From my College Class: Gun Rights Groups and Domestic Terrorism

[FourNineFoxtrot]

I'm currently taking a Criminal Justice class about Terrorism at my college. It's not my major, but somehow it qualifies as a General Education class. The class discusses the history of terrorism, the various international and domestic terrorist groups at large today, and goes a little bit into counter-terrorism strategies. This class is taught by a guy who was in the military during the Reagan administration, and spent some time in law enforcement, although I don't know the specifics. As one would expect in a Criminal Justice class, the information is presented from the point of view of law enforcement, which most of the students intend to become. Less time is spent talking about what the terrorists' agendas are, and more time is spent discussing what they've done, how they've done it, and what to do about it. This, of course, is to be expected.

On Monday, the class watched a video about Ruby Ridge and Waco. Putting aside whatever opinions I may or may not have about those incidents, the video went on to discuss the "Patriot Movement" and the "Christian Identity Movement". This was, I believe, a History Channel excerpt, hosted by some talking head... Bill Kurtis, if memory serves. At one point, while the video discusses the "Patriot Movement", a brief foray is made into the "Gun Culture", describing the lethal firepower available to "these people", and mentioning that the President of Gun Owners of America, Larry Pratt, was a speaker at a "Christian Identity/Neo-Nazi Gathering" held soon after the Ruby Ridge incident. The video also features interviews with various members of the Southern Poverty Law Center, railing against these groups as well as the gun lobby.

The video stopped short of directly tying GOA or gun owners, generally, to these "Movements", but there was plenty of footage of camouflage-wearing people shooting holes in targets, with ominous music in the background. Mentions were made of "hate groups... mostly centered in rural areas" stockpiling weapons and honing their hatred of government and minorities. I was stunned by this... calumny... the more so that it was perpetrated by the History Channel, and brought to me in a Criminal Justice class.

Folks, I'm afraid that this is what the future members of law enforcement are being taught about guns and gun-owners.

I thought I'd ask what people here thought about this. And if this isn't deemed a gun topic, I understand, although I think it's pertinent to the perception of guns and gun owners today.

 

[jeepmor]

It's history channel fodder, and like many media outlets, there is bias against guns. However, since LEOs are also a gun culture, you could make a statement of how poorly this reflects on them merely by association through guns. If this point is countered by anything other than admission, call them what they are, hypocrites on the matter.

Then you might mention what has historically happened time and time again when guns are removed from the common man, no matter how whacky he may seem. Germany, Russia and China are the biggest examples.

Your professor, from your statements, clearly has a bias of the us vs them. Us being law enforcement has never done anything wrong with guns, them being the serfs have never done anything good with the guns is the picture I'm seeing painted by the professor. I would point out how incorrect this statement truly is and loop back to the millions of people killed by the "us" statists (often LEOs following orders) and compare it to street crime numbers for comparison and contrast.

However, being in a criminal justice class, this is a fight you can't win because, IMO, they won't listen.

Good luck. Sounds like a good class to just keep your mouth shut.

 

[SamTuckerMTNMAN]

Gun culture... Mentions were made of "hate groups... mostly centered in rural areas" stockpiling weapons and honing their hatred of government and minorities.

Educate yourself and challenge that crap, tell him that it is simple brainwashing and that you expect more from a professional. Let him know that it's possible that such information is actually disinformation, it's own type of hate speech, very elitist, very much against a cultural and religious group, and that it is unrelated to terrorism - unless you define terrorism as both intellectual, spiritual, or physical resistance to total authority and unquestioned control. Which, as of date, it is ...

the best way to approach this is appeal to the more liberal preferences of people in the class if that be the case and discuss how freedom, and cultural identity, is an important facet of any free culture and that it protects everyone not just who the forces of authority happen to discriminate against at that moment. I've been in many places in the country and have known quite a few people that would fit into those groups...they are not hateful, they are not honing hate, they are not terrorists or have anything to do with them, they will not aid and abet such creatures, they do love the constitution and the bill of rights and think that America is being swayed into a fascist line that will eventually destroy individualism and 'correct' peoples thinking due to constant fear of "TERRORISM", ultimately as part of a greater plan. It is pure propoganda and should not be shown as part of a class unless it is exposed for what it is, or at least analyzed for bias, with counter views offered, even if not agreed with.
I, as a teacher, always present various viewpoints and teach the kids "If I give you information that is divisive and don't counter myself at least a little, then I am trying to convince you of something and you better call me on it."

Of course, thinkers, in the future, may just be terrorists.

st

 

[FullEffect1911]

Having; in the last few years, just gotten out of college I would recommend that you have a discussion with the professor in private about the video, his views and your feelings on the subject. I wouldn't call him on it during class, as this could be perceived as an attempt to undermine his credibility and authority. If you talk to him in private though you will learn his stance and you could recommend a discussion for a future class and hopefully show the other class members that guns aren't evil.

At the very least the other students should be told both sides of the story, any good teacher would welcome that.

 

[siglite]

Educate yourself and challenge that crap, tell him that it is simple brainwashing and that you expect more from a professional

Or he could get a good grade.

Now where's that DHS flyer I have somewhere that says constitutional purists should be watched as domestic terrorists....

If you take this prof to task for this insulting classist propaganda, make sure you do it after you have your grade.

 

[JesseL]

If I saw any terrorists at Ruby Ridge and Waco, they weren't the Weavers or the Branch Davidians.

Seriously, how did they tie those events to terrorism at all?

 

[siglite]

Seriously, how did they tie those events to terrorism at all?

Part of McVeigh's justification for loading a truck full of ANFO.

 

[LubeckTech]

What is DHS??
Sadly we are entering into a time where if you disagree with the government you are deemed a "terrorist". Being officially considered one you fall under the juristiction of the "patriot act" which means you have no right to trial or any other constitutional protections. The men in black can show up at your door and you will disappear - never to be heard from again. Sounds like Communist Russia doesn't ?

 

[DMK]

What is DHS??

Department of Homeland Security

 

[mljdeckard]

Not in the Criminal Justice Dept at Weber State University. Here, even the liberals in the department remain respectfully neutral. I have open-carried in class, not a word.

Domestic terrorism DOES in fact exist. I would not be terribly concerned by this video alone, but I would be if it were a continuing theme in the class.

 

[jefnvk]

Reagardless of your opinions about them, militant groups do not help gun rights at all.

 

[Roswell 1847]

It should be made clear that "Christian Identity" has nothing to do with the Religion of Christianity, except to hijack the term Christian.
One such group, "The Church of Jesus Christ Christian" (I kid you not) was forced to transfer ownership of that title as part of a settlement when they were sued after their security patrols assaulted some visitors. It was a Copyright situation, not any profression of faith.

"Christian Identity" is based on the rantings of the "British Israelite" movement, which again is neither British nor Israeli in any way shape or form.
Wackjobs like these and Fred Phelps' gang of hate mongers are a calculated design aimed at driving young people away from the true teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Tommygunn]

Domestic terrorism DOES in fact exist.

Sure, Timothy McVeigh certainly qualified. There are a bunch of ecology/animal rights whackos that raid labs and free test animals, burn SUVs and new housing projects, and drive steel stakes into trees to injure loggers who I would say certainly qualify as terrorists.
Most citizens militias I would not, since their main purpose seems to be to train and prepare for some "SHTF" scenario and rarely, if ever, go out on actual attacks or raids. Oh sure, there are plenty of nuts on the periphery of these movements that have caused problems McVeigh being only one exemplar; he attended a couple of Montan militia meets and was told not to come back, since even they saw his violent tendencies and disdained them.

The History Channel has also run "Tales of the Gun" series. In the case of the excerpt run in this class, I would say it might be less the view of The History Channel and more the view of the producers of the particular program from which the excerpts were clipped.

 

[Polishrifleman]

Jeff, I think you are right on the point that they don't help because they feed the fear and loathing most of the anti gun culture feel and the media is more than happy to run with it in a sensational fashion.

As with any cause, stance, or opinion there is a fringe on each side that gets everyone uneasy and that's what the media plays on you see it with religion, ecology, free speach, firearms, etc... The lack of individuals to take the HIGH ROAD, and the lack of our judiciary and society to enforce it only help feed it.

 

[buzz_knox]

Since this is a class dedicated to future LEOs, perhaps you could bring up the "Good Ole' Boy Roundups" that ATF and other LE agencies did. Some of the crap involved rated right up there with what the Southern Poverty Law Center was outraged by.

 

[JesseL]

Reagardless of your opinions about them, militant groups do not help gun rights at all.

Regardless of your opinions about them, nutty cults do not help religious rights at all.

Regardless of your opinions about them, tabloid journalists do not help free speech rights at all.

I refuse to worry about this. To feel compelled to denounce every whackjob that abuses the rights that I enjoy seems to imply a connection that I deny even exists.

 

[FourNineFoxtrot]

Thanks for the responses, everyone. I think I'm going to take Siglite's advice, and keep quiet until my final grade is locked into the computer. As much as I would enjoy coming to the defense of truth, justice, and all that, I'm a firm believer that you have to look out for number one. Maybe once the semester is over, and the teacher has no power over me, I'll seek him out or send him an e-mail detailing some of my dissatisfaction with his class.

I know that the History Channel also runs, from time to time, the "Tales of the Gun" series, which I thoroughly enjoy whenever I can catch it. That's what made this video seem like such a betrayal, although I doubt the same person comes up with all the content, and there's bound to be conflicting opinions and biases in the network.

I agree that the fringe groups aren't helping with the RKBA, and unlike most political movements, many people (albeit mostly urbanites) believe that the fringe groups encompass the majority of gun-owners. It certainly shows in the stereotypes I've heard, the jokes about "Rednecks" and what have you. Perhaps this is because for most of the last two decades it has been popular to bash gun-owners. Maybe that will change, maybe it won't. It still pains me to have to explain to people that I'm not the stereotype.

