Let the great gun grab begin!

[themadscientist]

HR2159, the first salvo

Mr. KING of New York (for himself, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. CASTLE, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. KIRK, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, and Mr. SMITH of New Jersey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

http://www.infowars.com/house-...right/

`The Attorney General may determine that an applicant for a firearm permit which would qualify for an exemption under section 922(t) is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the applicant may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.'

Alrighty. Question. If a person fits this category, why the hell are they walking the streets? The problem with this sort of logic is they should be arrested and officiall brought into the court system where the evidence can be examined and the persons guilt or intent determined properly. Instead Eric Holder shakes a magic 8-ball.

So good old gun-grabbin eric denys your 2nd ammendment rights, what's your recourse, the court? Good luck.

(h) Attorney General's Ability To Withhold Information in Relief From Disabilities Lawsuits- Section 925(c) of such title is amended by inserting after the 3rd sentence the following: `If receipt of a firearms by the person would violate section 922(g)(10), any information which the Attorney General relied on for this determination may be withheld from the applicant if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security. In responding to the petition, the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.'

So how will this play out? here's how it plays out.

This bill is enacted to protect all us quivering victims of scary terrorlst. The language used to define those to be denied gun rights is purposfully ambiguous. The redress process is veiled and cryptic to make it as difficult as possible to fight baseless persecution by the rapidly expanding police state.

They will use those magic naughty people lists to determine who is to be denied.

[quote="Rahm "dead fish" Emmanuel"]if your name is on the terrorlst no fly list you should not be allowed to own a gun.[/quote]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJBZZKlvrP4

Now, this is a list that is KNOWN to be stunningly erroneous but the government doesn't seem to care. It's almost as if the dubious nature of it serves some alterior motive.

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/sp....html

These people are on a mission. The evidence is overwhelming. Americans sit quietly with their thumbs up their asses.

Call or write your congressmen. Tell them this is not passing by unnoticed and their political fortunes ride on how they vote when this peice of fluff hits the house floor.

[audtatious]

Posting things against the current Gov will label you a conspiracy theorist nut job.

[EazyBreazy]

How come no one got labeled that while bush was in office

[themadscientist]

I got some nuts for the government, hairy ones they can suck on.

The Bush administration distrusted everybody equally.

Sent this to my congressman yesterday.

Quote »Congressman Connelly, good day sir.

I am watching with great distress and would like to call your attention to, a bill moving into committee co-sponsored by anonther Virginia legislator Congressman Moran. The Number is HR2159, and the title is "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009"

I, and I'm certain many of your other constituents would like to know where you stand on this bill which may make it to the floor for your vote.

This bill is a needless expansion of the Attorney General's powers. The ambiguous language contained within it is a breeding ground for abuse through creative interpretation. The title itself reveals the thought that went into it. "Dangerous Terrorists"? Is there another kind of terrorlst?

I suspect the Attorney general intends to use such dubious sources as the no-fly list which has become an unfunny joke in our country. Senator Kennedy is intimately aquainted with the reliability of this "system".

We find it terrifying that such an erroneous program could potentially be used, in concert with this bill, to deny millions of law-abiding Americans the free access to their second ammendment rights.

Existing background checks are quite effective at rooting out people of past criminal activity. Felons, violent offenders, and the mentally incompetent are already screened for.

This new bill does nothing to improve upon this well-tested system, but rather introduces significant consolidation of power in the office of the Attorney General, sets the stage for abuse of that power, and leaves little recourse for those victimized by it. This tramples on state and individual rights and is a faintly veiled move on the part of anti-second ammendment forces by couching it in the shadow of the modern boogeyman, terrorism.

I urge you, Congressman, to vote against this red herring legislation should it make it through committee.Thank you.[/quote]

[HashiriyaS14]

The intent of 99.999999999999999% of laws are whatever they plainly appear to be.

I'm not saying that there isn't any such thing as a law that is intended from the outset to be "misused", but I am saying that they are fantastically rare outliers, even within any single category (yes, including firearms regulations).

I'm not saying that anyone is 100% mistaken for believing that this law is one of those outliers, as in any one particular case, I cannot claim to know beyond any doubt.

I am saying that anyone who believes that any *meaningful* percentage of extant or proposed laws are intended from the outset to be misused against the populace is, ipso facto, a habitual conspiracy theorist.

Generally, due to the nature of our electoral system, it is not in the best interest of ANY elected official or party to propose a law that purports to do one thing and then turn around and use it for an entirely different end. This comes across as being (and is) incredibly dishonest, and nearly all cases wherein a politician is accused of this, they are actually doing something else, both with Democrats and Republicans.

The Bush Administration was widely accused of enacting the Patriot Act to cover ongoing attempts to "track" ordinary law-abiding citizens or possibly political dissenters. This didn't end up being the case. I am almost positive this gun law is another one of these situations.

[480sx]

The intent of 99.999999999999999% of laws are whatever they plainly appear to be.

Ignoring every lobbiest with an ulterior agenda, ignoring the tendrils of corporate and wall street America that are deeply sunk into our government. Ignoring a lot of things really.

Intent of whom? Many contributing people play a part in creating a law, many of them having different intentions and goals for said law. Some, might be on the up and up. Some, maybe not so much.

Anyway, intent lol? Who cares about intent? What the hell does that mater? If you didnt intend to run over and kill someone with your car but yet you still do, are you somehow less guilty of manslaughter?

I'm not saying that there isn't any such thing as a law that is intended from the outset to be "misused", but I am saying that they are fantastically rare outliers, even within any single category (yes, including firearms regulations).

Intent again. Garbage. If legislation is written by the good witch of the North herself(who for the sake of this argument has great intentions!), but yet she leaves loop holes big enough that a lawyer can do cartwheels through, this is still a problem. In this capitalist, litigious society, these 'loopholes' are so commonly found, exploited, and they basically turns into the legal grounds for grey area and even illegal activity.

I am saying that anyone who believes that any *meaningful* percentage of extant or proposed laws are intended from the outset to be misused against the populace is, ipso facto, a habitual conspiracy theorist.

k... Intended from the outset..

Generally, due to the nature of our electoral system, it is not in the best interest of ANY elected official or party to propose a law that purports to do one thing and then turn around and use it for an entirely different end.

True. This has been seen time and time again, corrupt politicians passing corrupt legislation. Skeletons come out of closets, ect ect, we all know the story. Not exactly a .0000000001 percentage.

The Bush Administration was widely accused of enacting the Patriot Act to cover ongoing attempts to "track" ordinary law-abiding citizens or possibly political dissenters.

The legislation , such as the patriot act, made it so that theoretically such things were possible. There is a difference between a conspiracy theorist and someone who understands the possibility and scope of such reckless, loose, and shoddy legislation.

While that might not have been their initial intent, are you really going to say that in one hand, you'v got these clueless drafters of legislation who accidentally leave battle ship sized loop holes in legislation. Then in the other, you have events such as torture, released memos indicating that the executive branch is violating not only the 4th amendment(kinda like those same nut jobs said they would in their crazzyyy conspiracy theories!) but international law, along with a whole laundry list of shady dealings around the world. To say that those two hands are not even POSSIBLY connected to the same body is quite flawed.

The Bush Administration was widely accused of enacting the Patriot Act to cover ongoing attempts to "track" ordinary law-abiding citizens or possibly political dissenters. This didn't end up being the case.

Haha, man, those with selective memories and ostrich like tendencies amuse me. Ignore the Bush administration. Focus, patriot act. Remember the 'leak' in Missouri, just to scratch the tip of that iceburg.

The idea that the patriot act was enacted souly cover up the tracking of US citizens is absurd, so obviously it wasnt the case. The primary target of the Patriot Act was counter-terrorism. HOWEVER. Legislation passed is similar to a new invention. Once a new invention comes out, every interested party gets their hands on it, dissects it, finds its weaknesses, strengths, uses, ect.

----- This was a better composed post i believe 30 min ago before i accidentally erased 3/4ths of it. I now have a keylogger because thats happened enough..



There are more of them out there Hash. Breathing your air. Eating your food. Drinking your water. PROCREATING.



Never rest my knight, for you fight a good fight.

//Man i had to search through 7 pages of Batman figurines before i found that..
Modified by 480sx at 8:33 AM 5/15/2009

[HashiriyaS14]

LOTS OF WORDS

^^

I'm not sure what any of this is supposed to mean, really.

In regards to intent, the plain/open intent of, say, the assault weapons ban is to ban precisely those weapons and other items that are listed in the bill. The plain/open intent is not to create legal precedent to ban other weapons/items NOT specifically listed in the bill.

