New anti-firearms bill - Page 16

New anti-firearms bill

This is a discussion on New anti-firearms bill within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Yeah, really watching out for terrorists. More like draining our resources to catch terrorists. Turns out I was wrong about Ted Kennedy. It wasn't exactly ...

Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 61213141516
Results 226 to 239 of 239
  1. #226
    Member Array Faitmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    358
    Yeah, really watching out for terrorists. More like draining our resources to catch terrorists. Turns out I was wrong about Ted Kennedy. It wasn't exactly easy for him to get off the list either. And how did 60 minutes snag a copy of the secret super duper list that we must keep away from all terrorists???

    Why are there so many names on the U.S. government's terrorist list?

    James Robinson had security clearance as a US Attorney but he consistently receives additional screening at the airport when traveling.


    Erich Sherfen, Commercial airline pilot and Gulf War veteran, has been threatened with termination from his job as a pilot because his name appears on a government watch list, which prevents him from entering the cockpit. He has been unable to get his name removed. Sherfen is a client of the ACLU of Pennsylvania.


    Nelson Mandela, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and a household name all over the world, nonetheless is listed on the U.S. watchlist and needs special permission to enter the United States.


    Robert Johnson - 60 Minutes interviewed 12 men named Robert Johnson, all of whom reported being pulled aside and interrogated, sometimes for hours, nearly every time they go to the airport.


    Alexandra Hay, a college student with a double major in French and English at Middlebury College in Vermont in 2004, when she joined an ACLU lawsuit due to problems she was having with the airline watch list.


    Sarosh Syed, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Pakistan working for the ACLU of Washington in Seattle also had problems flying. (Syed was also a plaintiff in the ACLU suit in 2004.)


    9/11 Hijackers. While certainly these were individuals we all wish had been watched out for, they are, in fact, dead. Yet, the names of 14 of the 19 hijackers from 9/11 were on a copy of the list obtained by 60 Minutes . More evidence that the list is poorly maintained and full of junk names that will only serve to ensnare the innocent.


    Evo Morales, president of Bolivia. Name found on list obtained by 60 Minutes .


    Saddam Hussein. Although he was imprisoned in Baghdad and in U.S. custody at the time, his name was also found in the database obtained by 60 Minutes. Again, this accomplishes nothing except ensnaring the innocent, diluting the list, and wasting the time of security workers.


    Gary Smith. Another name that is extremely common in the United States, found on the no-fly list by 60 Minutes.


    John Williams. Yet another common name found on the airline watch list by 60 Minutes.


    U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy (D, Mass.) After repeated delays at airport security, the senator had trouble getting removed from the airline watch list despite calls to Homeland Security and eventually a personal conversation with the Secretary of DHS.


    Representative John Lewis (D, Georgia). Being a hero of the Civil Rights Movement isn't enough to keep off the aviation watch lists, apparently.


    Akif Rahman, founder of a computer consulting company from suburban Chicago, was detained and questioned for more than two hours by U.S. customs officials on four separate occasions when crossing the Canadian border. On one occasion he was held for 5 ½ hours, shackled to a chair, and physically searched. He was also separated from his wife and children (who were forced to wait in a small dirty public area without food or telephones). A U.S. citizen born in Springfield Illinois, Rahman is being represented by the ACLU of Illinois in a lawsuit over this treatment.


    Marine Staff Sgt. Daniel Brown was blocked from flying while on his way home from an 8-month deployment in Iraq. He was listed as a suspected terrorist due to a previous incident in which gunpowder was detected on his boots, most likely a residue of a previous tour in Iraq.


    Asif Iqbal, a Rochester, NY, management consultant and University of Texas graduate who flies weekly to Syracuse for business, has been weekly detained and interrogated by local law enforcement because his name is shared by a former Guantánamo detainee (who was himself released from the extrajudicial detainment, presumably because of lack of evidence of terror involvement).


    James Moore, author of a book critical of the Bush Administration, Bush's Brain ; problems flying.


    Catherine ("Cat") Stevens, wife of Senator Ted Stevens (R, Alaska). Problems flying.


    Yusuf Islam, a singer and pop star formerly known as Cat Stevens. Author of song "Peace Train." His flight from London was diverted and forced to land in Maine once the government realized he was aboard, and he was barred from entering United States.


    Major General Vernon Lewis (Ret.); a recipient of the Army's highest medal for service, the Distinguished Service Medal who served in the Korean and Vietnam wars, Lewis had problems flying.


    Captain Robert Campbell, US Navy-retired, Comercial Airline pilot of 22 years; problems flying.


