If you subscribe to a definition of "terrorist attack" that includes "someone with political beliefs I don't like possessing a handgun in violation of the law" then sure, dozens per year thwarted sounds about right.
I'm curious why you appear to imply this definition of terrorism is unsuitable.
It is not, nor is it even compatible with the protoypical example from which the term terrorist derives, since the original Terror and the Terrorists who executed it operated entirely within and through the power of the State. Non-state terrorism is a more recent extension of the definition. Nor does it even capture the mechanism of intended effect which defines terrorism (the whole part that motivates the reference to "terror".)
Britannica and, somewhat surprisingly, WordNet have probably the best general definitions I can quickly locate, "calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective" and "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear".
Now many of these people are facing federal crimes. You can get some serious years for swinging a sledge hammer at a US Marshal, as what happened at the Federal Courthouse in Portland. (Remember, three of those Feds are now blind in at least one eye from the green lasers?)
But the Anarchists/Antifa types that are burning down Portland are also being thrown together with the McCloskeys who were arrested for having guns out, while on their lawn, after people broke into their gated community. Or Jake Gardner, who the DA ruled as acting in self defense, with a full video clearly showing him acting in self defense after both he and his father were attached.
We're starting to see real terrorists conflated with what are clearly political prisoners from local officials.
Not so much, never point a gun at something unless you're willing to shoot -- a double barrel shotgun has a lot of power to make someone rethink their life choices when pointed at them without having to actually shoot.
In this formulation of the rule, pointing a gun with the intent to threaten isn't valid, since an intention to threaten is not an intention to shoot.
I've pointed weapons at people without the intention of shooting them while covering other solders and on occasions where they "just didn't look right" -- can't just randomly start shooting people but you also don't want to be caught off guard if they decide to start shooting at you. The last time this happened some car rolled up on our guard post and all of us were pointing our weapons at said vehicle while we sent someone out to figure out what they wanted (which turned out to be the main gate so they could find out what happened to one of their relatives who was arrested or something). Nobody intended on shooting them but if they didn't stop short or acted suspiciously we would've lit them up with the .50cal.
But I agree, she should have treated the gun like it was armed and ready. She flagged the back of her husband's head several times.
BUT, that isn't in and of itself criminal. In fact, nothing they did was criminal. They were in a gated neighborhood, people ripped the iron gate down, and I think it's clear they were reasonably defending their homes.
The law they're charged with says they were in violation of "brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner," but nowhere in the law do they define "threatening" .. it's ambiguous, it's a badly written law and it conflicts with federal laws and the 2nd amendment.
Viva Frei and Robert Barnes are two lawyers who have done some incredible breakdowns on this case:
Along with never pointing your gun at something you don't want to destroy, you always assume a gun is loaded. That's not just a gun you pickup, that's any gun anywhere. If someone else is holding it then it's loaded too.
> In fact, nothing they did was criminal. They were in a gated neighborhood, people ripped the iron gate down, and I think it's clear they were reasonably defending their homes.
Bullshit. Brandishing is a crime in pretty much every US state and Canadian province. There are affirmative defenses to Brandishing, like real physical threats to life or property, but that gate was community property and not theirs alone.
I could see them getting out of the charges and having enough reasonable doubt to do so. Right now it's being leveraged as a kulturekamf headline to make 2nd Amendment nuts get angry.
But make no mistake, if you point a real gun at people, with a finger on the trigger, you're implying you're going to kill someone. You'd better have a damned good reason for it, and be ready to stand to any consequences; "judged by a jury instead of by St. Peter", etc.
I never finished my video on Portland, but I do have one up on CHAZ, and I use to live and have friends in that area. I suggest you watch it:
https://battlepenguin.video/videos/watch/9f81cd38-3ee9-4f26-...
Anyway, best of luck. Thanks for being civil.
https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/475908-384635-portland-fe...