Are you a suspected terrorists??
quote:At the request of the Bush Justice Department, Sen. Frank Lautenberg
(D-NJ) introduced the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007" (S. 1237)
in a push to give the attorney general authority to deny
the Second Amendment rights of "known or suspected terrorists." At
first glance, this sounds reasonable, but as the Second Amendment Foundation notes, rights should not be taken away "because of some vague suspicion that an American citizen may be up to no good." SAF founder Alan Gottlieb adds that the bill "raises serious concerns about how someone becomes a 'suspected terrorist.' Nobody has explained how one's name comes to be on such a list, and worse, nobody knows how to get one's name off such a list." Indeed---imagine Janet Reno :twisted: with such a law in her holster.
Dean
(D-NJ) introduced the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007" (S. 1237)
in a push to give the attorney general authority to deny
the Second Amendment rights of "known or suspected terrorists." At
first glance, this sounds reasonable, but as the Second Amendment Foundation notes, rights should not be taken away "because of some vague suspicion that an American citizen may be up to no good." SAF founder Alan Gottlieb adds that the bill "raises serious concerns about how someone becomes a 'suspected terrorist.' Nobody has explained how one's name comes to be on such a list, and worse, nobody knows how to get one's name off such a list." Indeed---imagine Janet Reno :twisted: with such a law in her holster.
Dean
0
-
I remember reading somewhere the NRA was listed as a terrorist organization. I guess that would make all the members terrorist?[:0][:(] 0 -
I read that the NRA went on record asking that the Bush Administration NOT support this bill.
Here's the article I read.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/04/nra.terror.ap/index.html0 -
Considering that a teenager in Texas was arrested in the past week for making a "terroristic threat" when he made a video game map/level based on his high school to play with his friends (don't worry, the police went to his house and confiscated his hammer, so we're all safe now), it seems likely that basically anyone who owns more than 4oz. of steel in any form whatsoever is a "terrorist" for the purposes of denying Second Amendment rights.
I wonder if "deny" means something greater than or less than "infringe."0 -
Take away the first amendment also while you're at it. 0 -
I used to be ... then I got married w/kids ... that took the fight out of me!
Now I'm a terrified commuter![:o)]0 -
Regardless if you are a member of the NRA or not, most of us are known to have a "Cache" of weapons (two or more firearms as defined by modern media definition) and what other reason could there be to be sitting on such "arsenals" unless we are terrorists.[:(!][}:)] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by badwrench
I said when Bush decided (he is the decider, after all) to go into Iraq for whatever the reason is this week (WMDs, liberation of the opressed, international terrorism, "islamofascism", jock itch, poor top-end oiling, etc.) that soon the Bush administration will advocate the passage of legislation restricting the right to own/buy firearms to certain individuals, and that reason to deny these rights will be only one word: terrorism.
Soon, we will all be "certain individuals".
One need not be psychic to see this coming.
The next step will be that "terrorists" are acquiring legally purchased firearms and for the sake of national security, all citizens must turn their guns in.
Because the magic buzzwords will be used (terrorism, ensure freedom for future generations, stay the course, mission accomplished and a few Bush-isms) many, many "conservatives" will empty their safes or gun cabinets with a smile and hand their guns over.
You read it here first, folks.
What are you going to do when it happens (not "if"). Are you going to pick up that gun to hand it over, or to use it to REALLY ensure the freedom of future generations?
You say the "liberals" want to take your guns, okay. That very well may be, but I say the "conservatives" won't have to take them because they will convince you to give them up.
X-ring sir.0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by badwrench
I said when Bush decided (he is the decider, after all) to go into Iraq for whatever the reason is this week (WMDs, liberation of the opressed, international terrorism, "islamofascism", jock itch, poor top-end oiling, etc.) that soon the Bush administration will advocate the passage of legislation restricting the right to own/buy firearms to certain individuals, and that reason to deny these rights will be only one word: terrorism.
Soon, we will all be "certain individuals".
One need not be psychic to see this coming.
The next step will be that "terrorists" are acquiring legally purchased firearms and for the sake of national security, all citizens must turn their guns in.
Because the magic buzzwords will be used (terrorism, ensure freedom for future generations, stay the course, mission accomplished and a few Bush-isms) many, many "conservatives" will empty their safes or gun cabinets with a smile and hand their guns over.
You read it here first, folks.
What are you going to do when it happens (not "if"). Are you going to pick up that gun to hand it over, or to use it to REALLY ensure the freedom of future generations?
You say the "liberals" want to take your guns, okay. That very well may be, but I say the "conservatives" won't have to take them because they will convince you to give them up.
X-ring sir.
badwrench
I agree as well.