    David Nelson. Attorney David C. Nelson (right) is one of many men named David Nelson around the U.S. who have been caught up on the list, including a former star of the television show "Ozzie and Harriet." (Nelson was also a plaintiff in the ACLU suit in 2004).


    John William Anderson, age 6; problems flying.

    Among those caught up by the no-fly list are many infants and small children.

    Rep. Don Young, (R, AK); problems flying.

    Sister Glenn Anne McPhee, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' secretary for education. Sister McPhee sought redress and removal from the watch list for nine months in 2004 and 2005 and it wasn't until she was able to elicit help from White House connections (Karl Rove) that DHS addressed her problem.

    Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, D-CA; problems flying.

    Michelle Green, Master Sergeant, U.S. Air Force . (Green was also a plaintiff in the ACLU suit in 2004.)
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

    NRA Member / Ohio Conceal Carry Instructor
    CHL Holder


  2. #227
    Ex Member Array BikerRN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    State of Discombobulation
    Posts
    5,253
    I am a conservative. My views are best represented by the Republican party. Remember, we have a two party system. Third parties detract and actually ruin our electoral system.
    Part of the problem is our two party system.

    It fosters the status quo and the ability to garner power, which leads to arrogance and tyranny. Instead we should have a solid, politically feasible third party to "Keep the ******** Honest" as they say of the third party down under.

    Biker

  3. #228
    Member Array Ticman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post

    The Bill of Rights adds nothing to the powers of government. And many of the Amendments are directly in contradiction with the principles on which this nation was founded. But then, anti-Federalists hated the Constitution from the outset so today's version of them carries a shameful tradition.


    The Bil of Rights adds nothing to the powers of the Federal government.
    Sorry, SD but the Constitution and BOR are the law of the land. You don't like the BOR then do something about it. The BOR was put in place to stop people like you who would suspend the constitution on a whim just because you or someone in government thinks it for our own good or saftey.

    The BOR limits the governments power and that's what your panties are in such a wad over.

  4. #229
    Member Array Random's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Clayton NC
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by Faitmaker View Post
    I'm sure at the very least, vandalism, attempted murder, murder, criminal mischief, reckless endangerment, theft, flying without a license. I didn't mean they had an actual law saying "you can't fly planes into buildings".
    Thing is, the way some people think, the law needs to be SPECIFIC. It's like the "texting while driving" laws - the law in almost every state makes it illegal to drive while distracted, but for some reason, we have to SPECIFY texting.

    It wouldn't surprise me if there are now laws somewhere specifically against flying planes into buildings :)

  5. #230
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by BikerRN View Post
    Part of the problem is our two party system.

    It fosters the status quo and the ability to garner power, which leads to arrogance and tyranny. Instead we should have a solid, politically feasible third party to "Keep the ******** Honest" as they say of the third party down under.
    A third party ALWAYS distorts the election. This is because it saps votes from the party to which it is most closely aligned. Ross Perot caused Clinton to defeat George HW Bush with less than a majority of votes. And Nader prevented Gore from beating Bush in 2000.

    Our electoral system demands a two party, winner take all, system. It is why I sometimes educate libertarians that they are wasting their vote and causing harm to our political system.

  6. #231
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Ticman View Post
    Sorry, SD but the Constitution and BOR are the law of the land. You don't like the BOR then do something about it.
    It is not that I do not like the Bill of Rights but it is completely superfluous because it provides no power to the Federal government. It is unneccessary. For the most part, it is a prohibition against the Federal government from passing laws rather than a law itself.

    The BOR was put in place to stop people like you who would suspend the constitution on a whim just because you or someone in government thinks it for our own good or saftey.
    No, the Bill of Rights was put in place because people like yourself were too frightended to understand the new government. Don't worry. You are in good company. Two of the largest states in the nascent nation did not want to ratify the Constitution. Like libertarians today, they did not want any form of cohesive government. Thankfully, they lost.

    The BOR limits the governments power and that's what your panties are in such a wad over.
    Nonsense. The original Constitution outlines the specific powers the states granted to the Federal government. There was never a power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms so the Second Amendment adds absolutely nothing.

  7. #232
    Member Array Ticman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    It is not that I do not like the Bill of Rights but it is completely superfluous because it provides no power to the Federal government. It is unneccessary. For the most part, it is a prohibition against the Federal government from passing laws rather than a law itself.
    Good, the BOR is supposed to do that!! Funny thing though, if Congress wanted to prohibit something, how would they do that?


    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    No, the Bill of Rights was put in place because people like yourself were too frightended to understand the new government. Don't worry. You are in good company. Two of the largest states in the nascent nation did not want to ratify the Constitution. Like libertarians today, they did not want any form of cohesive government. Thankfully, they lost.
    You keep making claims about supporting the Constitution but have no problem with it being suspended for our own saftey. How does standing up for something make you scared of it? And if your not scared why aren't you supporting the Constitution?

