Ohio National Guard portrayed gun rights supporters as domestic terrorists during drill

[SecularMotion]

Questions are being raised about the Ohio National Guard after internal documents revealed that the agency conducted a training drill last year in which Second Amendment advocates were portrayed as domestic terrorists.

WSAZ News reported out of Portsmouth, Ohio early last year that a mock disaster had been staged in order to see first responders from Scioto County and the Ohio Army National Guard’s Fifty-Second Civil Support Unit would react to a make-believe scenario in which school officials plotted to use chemical, biological and radiological agents against members of the community.

"It's the reality of the world we live in," Portsmouth Police Chief Bill Raisin told the network last January. "Don't forget there is such a thing as domestic terrorism. This helps us all be prepared."

This week, though, the website MediaTrackers published documents pertaining to that drill, and with it they’ve raised concerns regarding how gun rights activists were depicted.

http://rt.com/usa/ohio-nationalguard-gun-drill-590/

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. And the third most often....

...used lie is: "We're from the government and we're here to help you."

[flamin lib]

4. Quoting Ronnie Raygun, are we? nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. Reading a lot...

...of Republican material?

I'm not that familiar with his quotes.

[flamin lib]

2. Well, some of them are. nt

[sked14]

6. 99.99% of gun owners aren't.

[flamin lib]

9. I think your estimates are off a bit but even so you admit some of them are. nt

[sked14]

11. There's always going to be unhinged people in any group,

but the majority of gun owners are not going to break the law and start firing on people.

[flamin lib]

13. Really? What about the AR owners in CT refusing to register their weapons with the state under the

New state law there? Estimates are one in five complying and being 'law abiding citizens'. Most gun owners are law abiding only when they like the law. I have a lot of them in my immediate family.

[sked14]

14. It's a feel good, useless law that will do nothing for firearms violence.

This, in my humble estimation, is more of a civil disobedience action than anything else, and I'll bet that these people have no intention of committing any murders, mass or otherwise.

[flamin lib]

15. It's the law. Ergo to not register makes one a criminal and not law abiding. nt

[sked14]

17. It's a stupid law that will solve nothing.

And this country has a history of ignoring stupid laws as does law enforcement have a history of refusing to enforce stupid laws.

[flamin lib]

23. Like I said, only if you like the law. nt

[sked14]

25. And that's the crux of it.

Americans have a long and storied history of rebellion against laws that we deem as nothing more than hyperbole and unenforceable, which CT's new gun control law seems to fit that description.

[flamin lib]

55. Then do so instead of hiding your opposition by being silent. Be loud, be proud and take the

Consequences of your protest. No minds are changed otherwise.

[sked14]

56. I agree.

Thanks for you support in my other thread.

[Lizzie Poppet]

22. So was segregation.

Sometimes the law should be told to fuck off.

Pointless security theater like "assault weapon" registration may well be one of those times.

[flamin lib]

24. So, repeal it. Meanwhile it's the law, so be law abiding. nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

26. Were such a thing enacted in my state, I'd certainly work to do so.

The only additional gun control legislation in play here in Oregon, however, is a background check expansion, which I support.

If a weapon-specific registration (or ban) were enacted here, would I comply while working to see it overturned? Oh, of course. Because it would be, you know...the law and stuff. I would never, ever engage in civil disobedience...

[Eleanors38]

31. I just repealed a stupid law last night...

Care to join me, law-abider?

[MicaelS]

34. And everyone who has ever used Cannabis is a criminal.

You want to lock them all up? Yeah, I thought so.

[flamin lib]

40. I don't toke because I live in Texas and being a reasonable person can weigh

The cost/benefit ratio. Gun owners can do the same. Just give up the 'law abiding' bullshit and admit that you only obey the laws you agree with.

Call it civil disobedience and you're wrong--it's only civil disobedience if it's out in the open and you're willing to suffer the consequences of your actions. Too many gun owners aren't willing to do that preferring to hide their illegal behavior.

Be out, be loud, be proud and show yourself. Garner support because the people will see you're right or be 'law abiding' and register your AR/AK.

[oneshooter]

42. There is no registration of firearms in Texas.

[flamin lib]

44. Reference CT and their law. All my guns are registered. nt

[MicaelS]

50. I live in Texas, too...

And you know goddamn good and well that people in Texas will never put up with any type of gun registration in this state. And I would NEVER move to, or reside in ANY state that requires this type of registration.

And every person is "law abiding" until they're not. So yes, I agree that moniker should be discarded. However, this law, like many others is just another bullshit "feel good" law that politicians pass so they can be seen to be "doing something" when in reality they are not doing jack shit.

[flamin lib]

51. So get involved and help make laws that might make sense. Do nothing and someone else will

Do it for you, probably badly. Tell the gun lobby to propose, not oppose.

[sked14]

52. +1000.

You are more than willing to work with gun owners to enact meaningful gun control laws that won't infringe on the lawful gun owners.
Keep up the good vibes.

[gejohnston]

27. so does smoking a joint

and even though I don't, I respect their decision to engage in civil disobedience.

[flamin lib]

41. See #40. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. Just like undocumented migrants, amirite?

[ileus]

38. You didn't drag the decimal point out enough.... 99.9999998314

[sked14]

47. You're right.

My mistake.

