by The Coalition To Stop Gun Violence (sic) does not oppose all violence. They are on record in support of state-sponsored violence.
Thus, given their recent jihad against blogger Kurt Hofmann which includes trying to get the FBI involved by saying Kurt is engaging in treason, sedition, and incitement to violence, I think this is the scenario that they’d like to see.
These guys would arrive:
Armed with this:
They would toss in one of these:
With this as the result:
Why? Because they feel threatened by ideas. Ideas that are different than their own collectivist ideas. Ideas that come from the grassroots and not from some top-down organization like CSGV. Ideas that promote freedom and self-responsibility.
If they had their way, America would have a People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (otherwise known as the NKVD which became the KGB) to seek out those of us who differ ideologically from them. When people called them out in defense of Kurt, they responded with this:
Another one out of the park, John. Kinda along the same lines, I recently caught them acknowledging that when they demand a "government monopoly on violence," they're talking exclusively about political violence. In other words, they back a government "right" to violence against citizens for espousing the "wrong" politics.
That's implied but not explicit, right? Not that last century's experience convinces me of anything but that you're generally correct.
One note: before you get too upset about the recent government purchases of ammo, please note these are Indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts. The big numbers specify the maximum number of rounds that can be bought, frequently over a 5 year period (DHS if I remember correctly), not that they're committing to anywhere near that number (the contracts also include minimums, but they tend to be very small, say enough to cover a company's overhead of a single transaction).
I only looked at the Fish Police's procurement in detail and it was entirely reasonable. DHS's was mostly handgun ammo as I recall; if that memory is correct, it's not a sign of preparing for a civil war.
But…but… That is 'acceptable' violence, since THEY are the proponents!
Why do they feel threatened by ideas? Ideas are bulletproof.