To be completely transparent about the Homeland Security Assessment titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” which I first saw at Kevin’s place. I didn’t see what the big deal was about it. The left has been saying I was a threat to humanity since I purchased my first gun, a SKS, back in December ’93 right after President Clinton (and her husband) were elected. I live in Idaho, so of course I’m considered a sexist, racist, bigot who would get violent now that we have a president who is of (one quarter) African descent. Never mind I would have cheered until I was hoarse if were Condoleezza Rice who had been elected President.

The “assessment” looked perfectly reasonable to me. What’s the big deal? It’s politics as usual. I’ve read enough garbage DHS reports and draft reports and given feedback on reports that never made it to the public that I don’t have any illusions about their ability to think their way out of a paper bag let alone be able to connect with reality.

But some people figured it was a forged document. I looked at it and didn’t see anything which indicate forged to me. Sure, the best lie is one that you want to believe. But the left wants to believe that too. They could just be lying to themselves. [shrug] Whatever. It’s kind of amusing. The irony is a bit funny.

I haven’t been paying all that much attention to what people have been saying about it. I’ve been very busy working on domination of the galaxy and planning to make a couple thousand pounds of explosives and gathering up a couple hundred people with guns for next weekend. Why should I care about what DHS says? It doesn’t really apply to me doesn’t? Surely they couldn’t have been thinking of me when they wrote it.

I did get an email from CCRKBA on the topic which I think is worth sharing. The came out with a news release with a line that made me smile:

“It’s ironic,” Gottlieb concluded, “that President Obama’s friend, William Ayers, is a leftwing terrorist bomber, but nothing in this report suggests monitoring his activities.”

The following started as my comment at Say Uncle, but I decided it needed its own post.  It’s in response to the now age-old maneuver of calling for more enforcement of existing anti-gun laws rather than passing more, and considering ourselves clever negotiators.  It doesn’t matter who said it recently.  It’s been said for many years;

“…should enforce existing laws rather than propose additional laws they said could infringe on Second Amendment rights.”

Additional laws “could” infringe?  What; existing laws couldn’t infringe on Second Amendment rights?  Not a single one of them?  Next time someone’s house is busted into, guns are confiscated and destroyed, lives are turned upside down over a technical violation when no one has harmed or threatened any other person, you’ll be perfectly OK with that?  It’d be great, so long as no one bothers you with more laws?  You thought Ruby Ridge was cool, and you want more of the same, so long as it’s convenient for you?  You want to keep innocent people in jail over paper-work errors, or over an inch of barrel length or a quarter inch of buttstock?  Would that make you a proud supporter of the second amendment or a sadistic and immoral jackass with anti American tendencies?  You decide.

Lets put this into perspective; “The Justice Department should enforce existing laws against negroes rather than propose additional laws that could infringe on Civil Rights.”

That sounds stupid as all hell, doesn’t it?  How many people would take that as a pro Civil Rights stance and call for more of it?  Yet we have been conditioned over the years to think that’s perfectly acceptable language when discussing second amendment rights.  Any politician says something stupid like that and we think, “Yeah, Baby!  You tell ’em!  That guy’s on OUR side, Man!”

Oh, how far we have fallen.

Would we sit idly by and accept a federal department of alcohol, tobacco, negroes and explosives (BATNE)?  Do you like the juxtaposition there?  Lovely, isn’t it?  Should anyone sit by and accept such a thing as an inevitability, and proudly claim that as a clever, politically “reasonable” stance?

If you reject the idea that gun restrictions equal crime control, and instead believe (as do I) that gun laws are not only counterproductive to their stated goals and an attack on liberty, but unconstitutional, you don’t call for more enforcement of them.  What would be the point in that, unless it’s an unprincipled attempt to appear “reasonable” to people who know nothing of the issue and nothing of the constitution’s history?  For that matter, what law enforcement officer who has taken an oath to the constitution could in good conscience enforce any gun laws against peaceable citizens?

Are we trying to appeal to the sensibilities of idiots at the expense of our credibility, at the expense of the constitution, at the expense of reason, at the expense of public harmony, and at the expense of liberty?  Yeah; that makes us look like geniuses.  Sure it does.  Or cowards.

It’s hypocritical.  It’s McCainian (to perhaps coin a new term).  It’s relying on ignorance for public support.  It’s what Republicans do when they listen to their super-smart advisors.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to clean my guns.  And to “fondle” them.  You know, ’cause I have a small penis or something.