The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 is a bill sponsored by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA)[1][2][3] in the 110th United States Congress. Its stated purpose is to deal with “homegrown terrorism and violent radicalization”[4] by establishing a national commission, establishing a center for study, and cooperating with other nations.
The bill defines some terms including “violent radicalization,” “homegrown terrorism,” and “ideologically based violence,”[8] which have provoked controversy from some quarters. [9][10][11][12]
So are you a terrorist/or radicalized if you do not like the way things are going, if you feel that the voice of the average citizen has been marginalized, if you feel that there are what seem like coordinated efforts to disenfranchise the existing voters to the effect of keeping the existing power base in power? This is getting to be a very slippery slope.
The government has to remember that it is to respond to and for the service of the citizenry (as a whole and not for any one specific to the detriment of another specific group) and not the other way around. The real purpose of the 1st amendment is to allow the citizenry to know what their government is doing, free from government tampering. The real purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to take their government back should it decide to ‘run itself’ to the benefit of itself and the detriment of its citizens. It has to be remembered that the colonists were just fresh from/in the process of throwing off the bonds of Imperial England and were quite aware of why they were able to. They wanted the citizens of America to repeat the process if the situation was ever repeated.
I am not the tinfoil hat type: but remember that the government ‘finds the facts’ against you in a criminal case (prosecution), and runs the judicial system that judges you.. all with your dollars. No one but you pays to defend you against those charges (except in the case of public defenders.. with can also be a problematic because the relation with the prosecutors office can be nepotistic). There is no real cost for them to prosecute an unsubstantiated case against you(with your dollars).. but there is definitely a cost to you, to defend yourself against such a case.
1st and 2nd amendments are the bulwarks against such systematic abuse. Hopefully we never get to the state where we really need to use what the 2nd amendment allows us. I would really hate to see that day. Even worse would be to give up the guarantees of the 2nd amendment in the name of perceived safety.. only to need its guarantee later. (Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. – Benjamin Franklin)
