Seattle police confiscate weapons from right wing Neo-Nazi.

As for the Nazis ... there are three senses in which it is not entirely wrong to say they were 'left wing':

(1) They deliberately appealed to the working classes of society (not just the industrial workers and the poor, but also the middle classes), and specifically to their material (economic) interests. Previous right wing forces tended to appeal to tradition, authority, religion and patriotism/nationalism -- in other words, to emphasize the unity of society across social classes. The Nazis didn't reject the first three on principle, but they weren't really an important part of their appeal. As for the tradtional class structure of Germany -- its landed aristocracy -- they were contemptuous of it, and their 'left wing' took this seriously. But they were very strong on the last aspect of traditional rightwing appeal: patriotism/nationalism. Thus they were the National Socialist German Workers Party.

(2) They planned to alleviate the problems of the working classes with strong state action. And they did. Not by seizing industry from its owners outright, but by heavily regulating it. Hitler was, effectively, a Keynesian, and he was very successful. Whether his economic success would have continued, had there been no war, is another question. Note that the Nazis also crushed the Socialist- Communist-led trade unions, and did not replace them with genuine unions, but with something called the German Labor Front. The Wiki article describing it is suspiciously uncritical, so perhaps someone will correct this ... but here is its first paragraph:
" German Labour Front Deutsche Arbeitsfront

DAF flag
Abbreviation DAF
Formation 10 May 1933
Extinction May 1945
Membership (1945) 22 million
Leader of the DAF Robert Ley
Parent organization Nazi Party
Subsidiaries National Socialist Factory Cell Organization; National Socialist Trade and Industry Organization;Beauty of Labour

The German Labour Front (German: Deutsche Arbeitsfront, pronounced [ˌdɔʏtʃə ˈʔaʁbaɪtsfʁɔnt]; DAF) was the National Socialist labour organisation which replaced the various independent trade unions in Germany after Adolf Hitlers rise to power.

History
Its leader was Dr Robert Ley, who stated that its aim was 'to create a true social and productive community'. Theoretically, DAF existed to act as a medium through which workers and owners could mutually represent their interests. Wages were set by the 12 DAF trustees. The employees were given relatively high set wages and security of employment, and dismissal was increasingly made difficult. Social security and leisure programmes were started, canteens, breaks, and regular working times were established, and German workers were generally satisfied by what the DAF gave them in repayment for their absolute loyalty.[citation needed] " [ SOURCE ]

So their working class orientation was not entirely bogus. They were National Socialist German Workers Party.

(3) The Nazis, like the Italian Fascisti before them, had studied the successful Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia, an example of a small, previously almost-unknown group, coming to supreme power. The Bolsheviks had not been a mass electoral party -- you couldn't be, in the Tsar's Russia. They had emphasized their 'professional' aspect, and were a 'cadre-party', which did not expect to win power in normal elections. There were certain precedents in Europe for this: the 'Blanquists' in France had been oriented toward secrecy and aimed to overthrown monarchy by a sudden coup. But the Bolsheviks, unlike the Blanquists, also tried to build a mass base, via work in mass organizations, and participation in elections. This does NOT make the Nazi's "left wing" but is an interesting fact about them.

Having said all this, I do not think it's helpful to abuse the 'to be' verb by saying the Nazis 'were' Left wing. No one thought so at the time. The key differences, and they were decisive, were these: (a) the Left (both Communist and Socialist) aimed, ultimately, at abolishing the capitalist class by taking the economy into the hands of the state (which they believed would be "workers' state"), and (b) both Socialists and Communists were, officially if not always in practice, internationalists, not nationalists. A key principle of Marxism is that "the workers have no country". And Marxism has always foundered on the fact that the workers think they do have a country, or has triumphed when it has championed their nationalism, as it did in the Third World.

It would be more correct to say that the intellectuals -- or, less strongly, the intelligentsia as a whole -- have no country. For a long time, in the past, this made them more 'internationalist'. Now they have gone the other way, towards 'identity politics'. This is a step backwards, not forwards.

 

The pre-emptive revocation of rights is not covered within the powers granted the government by the Constitution. I highly doubt that each state Constitution has these provisions either, nor that they would hold up in the Supreme Court. It is a sad day when due process is sacrificed at the alter of liberal fear...

 

I agree with this impulse. The bureaucrats running the old Soviet Union, in the years before its collapse, became embarrassed at jailing dissidents just for their political views. So they switched to having them labelled insane, and locked up for that reason.

And the Hard Left, who are growing in power and influence year by year, are quite capable of doing the same thing, if they thought they could get away with it.

However ... what should we do with someone who writes and speaks about the Dark Corporate Conspiracy running America, through its agents, Republican Conservatives, who are in the service of Satan, and who can only be stopped by killing them... and who then goes out and purchases an AR15 and a dozen magazines and 300 rounds of ammunition, and begins to turn up outside conservative rallies staring at the attendees while talking to himself and making notes of license plate numbers and marking the addresses of known conservatives on maps, and posting the photographs he takes of conservative attendees at such meetings on line?

He is smart enough never to say that he urges the Pure to go out and kill the Evil Conservatives right this minute. He just says, "They're no better than Nazis, they love Hitler, they love the Klan, they want to see lynchings" ..., [he may have read some of things a lot of Lefties post on this forum, in fact] " ...they want to kill us all .... .people like the Nazis can only be stopped with bullets... when will we wake up and eliminate this terrible poison from amongst us ... this human cancer that is rapidly destroying our society? .... God tells me there is not much time ....He is angry at us for tolerating these anti-Christs in our midst" ... in other words, his written words and recorded utterances remain just this side of incitement ...

How should we handle such a person, while not endangering free speech? I don't have an answer, but I am uneasy with an answer that says, effectively, just wait until he kills a bunch of us. And I absolutely understand the like feeling in any Hispanic or Black or Jew or Muslim when it's them, as opposed to the conservatives in my example, who are the target of the insane person's ravings. (And I understand that, probably, in most cases, the madman will NOT broadcast his intentions so obviously. I'm trying to take a pure case to start with.)

 

You handle such people with due process, which the Constitution demands. You do not violate their rights, you do not illegal search and seize, you find probable cause, you gather evidence, then you charge them in a court of law. Only when they have the opportunity to defend themselves and face their accusers can Americans truly feel that justice might be done. Set your fears aside, trust in the very Constitution that's gotten us this far...

 

Okay. How would this apply in the case I have presented? I have tried to give an example of someone who is pretty clearly insane, and on course to kill you and me, but where there is no 'probable cause' in the technical legal sense. (If the behavior i have described IS 'probable cause' to charge them .... with what? ... then there is no problem.) But assuming it's not ....