AG Garland Will Target Domestic Terrorism

SFC13557

NES Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2019
Messages
4,229
Likes
5,436
Location
Central Ma.
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
guess who the domestic terrorists are? YOU and ME! Nothing about the riots over the summer where Antifa and the Anarchists taking over major cities, it's the gun owning white terrorists. The Dems will never let a good riot go to waste as long as they can use it to their advantage. Make no mistake about it, they are coming after us and the morons who entered the Capital gave them the ammo to take us out. The sheeple are brainwashed and watch every Dem interview from Juan Williams to Maryanne Marsh on FOX start reciting the talking points. If you are a gun owning white conservative you are a domestic terrorist now.
 
To be fair, the rioters this Summer aren't domestic terrorists. Because if they feel jilted, they get listened to, they get some cash and they go home.

You or I - if we had a big issue with .gov, a hug and a Benjamin isn't going to get us to go home.
 
Just do your bad stuff at night and it's not terrorism. That's the new rule.

“An attack on a courthouse while in operation, trying to prevent judges from trying cases, that plainly is domestic extremism, domestic terrorism,” Garland said. “An attack simply on a government property at night or under other circumstances is a clear crime, and a serious one, and should be punished.”

 
But...but....there's a kick space heater under my bathroom sink?
Quitcherbellyachin.
25-img_0177.jpg
 
"Domestic Extremists” are "Mass Shootings" without guns or bullets. Just another way to keep the narrative going as Biden pushes gun control ERs and laws.

Armed Mobs of White Supremacists - the tens of thousands that rioted at the Capitol - with 5 deaths and threats to assassinate our elected officials.

With 74 million+ Domestic Extremists (that’s 22% - far more than III%) it’s going to take a lot of newly hired LEOs and extensive surveillance to uncover and prevent insurrection. New gun control ERs and laws are just part of the plan.

B5540D86-079D-4E5A-8166-37D9EF1FCCF3.jpeg
 
How about targeting BLM and Antifa?

They are a much bigger problem.
they don't fit the narrative, remember WE(white, conservative gun owners) are the only threat to repressives taking total control of the country. They have the lamestream media, big business and all 3 branches of govt. They believe now is their time and WE stand in their way. Don't you love these white Pols denouncing themselves?
 
Gentlemen, this is not a joke, so be careful with your jokes.

Remember when Islamic Terrorism was the flavor of the month, just a few short years ago? Remember all the dumbasses who were spun up into "terr'ists" by Feds handing them a bomb and the match to light the fuse?

Well, that investigative genius is focused on you now. Don't be the patsy who "incites violence" against law enforcement.
 
So your plan is to trust the system that now sees you as a potential terrorist? Even if that works the process will be the punishment.
Civil rights activists have been gnawing away at
the set of crimes against the government for over a century.
The government deserves to reap the consequences of that,
good and hard.

How's "the process" working out for this guy?
(The author of SCOAMF's first autobiography).

Furthermore, if Donks and their fellow-travelers
are imprudent enough to walk back all that jurisprudence
in hopes of short term advantage, they may live to regret that.
Just ask Harry "Filibuster" Reid.
 
ICYMI, the FBI reports to the head of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the head of the DOJ is US AG Merrick Garland.

People should look into heads up this critical department. "..In 2000, Garland voted to allow the FBI to retain background check records well beyond the immediate destruction required by the Brady Law...." USAtoday

"...Garland said he wasn’t sure if the Constitution allows people to carry loaded guns in public..." from the NYPost article. Merrick Garland really is anti-gun: Column Biden AG pick Merrick Garland says there’s room for new gun control

Why in the heck do we want to give the FBI additional responsibility in vetting gun purchases?
 
I searched the forums and read plenty of "change of address" threads with many different opinions on the matter.
Clearly I will notify my current licensing authority (Chief of Police) as well as FRB, as required by MA law. Meaning - I will notify them that as of a specific date, I will no longer be living in my current address and as a matter of fact will no longer be living in Massachusetts at all as I am moving out of state.

This is what the law says:



The state that I am moving "into" does not require a licesne to own firearms. You need a license to carry, but not to own. Basically, the requirement under MA M.G.L is referred to your license, not any firearms you own, so even if I do notify my new CoP "hey, I have a MA LTC and I moving to your town", I am sure his/her response will be along the line of "Who the hell cares and why are you wasting my time?".
Technically, the CoP of the jurisdiction that I will be moving to does not give a rat's ass about me and/or what I own or don't own.
In addition, the CoP of the jurisdiction that I will be moving to is not even a licensing authority that issues license to carry, it is a totall different authority within that state.

So why the hell am I obligated to notify anyone in the state of MASSACHUSETTS where I am moving to and/or my new address? It is none of their damn business. I will notify them that "I'm OUT" of course. But please educate me on why am I required to provide my new address. Notice how vauge the law is, it does not talk about moving out of state, only "moving" in general.

We never put up political signs.

Honestly, if someone put up a F anyone sign, I wouldn’t be happy. There are a dozen young kids on our block and many more who walk by on the way to the park.

For every BLM sign in Dorchester I see five in suburban towns. Kind of a joke: “Black Lives Matter: as long as they don’t live near me, or attend our schools.”

Why in the heck do we want to give the FBI additional responsibility in vetting gun purchases?
Maybe for the same reason some people in New Hampshire want to continue to give the State the extra ability to interfere with a timely background check?
 
Back
Top Bottom