[NYC_SKP]

12. I'd say a greater number of gun banners are true domestic terrorists.

Fuckers who would disarm us and shit on any of the ten amendments are, IMHO, terrorists unfit to be a part of a free society.

[flamin lib]

16. Wrong forum. Try RKBA. nt

[sked14]

18. As with this thread.

[flamin lib]

19. Oops, my bad. Apologies. nt

[sked14]

20. No problem at all.

[flamin lib]

30. That said, this has been a fairly nice exchange as gun threads go.

Cross pollination of the two forums from time to time isn't a bad thing. Remaining civil is sometimes difficult, but some agreement is possible.

I've said for years that gungeoners are the best qualified to suggest make-sense gun violence legislation if only they would. Shit, that's why the NRA was formed; to promote marksmanship and gun safety. Too bad crass profiteering has surplanted that noble cause.

[sked14]

33. Couldn't agree with you more.

Here's what I think should happen in the realm of gun control.

1. Universal Background Checks, all firearms, handguns and rifles, should go through an FFL dealer background check.

2. Safe storage laws in the home when children are present and meaningful penalties for negligent deaths as a result of non compliance of such laws.

3. Mandatory training for the lawful use of firearms before first purchase.

4. Beef up the BATFE to go after corrupt dealers and citizens.

5. Strict regulations for CCW, IE: rigorous training on the lawful use firearms for self defense and the consequences of using said firearms.

6. National registration with the caveat that the database can never be used for confiscation.

7. Mag limits of 10 for handguns and 30 for long rifles. What's good for the govt. should be good for private citizens.

8. I'm always open to other reasonable suggestions.

[gejohnston]

36. I like the state level FOID

or an endorsement on DL after going through NICS check and training. Either that or a purchase permit good for 30 days like Michigan.
That would take care of one and three. Other than providing public sector jobs to run the registry, I don't see any value in registration. I would leave mag limits to what the gun was designed for.
The biggest source of black market guns is largely because of theft, which is why most countries have safe storage laws. In the US there are something like 500K guns reported stolen each year.

Since the biggest problem is drug and gang warfare. The solutions to that is much larger than any gun law. My proposals for that are: end the drug war, get rid of zoning ordnances and other obsticals that prevent good paying jobs to be withing walking or biking distance. A walkable neighborhood is a safe neighborhood. Instead of the school being dependent on local property taxes, equalize the funding.

[sked14]

37. Good suggestions.

I'm always open to reasonable suggestions and I like your comments on the FOID, like what IL. has.

On further review, I agree that mag limits should be restricted to what the firearm was initially designed for and extended mags should be classified under same laws as machine guns.

[gejohnston]

39. Wasn't the AR initially designed for 20?

or at least I remember being issued 20 round mags until the mid 1990s. After then, I found the 30 round mags problematic.

[sked14]

46. Yes.

In Vietnam, we carried 20 round mags with a typical load out of 10 mags per soldier on patrol in my platoon.

[flamin lib]

43. Throw in repeal of SYG laws and we have real love fest goin' on! nt

[sked14]

45. That's the other point I was trying to remember.

Thanks for reminding me, I fully agree with you. Castle Doctrine is and was, quite sufficient for citizens protecting themselves.

[gejohnston]

53. what about states that are SYG by common law?

such as California and Illinois?

[flamin lib]

48. Deserves a thread of it's own. Add SYG and cross post to both gun forums! nt

[sked14]

49. Consider it done!!!

[NYC_SKP]

21. Yes, thanks, I'll do that.

[Common Sense Party]

3. Seems like people are being willfully obtuse.

The concern in the scenario isn't that they are gun rights supporters. It's that they are anti-government neo-Nazis.

[Scuba]

5. There's a lot of cross-over there.

[Common Sense Party]

8. No, not really.

You have a huge set of people who are gun rights supporters, millions and millions.

Within that, you have a teeny subset of nuts who are neo-Nazi whackjobs, numbering a few thousand.

That's a pretty small cross-over.

[Scuba]

10. Not all gun rights activists are neo-Nazi whackjobs, but all the whackjobs are gun rights activists.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

57. In all fairness...

...the neo-Nazis are only anti-our-current-government. They'd like it replaced with a neo-Nazi friendly one.

Having said that, there are some gun-control folks that would look right at home wearing brown.

[Scuba]

7. Makes more sense than labelling TPP protesters as terrorists.

[oneshooter]

28. Apparently the OP agrees with this article. n/t

[bowens43]

29. As they should.

[sked14]

35. And you are the exact reason why there is such turmoil

in the firearms debate in this country, you and the NRA, opposite sides of the issue.

[petronius]

58. I'd be a little skeptical of the source here: it looks like RT.com is cribbing from

MediaTrackers, which as I understand it is a Tea Party propaganda bunch. So it may be a leap to conclude that the ONG exercise truly generalized out to '2A advocates are terrorists' as the article tries to imply.

That said, and speaking more generally, I think any government organization ought to be extremely cautious - and held accountable - when it comes to blurring the line between political views/activism and criminality, be it gun rights, environmentalism, Occupy, or anything else...