Last week, St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner noted that U.S. Representative Nita Lowey (D-NY) had become the latest in a long, sordid line of authority worshipers to advocate empowering the Attorney General to unilaterally designate anyone he chooses as a “suspected terrorist,” and block his ability to legally buy firearms. This prohibition would not be contingent on any conviction, indictment, or even arrest or formal charges. This comes, remember, during the reign of an administration that tends to throw around accusations of “terrorism” quite casually, and is supported by some who are even more casual about it.
Last week’s article ended on an admittedly . . . assertive note:
We are often told that the terrorists “hate us for our freedoms.” One might argue, though, that if that is what defines a terrorist, perhaps it is people like Rep. Lowey who should be taken down by Seal Team Six.
A bit too assertive, evidently, for the tastes of the House Appropriations Committee Democrats. Yesterday, their communications director Matt Dennis wrote usedview.com, and citing that paragraph, asked for an explanation, a retraction and an apology:
Regardless of how the writer and usedview.com feels [sic] about the issue of gun purchases by individuals on federal terror watch lists, I would hope you would agree that suggesting violence against Members of Congress – or anyone for that matter – is beyond the pale. It is not clear to me how this made it through your process, but I would appreciate an explanation, along with a retraction and an apology for Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY).
The subject line of the email was even more accusatory: “retraction of death threat against Member of Congress.” Hmm . . . “death threat”? Mr. Dennis is presumably aware that usedview.com appears nowhere in any Seal team’s chain of command, so even an explicit demand that Seal Team Six kill a member of Congress would hardly seem a credible threat of violence.
Furthermore, the offending paragraph was far from such an explicit demand. It said that if terrorists are defined by their hatred of our freedoms, then perhaps people like Rep. Lowey should be taken down (not taken out–a non-violent arrest could be said to “take down” a miscreant).
More fundamentally, though, if Rep. Lowey chooses to advocate empowering the government to designate political “enemies” as “suspected terrorists,” to be disarmed and thus rendered defenseless, she had better expect some push-back. The entire purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the right to arms of even people the government dislikes–especially those people, because they are the ones most likely to need arms. If she attempts to defeat that purpose, she will be resisted–by whatever means necessary.
Mr. Dennis, Rep. Lowey, you have your explanation. That is all you will be getting from this column.
Update: House Appropriations Committee Communications Director Matt Dennis responds:
That’s your choice. It was a disgusting decision to include that paragraph in the column, and doubly pathetic for usedview.com to provide a forum for you to suggest a member of Congress should be killed. If you want your ideas to be taken seriously, you should express them in a more effective way. Please print this email in full.
He still does not appear to be mollified. There’s just no pleasing some people.
Update 2: National Conservative Examiner Anthony Martin has more, in “Congressional Dems accuse Examiner writer of making death threats.”
- You, too, can be a ‘terrorist’
- To some, gun rights advocacy is ‘terrorism’
- If ‘gun control’ advocates get their way, we’ll ALL be ‘suspected terrorists’
- Biden demonstrates tyrannical madness of ‘terror watch list’ gun ban
- St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner humbly accepts CSGV’s highest honor
- Rep. Lowey latest to call for suspension of due process for would-be gun buyers
- Congressional Dems accuse Examiner writer of making death threats