Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An Ideological Test for Gun Ownership: ...
Townhall.com ^ | August 8, 2012 | Jacob Sullum

Posted on 08/08/2012 11:56:37 AM PDT by Kaslin

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says Sunday's deadly attack on a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, a Milwaukee suburb, shows "our elected officials" need to "do something." Slightly more specifically, the group says we should "Demand Congress Stop Arming Dangerous People."

I did not realize there was a federal program that supplies mass murderers with weapons. Obviously, this is a poor use of our tax dollars. Congress should not only eliminate this program but it should also prevent dangerous people from buying guns on their own.

But how do we know who is dangerous? The Brady Campaign mentions "convicted felons," "convicted domestic abusers," "terrorists" and "people found to be dangerously mentally ill." It omits a crucial category: people with dangerous ideas.

Wade M. Page, the Army veteran identified as the gunman who was shot to death by police after killing six people and injuring three at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, had documented ties to white supremacist groups. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which tracks extremists, he was "a frustrated neo-Nazi who had been the leader of a racist white-power band" called End Apathy.

"The music that comes from these bands is incredibly violent," Mark Potok, a senior fellow of the SPLC, told The New York Times. "It talks about murdering Jews, black people, gay people and a whole host of other enemies."

According to the SITE Monitoring Service, Page was a familiar presence on websites run by Stormfront, Hammerskin Nation and other white supremacist groups, where he "frequently included white supremacist symbolism" in his posts. In a 2010 interview with End Apathy's record company, Page said he aimed to cure "a sick society" and bemoaned "how the value of human life has been degraded by being submissive to tyranny and hypocrisy."

In other words, Page's scary views were well-known long before he bought the 9mm handgun he used in this week's attack. Yet he was still able to pass a federal background check.

Federal law currently bans gun ownership by felons, illegal drug users, people convicted of misdemeanors involving domestic violence and people "committed to a mental institution" or "adjudicated as a mental defective." Amazingly, there is no ideological test for gun ownership, even though someone like Page, "who fed and was fueled by hate" (as the Times put it), is far more dangerous than the average pot smoker or mental patient.

Private organizations such as the SPLC and government agencies such as the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security already monitor the online activities of violent extremists. How hard would it be to collect that information in a database that could be used to check whether a would-be gun buyer harbors views that make him prone to murder?

Once the database is created, it can be regularly updated with the names of people who express views like Page's -- who talk about tyranny, hypocrisy, or a "sick society," for instance, or who quote inflammatory proclamations like this one, frequently seen on the T-shirts and signs of right-wing lunatics: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants." I don't mean to imply that violent extremism is limited to the right; when you consider the ideas expressed by Ted Kaczynski, a.k.a. the Unabomber, it is clear that left-wing critiques of capitalism also lead to murderous violence.

I am not saying people do not have a right to express these alarming views -- just that if they do, they should not be surprised if they are turned away when they try to buy a gun. The Brady Campaign correctly says "it is time we acknowledged" that the Second Amendment "guarantees the right to keep and bear arms." But the Supreme Court has said that right is subject to reasonable regulations aimed at protecting public safety. What could be more reasonable than stopping dangerous people from buying dangerous weapons?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: bradycampaign; firearms; gunrights; wadempage
The entire title is: An Ideological Test for Gun Ownership: The Next Logical Step in the Effort to Keep Dangerous People From Buying Firearms
1 posted on 08/08/2012 11:56:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I did not realize there was a federal program that supplies mass murderers with weapons.

Fast and Furious. Google it, genius.

2 posted on 08/08/2012 12:00:26 PM PDT by gundog (Help us, Nairobi-Wan Kenobi...you're our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Let’s see...

Just who is it that will decide if your views are “alarming” and “dangerous”?

Probably would have prevented a lot of deaths in the late 1700’s had the British been able to deny firearms to everyone they considered dangerous.

There have been a few governments that have successfully implemented this program - they have all wound up murdering millions.


3 posted on 08/08/2012 12:09:00 PM PDT by NY.SS-Bar9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9

Mark my words: If he wins in November, Obama may never have to run for election again....but that does not mean it is his final four years in office!!! Bad news for the 2nd Amendment.


4 posted on 08/08/2012 12:13:51 PM PDT by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The author’s “logic” is seriously flawed. In my view, the First and Second Amendments are joined at the hip - one cannot stand without the other. The author’s position requires the 1st amendment be negated. An ideological test is not a logical or Constitutional step.

Who will watch the watchers?


5 posted on 08/08/2012 12:35:21 PM PDT by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Never, EVER, admit to anyone who doesn’t have you under a sworn statement rule that you own or use a gun or guns. NEVER! Don’t tell your doctor, your insurance man, your priest, pastor or even your neighbors unless you know them like a brother.

Don’t ever let the police in your house if they do not have a legal, correctly described warrant, and tell your children not to speak about what you have - EVER!


6 posted on 08/08/2012 12:36:56 PM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"The music that comes from these bands is incredibly violent," Mark Potok, a senior fellow of the SPLC, told The New York Times. "It talks about murdering Jews, black people, gay people and a whole host of other enemies."

SPLC is not a credible source, and neither is Townhall apparently.

Hey, Jacob Sullum, you and Mark Punkass can go screw. Run that through your "test".

7 posted on 08/08/2012 12:37:44 PM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9

Exactly. Who will be the gatekeeper of The Name List.


8 posted on 08/08/2012 12:37:54 PM PDT by moovova (Chic-fil-A is good...and right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Keep Dangerous People From Buying Firearms

Who gets to pick who is a "DANGEROUS PERSON"?   Who writes the definition of "DANGEROUS"?   "Convicted domestic abusers" has been extended to "persons accused of abuse" and "persons named in a restraining order",  two categories where your rights are suspended with only "she said" as cause.   I can see BigSis Janet defining any person who owns a gun as obviously more "dangerous" then a person with no gun, therefore...

This proposal is a slippery slope to a total ban,   Nice try for an end run on A2 though.

Regards,
GtG

9 posted on 08/08/2012 12:42:10 PM PDT by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

From Alice in Wonderland:

You may only own a gun if you don’t believe in owning guns....


10 posted on 08/08/2012 12:47:59 PM PDT by G Larry (Progressives are Regressive because their objectives devolve to the lowest common denominator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Hmmm...If one of the definitions of "dangerous" were to include "terrorist", then I personally will be in big trouble.

Note: As published by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI in the past 2-years, key identifiers/characteristics of "dangerous" people include, at a minimum:

But wait...Recently they have added the all important identifier: "Liberty Lover".

Peculiar that DHS & FBI fail to identify moslems, suicide bombers, airline hijackers, and those who openly call for the destruction of this Nation as possible terrorists. For these apparently "not dangerous" people,the process for getting clearance to purchase guns will be no problem.

11 posted on 08/08/2012 12:48:31 PM PDT by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
AMEN!

Regards,
GtG

12 posted on 08/08/2012 12:48:55 PM PDT by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Common sense that not to, and since I have common sense I sure wouldn’t


13 posted on 08/08/2012 12:51:37 PM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Common sense says not to, and since I have common sense I sure wouldn’t


14 posted on 08/08/2012 12:52:16 PM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

Gee, sounds like gangster rap. Oh wait, only white people are dangerous, how could I forget that.


15 posted on 08/08/2012 12:52:27 PM PDT by JimC214
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Didn't think you would since you posted, but a convenient sounding board for the others here. It is tempting to discuss guns with others, especially if they seem to be interested. But interest doesn't always imply agreement. Tricky these gun-takers be.
16 posted on 08/08/2012 12:54:50 PM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45

You are correct. If you have an ideoligical test for the Second Amendment then you must have the same test for the First Amendment.


