.

-Minimum wage was originally introduced to protect white workers from having their job taken by blacks and other minorities.

All 1% fringe hate groups on both sides are bad and just because your certain political views may be in common with theirs doesn't make you a racist or part of their group. For example, securing the borders.

 

[EPS]

I think this will be a good thread I'll wait and see till every one gets off work

 

[bolus]

I would not trust any journalist with anything I said, especially concerning firearms.

Let's check out the article:
"many people are demanding a crackdown on dangerous right-wing extremists."
A source for this statement? how many is many? 14? 22,000? I'd like to hear these many people and their exact demand? Who did they demand this of?

Sound like that sentence is an opinion based on a gist that the author has after watching news on TV.

sorry, could not read further. Couldnt get past the first sentence. Sounds like what I'd write for a junior high essay and didnt do any research.

 

[Stomper]

I think you should read the article if you have not. It's not an "anti right-wing" article, and in fact it's anti "big brother attempting to quash" any given movement, or ideology by entrapment, lying, and outright fabrications to get what they want.

 

[2A2Dend]

 

[Stomper]

@gunhobbit is no troll....

 

[Hybrid Slave]

Like members DONOTBUGME and bolus, I disapprove of the typical divide tactic of labeling. Even so, I am surprised to read this kind of content in a mainstream outfit like USA Today.

On the surface it seems like (as much as I hate to use the labels) a left wing agenda and tactic, and yet speaks up for someone (Randy Weaver) who as an obvious supporter of the 2A, no doubt would've been labeled, at one time, as a hard right winger as well. Ironic.

Right, conservative, liberal left, and so on. If only life really were that simple. I've used the joke before but the mentality that relies so much upon this kind of obtuse labeling reminds me of the movie "The Blues Brothers" when, in the country bar, Jake and Elwood ask the barmaid what kind of music they usually play at the establishment, and she responds "oh, we have BOTH KINDS of music, country AND western". The stunned "oh sh**" expressions on Jake and Elwood's faces are worth a million as they simultaneously turn and look directly at the camera as if to say "how small is this chick's world?".

Although I agree with most of the basic content about the wrong doings of the feds, it seems difficult for me to discern the writers political lines, based on just the article, what with siding and defending Weaver (+1 as far as I'm concerned), and the writer's seemingly speaking out for the 1st Amendment.

But I become confused by the use of the divide tactic of name calling; especially because, as I recall (correct me if I'm wrong), the Ruby Ridge murders occurred during the (here with the labels again ) left wing Clinton/Janet Reno administration (I voted for "Papa Bush", to my everlasting shame). But, I digress.. so I'm just a bit confused as to exactly who the writer believes to be the "bad guys" or what side the writer is on. Maybe he's not exactly sure of either himself.

 

[Stomper]

Perhaps he's on the Constitution's side....

 

[Hybrid Slave]

Perhaps he's on the Constitution's side....

I get ya. It just seems to me that the usual bipartisan name calling only serves to divide "we the people". Kind of counter productive if he's crusading for the Constitution. Just seems... to me.