Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire – Movie Review

Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire
Dead Patriot Films
3.99 – $16.60 on Amazon

Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire is a very well put together movie, but misguided in its dangerous conclusions.

Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire is a very well put together movie, but misguided in its dangerous conclusions.

(Editor Note: The point of this article is playing itself out in the Elliot Rogers shooting. Please read our article on the shooting.)

There are enemies among us, don’t be fooled. The problem is that many of them mean well, but they just don’t get it. I have declined to review until now the pro-2nd Amendment movie “Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire” for just that reason. Narrated by the actor Ice T, there is a ton of good stuff in this movie, but it directs the viewer to incorrect conclusions, conclusions that are more dangerous to the future of America than any “assault weapons ban” could ever be.

After the Sandy Hook incident, a lot of the gun world jumped on the bandwagon of “just keep the guns away from the crazies” because they thought that it would protect the actual guns themselves from new knee-jerk laws that would require registration or confiscation. But what most of them didn’t realize is that the “mental health” war, when it comes to guns and 2nd Amendment freedom, is already being waged out there. This week the 7th District Federal Court of Appeals decided a 4th Amendment case that demonstrates the dangers of granting the government any blanket powers to confiscate weapons based on mental health. According to the police report, Krysta Sutterfield located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, jokingly said to her shrink, “I guess I’ll go home and blow my brains out.”

James Holmes, known as the Aurora Colorado movie theater killer, has never been publicly interviewed since the event.  He is considered to be mentally ill.

James Holmes, known as the Aurora Colorado movie theater killer, has never been publicly interviewed since the event. He is considered to be mentally ill.

Hours later, despite assurances to the police and to the shrink (who called the police on her) that it was not a serious thought (if she said it at all which she claims she didn’t), she ended up in handcuffs and jail, with her firearms confiscated (even a BB gun). The court upheld the ruling of the lower court that she had no grounds to sue the police department for illegal search and seizure. How could they possibly come to this conclusion? They claimed that the police acted only to protect Sutterfield from harm. Take the time and read more of the details on the Alex Jones website. It boggles the mind how the cops could have self justified their gestapo tactics, and how the court could call it anything than brown shirt Nazis breaking down the door to “protect someone from themselves.”
On May 2, 1967, the Black Panther Party shows up at the California state capitol building with guns. Not long after open carry of loaded firearms was banned in California.

On May 2, 1967, the Black Panther Party shows up at the California state capitol building with guns. Not long after open carry of loaded firearms was banned in California.

First, since this is a movie review according to the title of the article, what does this all have to do with the movie? I hope many of you will actually go and buy to support a clearly well intentioned filmmaker. This movie actually had a theatrical release and was played in theaters, so it is no Youtube hack. But at the same time, “Assaulted” is desperately confused in its conclusions, and with a very smooth and subtle message, it is more dangerous than in your face new gun legislation. It is easy to fight an enemy when they are right there in front of you attacking. But when an enemy appears to be a friend, and may even think he’s a friend, yet loads a new artillery shell in your enemy’s howitzer while smiling at you, that is no friend. The creators of “Assaulted” may think that their middle of the road approach is great, but though a lot of it is excellent, the twisted conclusion that we need a database of mental defectives is misguided. Mental health qualifications will most likely the next flanking maneuver from the anti-gunners.

The film was clearly made for the firearm ignorant masses. One thing I love is that it repeatedly shows pieces of old commercials and printed advertisements showing how mainstream firearms used to be portrayed. The “progressive” takeover of the media has cost us that in the last 20 or so years, and just as we were in the process of regaining some of it, Sandy Hook happened. In December of 2012 you couldn’t turn on cable without seeing some show that had guns in it, and they weren’t all bearded red necks. Even super politically correct Kim Kardashian had just filmed an episode for one of her reality shows that featured her and the family shooting machineguns out on a yacht down here in Miami Beach. That part of the episode was scrubbed after Kim got a huge backlash for posting a picture of a small pistol to her Twitter after Sandy Hook. Guns have again become a strict taboo for all forms of mainstream media. The movie does a great job of showing this.

Chicago has become the poster child for the pro-2nd Amendment editorial world because of its crazy high murder rate despite the toughest gun laws in the country.

Chicago has become the poster child for the pro-2nd Amendment editorial world because of its crazy high murder rate despite the toughest gun laws in the country.

The problems begin with Assaulted when they let Ted Nugent open his mouth. If there isn’t a more polarizing figure against 2nd Amendment rights when it comes to the mainstream, I don’t know of it. Everything Ted says is of course true, and though I’m not a big fan of diplomacy in language, Ted goes the other way and deliberately tries to offend the sensibilities of really most folks. His quote implies that he has a loaded gun on him at the time, on the trade show floor where he is being interviewed, and which most likely has a no firearms policy even for concealed carry permit holders. Our own industry SHOT Show, where this may have been filmed has a no loaded guns policy that everyone I know obeys. There is no reason to have such an inflammatory comment in a supposed outreach movie.

