On the FBI’s excess of caution
Regarding the attack on the Family Research Council.
Sources told Fox New that after guard took away his gun, the suspect said, “Don’t shoot me, it was not about you, it was what this place stands for.”
Authorities were treating the attack as a case of domestic terrorism, although James McJunkin, the head of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, said authorities do not yet know the gunman’s motive.
I understand presumption of innocence and all that, but really. Authorities don’t know the motive? Not even an inkling?
Though, to be sure, most readers should be able to connect the dots for themselves.
His Majesty: “Perhaps the FBI simply can’t be bothered to give much thought to a case that’s likely to be plea bargained down to a relative slap on the wrist. After all, in the eyes of this administration, them folks needed killin’.”
Kudos to the guard who stopped it cold.
Filed under: Birkenhead Drill,Deseret Review | Tags: Domestic terrorism, Family Research Council, hate crimes
Adam G.
August 16, 2012
And kudos to the FRC for realizing that some animals are more equal than others and taking their protection into their own hands.
Fletcher
August 16, 2012
Too bad the DC gun laws prevented the person who most needed the gun from having it, while the person who did have the gun, shouldn’t have had it in the first place. #guncontrolworks
me
August 17, 2012
It’s only illogical until you ask yourself, what if the organized Left in this country considered street gangs and assorted violent hoodlums to be its “armed paramilitary wing,” so to speak?
After that, a great many of the social trends we see in the past generation or two, particularly trends in jurisprudence, crime and punishment, and related matters, make a disturbing amount of sense. Worse, the predictions that one can make based upon this model do not bear much thinking about.
Bookslinger
August 17, 2012
I think that the institutionalized right and the institutionalized left are actually working towards the same purpose.
Reagan gave us RICO and the full-auto firearm ban in the 1980′s (1986 I think), along with what was essentially a rudimentary form of gun registration with the Brady Law. (Ostensibly just a ‘background check’, but do electronic records really ever get intentionally destroyed?)
The RICO law (again during Reagan’s terms) sounded nice on the surface, but in essence, the civil forfeiture part of it was used to confiscate property from those never convicted of crimes, even when the charges were dropped.
Various styles of (and features of) military-looking semi-auto rilfes (erroneously labeled “assualt rifles”) were banned under Bush 1, even before anti-gun Clinton took office.
The “Patriot Act” under Bush 2 eroded civil liberties and personal privacy.
If the Democrats were so against the Patriot Act, why didn’t they repeal it, or at least the most odious parts of it, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency from Jan 2009 through Jan 2011? (Election of 2008 throguh election of 2010.)
I’m afraid that the political left and the right are merely the left and right rails of the same track leading to the same destination. One wheel is just 20 years ahead of the other.
If you know your history from the 1960′s, the right eventually gives the left exactly what they ask for, about 20 years later. The 20 year gap is merely a way to play out ‘incrementalism’, and a dog-and-pony show of conflict-of-opposites, a distraction for people who don’t notice long term trends.
Vader
August 20, 2012
One can certainly interpret the history of politicians on the Right eventually conceding to those on the Left as a lack of conviction or of any real difference in philosophy.
But this assumes that (a) there is a silent majority favoring the policies of the Right, which (b) the politicians are too stupid to exploit. Some politicians are pretty stupid (one who is a heartbeat away from the Presidency comes to mind).
But His Majesty suggested to me once that it can also be explained as the philosophies of the Right repeatedly losing the battle in the arena of public opinion, and the forces of the Right then retreating in order to live to fight another day. Which, in its way, is even more depressing. (I did say the suggestion came from His Majesty.)
Bookslinger
August 20, 2012
On tangential note, under the heading of “incrementalism”, look at the short two step process of having gays openly serve in the military.
Three situations or conditions, just 2 steps from 1 to 3:
1. No gays allowed.
2. (Step 1) “Don’t ask, don’t tell”. Ok, gays can serve, but just don’t talk about it, nor be open about it.
3. (Step 2) Okay, gays can openly serve.
Did anyone think that Step 2 wasn’t coming?
It was a subset of the overall gay agenda since the 1970′s.
And that’s how the progressives/liberals/communists have done things: incrementalism.
The overall gay agenda has been much slower, but if you’ve been paying attention since the 1970′s, the incrementalism should be obvious.
Related: “margin creep”.
A favorite link:
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html