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Nonsense. The original Constitution outlines the specific powers the states granted to the Federal government. There was never a power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms so the Second Amendment adds absolutely nothing.
    So according to you there should have never been any kind of gun laws. Hmmmm... interesting. Seems we have lots of them and whole lot of people trying to create more. Almost like the founding fathers knew people like you would come along.

  8. #233
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Ticman View Post
    Good, the BOR is supposed to do that!! Funny thing though, if Congress wanted to prohibit something, how would they do that?
    Good question. What law should be passed to prevent laws from being passed? Sounds pretty stupid to me.

    You keep making claims about supporting the Constitution but have no problem with it being suspended for our own saftey.
    I have every problem with the Constitution being suspended for any reason. However, the Constitution itself provides provisions to 'trample on your rights.'

    The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
    There are also provisions to repel insurrections, such as those frequently discussed on this forum.

    [QUOTE}How does standing up for something make you scared of it? And if your not scared why aren't you supporting the Constitution?[QUOTE]

    How is allowing terrorists to acquire weapons standing up for the Constitution.

    So according to you there should have never been any kind of gun laws. Hmmmm... interesting. Seems we have lots of them and whole lot of people trying to create more.
    There were gun laws in place in colonial America. The only reasomwe have the Second Amendment is because a couple of states were afraid they would not be able to form a militia. Yes, the militia is the reason we have the second Amendment. It has nothing to do with self defense or hunting.

    Almost like the founding fathers knew people like you would come along.
    No, they were attempting to prevent people like you from destroying our Federalist system.

  9. #234
    Member Array Ticman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Good question. What law should be passed to prevent laws from being passed? Sounds pretty stupid to me.
    Hopefully, someone will feel sorry for you and explain what I ask.


    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I have every problem with the Constitution being suspended for any reason. However, the Constitution itself provides provisions to 'trample on your rights.'
    Sounds like you getting yourself confused. Will you ever really take a stand?

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    How is allowing terrorists to acquire weapons standing up for the Constitution.
    I don't even have to comment because you know the truth.


    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    There were gun laws in place in colonial America. The only reasomwe have the Second Amendment is because a couple of states were afraid they would not be able to form a militia. Yes, the militia is the reason we have the second Amendment. It has nothing to do with self defense or hunting.
    To bad the SC doesn't agree. They say we have an individual RKBA.


    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    No, they were attempting to prevent people like you from destroying our Federalist system.
    You really give those terrorist a lot of credit. You really think that we can't stop them and keep the Constitution in place?

  10. #235
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Ticman View Post
    Hopefully, someone will feel sorry for you and explain what I ask.
    Are you unable to articulate your explanation of why Congress would need to pass a law preventing Congress from passing a law. Should be amusing. I can't wait.

    Sounds like you getting yourself confused. Will you ever really take a stand?
    I think I have taken a very entrenched view.

    To bad the SC doesn't agree. They say we have an individual RKBA.
    I never argued otherwise.

    You really give those terrorist a lot of credit. You really think that we can't stop them and keep the Constitution in place?
    No one is suggesting the Constitution should be violated. You are aware of the many people on the forum that do not understand what a strawman argument is. Your argument is a perfect example of a strawman argument.

  11. #236
    Member Array Ticman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Are you unable to articulate your explanation of why Congress would need to pass a law preventing Congress from passing a law. Should be amusing. I can't wait.
    You'll have to figure it out by yourself. I'll give you a hint go back and read your own post.

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    No one is suggesting the Constitution should be violated.
    Well, I'm glad you agree with the majority on here now.

  12. #237
    Member Array M203Sniper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    238
    Good question. What law should be passed to prevent laws from being passed? Sounds pretty stupid to me.
    You mean like this one?



    I think you are being dense on purpose just because you get a response. That's sad.
    "Words can be as lethal as bullets; Choose them carefully, Aim them well & Use them sparingly."

  13. #238
    Member Array Faitmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    358
    Rather than start a new thread, what about this one? HR 2401

    McCarthy introduces 'no rights' list

    When we last focused attention on Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (well, aside from her braying about Kirsten Gillibrand's serial betrayals not being despicably turncoat enough), she was trying to ban guns because they had something on them she could not define beyond "I believe it's the shoulder thing that goes up." That and introducing an Assemblywoman who wants to fight terrorism by banning .50 caliber firearms because their bullets had "a heat seeking device" that would allow you to "cook [ a deer] at the same time" you shot it.

