The depressing thing is, they probably believe the part about "neo-nazi and white supremacist goups".

hmm, no, i think you were meant to be that token handful. funny some one guy on the internet would be able to instantly name the whole handful, isn't it, though? ;-)

Hmmmmm.....

http://www.ispu.us/pages/Sections/scholars/pageDetailPB.html

Glancing at the list of subjects and authors, it would appear that the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding is pro-Muslim. Perhaps that is this author's angle: it'll be much easier to impose Sharia on a disarmed population.

...The idea of terrorist cells operating clandestinely in the United States, quietly amassing handguns and assault rifles, and planning suicide shooting rampages in our malls, is right out of Tom Clancy’s most recent novel...

That's why I never go anywhere without my .45 and I practice regularly.

...These gun owners were also seen as guardians of the republic against the tyranny of the rulers. The framers of the Constitution saw the right to bear and use arms as a check against an unruly government. That state of affairs no longer exists....

Really now, I don't know about you Mr. Afeef, but I see the government becoming more “Unruly” everyday.

...Quite frankly, the idea of the citizenry rising up against the U.S. government with their handguns and assault rifles, and facing the military with these personal arms is absurd. The Branch Davidian tragedy at Waco, Texas, was one such futile attempt....

Have I mentioned “Unruly” lately.

...According to the DOJ/FBI’s Crime In The United States: 2003 report, 45,197 people in the United States were murdered with guns between 1999 and 2003....

And firearms were used how many times in self defense.

...The war on terror has already taken an enormous toll on the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and thus far, very few Americans have objected. In light of this precedence, it seems reasonable that scaling back or even repealing the right to bear arms would be an easy task...

Have I mentioned “Unruly” lately.

...According to the DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2002 41 percent of American households owned at least one gun. According to these same statistics, 50 percent of the owners were male, 43 percent were white and 48 percent were Republican. More than 50 percent of the gun owners were college educated and earned more than $50,000 per year. Regrettably, these folks are going to marshal their considerable resources to protect their special interest....

A civil right is not a special interest, and 90 million gun owners are an electoral sleeping giant that will be awakened from slumber if you and your cronies get your way.

...So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians....

And I for one will be ready.

...The Second Amendment is not worth such risks...

No sir, actually we need the Second Amendment more than ever now since we may encounter a potential enemy in our day to day lives.

We all must be prepared.

JPFO wrote a rebuttal to that page. And here are some reader responses.

...Quite frankly, the idea of the citizenry rising up against the U.S. government with their handguns and assault rifles, and facing the military with these personal arms is absurd.

I can see how you might think that, if you've been living in an isolation chamber at the bottom of a mineshaft for the last four years. Moron...

>>>Today, only a handful of citizens outside of neo-nazi and white supremacist goups view gun ownership as a means of keeping the government in check. Even those citizens who continue to maintain such antiquated views must face the reality that the United States’ armed forces are too large and too powerful for the citizenry to make much difference. Quite frankly, the idea of the citizenry rising up against the U.S. government with their handguns and assault rifles, and facing the military with these personal arms is absurd.

What makes the author believe that our armed forces, no matter how large and powerful, would take sides against their fathers, their sons, their brothers, and their neighbors, in a situation which required the government to be "checked" by the citizens?

The article by Afeef is actually about two years old.

What makes the author believe that our armed forces, no matter how large and powerful, would take sides against their fathers, their sons, their brothers, and their neighbors, in a situation which required the government to be "checked" by the citizens?

Local police departments have already shown a willingness view the civilian populations they're supposed to "serve and protect" as collateral damage:

http://www.theagitator.com/archives/cat_paramilitary_police_raids.php

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476

I don't worry about a military dictatorship. But we've already become a Police State.

1) Who funds them - the Joyce Foundation?

2) Look at the list of their Board of Directors...sounds like a terrorist's who's who

3) I'd like to see just how much "understanding" they'd have with a gun pointed at them while some mutant rapes their wives and daughters