Thread: Another blow to rights.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2159:

This bill basically lets the Attorney General only 'suspect' you of terrorism to deny you the right to bear arms.

No due process is involved, you only have to be a suspect in order to be determined unfit to own a firearm.

According to Napolitano this would include Vets returning from war and 'right wing extremists'.

Certain meetings of PETA and greenpeace have been called domestic terrorism in the past.


I have no problems of folks that have actually done something worthy of jail time not being able to obtain a firearm, but just 'suspects'? Seems to be yet another attempt to deny us rights.

Originally Posted by Blakeman

Certain meetings of PETA and greenpeace have been called domestic terrorism in the past.

Certain ACTIONS of greenpeace and PETA have been acts of domestic terrorism. it is only fitting they finally pay the piper.

Buy now, while you still can. :2

Originally Posted by Walkerxes

Originally Posted by Blakeman

Certain meetings of PETA and greenpeace have been called domestic terrorism in the past.

Certain ACTIONS of greenpeace and PETA have been acts of domestic terrorism. it is only fitting they finally pay the piper.

I only included them to show how broad the word 'terrorism' can cover. Destruction of property is one thing, but if you happened to loan a greenpeace member some money for gas this could be construed as providing aid per the bill.

*sigh*

god damn it. Lets hope this gets quashed.

Wow, and they don't have to tell you why.

Well the bill doesn't state suspects but "(or appropriately suspected)". The question is what does that mean. If a cop suspects I have been drinking, he may arrest me. Now, obviously that cop is going to have show the reason for this suspicion. I'm not for or against this bill, but you need to solidify your arguement with better proof as to the intentions of this bill.

Btw, were/are you against the patriot act? That actually could deny you your rights with no due process.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Well the bill doesn't state suspects but "(or appropriately suspected)". The question is what does that mean. If a cop suspects I have been drinking, he may arrest me. Now, obviously that cop is going to have show the reason for this suspicion. I'm not for or against this bill, but you need to solidify your argument with better proof as to the intentions of this bill.

Btw, were/are you against the patriot act? That actually could deny you your rights with no due process.

Quite against the 'patriot' act in fact or anything that denies, loopholes or disregards the Constitution.

Even when I was 12 years old I didn't like the patriot act. Even then, I saw it as a HUGE compromising of our rights and liberties.