In any case, I guess I was just venting about this. It scares me to think that the opinions espoused in this video will become the majority view of the next generation of law enforcement, but only time will tell if that's so.

 

[K-Romulus]

History Channel is a mixed bag.

"Tales of the Gun" is a decent serial.

However, "Gun Control: The Right to Bear Arms in the 20th Century," hosted by Mike Wallace, is a total anti-gun-owner hit piece.

 

[modifiedbrowning]

he attended a couple of Montan militia meets

Tommygunn, he attended a couple of Michigan Militia meetings. Big difference between Montana and Michigan.

 

[TheOtherTaylor]

I know a few people in the Canadian military (I live in USA.) And they talk about sometimes how the discovery channel and all of its other channels that they own are really misleading everyone on what the sole purpose of the gun is. I.E. futureweapons on military channel owned by discovery most kids now a days watch it i don't hardly ever, it annoys me how they exaggerate in some episodes about how a model of a gun is terrible and it should only be used for military purposes not regular everyday people even if they have training. Also i am not flamming/arguing what peoples views are but this is what i understand and some of them have told me.

BTW: I already know my grammar is terrible i don't need to have anyone tell me.

 

[Beatnik]

Reagardless of your opinions about them, militant groups do not help gun rights at all.

The important thing is not that they help gun rights, but that they exercise them.
I'm not running out to join, but the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily also my enemy.

 

[TBeck]

During the late nineties the FBI had a comfy relationship with several of the larger "militia" movements.

Others, like Randy Weaver, chose to move away from the society they disagreed with and try to live according to their beliefs in a remote corner of Idaho. Unfortunately, the ATF wanted Weaver to join another organization and report on it to them. We he refused, he was brought up on a charge of trimming the stock of a gun a fraction of an inch too short.

When he did not show up at court, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest and it went down from there.

 

[DrewH]

That professor may have painted to broad a brush, and 99.999+ of gun owners have nothing to do with terrorism...but then I read about "voting from the rooftops" or "feeding the hogs" and reflect that would be terrorism if it became real. Fortunately, all of those posters seem to be full of hot air, and I am personally glad this site has banned such talk.

An honest appraisal of the reason many cite on here for gun ownership, defense against tyranny, carries an implicit threat of political volience against tyrannical government. I have noticed a surpising number of posters who consider our current government tyrannical.

 

[Lucky]

http://www.genocidewatch.org/8stages.htm

It's clearly not genocide per se, but the fundamental principle of getting organized to do wrong to another group is what is being examined, in principle. You could replace 'kill' with 'steal' or 'disarm' and it makes more sense.

(calmly whistles)

1. CLASSIFICATION: ...categories to distinguish people into “us and them”...
the video went on to discuss the "Patriot Movement" and the "Christian Identity Movement".

2. SYMBOLIZATION: We give names or other symbols to the classifications. ...distinguish them by colors or dress; and apply the symbols to members of groups...
there was plenty of footage of camouflage-wearing people shooting holes in targets, with ominous music in the background.

3. DEHUMANIZATION: One group denies the humanity of the other group. ... At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group.
a brief foray is made into the "Gun Culture", describing the lethal firepower available to "these people"

4. ORGANIZATION: ... always organized, usually by the state, ...Special army units or militias are often trained and armed... pichttp://www.prisonplanet.com/images/july2006/060706swat2.jpg

5. POLARIZATION: Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda...
Mentions were made of "hate groups... mostly centered in rural areas" stockpiling weapons and honing their hatred of government and minorities.

read it quick, it'll be gone before you know it.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Or Not?

Domestic terrorism DOES in fact exist.

Sure, Timothy McVeigh certainly qualified.

I'm particularly skeptical of the term "domestic terrorist" in most usage.

A terrorist is someone (usually part of an organized effort) trying to extort compliance of some kind -- usually for political objectives -- through indirect violence, i.e. violence against someone other than those who will perform the compliance.

I want money. I kidnap your wife. I threaten her to get money from you. Does that make me a terrorist? Nope. The political aspect is missing. Kidnapping for financial gain is a old as the hills, but only in the last few years have we entertained the idea that this might be "terrorism."

Timmy McVeigh blows up a government building. Anybody know why? Is that reason broadly known? Is the rest of his organization still doing that? I have a hard time categorizing what he did as "terrorism" in any useful sense.

Contrast with planes flown into tall buildings for effect. Making a statement. Making a political point with violence against people other than those for whom the point was made.

The current use of the term "domestic terrorism" is basically to add a "tool" that can be used to "fight crime" without all that messy paperwork. I am careful to distinguish between teens shooting up their school as part of a psychotic acting-out episode from (for contrast) dudes trying to create an atmosphere of fear, apprehension, and anxiety across a nation for political gain.

The latter is terrorism. The former is mass murder. And they aren't the same thing.

As I see it, anyway.