-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Bill to deny 2A rights if you are SUSPECTED of being a terrorist.
- Thread starter PaulD
- Start date
Well, just don't vote for Ron Paul or Bob Barr. Or go to any Tea Parties. Or support the 2A. Or be a lone individual. Or think you are a sovereign citizen. Or be a returning veteran. Or be pro-life. Or be against illegal immigration. Or worry about One-World Government. Or complain about outsourcing of jobs to India. Or worry about China buying up all our real estate. Or stockpile ammo. Or oppose free trade agreements. Or worry about economic collapse.
Ok? Is that so effing hard? If you're not a terrorist, you have nothing at all to worry about. Nothing.
Taipan01
NES Member
You see, it's like this:
"That a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle."
While every one is reading or re-reading Atlas, they snuck in Catch 22. Pretty crafty.
JGreen
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2005
- Messages
- 1,889
- Likes
- 702
You are correct Sir!
jcetto0351
NES Member
Why am I not suprised to see Charlie Rangel's name on this bill??? There should be a bill that states that you can pass no legislation if you are suspected of being a corrupt politician!!!
Keep your powder dry, boys.
pdm
NES Member
They'll come for that soon enough.
Sort casts DHS' list of "potential Domestic terrorists" in a little darker light, huh?
Holder and friends monitor a few web sites and collect as few off the cuff remarks and a "Special Commission" adds your name to the NICs list of inelligible peoples.
In one easy step the 2nd is maintained and the Sheeple are protected.
Holder and friends monitor a few web sites and collect as few off the cuff remarks and a "Special Commission" adds your name to the NICs list of inelligible peoples.
In one easy step the 2nd is maintained and the Sheeple are protected.
Last edited:
umd0808
NES Member
![[hmmm]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/009.gif "Hmm [hmmm]")
This is exactly why the Founders codified the Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights; to prevent and resist a tyrannical government from coming to power and usurping our property and freedom.
That being said, I don't think this bill will go anyway, although I've been wrong before. At first blush, I think Democrats to the right of McCarthy and Rangel don't want to jeopardize their majorities in the mid-term elections next year.
That being said, I don't think this bill will go anyway, although I've been wrong before. At first blush, I think Democrats to the right of McCarthy and Rangel don't want to jeopardize their majorities in the mid-term elections next year.
Go find all those people who when Bush was President argued: " what's the big deal with the Patriot Act - it will only be used against terrorists"
and give them a good swift kick in the nuts for me.
and give them a good swift kick in the nuts for me.
One problem with this concept is that we have garbage on the books right now like Lautenberg, etc, that really shouldn't pass constitutional muster, either, so I don't see how this would be any different. We're -already- in a situation where the government essentially deprives people of rights without due process of law. (And no, a nearly automatic rubber stamping of a 209A or the like is not due process.... not even close. ) There's also the issue of crap like the "under 21" handgun prohibition- you can sign up for the army, shoot grenade/rocket launchers, defend (and die) for your country, but you can't buy a frigging handgun. If that isn't a rights violation, then I really don't know what is. There are a bunch of other blatant violations in federal gun laws, but I'm sure you see where I'm going.
I doubt this will pass, regardless, but if the moonbat count was high enough in congress, we know damn well they'd fast track this and Obama would
gleefully do his "dr claw" signature impression on it post haste.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
-Mike
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,556
- Likes
- 33,623
This is, to an extent, already in place.
When I attended the BATF NICS training a few years ago, they included "being on the secret service watch list" as a reason a transfer would be denied. They did not explain the statutory justification for such a non-conviction being used as the basis for a denial.
When I attended the BATF NICS training a few years ago, they included "being on the secret service watch list" as a reason a transfer would be denied. They did not explain the statutory justification for such a non-conviction being used as the basis for a denial.
Due process? We don't need no stinkin' due process!
Two things struck me just reading the title of the bill-
"Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009"
1) is there such a thing as a non-dangerous terrorist?
