Concerns about domestic terrorism

[tt11758]

From a Letter To The Editor on the Sioux City (Iowa) Journal Website.  (Follow the link, you might see a comment from some names you recognize) 

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2009/09/24/news_opinion/letters/ed21faf883e4d8798625763a005c1ff6.txt#blogcomments

SIOUX CITY -- Everyone is always so worried about terrorists attacking our country from some faraway country, but what about the domestic terrorism we've witnessed lately? We've seen people attending town hall meetings about HEALTH CARE armed with assault weapons, carrying signs that say "we came unarmed ... this time" and signs that are clearly hinting at violence towards members of our government, including the president, first lady and even their children.

The dictionary defines terrorism as: "The systematic use of terror, violence and intimidation to achieve an end." I don't care if it's not illegal to bring a gun because it's clear why they are bringing it. People should be able to go hear their members of Congress speak without being nervous that the person next to them is packing. I fear we are moving toward a horrible event and everyone from both parties who doesn't stamp this down at every opportunity is just as responsible as the person(s) who carry out any terrible act that might happen.

It's time to call the extremists what they really are, which is domestic terrorists, and treat them accordingly. -- Scott Raasch

Hmmmm.....maybe my comment wasn't approved by the SCJ website.  I don't see it there, anyway.  Oh well.

[Steyr M40A1]

So by this crapsack's definition, everyone who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is a terrorist.
Or lets turn the table by saying, we believe the DNC is a terrorist group due to there tactics trying to push the health care issue when the people don't want it.

[jnevis]

So by this crapsack's definition, everyone who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is a terrorist.

At the time our Founding Fathers WERE terrorists, by current definition.  They were using strike and retreat tactics, unheard of at the time, to send a political message to a larger government entity.  It all boils down to perception.  Here the Afghan Mujahadin were "freedom fighters", the Russians, terrorists.  Now we consider the same people we supported and PAID to fight the Russians terrorists because we left them hanging out to dry and now thy're striking at us.

Not saying the guy that wrote this isn't off his bloody rocker but to many people are throwing around "terrorist" without a true understanding of the meaning or the context.  Is there a real possibility of something going horribly wrong here in the next couple years, yes.  Is everyone an "extremist" no matter what side of the debate they're on, no.  While I'm in firm agreement that a person has the inherent right to self defense, I do think there is some level of not-so common sense when it comes to open carry at a political function, or any function for that matter.  A shirt/sign that says "We came unarmed...this time"  is over the line, with or without a weapon present on anybody.  Things like that don't help and only make it harder to prove that gun owners aren't supposed to be feared.  Vocal protest and logical debate are one thing, open threats are all together different, real or percieved.

[tombogan03884]

 I have to disagree with Jnevis on some things.
By the theories set forth in the 60's the purpose of "terrorism" is to instill "terror" or extreme fear, into a particular group.
The purpose of even "peaceable assembly for redress of grievances", as acknowledged  under the Constitution, is to cause extreme fear of unemployment among politicians. So by that definition ALL popular (grass roots ) political protest is "terrorism".
Jnevis is absolutely correct when he states that the Founding Fathers were "Terrorists", what else would you call an organized group that assaulted Govt. officials, (Ma. RI., NY, and SC ) destroyed property, (Ma, RI, NY, SC, ) and Raided government stores for arms (NH ), not to mention infiltrating military organizations with the intent of resisting legal authority (all 13 Colonies ).
Simply put, a disgruntled populace has little chance of standing against a trained military force in conventional battle due to disparities in training, experience, and supply. Therefore the only practical method left for resistance is the hit and run tactics of unconventional warfare using every subterfuge and diversion to allow the inferior force to achieve local superiority.