There MAY be a hidden intent, such as setting said legal precedent, or adjusting the wording of the law to ban a bunch of other things, but I am stating that, in my opinion, cases like this are incredibly rare. The law/bill purports to do X and only X, it is highly unlikely that anyone will try to use it to accomplish Y. It is more politically acceptable to simply pass a new law that openly addresses Y.

Passing X and using it for Y is a good way to lose popularity in a hurry, and politicians and parties value popularity above all else.

My presence in this thread was brought on by the idea that this law is somehow the "first salvo" in a "great gun grab".

Liberals won't ever issue some wholesale ban on firearms via any other means than having the electoral and popular majority to actually openly ban firearms. They're not going to "sneak one in under the radar" on an issue that affects millions of Americans. This would be their doom, and they're smart enough to realize that.

Similarly, to illustrate, the GOP would never try to pass a Federal law banning abortion unless there was wide (like 2/3) popular support for such a law. Even if they had a narrow super-majority in Congress, as the Dems are about to have, they STILL wouldn't do it unless public support was 200% rock solid. They'd know that tides could turn, and they'd fear the backlash of so sweeping a change.

If, someday, a wide majority of Americans supports some kind of severe restriction on firearms, you can bet that they'll be severely restricted no matter what the constitution says. You can interpret legal standards to mean just about anything (or you can Amend the document). That said, at the moment, a wide majority of Americans support private firearms ownership in some capacity or other, and thus the Democrats/Liberals are not about to try and "pull a fast one" to "grab the guns". It would be electoral suicide.

In summary, I offer the three following (IMO irrefutable) points:

1.) The Democrats would lose all electoral viability if they pulled some underhanded "snatch and grab" on firearms via a legal loophole.

2.) The Democrats (and any political party) generally value electoral viability above any and all else.

3.) Thus, the Democrats won't pull said "snatch and grab".

If you want to argue with me, you MUST refute one or more of these points and thus sink my argument. If you can't, then I'm right and you STFU.

[480sx]

You made many broad statements that dont hold a candle in the storm known as reality. If you dont want to take the time and address the faulty nature of your previous statements, or even try to defend/discuss them that is fine by me.

Its not really your core argument that im going against, its the way your trying to support it. Plus i like busting your balls.

I mean, as far as most your restructured 'Summery' argument goes, i agree with you.

However, the fact that legislation like this is being written and could potentially hit the floors should cause alarm. You are downplaying a pretty serious situation for whatever reason. This is our government, why the fvk would they even waste time and money into something like this? Something that so obviously draws questions of Constitutionality from the start.
Modified by 480sx at 12:28 PM 5/15/2009

[HashiriyaS14]

You made many broad statements that dont hold a candle in the storm known as reality. If you dont want to take the time and address the faulty nature of your previous statements, or even try to defend/discuss them that is fine by me.

Its not really your core argument that im going against, its the way your trying to support it. Plus i like busting your balls.

I mean, as far as most your restructured argument goes, i agree with you. You use absolutes far to much, but im not in the mood to pick at your argument.

However, the fact that legislation like this is being written and could potentially hit the floors should cause alarm. You are downplaying a pretty serious situation for whatever reason. This is our government, why the fvk would they even waste time and money into something like this? Something that so obviously draws questions of Constitutionality from the start.

No, it's actually a stupid law that's vague for a totally legitimate reason, but a bunch of myopic paranoid infants are blowing it out of proportion.

The Feds want to be able hit the "pause" button on a gun permit application from, say, a Saudi exchange student. They can't be racist about it though, so they can't SAY that, so they're vague. What else is there to know about this?

[480sx]

The Feds want to be able hit the "pause" button on a gun permit application from, say, a Saudi exchange student.

So, you denounce conspiracy theories but yet make your own theories on the precise reasoning and every detail behind proposed legislation?

No, it's actually a stupid law that's vague for a totally legitimate reason

Does the idea of a vague law bother you at all? Ones that govern how the united states deals with its citizens?

[HashiriyaS14]

So, you denounce conspiracy theories but yet make your own theories on the precise reasoning and every detail behind proposed legislation?

Yep, I guess I do.

My "theory" happens to be right, however.

I'm offering a plausible explanation, which is that legal vagaries are generally intentional, to allow the authorities some room to operate case-by-case.

You and your cohorts in here are offering a counter-explanation, which is that this particular legal vagary is part of a widespread nefarious conspiracy to severely limit firearms ownership across the board despite the fact that no popular support exists for such a measure.

Does the idea of a vague law bother you at all? Ones that govern how the united states deals with its citizens?

The 1st and 2nd Amendments are vague laws. MOST laws are left intentionally vague in places to allow for situational interpretation and societal changes over time. Our Constitution is effective BECAUSE it was left intentionally vague.

Your side of this debate needs to bring in a ringer, you aren't doing this argument justice. Where's Bud and Matt?

[480sx]

Not quite as vague as legislation that calls for a magic list of citizens who can be denied their 2nd amendment rights and never know why.

EDIT - That edit made my day! This thread, made my day! You actually HAD a decent post. Completely reversed the common roll of the edit function.

FACT - You'v been called out for 3 major fallacies, that seem to be pretty cut and dry, all of which you have ignored. You have demonstrated a metric ton of faulty reasoning in this thread. So much so that when i call you out for it, you have chosen to simply ignore me. Just roll with it, you da mod! Im not gona bother with you anytime soon, enjoy.

FYI, by the wisdom contained in the sticky posts, you have lost, on many different levels. Your own game, in your own forum. Good day sir!
Modified by 480sx at 7:56 PM 5/15/2009

[480sx]

Meh you edited.. Im responding to the edit.

My "theory" happens to be right, however.

Oh really? Can you please prove your theory? You seem to have a very commonly overlooked and nasty fallacy at the core of a lot of your arguments. Simply, an appeal to ignorance.

You and your cohorts in here are offering a counter-explanation, which is that this particular legal vagary is part of a widespread nefarious conspiracy to severely limit firearms ownership across the board despite the fact that no popular support exists for such a measure.

March on brave crusader! Your work is important and has a positive influence on the world! While your off fighting your nut jobs im going to keep it down here to the real world.

I love it when people sum up what their take on an argument is. You couldnt be anywhere further from what im actually saying, or the point that im trying to make. I suppose thats expected, with your whole thing about not reading what i wrote. Surprise! Sometimes when your in a discussion, or especially a debate with a person it helps to try to comprehend what they write.

You demonstrate another fallacy quite often used 'against' me here. Unfortunately, this ones got you by the balls and its probably not gona let go without a fight. Poisoning the well.

Its kinda funny really, your like a bizzaro world conspiracy theorist. Part of your whole deal is denouncing conspiracy theories, or naming this or that a conspiracy theory and in name, it becomes a paranoid nut jobs affair to you. Its a major issue with you and i find it hilarious because, your creating in your head what you seem to really dislike about political discussions. Its YOU talking conspiracy theories.

We have taken this piece of proposed legislation and done a very simple thing. Analyze it for its flaws. TMS did a good job of illustrating them in his OP, you can go back to it if you like. This has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory. This has everything to do with s***ty, entirely to vague legislation thats been written that has a massive potential for abuse. The legislation has no provisions for oversight on it at all, as is common place with todays US government.
Modified by 480sx at 2:21 PM 5/15/2009

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Hi Chris!

[themadscientist]

No, it's actually a stupid law that's vague for a totally legitimate reason, but a bunch of myopic paranoid infants are blowing it out of proportion.

Ad hominem, always the sign of a strong argument. Critical thinking challenges one does it? Instead of hurling insults and ranting, how about demonstrating why

1. A law you freely admit is stupid needs to be enacted.and how2. We can be protected from a purposefully ambiguous law with very little oversight.

The Feds want to be able hit the "pause" button on a gun permit application from, say, a Saudi exchange student. They can't be racist about it though, so they can't SAY that, so they're vague. What else is there to know about this?

It isn't racist if there is legitimate cause. Stop forgiving the government for sloppy work. If this person is being surveiled already then how is his purchase of a gun, if he can even get one, there are residency and visa erquirements, a danger. In fact, it would benefit the feds to allow him to purchase the gun if he can as it shows intent.

I endeavour to understand how you arrive at such depths of trust in a government that has demonstrated time and time again the rampant abuse of every single power allowed them. From the Patriot act and warrantless wire taps to the no fly list over a million names strong to include one year olds and United States Senators, the machine chews us up and spits us out and you would like to see a new cog gear added? Stunning....

Just remember how much you love big brother when he eventually "hits pause" on you.

[szh]

I got some nuts for the government, hairy ones they can suck on.

The Bush administration distrusted everybody equally.

Sent this to my congressman yesterday.

Did you get any answer back yet?

On a different topic entirely, I sent a letter to my Congressperson and got back a form letter of sorts ... oh, well, I should know better.

Z

[themadscientist]

Nothing. Not even a thankyouforwritingyouropinionisvaluabletousaswetrytosayexactlywhatwethinkyouwanttohearsoyouwillreelectus.

Not surprised.

[WDRacing]

myopic paranoid infants

I stopped reading after this phrase...

Well played sir

[HashiriyaS14]

how about demonstrating why

1. A law you freely admit is stupid needs to be enacted.

Most terrorists don't have prior domestic criminal offenses. It takes time to run a thorough check on someone when most of their history is out-of-country. 3-5 days won't cut it, you need time to ask for foreign records.

It is wildly impractical to say that "we'll just apply this law to X Y and Z groups specifically and exempt everyone else". That would create loopholes and render what is actually a good idea totally ineffectual.

It makes much more sense to just phrase it like "if we decide we need to hold up a permit application, we'll do it, and it'll just be up to us". If it gets abused, someone will eventually just get fired or lose their elected office, that's how Democracy works. You have to trust your government to some degree for it to work.

2. We can be protected from a purposefully ambiguous law with very little oversight.

As I said, many laws are intentionally vague. How does this law have any less oversight than anything else? (honest question)

It isn't racist if there is legitimate cause. Stop forgiving the government for sloppy work. If this person is being surveiled already then how is his purchase of a gun, if he can even get one, there are residency and visa erquirements, a danger. In fact, it would benefit the feds to allow him to purchase the gun if he can as it shows intent.

You can't say that "Saudi nationals in the US have a 30 day waiting period" because then Al Qaeda will just send Malay nationals or whatever else. There are TONS of reasons why you can't make laws that only apply to certain little groups of citizens, and these reasons range from legal precedent to constitutionality to the fact that they're just near-impossible to enforce.

The whole point is that the person may not already be under surveillance. If it's an individual who may potentially be suspect, the law would give the authorities time to decide whether or not the individual WARRANTS surveillance.

You understand that this is not necessarily just about stopping the individuals in question from becoming armed, right? This is about giving the feds one more way to get people into the system to run checks to see who might be a threat.

I endeavour to understand how you arrive at such depths of trust in a government that has demonstrated time and time again the rampant abuse of every single power allowed them. From the Patriot act and warrantless wire taps to the no fly list over a million names strong to include one year olds and United States Senators, the machine chews us up and spits us out and you would like to see a new cog gear added? Stunning....

Just remember how much you love big brother when he eventually "hits pause" on you.

I can't say that I've ever felt particularly "abused" or "betrayed" by my government, regardless of which party has been leading it. I thought the GWB administration was a 3-ring circus, but that doesn't mean that I was actually afraid that someone was going to use the Patriot Act to spy on random Americans. Frankly, they don't have that kind of time, they have bigger fish to fry than wanting to spy on me to see what kind of p0rn I'm whacking it to or whatever. Why would they care? They have real problems, if I'm not a real problem, they won't pay me any mind.

Government officials have jobs to do and want, more than anything, to be popular and get re-elected. This is ultimately their ONLY end, and it governs all their actions. Setting up shadowy conspiracies to enslave the US population tends to make people unpopular, and so generally, politicians aren't going to set up shadowy conspiracies to enslave the US population. They'd much rather get in office, create as little real change as possible, smile on TV a lot, stay in office for a few terms, and then go to the private sector where they can get rich lobbying, lecturing, or hosting a TV show.

SHOW ME a history of the US government enacting laws that say one thing and then them twisting those laws to accomplish wholly different objectives. Show me. Until you show me, then said sordid history of government betrayal is a figment of your overly-active imagination.

Where does all the DISTRUST come from? It's not like we live in a Stalinist regime where normal citizens disappear to the Gulags on a weekly basis.

Some of the stuff the Democrats openly want to do is scary enough, focus on THAT, don't invent a bunch of dumb shxt that isn't even on the table just to make the whole thing seem SCARIER. What does that accomplish?

EDIT: HI CHARLIE!

[themadscientist]

Most terrorists don't have prior domestic criminal offenses. It takes time to run a thorough check on someone when most of their history is out-of-country. 3-5 days won't cut it, you need time to ask for foreign records.

It is wildly impractical to say that "we'll just apply this law to X Y and Z groups specifically and exempt everyone else". That would create loopholes and render what is actually a good idea totally ineffectual.

There are residency and visa requirements to purchase a gun. If somebody is shady, they are being watched already. Please demonstrate where a terrorlst of middle eastern extraction has used a legally purchased gun in the commision of an act. I'll wait.....

It makes much more sense to just phrase it like "if we decide we need to hold up a permit application, we'll do it, and it'll just be up to us". If it gets abused, someone will eventually just get fired or lose their elected office, that's how Democracy works. You have to trust your government to some degree for it to work.!

Again, this thinking ignores the phalanx of government abuse that goes unpunished. Read the bill and see how little recourse one has if targeted. Look at the impossiblity of removing yourself from the no fly list even when you can prove you are on it erroneously. You have yet to demonstrate where government has used unchecked power responsibly where I offer notable examples of rampant abuse.

As I said, many laws are intentionally vague. How does this law have any less oversight than anything else? (honest question).!

Read it, I can't be expected to spoon-feed you. The link is there, read it.

You can't say that "Saudi nationals in the US have a 30 day waiting period" because then Al Qaeda will just send Malay nationals or whatever else. There are TONS of reasons why you can't make laws that only apply to certain little groups of citizens, and these reasons range from legal precedent to constitutionality to the fact that they're just near-impossible to enforce. .!

Then you make laws that affect all, and make sense. This one does affect all, including innocents, and does not perform the second. It leaves it up to Eric Holder, his magic 8 ball and his prejudices.

The whole point is that the person may not already be under surveillance. If it's an individual who may potentially be suspect, the law would give the authorities time to decide whether or not the individual WARRANTS surveillance.

You understand that this is not necessarily just about stopping the individuals in question from becoming armed, right? This is about giving the feds one more way to get people into the system to run checks to see who might be a threat. .!

The Fed has no problem "getting people into the system". They get too many people in there now.http://www.boston.com/news/nat...pects/

I can't say that I've ever felt particularly "abused" or "betrayed" by my government, regardless of which party has been leading it. I thought the GWB administration was a 3-ring circus, but that doesn't mean that I was actually afraid that someone was going to use the Patriot Act to spy on random Americans. Frankly, they don't have that kind of time, they have bigger fish to fry than wanting to spy on me to see what kind of p0rn I'm whacking it to or whatever. Why would they care? They have real problems, if I'm not a real problem, they won't pay me any mind..!

So if it doesn't matter to you personally, it shouldn't matter to anyone. Another hurculean leap of logic. I will take it under consideration. If you don't care, why are you here?

Government officials have jobs to do and want, more than anything, to be popular and get re-elected. This is ultimately their ONLY end, and it governs all their actions. Setting up shadowy conspiracies to enslave the US population tends to make people unpopular, and so generally, politicians aren't going to set up shadowy conspiracies to enslave the US population. They'd much rather get in office, create as little real change as possible, smile on TV a lot, stay in office for a few terms, and then go to the private sector where they can get rich lobbying, lecturing, or hosting a TV show.

SHOW ME a history of the US government enacting laws that say one thing and then them twisting those laws to accomplish wholly different objectives. Show me. Until you show me, then said sordid history of government betrayal is a figment of your overly-active imagination..!

http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/r....html

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...posts

If I have some time, I'll show you how wrestling is fake.

Where does all the DISTRUST come from? It's not like we live in a Stalinist regime where normal citizens disappear to the Gulags on a weekly basis.

Some of the stuff the Democrats openly want to do is scary enough, focus on THAT, don't invent a bunch of dumb shxt that isn't even on the table just to make the whole thing seem SCARIER. What does that accomplish?

EDIT: HI CHARLIE!

I didn't invent anything. It's right there in front of us. People who would ratehr ignore it because it either doesn't interest them or challenges a comfortable paradigm are the ones that allow it to pass.

[Jesda]

Government. Some people love it when their pals are in power, but what happens when someone you don't like uses that newly authorized power to control you?

Sucks, doughnut.

[HashiriyaS14]

I feel the need to clarify the discussion I'm having with you guys, in case you forgot.

Here's YOUR argument (made primarily by the thread title and the first post):

"This is not a legitimate anti-terrorlst measure. It isn't even a potentially well-meaning law that may someday be misapplied. This is the opening salvo of a widespread attempt by the Democrats to disarm America without actually having to pass such a law".

^^I still assert that the above argument is preposterous. No political party will ever subjugate a major constitutionally-guaranteed freedom through a loophole. It would render them electorally nonviable for decades.

YES, the law could potentially be misapplied by less-than-scrupulous operators in certain cases. I'm not arguing that isn't the case. I'm arguing that it is not part of some intricately orchestrated centrally-planned conspiracy to disarm the citizens of the United States.

You don't change major national policy through conspiracy, you change it through consensus. Otherwise, the change doesn't stick.

[WDRacing]

I understand where you're coming from Hash. You're basing your opinion on how the "laws" have been made and passed in the past.

But what if you think that the Gov has sucked over the past 20 years and has grown to much and dabbled into s*** it had no bussiness in? This is just another example to those of us that think we need LESS laws in place and not more. We have a total failure at enforcing the current standards already in place. Sit down and unfvc the current BS before you wrap up any new tasty new things you can twist to your will.

Don't think the Gov purposly designs things so it can bend the people to it's will? I give you the Patriot Act...nuff said.

We know the Gov makes things broad and vague so it can do what it wants. We're not questioning that...we're saying WE DON'T friggin like it. Just because that's the way they have been doing things doesn't make it right...it just makes it the standard.

We need more "By the people for the people" and that is certainly NOT what we have under this JA.

[HashiriyaS14]

Don't think the Gov purposly designs things so it can bend the people to it's will? I give you the Patriot Act...nuff said.

And again, I don't feel that I was in any way "betrayed" by the Patriot Act. I don't feel that, by and large, the citizenry of the United States was either.

Do I think it and other laws get misused occasionally? Sure I do. I'd love for it to stop, too.

That said, I think those are cases of well-intentioned laws being misused once in awhile by less than scrupulous individuals. I do NOT believe that the intent of the law from the outset was to provide a loophole to ALLOW misuse.

TMS and 480 are (whether they realize it or not) arguing that this new law is being expressly designed to create a loophole which will later be exploited in some kind of "great gun grab", all of which is being planned from day 1. That's ridiculous.

[WDRacing]

Well then there you have it. You are simply unaware of how much the PA is abused. So being as that is the case, the rest of your posts really don't hold water. No offense intended buddy, but if the laws can be bent, we'll bend them. Happens daily...

Civilians will never understand just how much goes on behind the scenes. Whether or not this "law" will be bent or abused doesn't even really matter. What matters is that we are giving our Gov far to much opportunity to do whatever it wants. This is just another means.

We need a hell of alot less Gov.

[HashiriyaS14]

Well then there you have it. You are simply unaware of how much the PA is abused. So being as that is the case, the rest of your posts really don't hold water. No offense intended buddy, but if the laws can be bent, we'll bend them. Happens daily...

Yeah, but this question is about INTENT.

Do you think that the ORIGINAL INTENT of the Patriot Act was to allow subversive acts on civilians, or do you think it was legitimately intended to catch terrorists and then sometimes misused?

TMS and 480 are taking the position that this new gun law is EXPRESSLY DESIGNED to snatch ALL firearms from legitimate owners in a "great gun grab" (THEIR words). I think that's horseshxt.

The Patriot Act was NOT originally designed to put ALL US Citizens under wiretap surveillance. If it was, we WOULD ALL BE under surveillance. We aren't, that wasn't the point. Was it misused here and there? Yes. But an apocalyptic situation constituting a wholesale change in the state of US civilian rights has NOT come to pass, and so it was NOT originally designed to be used for a purpose other than what was advertised, PERIOD.

It didn't happen, so it was never meant to happen. If you think the government is so capable of executing outrageously complex conspiracies, you'd have to admit that the only reason it hasn't happened is because, obviously, it was never intended to happen....just like this law isn't INTENDED for misuse via loopholes, even if it may well be misused by the occasional individual.

This thread makes my head hurt. No one is out to get you. People are out for THEMSELVES, but that isn't the same thing as their being out to get you. You all watch too much X-Files.

[themadscientist]

I do beleive laws like this and laws like the patriot act are designed to consolidate power over the American public and their implementation in the past has shown they do just that. By you own admission you don't like them either. The red herring of terrorism is just a front, any positive impact in security is luck not intent.I agree with you that politicians are out for themselves. The more power they can take from us, the more they will have. Thank you for agreeing with me. People on this side keep bringing up concrete examples of abuse and steady erosion of liberties Hash. You continue to say flaccid things like;"I think""I don't see""it doesn't matter to me"In concert with sweeping generalizations of the American public, where you beg the question, awarding yourself the title of speaker for "the citizenry," divoid of any support for your suggestion that Americans in the majority feel as you do. Newsflash guy, I am one of the citizenry too, and I think you are way off base. Unlike you I support what I think with data. Myself and others demonstrate in logical terms how such an ambiguous law can, and using the basis of execution of past laws, WILL be abused. You choose not to believe; fine. Until you can show factual support for your idea that government is a disorganized sunday church meeting that can't possibly hurt our liberties with this bit of fluff you are just flappin your lips and saying nothing of substance.You continue to disrespect your opposition, to insult it rather than debate its points meritoriously, which thus far, are more credible than yours. If the people that have historical example on their side are "whack jobs", where does that leave the guy who just "has a feeling"?

Maybe watching more X-files and less time watching The View, would help.

[HashiriyaS14]

^^It appears to me then, that we are disagreeing over reality, not theory.

The Patriot Act, while perhaps abused here and there in certain cases, HAS NOT resulted in a widespread decrease of personal liberties in these United States, period. It has had zero impact on the AVERAGE citizen.

1/3 of one percent of the US population having landed on a "do not fly" list does not qualify as widespread impact on the average citizen. If I know hundreds of people, none of which are on that list, then it is not "widespread".

You've yet to present any worthwhile evidence that there is an organized conspiracy to limit the personal liberties of the average American. You and your ilk are presenting the Patriot Act as if it is some kind of widely-known ironclad convincing example of a broadly misleading and misused statute, when I see no convincing evidence thereof. I see isolated misuse, I see statistical outliers, but I see it as being within the margin of error, a fraction of a percent.

Additionally, politicians "taking power from us" doesn't get them re-elected, it just makes them popular. They want to be popular so they can win a few terms and then host a show on CNN. You see nefarious nonsense that does not exist. The world is filled with individuals acting in their own isolated self-interest, thus any sort of organized cabal with a diabolical common goal is fantastically rare.

You and your conspiracy-theory loving brethren are stealing time and attention from real problems. You are, in your own special unique snowflake kind of way, slowly ruining this country. I hope you all move to Alaska and secede from the Union, forever isolated in a crab-fishing aerial-wolf-hunting snowmobile-racing AM-radio-listening MRE-stockpiling wintery hell.

For the time being however, I'll be content with the fact that you have been entirely removed from legitimate political discourse. Your (and my former) party may well return to power someday, but rest assured that it will return without you. Enjoy your slow disappearance into irrelevance.

[themadscientist]

yawn. Your reality is yours alone. You can claim that you are right until you are blue in the face but it will do nothing to prove your case. Keep screaming at that wave coming at you, it might not wash you away.

One click of google. Took me a half a second but it still represents twice the effort you have made.

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-241635h ... US....html

etc etc etc.

You continue to fall into a fallacious hole, you your self dug by holding to the standard that the only things the rest of us should care about are things that are personally important to YOU.

You continue by personally attacking your opponents rather than speaking to the issue which continues to expose your complete lack of substance and intellectual integrity. Please do continue, I find it amusing.

You have also made some sort of assumption that the republicans are "my party". A rather dubious leap of "logic" but when taken into context of the body of your rapid turning into the credibility skid, hardly worth note.

I voted for McCain, not because I am a republican but because he was the lesser of two evils. If in the next election cycle, the democrats put up the less offensive candidate, they will get my vote.

The fact that you continue to dodge the issue, engage in ad hominem, appeals to ignorance, question begging, sweeping genralizations, and a cadre of other logical fallicies despite repeated attempts by several people to bring you into some semblance of a mature discussion is really tragic. You claim to be the voice of reason, a title you have awarded yourself, a claim you repeatedly show to be erroneous.

Free thinkers who critically analyse what they see, ask hard questions, not partisan ones, and take action when things are amiss are what made this country Hash. We will not stop picking apart corruption and shining light in dark corners because it inconvenience some, because it makes you upset. If you want to play with the grown ups and talk about big people things you are going to have to up your game. This isn't the schoolyard where debate tactics equivalent to "I'm rubber your glue" get traction.

Step up, I triple dog dare ya!

[themadscientist]

HR 45, round two. Good old Bobby Rush firing from Obama's old seat.

http://cha.house.gov/referred....dm%26

Quote »Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse; (2) conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and (3) collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer.

Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems. [/quote]No, the fed isn't trying to trample on states rights. Not at all.