17 posted on 08/08/2012 12:55:25 PM PDT by ops33 (Senior Master Sergeant, USAF (Retired))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SuperLuminal

If someone were to ask me what part of the government I thought was most dangerous, I’d have to say DHS, bar none. This agency is George Bush’s fault, for which I will never forgive him. Obama has turned it into his pre-election rant about “as well funded, as well-armed.....as the military”....

They now have millions of rounds of 9mm and God knows what else, black uniforms and macho riot gear, black SUVs, black helicopters, dozens of drones capable of carrying weapons...it will not stop unless someone other than Obama makes it stop.


18 posted on 08/08/2012 12:59:32 PM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JimC214
I had better stop listening to the old blues standards like 32 20 blues and Hey Joe. This is getting old and stupid. A bunch of nuts go out and act stupid and hate full and no we all must pay for it.
19 posted on 08/08/2012 1:06:05 PM PDT by JimC214
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
It appears that most of these “goofy” attacks are staged in places where there won't be anybody “shooting back”. I think this is probably the same reason we and other nations had and have nuclear arsenals. These “yellow livered” imitation “Ninjas” and “camouflaged” tactical wanna bees like “Easy Pickens’”, the “no guns allowed” signs seem like an invitation, we don't need “more” laws, we need enforcement of the laws we have.
20 posted on 08/08/2012 1:09:08 PM PDT by Gertie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; Travis McGee; Joe Brower; ATLDiver

The next logical step after failing An Ideological Test for Gun Ownership would be forced inpatient psychiatric treatment. The Soviets were really good at that sort of thing . . .


21 posted on 08/08/2012 1:10:22 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The SPLC, VPC, and Brady are all outright “hate groups”.


22 posted on 08/08/2012 1:17:51 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says Sunday’s deadly attack on a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, a Milwaukee suburb, shows “our elected officials” need to “do something.”

Why? What could elected officials have done to prevent an insane person driven with hatred from killing people?


23 posted on 08/08/2012 1:36:22 PM PDT by SECURE AMERICA (Where can I sign up for the New American Revolution and the Crusades 2012?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“The music that comes from these bands is incredibly violent,” Mark Potok, a senior fellow of the SPLC, told The New York Times. “It talks about murdering Jews, black people, gay people and a whole host of other enemies.”

Oh sorta like rap music which talks about killing cops and beating your hoes.........


24 posted on 08/08/2012 1:39:05 PM PDT by SECURE AMERICA (Where can I sign up for the New American Revolution and the Crusades 2012?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Where’s my Ammo Stamps?


25 posted on 08/08/2012 5:57:47 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Where’s my Ammo Stamps?


26 posted on 08/08/2012 6:01:10 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9
I'd suggest an IQ test for columnists.

Ones with IQs this low shouldn't be allowed to be published.

27 posted on 08/08/2012 6:14:13 PM PDT by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9
I'd suggest an IQ test for columnists.

Ones with IQs this low shouldn't be allowed to be published.

28 posted on 08/08/2012 6:16:47 PM PDT by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Jacob Sullum had this piece at Reason. He claims to be some sort of libertarian. Go figure.


29 posted on 08/08/2012 8:27:22 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I'm hoping this is satire.

Once the database is created, it can be regularly updated with the names of people who express views like Page's -- who talk about tyranny, hypocrisy, or a "sick society," for instance, or who quote inflammatory proclamations like this one, frequently seen on the T-shirts and signs of right-wing lunatics: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants."

That was, of course, Jefferson, a hard-core revolutionary if ever there was one. A list of people quoting Jefferson and so barred from obtaining firearms? This is a joke.

The underlying premise is that the state is empowered to deny firearms possession on the basis of a criterion of its choice. It isn't.

30 posted on 08/08/2012 8:47:03 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

We have gone well beyond the situation you infer already. The “state” is criminal AT THIS POINT. Refute, if you will.


31 posted on 08/09/2012 3:18:11 AM PDT by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
"They now have millions of rounds of 9mm and God knows what else, ..."

Yep! Keen observation. That "what else" is turning out to be this:

Multiple Waco events being prepped!

32 posted on 08/09/2012 8:43:14 PM PDT by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson