Over a year ago, YouTube terminated ThinkProgress’ original account due to copyright infringement complaints. We were surprised to recently learn that the videos were removed due to complaints from NumbersUSA — a designated anti-immigrant group which has occasionally been a topic of my posts. The YouTube website reads:

YouTube account thinkprogress has been terminated because we received multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement from claimants including: NumbersUSA

Chances are, NumbersUSA took issue with two posts I have written in the past that included excerpts from troubling videos it was promoting on its website. One of those videos was aimed at making the case against Mexican migration and the “exportation of poverty.” The other included speakers who, in the past, have expressed concerns about an “illegal alien invasion” and the spread of bilingualism.

NumbersUSA adamantly denies the claim that it is anti-immigrant and its website clearly states “nothing about this website should be construed as advocating hostile actions or feelings toward immigrant Americans.” The group doesn’t seem to take any allegations to the contrary lightly. We learned that when a member of its staff sent us a sharply worded email threatening to sue ThinkProgress for libel after I wrote a post which linked back to a Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) report that identified NumbersUSA as an anti-immigrant group and quoted a respected researcher who challenged several of the group’s questionable research findings.

However, despite shutting down our YouTube account and using threats and intimidation against ThinkProgress, NumbersUSA has not been able to stifle its critics entirely. The perception of the group as an anti-immigrant organization has penetrated the mainstream. Roll Call recently reported on the “nativist lobby,” and specifically identified NumbersUSA as one of the groups founded by a Michigan ophthalmologist — John Tanton –with a white-supremacist ideology. “Tanton’s groups are making use of economic hard times to argue that immigrants — legal and illegal — are stealing jobs from Americans and straining government budgets,” wrote Roll Call.

Meanwhile, SPLC claims that NumbersUSA’s director, Roy Beck, was employed by Tanton for 10 years, edited his “immigrant bashing” magazine, and vacationed with him and his wife.

We take copyright complaints very seriously and respect NumbersUSA’s right to protect its digital property. But, we suspect NumbersUSA’s complaints to YouTube had more to do with waging an ideological campaign than a genuine concern about copyright infringement.

Jared Loughner, the alleged shooter in Tucson earlier this month, was subdued by attendees at Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ (D-AZ) constituent event only after he stopped to reload his 31-bullet clip. Many have argued that perhaps other innocents would have been spared that day if it had been illegal to purchase such high bullet capacity magazines. In response to this idea, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) plan to introduce legislation to limit these high-capacity clips that allow shooters to fire large numbers of rounds without reloading.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) called the legislation “inappropriate,” and “political opportunism.” And the National Rifle Association, the powerful gun lobby, argued that high-capacity magazines are “standard equipment for self-defense handguns and other firearms owned by tens of millions of Americans.”

ThinkProgress attended the SHOT Show convention in Las Vegas this week — “the largest and most comprehensive trade show for all professionals involved with the shooting sports and hunting industries” — and asked many attendees if they thought these types of clips are necessary for self-defense. Most we talked to concurred, “Not really”:

TP: Do you think that for self defense purposes it matters whether you have 10 or 15 rounds in your magazine?

ATTENDEE 1: Probably not. No probably not. Honestly. [...]

ATTENDEE 2: It takes one shot to kill. … Anything more than one shot is excessive. I mean if someone is breaking in to your house at a panic you’re might going to shoot him once. You’re not going to empty your load on him while they’re lying on your kitchen floor. [...]

TP: If someone were to use a gun for self protection purposes, would they need 10, 30 rounds?

ATTENDEE 3: No, I hope not. I don’t know why. If ten rounds of ammunition can’t do the job you probably shouldn’t own a gun. I don’t want to live next to that guy.

Watch the interview clips:

Even avid gun hunter Vice President Dick Cheney suggested this week that limiting the amount of cartridges per magazine might be a good idea. “Maybe it’s appropriate,” he said.