Next the movies delves into a ton of boring history, all of it of course true, but not something that your average adult video gamer is going to be willing to sit down for and listen. Great, gun control was created in the US to control freed slaves. We, the choir, know this, but when you introduce the movie with a statement that some constitutional scholars believe that the 2nd Amendment is outdated, then follow it with a news interview with a clearly erudite and intelligent black guy telling you that he wants the government to protect him from his gun owning neighbors, the movie just stumbles.

Ice T goes on to ask why a bunch of white kids at Sandy Hook became such a priority when all of those black people are dying in Chicago and nobody cares. Good question Ice T, but the answer isn't mental health qualifications.

Ice T goes on to ask why a bunch of white kids at Sandy Hook became such a priority when all of those black people are dying in Chicago and nobody cares. Good question Ice T, but the answer isn’t mental health qualifications.

Thankfully, it gets up, and the following stories are worth the purchase price alone. The first is about the Black Panthers, who, in the 1960s, marched on the State House in California demanding the end to police brutality. Oh, and they carried loaded guns. The footage is awesome, and it makes note that it was a Republican congressman who introduced California’s ban of loaded open carry, and a Republican Governor, none other than Ronald Reagan himself, who signed it. The crazy thing is that in the middle of this segment, they interview a skinheaded white guy who explains that the government uses gun control to control “politically inconvenient” groups. As if he has any problem getting guns because he looks funny. Nuts. What they heck are they thinking?

The dialog in the movie is fabulous, better than nearly every “truther” documentary I have seen. Ice T struggles to keep up with the dense explanations at times, but if you listen close you’ll hear your first taste of the twisted conclusion the movie makes later, right after Ice T’s first mention of Sandy Hook.

“2012 saw 516 homicides in the city of Chicago, nearly 100 more than all US led coalition fatalities in Afghanistan that same year. Most of these deaths were caused by gang on gang violence, perpetrated by young blacks, yet there is no congressional investigation or task force trying to solve gang violence in this country. But have 20 white children in suburbia mowed down by a possibly insane and medicated individual and the whole power of the government is unleashed.”

See, great dialog, and the film really gets better as it goes along. They attempt to appeal to minorities, (including the usually forgotten Asians) women, and anyone who fears a disaster at some point where the government can’t protect them. But just after 1:15 out of 1:19 for the whole movie in my screener copy, the movie takes a header into exactly the next tactic that the anti-gunners intend to use against us next, especially in the next generation. The conclusion is an absolute red herring out of the complete blue, and should make you run screaming from showing this video to your middle of the road friends.

Are stories like Columbine screaming out to us to fix *something* so they don't happen again? Yes, but we have to remember that we are in a war for freedom, and the ruthless anti-gunners will use every trick in their back to disarm the people. Vigilance isn't just joining the NRA. You have to maintain a mental acuity to see the next move of the opposition. Mental health is that next move.

Are stories like Columbine screaming out to us to fix *something* so they don’t happen again? Yes, but we have to remember that we are in a war for freedom, and the ruthless anti-gunners will use every trick in their back to disarm the people. Vigilance isn’t just joining the NRA. You have to maintain a mental acuity to see the next move of the opposition. Mental health is that next move.

“How do we identify and treat people who are mentally unstable, or those who are likely to commit crimes? How do we prevent weapons from getting into the hands of mentally unstable individuals, and we can do that through background checks, through working with psychiatric professionals, that are feeding information into a database, so that you have to get a background check. If your name comes up in that system, then obviously you don’t qualify to own a firearm. I think it is sensible ideas like that, that we should be talking about.”

Now, most of us are out in the world today, and let me ask you, without having to pull statistics that just make the conversation more boring, how many people do you know who are:

  1. Going to a counselor?
  2. Going to an actual MD psychiatric doctor?
  3. On some kind of psychiatric medication? (requires the former)
  4. Claim to be suffering from depression?
  5. Have ever said anything related to the above about them to a doctor of any kind?

Any and all of those things will put you in our friend’s database. That is the danger of this film, and why I originally declined to review it, (because even on bad reviews, you guys buy a lot of stuff). Do I think that the filmmaker intentionally created a film that is in effect a covert op for gun control? No, I don’t think so. In fact that is why he was able to get researcher Gary Kleck in the film, along with Ted Nugent and a lot of clearly hardcore gun guns. Did these people see the line at the very end where one of the concluding interviews says that some gun laws “I’m sure won’t cause that much harm?” in advance of the release? No, probably not. I strongly doubt that Ted would have appeared in the film had he seen the final product first.

Remember that according to the famous psychiatric manual, called the DSM-5, we all have some kind of psychiatric malady that should require treatment. How hard is to get one of the usually left leaning shrinks to call you crazy when guns are involved? Not very. Just ask Krysta Sutterfield. Her case has now created caselaw at the Federal Appeals Court level that dismisses the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution if the police suspect you might be of harm to yourself.

Should you go buy Assaulted? For 10 bucks you’ll find a lot of interesting stuff on there I didn’t reveal so it wouldn’t be a total spoiler. See if you feel the same way, and please comment below. As a note, I did contact the filmmaker before SHOT Show this January and invited him to the booth, after sharing my concerns. I even offered to pay Ice T to make an appearance and sign copies of the film for him. He declined. Discussion is the only way to work through these opinions. Here in the GunsAmerica Magazine, it is something of a bully pulpit, but articles like this are meant to start a conversation, not teach a lesson. Assaulted is a really well put together film, and that is exactly why it is so dangerous.

{ 19 comments… add one }
  • domain June 1, 2016, 1:14 am

    Do you have any video of that? I’d want to find out more details.

  • domain June 1, 2016, 12:59 am

    I’m curious to find out what blog system you have been working with?
    I’m experiencing some small security issues with my
    latest site and I would like to find something more risk-free.
    Do you have any suggestions?

  • JIMMYJET June 5, 2014, 5:29 pm

    A year ago or so someone, maybe the NRA, maybe someone from the gummint, “We’re here to help you” made a very convincing case that a huge number of vets of the middle east conflicts, who are suffering various types of brain trauma from IED’s, etc., but were in all cases definitely not “nut cases”) would, if certain mental health laws were enacted, be prohibited from purchasing or posessing firearms. I think the Administer might have had something like this in mind when he was making his argument.
    There are a multitude of “sins” we all could be guilty of that would result in our losing our 2A rights, if punitive, anti-gun laws, (masquerading as mental health laws)were written by a state or federal gummint controlled by Obamacrats and other such vermin.
    In some cases, using “gummint” instead of “government in the text of a comment might attact the attention of the mental health police. Yeah, it could happen.

  • listen to this May 27, 2014, 1:46 pm

    We need drug control not more gun control! The problem is the physiological drugs them selves. If you notice that in last couple of years all of these shooting are linked to the shooter using or once using these drugs. We all know what happens to an alcoholic, or a addicted black market drug user when they where using them and then suddenly stop. These shooters have became chemically dependent on these physiological drugs, maybe a specific group of new chemicals that have been on the market in the last few years. Also every autopsy in every suicide case always reveals there is a major shortage of B vitamins in the person’s body. Our body uses B vitamins to make serotonin and other chemicals for our neurotransmitters that keep our chemistry in check. Take countries who have garden food as a primary source of diet have very few suicides. However the majority of Americans now consume processed foods. You take a nutrient deficiency in combination with horrible parenting that was influence by ignorance, evil and greed equals a social meltdown of society. Here is a question I want answered. Why aren’t the families of the victims suing the drug companies for this disaster? Especially sue happy Cali. Maybe the NRA can to do it on the families behalf to make a point.

  • Bob H May 27, 2014, 11:52 am

    I haven’t seen the film and don’t know of any legislation currently pending that would create a data base of mentally ill people. Your argument that such a data base would be misused is exactly the argument made by those who would forbid private owners to own firearms, i.e., they *could* be misused and it is an equally poor argument when it is backed by the same type of “evidence” the antis use- pointing to a single instance of misuse and at least implying that such misuse would be both inevitable and widespread. From the standpoint of gun rights, there is nothing wrong with the idea of the proposed data base provided appropriate safeguards are provided.

    • DaveGinOly May 28, 2014, 3:43 pm

      The arguments are superficially similar, but are not analogous. The former argument posits the potential for government abuse of its authority, while the latter argument posits a reason to prevent the government from acting without cause (there is simply no cause to take firearms from the law-abiding, because by definition they present no threat to their communities). The arguments are actually the same within the context of the supreme law of the land; both arguments are for restraint of government, and against the imposition of government authority without the prerequisite constitutional authority and without due judicial process.

      “It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.”
      George Washington
      Alternatively, it would be equally unwise to grant the government authority on the supposition that it won’t abuse it.

  • Bob May 27, 2014, 8:15 am

    Create a database that the government takes care of? Have we not seen what has happened at the VA? I don’t trust the government for anything except well worded lies.
    A database of mentally unstable?
    1. What would be the delineation for unstable/stable?
    2. What about the HIPPA laws?
    I watched some of the film (DVR’d remainder for later viewing), and what I did see had me confused. In most instances I saw pro Second Amendment statements, then, I would see veiled anti Second Amendment statements. I DVR’d so I could go back and watch it in its entirety without interruption before I would recommend to anyone at this time. I have to agree with the Admin, the statement Ted Nugent made, can or will, inflame some anti rhetoric.

  • Jose May 27, 2014, 6:49 am

    Some of my friends and I discussed the “mentally ill” database idea. The problem is it would be so easy to be labeled mentally ill just for trying to buy a gun! Are you a police officer? No. Then why do you need a gun? To protect myself. Hmmm… so how long have you felt like somebody was after you?

  • josh May 22, 2014, 10:51 pm

    I think what administrator is trying to say is that these background checks could go as far as saying if you were depressed in the year 2000 and deemed mentally ill this would be on your background for life rendering you unable to buy a firearm for the rest of your life…. also the government could deem anyone depressed or mentally ill… people get depressed its a part of life… their way of banning guns I know it sounds a little outlandish but it could happen…. where do you draw the line that’s the question at hand here???? anyone????

  • JP May 21, 2014, 10:14 pm

    You are confusing the positions of others with the film makers own thoughts. It’s a documentary that shows many opinions. Are you afraid of those opinions? What you’re claiming isn’t true in regards to the film maker himself.

    Your opinion of the film is poorly analyzed for content. You bring up a person who saw a shrink for help and then kiddingly she should kill herself. I would never tell a shrink that EVER! Just like I wouldn’t tell TSA that I have a bomb while I’m in line to catch a flight. (even kiddingly)

    • Administrator May 21, 2014, 11:58 pm

      She denies saying that. But even if she did, after the fact she assured them all that she was of no danger to herself. It is on the 911 tape. Do you not value your God given rights that our Founding Fathers put into the US Constitution as a guarantee that the government wouldn’t take them? Give them up on a thought of what you think might happen? Are you afraid that what you believed about the film before reading the review could possibly not be true? The fix is in on how they are going to attack our gun rights next, and I wouldn’t tell your therapist about the “socom16” email if you want to keep yours.

    • JP May 21, 2014, 7:19 pm

      Not sure what your problem is with the truly, documented mentally ill is or having a data base on them is. Your article brings up the case of abuse of that power but at the same token, what gun owner would want a 30 year old person with the mind of a 5 year old having a gun?

      I saw this movie and it appears you are stretching the truth about what was being said. Very poor analytical work on your part. You seem to have a separate agenda when analyzing this film.

      • Administrator May 21, 2014, 9:46 pm

        Well the quotes are quotes. What agenda would that be? You realize that your email, “socom16,” would most likely have Krysta’s wingnut shrink put you on a list of people who are obsessed with guns and entered into that database?

      • DaveGinOly May 28, 2014, 3:24 pm

        The Constitution says the only way government can strip a citizen of rights is through “due process.” “Due process” means, according to our courts, “due judicial process,” and not merely an “administrative” or other “process.” A database used to strip a citizen of a constitutionally-guaranteed right will feed an administrative process and not a judicial process, and would therefore be unconstitutional, and for good reason. Recourse to the courts in order to reverse an administrative decision is not an appropriate or adequate remedy – the appropriate and adequate remedy would be to prohibit such a system in the first place, and I believe our Constitution already prohibits such a plan. Our government is supposed to assume that we’re law-abiding and competent unless determined to be otherwise by a court.

        Attach the idea of gun ownership restrictions based on a mental health database to an invocation of the same restrictions on voting and see how quickly people react negatively to it. Some may argue that voting never harmed anyone, but I beg to differ. A nut case with a gun might kill 20 people, but a million nut cases voting for the “wrong” candidate can cause harm felt on a nation-wide level, and can have serious implications on our health, welfare, personal liberties, and finances, and can affect national security, and could ultimately be far more damaging than any individual’s killing spree.

    • Greg Tarpley May 21, 2014, 6:13 pm

      You’re way off base. It’s like we watched two entirely different movies. I guess that’s the beauty of living in America. You have your opinion and I can have mine and we go our separate ways.

      • Administrator May 21, 2014, 6:23 pm

        So what did you think about the whole point of the film being that we need a database of mental defectives? It was reasonable to you?

        • jdberger May 22, 2014, 7:59 pm

          The point of the film was that we need a database of mental defectives? Really, now?

          I saw the theme pointing out the racist roots of gun control, the exploitation of tragedy to push gun control, and the inanity of current (and proposed) gun control legislation.

          Your critique and your summary are way off base.

          • Administrator May 22, 2014, 11:00 pm

            Conclusions are the end of films. If it was in the middle, fine. But at the end? Yes, it is one of many points that the film is making, but is it a trojan horse “answer” in the middle of it all? What other resolutions for gun violence are offered in the film? I see none.

    Leave a Comment

    Send this to a friend