So let’s look at this assumption about numbers of guns compared with numbers of cars.

I had a hard time finding official stats, but PBS cited DOJ/ATF in 1995 as saying there were 223 million privately owned firearms in the U.S:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/.....facts.html

In 2000, there were 221.3 million registered cars, trucks, and busses in the country (with an additional 4.3 million motorcycles) according to the DOT. Mind you, that number includes only 133.6 million cars, the vast majority of which are privately owned.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/onh2p3.htm

Note the firearms ownership number would be much higher if you included non-civilian ownership (just as we include professional drivers — trucks and busses — in the vehicle ownership category).

But let’s just look at what we’ve got:

* 223 million firearms
* 31,224 firearm fatalities

And…

* 226 million motor vehicles
* 37,435 traffic fatalities.

I think my argument is worthy of more serious consideration than you have given it.

In principle I understand your views. I wonder however, if you would wish to be subjected to the same scrutiny when you apply for a drivers license.

After all, vehicular homicide is a terrible social ill and by far more citizens are killed by motor vehicles than by firearms in America.

37,435 fatalities in traffic in 2007 (source: DOT)
31,224 firearm fatalities in 2007 (source: CDC)

Your arguments merit reply. If this is indeed the case, why do these groups not focus their ire upon those responsible for bringing about their ruin — the Bush Administration and its collusion with the banks to push untenable credit lines for the sole purpose of getting the properties back at fifty cents on the dollar. And that at taxpayers’ expense.

An anti-gang model could work. Something must be done to stop this rising menace to peaceful Americans and I think anybody who looks honestly at this question can recognize this is true.

However, I think certain caveats are in order to avoid the criminalization of simple ideology:

On an implementation level, the legislation would have to be carefully written to avoid the kinds of Due Process challenges under the 14th Ammendment that led to removal of anti-gang loitering ordinances in Chicago, for example. We can’t be vague.

Another problem is that these groups (unlike gangs) are not necessarily committing widespread street crime — but instead politically targeted intimidation, harassment, and domestic terror — I think it would be very hard to enforce any law aimed at breaking up assemblies of “patriot” members in public places on mere suspicion of criminal activity. One of the reasons why anti-gang legislation works is because it takes back the public streets from their power. The “patriot” groups have tended to spirit away to private lands, far from the public eye.

Now I think as well that because anti-gang legislation has been criticized for a disproportionate effect on African American and Latino communities, it would be necessary to consider how criminalization of these “patriot” groups could have an impact on those who profess a hard right mentality within protected peaceful assembly, who might be confused with the groups arming themselves for the sole purpose of defying the rule of law.

I do not criticize the SPLC for its continued efforts to expose the malice of these groups, but I have observed such criticisms leveled on the grounds that merely being a radical right winger is not necessarily the same as a domestic terrorist. So we would need a clear methodology for defining the real menace that is interlaced with plain vanilla right wing groups that lend them ideological but not operational support.

I also think any effort to halt the proliferation of these groups, specifically those arming themselves and preaching a violent anti-government ideology, will inevitably run up against 2nd Ammendment arguments, especially in an election year. I don’t think any criminal should be allowed to hide behind the 2nd Amd, but surely those arguments will come up. Any backlash from the “patriot” groups masquerading as gun rights will inflame half the country and make it all the more difficult to achieve consensus around the issue.

http://onepeoplesproject.com/i.....ntifa-news

The existence of this movement should be enough of an argument to convince any reasonable citizen of the validity of gun control.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-i.....the-secret