2) shouldn't we ALREADY not be selling firearms and explosives to dangerous terrorists????
"Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009"
1) is there such a thing as a non-dangerous terrorist?
2) shouldn't we ALREADY not be selling firearms and explosives to dangerous terrorists????
Amazing. In my opinion, one of two things are going on:
Best case scenario: They are using the Saul Alinsky (whom we know they are VERY fond of) tactic of asking for the most batsh!t crazy demands, knowing they can always take them off the table to "compromise". 2A and individual freedom dies from a thousand papercuts that way, and it is slow, quiet, and they can say "Well, the NRA backed some of our LESSER requests, so you took part in your own gun control!". (Chapter 3 of "Rules for Radicals") We see this happen often.. hence why I admire GOA's "no compromise with freedom" approach.
Worst case scenario: They know they can pull a full court press. They saw what conservatives let Bush get away with (and cheered him on while demanding it..), so they now have an idea what they can pull off with a good tragedy ("Never let a good crisis go to waste!" --Rahm Emanual) or by offering and protection from bad economics and individual responsibility (or lack thereof for bad decisions).
The foundation has been put in place by previous administrations, so they chess pieces are in place. They would be foolish not to try to crush any opposition completely while it is weak, then they would be able to push any agenda they would like, such as more government control of the population. It is MUCH easier to make people go along with said agenda if they can't oppose you by any of the "4 boxes". Many of the laws being proposed have the hallmarks of an INTENSE power grab:
* Isolation of opposition: check
* Punishment of political enemies: check
* Ridicule of those that don't play along: check
* Removing individual freedoms for a "greater good" or "collective good": check.
* Passing of laws to criminalize any resistance by a minority: on the books now.
Seeing this whole administration play out is like reading "33 Strategies of War" or "Rules for Radicals" all over again.
*Disclaimer*: I am not saying that all Democrats are wanting to push an "evil socialist agenda" or that there is a even"vast left-wing conspiracy"... I am making the political observation that in every political system in history where multiple parties are in power and have an agenda to push a power struggle results and politicians will often use that power to make sure they cannot be effectively opposed. We are seeing that now...
Best case scenario: They are using the Saul Alinsky (whom we know they are VERY fond of) tactic of asking for the most batsh!t crazy demands, knowing they can always take them off the table to "compromise". 2A and individual freedom dies from a thousand papercuts that way, and it is slow, quiet, and they can say "Well, the NRA backed some of our LESSER requests, so you took part in your own gun control!". (Chapter 3 of "Rules for Radicals") We see this happen often.. hence why I admire GOA's "no compromise with freedom" approach.
Worst case scenario: They know they can pull a full court press. They saw what conservatives let Bush get away with (and cheered him on while demanding it..), so they now have an idea what they can pull off with a good tragedy ("Never let a good crisis go to waste!" --Rahm Emanual) or by offering and protection from bad economics and individual responsibility (or lack thereof for bad decisions).
The foundation has been put in place by previous administrations, so they chess pieces are in place. They would be foolish not to try to crush any opposition completely while it is weak, then they would be able to push any agenda they would like, such as more government control of the population. It is MUCH easier to make people go along with said agenda if they can't oppose you by any of the "4 boxes". Many of the laws being proposed have the hallmarks of an INTENSE power grab:
* Isolation of opposition: check
* Punishment of political enemies: check
* Ridicule of those that don't play along: check
* Removing individual freedoms for a "greater good" or "collective good": check.
* Passing of laws to criminalize any resistance by a minority: on the books now.
Seeing this whole administration play out is like reading "33 Strategies of War" or "Rules for Radicals" all over again.
*Disclaimer*: I am not saying that all Democrats are wanting to push an "evil socialist agenda" or that there is a even"vast left-wing conspiracy"... I am making the political observation that in every political system in history where multiple parties are in power and have an agenda to push a power struggle results and politicians will often use that power to make sure they cannot be effectively opposed. We are seeing that now...
Similar threads