+1
Dean0 -
So why is it OK to take away other Constitutional Rights from suspected terrorists but not their Second Amendment rights? The Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping allows the government to take away Fourth Amendment rights from anyone they deem to be a "terrorist suspect." The Military Commissions Act allows the government to take away the Habeas Corpus along with their Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendment rights by allowing "suspected" terrorists to be arrested and held without charge indefintely and without access to a lawyer.
If I remember correctly, many of the people here support the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, and the Military Commissions Act, so why don't you support this? Why is it OK to strip people of EVERY OTHER Constitutional right EXCEPT the 2nd as long as the are "suspected" of terrorism? You were warned, that's all I have to say. When a few people on this message board dared to speak out against the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, we were called "traitors" and "unAmerican" and "terrorist-lovers." Now the "War on Terror" has come for your guns, so all I can say is "we told you so." You hypocrites opened the door for this with your support for the Patriot Act and the MCA.0 -
Old Sen. Frank Lautenberg is at it again. He is the honorable gentleman that made it ok to strip gun rights from folks convicted of misdemeanors, or who have a restraining order put on them by a angry ex-mate.
Remember "Warriorfan" during wartime many personal freedoms are always restricted to protect the country as a whole. Yes these laws are very dangerous to our individual freedoms, but nothing compared to the ignoring of the constitution and the bill of rights on behalf of the Democratic leadership of this country that we currently see. 95% of them vote against the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment. Time after time.
So I suspect there is a more serious underlying problem we face today if our politicians don't respect our personal freedoms guaranteed by our founders. Both friggin parties are included in this group, but more of the socialists than the wannabe think they are conservatives.0 -
Those that are blind will just NEVER understand.
They will NOT understand that the present administration is busily spending BILLIONS of dollars putting in place the infrastructure that is going to ALLOW mass gathering of guns...and people...weaving the spider webs of information, informants, jack-booted thugs, and laws necessary for sweeping takeover..
That they are laughing and raising full glasses at the ignorant masses blaming Democrats for all their troubles...and the other side blaming Republicans for the end of time...
How truly stupid can one be...unable to comprehend the corruption of BOTH parties...to see the inevitable outcome worked tirelessly upon by BOTH PARTIES...
God truly has blinded most people..so they are unable to see.0 -
If that comes to pass, I will take my stand, even if I stand alone, I will stand. Im a honest person who has never hurt a anyone with my guns. Its my collection by right. I want what Im god given. No one ever asks me my opion, so Im stating it for the record. I may get flamed for this, but at least Im honest. Semper Paratas 0 -
quote:Originally posted by warriorsfan
So why is it OK to take away other Constitutional Rights from suspected terrorists .....
If I remember correctly, many of the people here support the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping,.....Now the "War on Terror" has come for your guns, so all I can say is "we told you so." You hypocrites opened the door for this with your support for the Patriot Act and the MCA.
I never supported the Patriot Act. I still don't support it! My congressman did not support it. I'm sorry to say that both on my Senators did[V]. You need to be more careful when you pull out the hypocrite word.
Dean0 -
0 -
0 -
quote:Originally posted by sig232
Old Sen. Frank Lautenberg is at it again. He is the honorable gentleman that made it ok to strip gun rights from folks convicted of misdemeanors, or who have a restraining order put on them by a angry ex-mate.
Remember "Warriorfan" during wartime many personal freedoms are always restricted to protect the country as a whole. Yes these laws are very dangerous to our individual freedoms, but nothing compared to the ignoring of the constitution and the bill of rights on behalf of the Democratic leadership of this country that we currently see. 95% of them vote against the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment. Time after time.
So I suspect there is a more serious underlying problem we face today if our politicians don't respect our personal freedoms guaranteed by our founders. Both friggin parties are included in this group, but more of the socialists than the wannabe think they are conservatives.
Lautenberg's bill gives the ATTORNEY GENERAL the ability to restrict gun purchases by suspected terrorists. Last time I checked, the Attorney General was a Bush appointee. This is no different than Arlen Specter or some other Republican Senator passing legislation that gives the Bush Administration further dictatorial powers under the guise of the "War on Terror." Alberto Gonzales will get to decide if you can buy a gun or not, NOT Frank Lautenberg. The Republicans are just as bad if not FAR WORSE than the Democrats when it comes to destroying the Bill of Rights. Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping (illegally abused by the FBI hundreds of times already), Military Commissions Act, etc.
And when did Congress officially declare war on "terror?" That's the wonderful part of waging war on an idea instead of a country, you can never defeat an "idea." The "war on terror" will last FOREVER, it will never end. And those rights that people like you expect us to give up during "wartime" will never be returned to us because the war will never end. You can never defeat terrorism, it is a tactic not a nation or a person that can be captured or killed.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
16 comments