Erik Loomis wants gun group declared “terrorist organization”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
December 18, 2012

A professor at the University of Rhode Island has found himself embroiled in controversy after tweeting what many assumed to be a death threat against National Rifle Association President Wayne LaPierre.

Professor Erik Loomis got into hot water with second amendment activists when he tweeted, “I was heartbroken in the first 20 mass murders. Now I want Wayne LaPierre’s head on a stick,” in response to last week’s Connecticut school massacre.

Loomis followed up the tweet with a string of subsequent missives, including his most recent tweet in which he called on the Obama administration to “repeal the second amendment.”

Loomis’ desire to see NRA head LaPierre’s “head on a stick,” which in a historical context was used as a brutal way of using an executed dissident’s severed head to warn others against misbehaving, was taken by many as a direct threat but Loomis himself denied he was calling for LaPierre to be assassinated.

“Dear rightwingers, to be clear, I don’t want to see Wayne LaPierre dead. I want to see him in prison for the rest of his life,” tweeted Loomis, labeling the NRA a “terrorist organization” and complaining of there being a “rightwing campaign” against him.

The fact that the University of Rhode Island is a taxpayer funded state university only increased the vitriol directed against Loomis, leading him to complain that he was forced to “block 20 gun nuts from my twitter feed.”

“You are goddamn right we should politicize this tragedy,” Loomis remarked in another tweet. “Fuck the NRA.”

Given that Loomis is a professor of history, one finds it alarming that he fails to grasp the very reason the founding fathers included the second amendment as part of the US Constitution in the first place – to defend against the kind of tyranny imposed by the ruling British empire, which Americans once fought off with guns – and lots of them.

His obsession with portraying his political adversaries as violent extremists who cause school shootings is also ironic given Loomis’ history of violent rhetoric.

“In March of this year, he called for a “decades-long fight to the death [against conservatives]. That’s the nation’s only hope.” The questionable rhetoric appeared in an essay ironically titled, “Are Conservatives Any Crazier Today Than 50 Years Ago?” Clearly the professor, who has violent impulses is projecting his own character flaws onto conservatives,” writes Thomas Lifson.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

Barney Henderson
Telegraph.co.uk
December 18, 2012

Lanza killed 20 children aged six and seven and six adults at Sandy Hook elementary school having previously shot dead his mother Nancy last Friday. He then shot himself dead. Police are still searching for a motive.

It has emerged that Lanza spent his time in the basement of the family’s four-bedroom home in Newtown playing video games, such as Call of Duty and obsessing over guns and military equipment, according to an interview in The Sun with plumber Peter Wlasuk.

Call Of Duty is controversial because of its violent content. The Advertising Standards Authority in the UK banned daytime advertising of the game earlier this year.

Read full article

12.19.2012

Attacks individual right to keep and bear arms

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Dec 18, 2012


Barack Obama’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, a long time advocate of eviscerating the Second Amendment, has penned a piece that essentially labels anyone who defends long standing gun rights in the US as “crazy”.

In the editorial titled Gun Debate Must Avoid Crazy Second Amendment Claims, Sunstein argues that the individual right to bear arms, supported and reaffirmed consistently by courts across the nation, constitutes “wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution.”

“Sure, it could fairly be read to support an individual right to have guns.” writes Sunstein of the Second, “But in light of the preamble, with its reference to a well-regulated militia, it could also be read not to confer an individual right, but to protect federalism, by ensuring that the new national government wouldn’t interfere with citizen militias at the state level.”

He then goes on to claim that for decades it was never recognized that the Second Amendment protected the individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and that it was only with the Supreme Court decision in 2008 that individual rights were established.

“We should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established, but a lot of gun-control legislation, imaginable or proposed, would be perfectly consistent with the court’s rulings.” Sunstein writes.

“It is past time to stop using the Second Amendment itself as a loaded weapon, threatening elected representatives who ought to be doing their jobs.” Sunstein concludes.

This constitutes an old argument that is used by big government gun grabbers and those politically motivated to erode individual rights. The Supreme Court decision in 2008 UPHELD the individual right to keep and bear arms, as many other court decisions and Justice Department memoranda has before. It did not ESTABLISH that right, as Sunstein argues.

In 2004, the Justice Department noted, “A ‘right of the people’ is ordinarily and most naturally a right of individuals, not of a State and not merely of those serving the State as militiamen. The phrase ‘keep arms’ at the time of the Founding usually indicated the private ownership and retention of arms by individuals as individuals, not the stockpiling of arms by a government or its soldiers, and the phrase certainly had that meaning when used in connection with a ‘right of the people,’”

“Moreover, the Second Amendment appears in the Bill of Rights amid amendments securing numerous individual rights, a placement that makes it likely that the right of the people to keep and bear arms likewise belongs to individuals,” the DOJ’s report continued.

Sunstein’s argument against individual gun rights hinges on the notion that the Founders used the word “people” to mean “states”, a clearly ridiculous suggestion especially given that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were penned by the most meticulous wordsmiths in history.

Thomas Jefferson himself wrote in several drafts of the Virginia constitution, provisions that “no freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.”

In addition, state-level precursors to the Second Amendment made it clear that keeping arms was each person’s individual right “for the defence of themselves and the state.”

In his argument, Sunstein even wrongly cites the 1939 case of U.S. v. Miller, to argue that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. In reality, however, the court in that case duly noted that the “militia” mentioned in the Second Amendment comprised all able-bodied males – ie individuals.

Sunstein, and those who have propelled the same argument about the Second Amendment are twisting its meaning. The founders explicitly crafted the Second Amendment as a bulwark against government tyranny. Armed militia — citizens of a country — were to defend against the possible rise of a tyrannical state, not only merely to organize for hunting expeditions or to defend against small scale criminal activity.

We have seen this kind of Rhetoric before from Sunstein. During a lecture at the University of Chicago Law School on October 27, 2007, he argued that “The Supreme Court has never suggested that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to have guns.”

Sunstein either misunderstands the original purpose of the Second Amendment or stands opposed to an armed citizenry guarding against tyranny.

Given that Sunstein has also argued that the First Amendment should be “reformulated”, and has called for taxing or banning outright, as in making illegal, opinions and ideas that the government doesn’t approve of, it is clearly only his views on the Constitution and Bill of Rights that are “crazy”, and not those of the Founders.
Cass Suunsteen