    I kid you not. If you have not already seen these, take a moment and watch the videos posted here.

    Well it turns out there's a greater threat to the Republic than Assault Shoulder Things that Go Up and Shoot 'n Cook Ammo combined: Citizens who haven't been convicted of anything! You know, the ones our legal system defines as PIs (Presumed Innocents).

    To deal with that menace, McCarthy has (yet again) introduced one of her trademark harassment measures, this time labeled H. R. 2401, the "No Fly, No Buy Act of 2009."

    It's stated purpose?

    "To increase public safety and reduce the threat to domestic security by including persons who may be prevented from boarding an aircraft in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes."

    In other words, if your name appears on the same list as the one that delayed Teddy Kennedy's boarding pass, you'll be denied purchasing a gun. And even scarier, you'll be subject to arrest:

    "Under the New McCarthyism, a prosecutor could send a gun-owner to federal prison without needing to show that the person had ever committed a crime, or had taken any steps preparatory to committing a crime, but merely that the person’s name was on list compiled by a federal agent and the person had owned, used, or tried to buy a gun. By federal law, anyone on the prohibited persons list for guns is barred not only from buying a gun, but even from holding a gun for a moment. A name can also be placed on the no-fly list based solely on information supplied by a foreign government—information which may often be reliable, but sometimes may not be."


    And as we've seen time and again, suspicion of being a shady character in the eyes of the government can often be something as innocuous as...believing in the Constitution. Add in McCarthy's resurrected rights eradication plot (that relies on accurate record-keeping from people known to lie about it)--and don't forget Peter King's latest attempt at subversion (what is it with New York politicians?) and you have a perfect formula for denying "legal" gun purchases to ...uh...practically anyone the government wants to.

    It's the "other purposes" mentioned in McCarthy's bill.

    Aside from the un-American outrage of denying a citizen rights before they have been convicted of anything, if a person truly is a terror suspect, what better way to tip them off that they are under investigation? That is, assuming real terrorists bother to buy guns from federally-licensed dealers...

    Which also explains why gun owners are being harassed with "gun show loophole" nonsense. It won't affect the black market one bit, but it will ensure the "law abiding" have their names and purchases on a record--and I think all but the intentionally deluding or willfully deluded see where that would lead.

    What are the chances H.R. 2401 will go anywhere? Right now it looks like "sound and fury, signifying nothing." That's not to say the right convergence of government policy-enabled "opportunities" couldn't change things. If nothing else, it's showing us another item on the "wish list" freedom haters intend to go after if they ever consolidate enough power.

    But we need to be aware of all current movements from the enemy camp--and make no mistake, those who would disarm you under threat of force are not your friends.
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

    NRA Member / Ohio Conceal Carry Instructor
    CHL Holder

  14. #239
    Member Array Mountaineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Ticman View Post
    Hopefully, someone will feel sorry for ..
    You really give those terrorist a lot of credit. You really think that we can't stop them and keep the Constitution in place?
    Who is this SelfDefense you keep arguing with? Oh, that's right. I put SelfDefense on my ignore list on DAY ONE here. I don't think SelfeDefense is a real person. I think it's some kind of AnnoyBOT that just argues with everything you write. The less you engage, the less it responds.

    "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You BOTH get dirty, and the pig likes it." -- someone else
    Last edited by Mountaineer; September 26th, 2009 at 03:50 PM. Reason: attribution on pig quote...

Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 61213141516

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Gov. Jindal vetoes anti-gun parade bill
    By ppkheat in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 14th, 2009, 04:55 PM
  2. New HR 2159 Anti-Gun Blacklist Bill Introduced in U.S. House
    By tns0038 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 20th, 2009, 08:55 AM
  3. H.R. 2640 Military.com Gun Bill Not Anti-Veteran
    By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 16th, 2007, 03:24 PM
  4. The current anti-gun bill introduced in Congress
    By Ron in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: May 21st, 2007, 04:56 PM
  5. Anti lawsuit bill passes
    By rachilders in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 21st, 2005, 11:54 PM

Search tags for this page

, patriot act aided in 179 terror convictions, human events, july 19, 2004; and report from the field: usa patriot act a
,
boliva gun laws
,

david freddoso, patriot act aided in 179 terror convictions, human events, july 19, 2004; and report from the field: usa

,

debate it is difficult to value human right when facing bullets in the field

,
debate topic it is difficult to value human rights when facing bullets in the field
,
it is difficult to value human rights when facing bullets in the field.
,
lautenberg amendment and divorce
,

lautenberg amendment arizona

,
libertarians do not understand
,
list of recent anti firearms legislation
,
new anti gun legislation forum
,
www. sherfen sog.
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors