View Full Version : POTUS gun control EOs (NEW EO / 41P DISCUSSION HERE)
POTUS is due to give a rare speech from the Oval Office at 08:00 PM EST, discussing the CA terrorist attack and "keeping people safe." Some believe POTUS will issue gun control Executive Orders. Stay tuned.
You may watch the speech live at the link below.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/12/05/president-obama-addresses-nation-keeping-american-people-safe
POTUS is due to give a rare speech from the Oval Office at 08:00 PM EST, discussing the CA terrorist attack and "keeping peopls safe." Some believe POTUS will issue gun control Executive Orders. Stay tuned.
You may watch the speech live at the link below.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/12/05/president-obama-addresses-nation-keeping-american-people-safe
What ever it is will NOT be valid according to God-Given/Natural Rights.
He's a joke to the world.
Inkslinger
12-06-15, 19:08
Here, I'll sum it up real quick. Blah blah blah....
There's the easy way... disagree with Obummer, to the No Fly List you go.
Digital_Damage
12-06-15, 19:09
SO... his plan is the same plan they have been trying for the last 4 years?
I entirely expect this to be nothing but rhetoric about not rushing to judge people, then a bunch of gun control measures. The past week must have been spent researching what EO's would be possible without immediately coming under intense legal scrutiny.
He went there 8 minutes in. Paraphrased.. 'We must make it harder to acquire assault weapons.'
Digital_Damage
12-06-15, 19:11
now it has turned into Congress bashing
he is asking why congress has not held a symbolic vote on continuing operations against ISIS?
stupid shit...
"We cannot let this be a war of American against Islam."
He went there 8 minutes in. Paraphrased.. 'We must make it harder to acquire assault weapons.'
Code word for AWB
There's the easy way... disagree with Obummer, to the No Fly List you go.
Without due process.
http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a501/Caeser001/Mobile%20Uploads/FB_IMG_1447003364329_zps2fdlpcn9.jpg (http://s1281.photobucket.com/user/Caeser001/media/Mobile%20Uploads/FB_IMG_1447003364329_zps2fdlpcn9.jpg.html)
I hear a lot of apologeticism for Islam.
Defense of Islam is the main point. And then STARES you down.
FlyingHunter
12-06-15, 19:17
OK, I was wrong.
I was thinking he'd go down that path also.
He said nothing new.
"Firearm Safety Measures" Right.
FlyingHunter
12-06-15, 19:18
Sounded more Pro Islam vs Pro America.
Sounded more Pro Islam vs Pro America.
That's what I observed, no surprise from this kenyan muslim.
wilson1911
12-06-15, 19:23
That was one of the most useless speeches I have ever heard.
I hear a lot of apologeticism for Islam.
Big Time!!!!! Big Big Time!!! Two faced *#$*@#$!!!
Let me get this straight.
Obama turns the borders in Swiss cheese. He then some how finds terrorists to put on a "watch list" but can't seem to actually watch them.... so the solution is to piss on the Constitution and dis-arm America in the name of NOT playing into Islam's hand?
FFS!!! The man is a walking talking contradictory lie machine.
Averageman
12-06-15, 19:24
"We cannot let this be a war of American against Islam."
On that note, has islam declared war on the United States?
Until I see condemnation rather than excuses for radical islam coming from the mouths of their "leaders", I will default to the idea that the only muslim even coming close to condemning it is our current potus.
So let's listen to more of his blah, bah blah about 'common sense gun control', it is certainly the surest way to get the GOP in to the White House.
Yes, I left some capital letters lower case for a clear reason, that would denote some sort of respect for those things.
Dist. Expert 26
12-06-15, 19:24
I'm literally in awe.
Did Roosevelt go on the radio and urge Americans not to judge the Japanese? Did Bush rush to apologize for Islam on 9/11?
How can anyone look at this administration and not see that it actively supports the islamists in their jihad.
We can only hope and pray Hilary embraces very strict gun control in concert with Obama.
wilson1911
12-06-15, 19:30
Obama has balls the size of raisins.
ISIL kills in the name of Islam. WE can only fight extremists, not terrorists.
Ordering more magazines and lowers now..
I also expected more anti gun rhetoric instead of Islamic apologetic.
Can you imagine if he had been POTUS on 9/11?
jerrysimons
12-06-15, 19:31
He has stepped up his rhetoric in describing and condemning jihadists a little. Most surprising he acknowledge the Ft. Hood attacks as terrorism... suttle coarse corrections. Watching CNN before hand, people, liberals included, were starting to question the BS.
transcript:
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/6/9857270/obama-speech-address-transcript-san-bernardino-isis
On guns:
There are several steps that Congress should take right away. To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.
We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures, but the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, no matter how effective they are, cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual was motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do and must do is make it harder for them to kill.
FlyingHunter
12-06-15, 19:35
and for those who dare speak their mind...the boots of Lorettas 1st amendment police will come knocking. Constitution, what Constitution?
I can no longer stand to look at him, let alone listen to his meaningless blather. I passed on the opportunity to bathe in his wisdom.
brushy bill
12-06-15, 19:53
Obama" "Let’s not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear."
Unless of course it is my God given, 2nd Amendment freedom to protect myself and your fear of that freedom...then of course forget all that...
ramairthree
12-06-15, 20:03
I suspect he wanted to go full retard on gun control EOs and Muslim immigration.
But was warned not to toss a match into the oily rag pile and puddles of gas his party has been stacking up and toned it down.
titsonritz
12-06-15, 20:24
He said nothing new, same bullshit.
Averageman
12-06-15, 20:25
I suspect he wanted to go full retard on gun control EOs and Muslim immigration.
But was warned not to toss a match into the oily rag pile and puddles of gas his party has been stacking up and toned it down.
I would agree, you might notice Hillary ratcheting it back a bit also.
This guy is more worried about his legacy than anything else. He knows he is a lame duck and I think this speech showed it. Just as tough as a de-boned marshmallow.
I'm sure he kept thinking "If I can make it through this speech I can go to the awards show and hang out all Gangsta like with Jay-Z."
We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want. ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers. BHO
So when a lunatic shoots up a school, take the weapons away from all Americans even though it's a direct violation of the Constitution... becasue apparently these lunatics speak for gun owners across America.
As commander in chief, I have no greater responsibility than the security of the American people. BHO
Yes, and as POTUS you have an even greater responsibility which is the security of the Constitution as WE THE PEOPLE know how to take care of ourselves.
Man, he worded that craftily.
I would agree, you might notice Hillary ratcheting it back a bit also.
This guy is more worried about his legacy than anything else. He knows he is a lame duck and I think this speech showed it. Just as tough as a de-boned marshmallow.
I'm sure he kept thinking "If I can make it through this speech I can go to the awards show and hang out all Gangsta like with Jay-Z."
Do yourself a favor. Don't turn your back on him. That Zebra is not going to change his stripes.
SomeOtherGuy
12-06-15, 20:35
Some of the most oppressive and unconstitutional gun restrictions in the nation did exactly nothing to stop Islamic terrorism in California. Yet he blathers that much milder but still offensive restrictions at the federal level would somehow help. That's full-retard stupid.
Whatever Obama's actual religion, IF ANY, he certainly likes to support Sunni Islamic terrorists while doing everything possible to oppress normal Americans, especially white Americans who aren't poor, stupid or socialist.
SilverBullet432
12-06-15, 20:59
FTP..
What Pisses him off and other liberals is the the pro gun party votes, always.
Pro gun gets to the polls. Yet what I find funny is probably there were more of us watching his speech than leftist. What I can't understand is why he is refusing to blame the instability of the Middle East by his premature withdraw from active hotspots, just to fulfill his wish to say HE ended the war.
He's arming non military forces with the same firearms that he doesn't want the American people to have. Where does he think those firearms are gonna end up in the end? Where do they end up in the past when we armed others? He created the instability that currently is the Middle East. He gave ISIS the means to grow, yet refuses to defend the American people against them. Bush was a idiot in my opinion, but he loves this country and went after those who meant to do is harm.
And yet the problem is the NRA and any one who chooses to believe in the constitution, and doesn't want to ignore it as he does. He wants to wage war, not against the Middle East, not against ISIS. We are the bad guys, the American people are his targets. We are to blame.
To hell with this guy. He should be on our team not theirs.
It is clear to anyone who pays attention that this guy is a saboteur and traitor.
The question is, is anyone going to do anything about it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoPcXPaa_sQ
We don't only need to make it harder for terrorists to kill Americans, we also need to make it easier for Americans to kill terrorists.
Watched the speech. It was on the weak sauce side of things I thought.
I'm surprised he didn't go apeshit on gun control. My best guess is that the handlers in the DNC are scared to rock the boat too hard.
This situation as a whole leaves the DNC in a tough spot. They don't want to appear weak and do nothing (which they are, but to them this counts as action since they suck at their jobs).
A wild card has been created. My mother in law isn't a gun person, but has used them. She told me tonight that she wants to get a CHL.... I was not expecting that at all. She then starts asking lots of questions. She's not into guns at all. But, she all of a sudden feels she needs to do this. This is the wild card. The people that don't really care about weapons, are starting to care in the context of self preservation and safety.
Given the NICS numbers right now, the dnc brass knows they have problem. Appease to their base, without losing or pissing off the more moderate, like my mother in law.
I'm sure they'll still push gun control. But it seems like the are trying for an asymmetric fight in gun control. They know that out right bans aren't popular or legal depending on the state (currently). So they'll work the back door instead, like no fly no buy.
Say what you want about GWB, but at least he wasn't a giant puss like Barry. This apologizing for all the bullshit in the world really gets old for me.
We all know the real problem is the NRA. You and I are the underlying cause and effect for all these mass shootings. If fact, it is us, who have brought on the downfall of a free society who live by the unwritten code of conduct of integrity, value and character. If we really want to come to a simple, comprehensive and common sense and more importantly, a common ground solution, we must turn our guns in, and do so with the attitude that this is morally right and justified by our responsibility. There is no need to possess a military style assault rifle or any rifle or hand gun that excepts a high capacity detachable box magazine when we have police who or punctual, efficient, capable and trained to respond to our own unique situation at a moments notice. If we all come together and turn in our guns, criminals and those with evil intentions will be conscientiously compelled to rightly follow us in our example and do the same. It starts with us though. Our families, our schools and our society will be a much safer environment under the protection and leadership or our government for the people.
PatrioticDisorder
12-06-15, 21:36
He's swinging for the fences, if Obama actually got legislation saying people on the no fly list cannot buy guns, the no fly list would grow in size exponentially overnight, for example every member on M4C would likely be put on the no fly list and deemed "radical conservative right wingers." It would be the biggest gun grab in the history of the planet! And when the republicans oppose it (which they will) many naive people, even some conservatives would think it is the republicans taking "extreme" position "letting terrorists buy guns." This charade needs to be spelled out to anyone that will listen.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-06-15, 21:37
It is clear to anyone who pays attention that this guy is a saboteur and traitor.
The question is, is anyone going to do anything about it?
If we were chicks, it's like a blind date with your boss' son. You really didn't know him when they set you up, and no one listened to the girl from the mail room about his past. Your only real option is to run out the clock and hope you get out with out being raped.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-06-15, 21:49
He's swinging for the fences, if Obama actually got legislation saying people on the no fly list cannot buy guns, the no fly list would grow in size exponentially overnight, for example every member on M4C would likely be put on the no fly list and deemed "radical conservative right wingers." It would be the biggest gun grab in the history of the planet! And when the republicans oppose it (which they will) many naive people, even some conservatives would think it is the republicans taking "extreme" position "letting terrorists buy guns." This charade needs to be spelled out to anyone that will listen.
Airplane travel isn't a right, but the 2A is. All it will take is someone getting turned down on a BGC with out any accountability or recourse and even liberal judges will rule against it. At that point, they either invalidate the law or gut the No-fly list. The gutting may actually be BHOs end game so that his biddies can see him after he is out of office.
We all know the real problem is the NRA. You and I are the underlying cause and effect for all these mass shootings. If fact, it is us, who have brought on the downfall of a free society who live by the unwritten code of conduct of integrity, value and character. If we really want to come to a simple, comprehensive and common sense and more importantly, a common ground solution, we must turn our guns in, and do so with the attitude that this is morally right and justified by our responsibility. There is no need to possess a military style assault rifle or any rifle or hand gun that excepts a high capacity detachable box magazine when we have police who or punctual, efficient, capable and trained to respond to our own unique situation at a moments notice. If we all come together and turn in our guns, criminals and those with evil intentions will be conscientiously compelled to rightly follow us in our example and do the same. It starts with us though. Our families, our schools and our society will be a much safer environment under the protection and leadership or our government for the people.
Your correct. We shouldn't be permitted to own military assault style weapons. We should be permitted to own actual f'ing military assault weapons. Boom... Drops the mic
Flying on a plane - patronizing a private business - absolutely is a right, that the government cannot hinder without due process.
Flying on a plane - patronizing a private business - absolutely is a right, that the government cannot hinder without due process.
Not really. The federal government regulates every single aspect of commercial air travel and no individual has a "right" to get in any commercial aircraft. All sorts of reasons why someone wouldn't be allowed to fly in an airline or that would cause someone to be removed from a flight. For example, not complying with the instructions of the flight crew will get you thrown off a plane pretty darn quick. It's federal law. No trial, no presumption of innocence. Just sayin'.
We should be permitted to own actual f'ing military assault weapons. Boom... Drops the mic
Stop. your giving me a hard on!
Here is my take - we need to understand that as far as most Americans are concerned Obama gave a good speech, and made reasonable points.
Why do I think this - because I had to explain to my family why the 'no fly - no buy' was not a good idea. They heard and understood what I was saying, but don't have the same concerns about the government exponentially adding new members to the list.
Man, as afraid of what I thought he was going to say as I was, it was nice to hear him say basically nothing for once.
titsonritz
12-06-15, 23:17
Well he was in a bit of a hurry or there would have been more substantive content.
If Obama cannot hang out with Hollywood celebrities, the terrorists win. (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/06/if-obama-cannot-hang-out-with-hollywood-the-terrorists-win/)
titsonritz
12-06-15, 23:19
Listening to him gives me the shits.
36393
SomeOtherGuy
12-06-15, 23:57
Airplane travel isn't a right, but the 2A is.
Freedom of travel is a basic human right. It has been recognized as such in US courts, and a few seconds of thought should show that it is, if you believe in human rights at all.
You could say "oh, yeah, freedom of travel, but we can restrict the means" and that is about as logical as saying 2A is limited to muskets and 1A is limited to the printing press technology of 1789. How would you react if the "no fly" list was also the no-drive, no-bus, no-train list? Now explain to me all the realistic and affordable ways a person can travel between the lower 48 and any foreign country other than Canada and Mexico, or even US island states/possessions without flying on an airline?
Not really. The federal government regulates every single aspect of commercial air travel and no individual has a "right" to get in any commercial aircraft. All sorts of reasons why someone wouldn't be allowed to fly in an airline or that would cause someone to be removed from a flight. For example, not complying with the instructions of the flight crew will get you thrown off a plane pretty darn quick. It's federal law. No trial, no presumption of innocence. Just sayin'.
It doesn't matter if the fedgov regulates something, that doesn't magically turn right into privilege. Private parties - airlines - can choose who they contract with, but there is a general nondiscrimination requirement as a matter of federal law and the 14th Amendment (for common carriers, which they are), and deemed to be encompassed to some extent in the original Bill of Rights as well. Someone could be barred from flying for good cause, subject to due process appeals. For example, a prior incident of interfering with a flight crew. But some arbitrary and secret government no-fly list is obviously problematic and looks pretty unconstitutional.
By the way, just this past week a federal court ruled that the current no-fly list IS UNconstitutional. They didn't prohibit its use immediately, but it will be the subject of further court proceedings in the next few months, and it should be viewed as on shaky ground legally.
"We cannot let this be a war of American against Islam."
Well it is a war of Islam against America.
And they are worried about people on "no fly" lists having guns because they might commit acts of terrorism? How about this, if they might commit acts of terrorism, go get them NOW. They can kill people just as easy with pressure cookers, pipe bombs and cars as they can with guns.
The idea that if you simply keep guns away from murderously violent people that they are somehow now "safe" is so absurd I can't believe everyone can't figure that crap out.
The only good thing is the wake up call this country got.
That NICE, EMPLOYED, EDUCATED, FAMILY MAN who you've known for years and just happens to be a Muslim CAN BE A TERRORIST and he will kill you without a second thought at a Christmas party. He will orphan his kids, bring his wife along and they only concern he will have is killing as many people as possible.
Won't matter that he was born here, won't matter that he never had any direct contact with terrorists groups or organizations. All he has to do is go on the internet and sympathize enough with radical Muslims. He doesn't need to form a cell, doesn't need to make contact with the home office in Syria.
This is NO DIFFERENT than white supremacist and skinhead groups who stopped forming KKK chapters and similar organizations because it made them too easy to target. They simply were inspired by individuals such as Tom Metzger and went "lone wolf." Well there is one difference, Morris Dees and the SLPC aren't tracking any potential muslim terrorists, and doesn't seem as though it is a priority for anyone else in this administration. Seems all they are really concerned with are "possible" hate crimes against Muslims? And since 9-11 when was the last time somebody in the US blew up a mosque or otherwise murdered dozens of muslims?
They tell us ISIS is contained and then Paris is attacked. They tell us there are no "credible threats" concerning attacks in the US and then we see San Bernadino. The incompetence is staggering.
echo5whiskey
12-07-15, 01:32
The idea that if you simply keep guns away from murderously violent people that they are somehow now "safe" is so absurd I can't believe everyone can't figure that crap out.
Duh, IEDs can only be made in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Frankly, I'm glad they had guns. At least with guns, they can only kill one or two [with lucky shots] at a time. If they had only used explosives, they could have killed the same number, or more, in a fraction of a second--and you can't exactly defend yourself [without taking drastic precautions] from bombs. I'm actually pretty surprised that they haven't been attempted here more. They do know how effective they are.
They had a dozen pipe bombs.
Duh, IEDs can only be made in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Frankly, I'm glad they had guns. At least with guns, they can only kill one or two [with lucky shots] at a time. If they had only used explosives, they could have killed the same number, or more, in a fraction of a second--and you can't exactly defend yourself [without taking drastic precautions] from bombs. I'm actually pretty surprised that they haven't been attempted here more. They do know how effective they are.
Yeah, I don't even want to mention the 10 more effective ways to commit mass murder off the top of my head. They have enough ideas.
Part of me is glad they used rifles with bullet buttons, just shows how pointless all that restriction really is. It accomplishes NOTHING. But I don't want to be glad anything related to innocent people killed by savages devoted to a death cult, plus that realization will be lost on most advocates of gun restrictions.
They had a dozen pipe bombs.
That's why I mentioned pipe bombs. Even if they somehow were prevented from getting guns, people were still going to get killed.
echo5whiskey
12-07-15, 02:25
They had a dozen pipe bombs.
That was partially my point. They could have done much worse than what they did. The fact that they used their rifles could have possibly saved a few lives.
Yeah, I don't even want to mention the 10 more effective ways to commit mass murder off the top of my head. They have enough ideas.
Part of me is glad they used rifles with bullet buttons, just shows how pointless all that restriction really is. It accomplishes NOTHING. But I don't want to be glad anything related to innocent people killed by savages devoted to a death cult, plus that realization will be lost on most advocates of gun restrictions.
And it will encourage the Dems to pass legislation to outlaw AWs in CA.
Outlander Systems
12-07-15, 06:16
Keep in mind, once these assholes meet armed resistance a time or two, their tactics will significantly change.
So, while the POTUS has his dick in a knot over the "gun problem", by even bringing it up, he is illustrating what a clueless buffoon he is.
It doesn't stop with guns, people. There are bad motherjammers out there that will devise clever ways to kill us.
So remember that, while 14 corpses pile up, the government is more concerned about hurting feelings, than physical violence being waged against us.
Fellas, we are all on our own.
Listening to him gives me the shits.
36393
Haha... Lol.... Funny you say that. I actually had to take some super colon blow medicine yesterday for a disgnostic procedure today.... So I watched obamas speech on the can, just for added intensity and screaming.... Like at the end of Van Wilder....lol.
Crow Hunter
12-07-15, 07:27
Well it is a war of Islam against America.
And they are worried about people on "no fly" lists having guns because they might commit acts of terrorism? How about this, if they might commit acts of terrorism, go get them NOW. They can kill people just as easy with pressure cookers, pipe bombs and cars as they can with guns.
The idea that if you simply keep guns away from murderously violent people that they are somehow now "safe" is so absurd I can't believe everyone can't figure that crap out.
The only good thing is the wake up call this country got.
That NICE, EMPLOYED, EDUCATED, FAMILY MAN who you've known for years and just happens to be a Muslim CAN BE A TERRORIST and he will kill you without a second thought at a Christmas party. He will orphan his kids, bring his wife along and they only concern he will have is killing as many people as possible.
Won't matter that he was born here, won't matter that he never had any direct contact with terrorists groups or organizations. All he has to do is go on the internet and sympathize enough with radical Muslims. He doesn't need to form a cell, doesn't need to make contact with the home office in Syria.
This is NO DIFFERENT than white supremacist and skinhead groups who stopped forming KKK chapters and similar organizations because it made them too easy to target. They simply were inspired by individuals such as Tom Metzger and went "lone wolf." Well there is one difference, Morris Dees and the SLPC aren't tracking any potential muslim terrorists, and doesn't seem as though it is a priority for anyone else in this administration. Seems all they are really concerned with are "possible" hate crimes against Muslims? And since 9-11 when was the last time somebody in the US blew up a mosque or otherwise murdered dozens of muslims?
They tell us ISIS is contained and then Paris is attacked. They tell us there are no "credible threats" concerning attacks in the US and then we see San Bernadino. The incompetence is staggering.
Good post!
Outlander Systems
12-07-15, 08:02
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qarItI5_LKc
Obama is no threat whatsoever to ISIS.
We the People are. These SOBs are going to keep on and learn the hard way what "It's on like Red Dawn" literally means.
Even the black folks were talking about Obutthole and saying what a down low pussy he was. I won't go into the very graphic nature of what they said but needless to say a LOT of 'diversity' types have this 'wish a motherf--ker would' attitude towards ME people now and some of the ME store owners are really minding their attitudes.
It's a both eerie and oddly uplifting that even unseemly street types actually give a shit about terrorist threats.
Well gang, the TODAY show has weighed in......
Willie Geist, Natalie Morales, Tamron Hall
To my astonishment they read tweets from Trump, Cruz, Rubio and actually agreed Obama's speech was weak and same 'ole, same 'ole, talk no action.
Then they weighed in on gun purchases each time Obama opens his mouth and sales after shootings, Black Friday numbers, etc...
Then Tamron.... whom I'm sure really has her finger on the pulse of the gun culture had to go down the road of "But wait, there's more"... and spin the conversation to "Even the NRA members want 'common sense' gun control"... She got a little "yeah, yeah" "that's true" from Natalie and Willie but honestly they actually appeared to be licking their wounds as a contrast to their normally gleeful selves when gun control is placed on their agenda.
==== tin foil===
I know this sounds crazy, but I have read Obama's speech a few times, and I swear, if I were a local terrorist or a terrorist in action so to speak. I would think he was sending me directions of what to look out for and not try that same move again. IOW, if you were thinking about buying a gun, don't. If you are thinking about bringing home a bride, stop. If you are using online communications, be careful as people are going to be looking closer.
IOW, it's not like he was telling America how much safer we will be. He was telling his brothers what to watch out for now and to stop using the techniques used by the CA crew.
It's the only people the speech would make sense to. It was otherwise a 'nothing' speech, other than it gave a heads up to any enemy to alert them to where traps may be placed.
I guess it's tin foil, but when you have the TODAY show hosts scratching their head and grasping at straws as to what that speech was about..... Obama doesn't do things for no reason. It had to meant for someone.
Outlander Systems
12-07-15, 08:56
http://media.giphy.com/media/3oEdv6b0YsuzylgREI/giphy.gif
It's a both eerie and oddly uplifting that even unseemly street types actually give a shit about terrorist threats.
Outlander Systems
12-07-15, 08:56
http://media.giphy.com/media/3oEdv6b0YsuzylgREI/giphy.gif
It's a both eerie and oddly uplifting that even unseemly street types actually give a shit about terrorist threats.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-07-15, 09:32
I don't know what to think about Stefan Molyneux beyond the indisputable fact that he needs an editor...
If I hear one more time about their 'extensive arsenal'
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiU0KyOhsrJAhXquYMKHWjrAGUQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2015%2F12%2F04%2Fus%2Fsan-bernardino-shooting.html&usg=AFQjCNGXTV6XE9UnnXT8R9BBNXl8mG5mog&sig2=StLErz1edN7sJRE2DJ8VyQ&bvm=bv.108538919,d.amc
Or a "Simply Enormous Arsenal"...
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/12/03/3728000/the-san-bernardino-shooters-had-a-simply-enormous-arsensal-and-all-of-it-was-bought-legally/
Two rifles and two hand guns? From people that probably have about 30 pairs of 'black' high heels in their closet?
The question would be, if they had any less guns, would they even have had enough for a shooting? Is an arsenal four guns now??? I'm pretty sure to qualify as an 'arsenal' you have to have more guns than hands.
I do think that at first look the 'No Fly, No Buy' thing has some traction. Maybe they think that it is a good marker to have in their back pocket for 2016, or the next attack will have the perps on the ''No Fly' and they can reign down crap on the GOP. But it must not actually test well otherwise they'd be pushing it more. Probably because when people start to think about it they realize it is related to the TSA and they know that is a complete waste of time and effort.
I think the better response to 'No Fly, no buy" is why are these people even able to walk on the street let alone into a gun store? If they can't fly, why are we letting them ride trains and buses? They can buy pipes and propane tanks and all manner of other potentially dangerous items and do mayhem. Isn't drawing the line at planes a little late and reactionary?
There's the easy way... disagree with Obummer, to the No Fly List you go. This is what I was thinking. THe No Fly List rules will need to change. But WAIT didn't they both just fly recently to the Middle East!
I'm literally in awe.
Did Roosevelt go on the radio and urge Americans not to judge the Japanese? Did Bush rush to apologize for Islam on 9/11?
He is pathetic.
We don't only need to make it harder for terrorists to kill Americans, we also need to make it easier for Americans to kill terrorists.
A wild card has been created. My mother in law isn't a gun person, but has used them. She told me tonight that she wants to get a CHL.... I was not expecting that at all. She then starts asking lots of questions. She's not into guns at all. But, she all of a sudden feels she needs to do this. This is the wild card. The people that don't really care about weapons, are starting to care in the context of self preservation and safety.
Say what you want about GWB, but at least he wasn't a giant puss like Barry. This apologizing for all the bullshit in the world really gets old for me. I am looking forward to shooting with friends this weekend who are now interested in self defense.
Keep in mind, once these assholes meet armed resistance a time or two, their tactics will significantly change.
So, while the POTUS has his dick in a knot over the "gun problem", by even bringing it up, he is illustrating what a clueless buffoon he is.
It doesn't stop with guns, people. There are bad motherjammers out there that will devise clever ways to kill us.
So remember that, while 14 corpses pile up, the government is more concerned about hurting feelings, than physical violence being waged against us.
Fellas, we are all on our own. MORE Good People with Guns is the answer.
Outlander Systems
12-07-15, 09:51
What Molyneaux pointed out is what I brought up to my wife watching Limp-Dick live last night:
No-Fly, no buy?
So, our constitutionally guaranteed rights can be waved away on a whim, without a trial, by some nameless secret committee? Or what?
I mean, if that's the game we're going to start playing, count me the **** out. Have we really gone so far off course, that we can seriously consider these kinds of things, without question?
I always thought WROL would look more like Mad Max; instead, it just looks like nekkid tyranny.
I don't know what to think about Stefan Molyneux beyond the indisputable fact that he needs an editor...
If I hear one more time about their 'extensive arsenal'
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiU0KyOhsrJAhXquYMKHWjrAGUQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2015%2F12%2F04%2Fus%2Fsan-bernardino-shooting.html&usg=AFQjCNGXTV6XE9UnnXT8R9BBNXl8mG5mog&sig2=StLErz1edN7sJRE2DJ8VyQ&bvm=bv.108538919,d.amc
Or a "Simply Enormous Arsenal"...
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/12/03/3728000/the-san-bernardino-shooters-had-a-simply-enormous-arsensal-and-all-of-it-was-bought-legally/
Two rifles and two hand guns? From people that probably have about 30 pairs of 'black' high heels in their closet?
The question would be, if they had any less guns, would they even have had enough for a shooting? Is an arsenal four guns now??? I'm pretty sure to qualify as an 'arsenal' you have to have more guns than hands.
I do think that at first look the 'No Fly, No Buy' thing has some traction. Maybe they think that it is a good marker to have in their back pocket for 2016, or the next attack will have the perps on the ''No Fly' and they can reign down crap on the GOP. But it must not actually test well otherwise they'd be pushing it more. Probably because when people start to think about it they realize it is related to the TSA and they know that is a complete waste of time and effort.
I think the better response to 'No Fly, no buy" is why are these people even able to walk on the street let alone into a gun store? If they can't fly, why are we letting them ride trains and buses? They can buy pipes and propane tanks and all manner of other potentially dangerous items and do mayhem. Isn't drawing the line at planes a little late and reactionary?
I think another question that needs to be asked is how do you even get on a "No Fly" list to begin with. There have been many cases over the years of law abiding citizens being put on a "no Fly" list for no reason. If I remember correctly some of these cases involved people who were part of the "patriot movement" or made large guns and ammo purchases that were tracked. Now can you see how the "No Fly" list could be used against every single one of us as a back door to gun control.
Edit:
The current format of the "No Fly" list is no different from the political persecution displayed by the IRS against parties that appose the current administrations agends.
You know....bringing in a buncha people you know are terrorist as hell, dumping them into Hometown, USA, and then blaming guns and calling for gun control.....
Hmmm. Do we, like, need a 2016 crisis or something for some reason?
The emperor has no clothes and a tiny pecker. And it's been mighty cold lately.
Man....the white guilt college kids might still think he's decent but his hood cred is gone. I actually foresee more legit actual hate crimes against ME shop owners committed by black folks over this. Man, if some of you heard the stuff coming out of mouths....
See....whatever happens overseas is one thing but people DO NOT like feeling vulnerable at home. If people are willing to shoot each other over dope turf; they AIN'T gonna be intimidated by terrorists.
People are buying guns. People are carrying guns
Do these Ivory tower eggheads not know that nobody is counting on them? Nobody is buying it.
I mean...all I know is that I've heard a LOT of unlikely banter from unlikely people over the last few days.
Real talk. Maybe black folks, white folks, and Mexican folks don't always get along but when all three hate your Islamic guts; you really, really f--ked up. Even the black muslims are being heavily ostracized.
Let's face it...Judeo-Christianity, rightly or wrongly, are the ties that bind. Lots of blacks, whites, and latinos....even if not religious themselves...had religious grandparents or something.
The whole "we are the world" shit flies with PoliSci 101 kids because it is r'ebellious', but everyone else was indifferent before....however now they can see themselves gacking an errant jihadi.
I mean really. I don't think our elected officials or talking heads know that what they are saying is opposite entirely to what is on people's minds.
I mean...it's personal now. Maybe even worse than 9/11. 9/11 was two buildings in NYC.
San Bernadino could've been anywhere. It looked like anywhere. It wasn't on a plane. It was out in the world. And that means people want a level playing field.
I know we are kinda in the M4C bubble looking at it through eyes of Military, Police, Public Service, Switched on, etc...
But when street folks are talking about "getting some" and teenage girls are getting dad to buy them ARs and lots of mags and girls who live together are pooling together for ARs or whatever they can afford; a bell has been rung.
Interesting times.
brickboy240
12-07-15, 10:26
My take-away on O-bummer's speech was this:
Don't treat Muslims with suspicion and you need to give up your ARs and AKs.
That was pretty much it.
No plans to do away with ISIS (not that he really could...or would) and no other solid plans to ensure these things never happen again. No plans to slow the importation of Syrian refugees, either.
I have come to the conclusion that the REAL problem is not radical Islam...it is the Obama Administration.
I don't see why they need to use the no fly list. To easy to get put on and there is no way o f getting off. Hell, some folks don't even know they are on it till the check in.
Why don't they just call it like it is, a terrorism watch list. If ya miss the name on the list during the nics check so help you god. What, oh, they don't want Johnnie Jihad to knw maybe he is being watched or a person of interest? Do the immeadiate wait then denile within 48-72 hours so the bagadonuts don't get his purchase as occurred last year and the dealer without any followup after the guberment alotted time to act expired.
What Molyneaux pointed out is what I brought up to my wife watching Limp-Dick live last night:
No-Fly, no buy?
So, our constitutionally guaranteed rights can be waved away on a whim, without a trial, by some nameless secret committee? Or what?
The No Fly list angle is SCARY!
"It’s probably America’s most controversial list. You can be put on it without your knowledge, and getting off it is extremely difficult."
"According to the document, federal agencies can nominate someone for a government blacklist if "an individual is known or suspected to be or has been knowingly engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to TERRORISM and/or TERRORIST ACTIVITIES.""
http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2015/09/09/8-ways-can-end-up-on-no-fly-list/
[/B]
I think another question that needs to be asked is how do you even get on a "No Fly" list to begin with. There have been many cases over the years of law abiding citizens being put on a "no Fly" list for no reason. If I remember correctly some of these cases involved people who were part of the "patriot movement" or made large guns and ammo purchases that were tracked. Now can you see how the "No Fly" list could be used against every single one of us as a back door to gun control.
Edit:
The current format of the "No Fly" list is no different from the political persecution displayed by the IRS against parties that appose the current administrations agends.
I don't see why they need to use the no fly list. To easy to get put on and there is no way o f getting off. Hell, some folks don't even know they are on it till the check in.
Why don't they just call it like it is, a terrorism watch list. If ya miss the name on the list during the nics check so help you god. What, oh, they don't want Johnnie Jihad to knw maybe he is being watched or a person of interest? Do the immeadiate wait then denile within 48-72 hours so the bagadonuts don't get his purchase as occurred last year and the dealer without any followup after the guberment alotted time to act expired.
When there is a hit on the No Fly List on say a car stop law enforcement is notified and told not to let the subject know they're on the list. LE is also told not to take any action because the person is on the list.
Digital_Damage
12-07-15, 10:39
I remember an 11 year old boy scout was barred from flying a few years back because he was on the nofly list....
sevenhelmet
12-07-15, 10:48
Interesting post, Firefly. Part of me actually finds that heartwarming, part of me is concerned about this blowing up into a street war.
While the transcript of last night's speech wasn't as bad as I expected it to be, it still stunk. Has this "no fly no buy" idea come up before? I hadn't even considered it before reading the transcript, and while I first thought it might have merit, further reflection made me realize what's likely being asked for here, especially when the source is considered. It's a BAD IDEA, especially the way the no fly list is currently utilized.
I could see a due process whereby US citizens placed on the no fly list are informed and given a chance to appeal (no luck, foreigners), but that could have negative intel gathering or other counter-terrorism ramifications (should we care?). As it stands now, denying US citizens on the no fly list the ability to buy a gun is blatantly unconstitutional, not that I expect it to slow down efforts to put this latest "good idea" into effect.
Furthermore, his "plan to defeat ISIS" was weak, at best, and completely ineffective at worst. Securing the border with Turkey? Great. How about OUR borders? How about all the refugees that "we won't even discuss" following the Paris attacks three weeks ago? How about the fact that we could have smashed ISIS/ISIL/whatever's infrastructure months ago, but didn't? What about cutting their supply lines and letting them wither on the vine? We could easily use their own "you can't leave the kingdom" policy against them. Instead, it's more "coalitions". 65 nations? Gimme a break- I saw coalitions in Iraq and Afghanistan. You guys remember ISAF? I bet at least 40 of those countries said the diplomatic equivalent of "OK Barry, we'll give you a dollar."
I
Saw
Americans
Fighting
We are doing the same thing, expecting a different result, simply because there are "no boots" on the ground (I guess our SOF guys don't count?)...
SomeOtherGuy
12-07-15, 10:54
==== tin foil===
I know this sounds crazy, but I have read Obama's speech a few times, and I swear, if I were a local terrorist or a terrorist in action so to speak. I would think he was sending me directions of what to look out for and not try that same move again. IOW, if you were thinking about buying a gun, don't. If you are thinking about bringing home a bride, stop. If you are using online communications, be careful as people are going to be looking closer.
IOW, it's not like he was telling America how much safer we will be. He was telling his brothers what to watch out for now and to stop using the techniques used by the CA crew.
It's the only people the speech would make sense to. It was otherwise a 'nothing' speech, other than it gave a heads up to any enemy to alert them to where traps may be placed.
I guess it's tin foil, but when you have the TODAY show hosts scratching their head and grasping at straws as to what that speech was about..... Obama doesn't do things for no reason. It had to meant for someone.
There are two reasonable interpretations:
1) He's totally out of touch, clueless, and that is actually his best attempt; or
2) Your theory above.
Both seem possible.
The Administration is full of people who hate traditional white America - HATE it - and they are certainly doing plenty to harm it. Don't look narrowly - remember the IRS persecution of only certain political organizations, and the Obamacare scam that hurts everyone but hurts small and medium businesses more than all others. Look at the names and backgrounds of people advising and/or controlling Obama. Soros, Jarrett, Ayers. Not Muslim so much, but all working to destroy traditional and independent America. Fostering of Islamic terrorism could be a tool in their non-religious political goals.
At his point I plan to stand against every "solution," every word, and every thought this windbag manages to yammer to the public. He sells a lie at every opportunity. His proposals fail to address a single pressing issue we face, and invariably are designed to benefit his malignant oppressive agenda. He cannot be trusted to execute any power within the Office of The President in an honorable manner.
SomeOtherGuy
12-07-15, 11:04
You know....bringing in a buncha people you know are terrorist as hell, dumping them into Hometown, USA, and then blaming guns and calling for gun control.....
Hmmm. Do we, like, need a 2016 crisis or something for some reason?
Do ya think?
We have been experiencing manufactured crises for at least 5 years now, arguably longer. They have been media circuses with tenuous factual backgrounds. Remember the supposed crisis of Central American children entering the US? The ongoing European "refugee" invasion that reached a crescendo in the Paris attacks? All the media focus on "ISIS", a shadowy group with better TV production values than the major TV networks and some Hollywood studios? The constant media bashing of Iran, a country that by mideast standards is moderate? (Nowhere I want to be, but not nearly as bad as some of our "allies"!) Our support of an Islamo-Fascist regime in Turkey, a country that had been secular and moderate for decades? The civil war in Ukraine, where the West was on the side of real, actual Nazis? The airline shootdown over Ukraine - probably committed by Ukraine - and the "ISIS" bombing of a Russian airliner just weeks ago?
Some groups are pushing for a major global crisis in 2016, probably to try and implement a stronger form of "world government" that will further cement some existing elites in their elite status, and further disenfranchise everyone else. Exactly who is pushing and through exactly what means isn't clear, but there is a push.
brickboy240
12-07-15, 11:53
One glaring thing left out of Obama's speech....
He asks US to not use prejudice towards Muslims and want to take OUR AKs and ARs away but NEVER does he ask the Muslim community in America to help out in calling out or turning in THEIR kooks!
Ever notice this? We are all supposed to change and give up OUR freedoms but the Muslim community is NEVER asked to help control their kooks at all.
Strange how that is how it always goes...is it not?
Outlander Systems
12-07-15, 12:23
That and, we should all disarm and sing Kumbaya, while the Shitstain's administration uses OUR MONEY to buy TOWs, and Select-fire Weapons for extremists in Syria and Iraq...
...that makes ****in' sense, yeah.
One glaring thing left out of Obama's speech....
He asks US to not use prejudice towards Muslims and want to take OUR AKs and ARs away but NEVER does he ask the Muslim community in America to help out in calling out or turning in THEIR kooks!
Ever notice this? We are all supposed to change and give up OUR freedoms but the Muslim community is NEVER asked to help control their kooks at all.
Strange how that is how it always goes...is it not?
If you like your Global Government, you can keep your Global Government...
Do ya think?
We have been experiencing manufactured crises for at least 5 years now, arguably longer. They have been media circuses with tenuous factual backgrounds. Remember the supposed crisis of Central American children entering the US? The ongoing European "refugee" invasion that reached a crescendo in the Paris attacks? All the media focus on "ISIS", a shadowy group with better TV production values than the major TV networks and some Hollywood studios? The constant media bashing of Iran, a country that by mideast standards is moderate? (Nowhere I want to be, but not nearly as bad as some of our "allies"!) Our support of an Islamo-Fascist regime in Turkey, a country that had been secular and moderate for decades? The civil war in Ukraine, where the West was on the side of real, actual Nazis? The airline shootdown over Ukraine - probably committed by Ukraine - and the "ISIS" bombing of a Russian airliner just weeks ago?
Some groups are pushing for a major global crisis in 2016, probably to try and implement a stronger form of "world government" that will further cement some existing elites in their elite status, and further disenfranchise everyone else. Exactly who is pushing and through exactly what means isn't clear, but there is a push.
I'm not sure why everybody is so upset at this "speech".
First of all, 7yrs ago, Obama said he wanted and promised to "fundamentally change america". He didn't say how, and no one asked.
He was put there for this purpose, to finish the destruction of America as we know it. To reduce it to the level of any other third world shithole. We are well on our way.
He hates everything about America as it was when he showed up. He has stated that he would stand with the Muslims in times of trouble, and is keeping that promise.
Why's everyone so upset, and expecting him to do something different?
Why does anyone think he will change what he is?
Somebody decided he needed to be in charge.
Twice.
I'm pretty sure it was no one here. But, you can bet your ass those same somebodies will show up at the next election, to continue the path we are on.
Personally, my suggestion is to stay ready for what is coming, we all know what that is, and live life to its fullest. Before too much longer, life is going to look a lot different.
Sent from my SGP612 using Tapatalk
One sure thing that came out of zero's speech last night was the biggest gun store in Marietta, GA is flooded with buyers. Ammo and guns are selling at a very steady pace. I wouldn't say it's a total panic, but it's a mild panic.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
12-07-15, 13:30
The "No fly, No buy" is an awesome idea. If I had the power to, silently and without any repercussions, place my political enemies on a list that severely limited their constitutional rights, boy would I have a good time!
Post on M4C ideas that sound a little too far right? No Fly No Buy!
Bought one too many guns this year? No Fly No Buy!
Veteran that could have PTSD? No Fly No Buy!
Muslim refugee with ties to ISIS? Proceed as normal brother.
Outlander Systems
12-07-15, 13:32
Don't forget arming the Cartels, with the ATF's blessing...
Muslim refugee with ties to ISIS? Proceed as normal brother.
There are(or were) AIRLINE PILOTS on the "no fly list". I shit you not.
I dont trust that list as far as I can throw it, and that aint that far.
There are(or were) AIRLINE PILOTS on the "no fly list". I shit you not.
I dont trust that list as far as I can throw it, and that aint that far.
I seemed to recall there was some members of congress that was one that list.
Found an article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/no-fly-list-inverted-politics/419172/
How does someone get on the watchlist? Who knows! The government says it gets thousands of tips a day, but it won’t tell you whether you’re on it, and it won’t tell you how to get off, as my colleague Conor Friedersdorf explained in 2012. The enormous size of the lists inevitably led to confusion, false positives, and outrage. Even Senator Ted Kennedy managed to end up on the no-fly list. So did Cat Stevens, now known as Yusuf Islam.
"Obama's a total pussy!" - Ralph Peters (Ret. Lt. Col.)
https://youtu.be/MglTSDDexeA
LowSpeed_HighDrag
12-07-15, 15:30
8 Ways to end up on the No Fly List
http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2015/09/09/8-ways-can-end-up-on-no-fly-list/
No Fly List Nightmares
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/no-fly-mistakes-cat-stevens-ted-kennedy-john-lewis/
ACLU suing, and winning the suits, against the Feds for the No Fly List
https://reason.com/blog/2015/12/07/why-the-aclu-is-suing-no-fly-list
I wonder how many M4C members are on a list.
Outlander Systems
12-07-15, 15:39
All of us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Core
I wonder how many M4C members are on a list.
All of us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Core
Yeehaw!
brickboy240
12-07-15, 15:50
Ted Kennedy should have been on the "no drive list" for his drunken escapades.
LOL
All of us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Core
I've been pulled aside on one of my return flights from the SHOT show. Also had my luggage searched when flying out of DCA. I hope that was just due to the locations of those two trips. :)
Outlander Systems
12-07-15, 16:16
:blink:
See, that kinda stuff makes you wonder...
I've been pulled aside on one of my return flights from the SHOT show. Also had my luggage searched when flying out of DCA. I hope that was just due to the locations of those two trips. :)
Not really. The federal government regulates every single aspect of commercial air travel and no individual has a "right" to get in any commercial aircraft. All sorts of reasons why someone wouldn't be allowed to fly in an airline or that would cause someone to be removed from a flight. For example, not complying with the instructions of the flight crew will get you thrown off a plane pretty darn quick. It's federal law. No trial, no presumption of innocence. Just sayin'.
You're confusing what a right is. It means the government doesn't have the power to stop you from flying on an aircraft - not that a business doesn't have the power to do so.
Just as a business owner can tell you to leave his store for holding a political rally in isle 4, but the government cannot.
On the subject of the thread, it absolutely disgusts me how Obama laughingly states 'what argument could there possibly be against no fly no buy.' It's asinine.
"Obama's a total pussy!" - Ralph Peters (Ret. Lt. Col.)
https://youtu.be/MglTSDDexeA
Fox suspended Col. Peters for that comment.
They also suspended Stacy Dash for her comment: "I feel he could give a shit - excuse me - he could care less".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MvFkc5Xdyk
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-07-15, 17:07
Arguing with the TSA or United at the airport about the No-Fly list is about as effective as telling the a Chicago that they can't ban Sporting Rifles. You may even be right, but that ain't where you are going to win your fight.
My wife just reminded me that the first time we took our 9 month old son to fly we were told that he was on the no-fly list. No problems since then and he has flown a few times.
Are there different levels of 'No-fly'? I know people that get 'SSSS' boarding passes and have to get extra security.
Fox suspended Col. Peters for that comment.
They also suspended Stacy Dash for her comment: "I feel he could give a shit - excuse me - he could care less".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MvFkc5Xdyk
They were inappropriate, but they weren't wrong. :(
BTW... I meant to ask... and I don;t think I've seen it mentioned..
BHO basically said he wanted Congress to declare war. What exactly might that provide to him against American citizens or afford him to be able to support terrorism further. I mean he flat out said he wants Congress to declare war.
Personally I don't want him having any more power than he has. We seem to be doing fine bombing and attacking as necessary. But why does he want Congress to act? What might his side get out of it?
Arguing with the TSA or United at the airport about the No-Fly list is about as effective as telling the a Chicago that they can't ban Sporting Rifles. You may even be right, but that ain't where you are going to win your fight.
My wife just reminded me that the first time we took our 9 month old son to fly we were told that he was on the no-fly list. No problems since then and he has flown a few times.
Are there different levels of 'No-fly'? I know people that get 'SSSS' boarding passes and have to get extra security.
There's a difference between "being on" the No Fly list and being a name (or name iteration) match with someone on the No Fly list. The former is a matter of resolving the passenger's identity to make sure they're not the person on the list, the latter is a matter of an interview at the airport with the JTTF and being told "you're not flying today pal".
That's why the whole "No Fly, No Buy" gambit is BS. They aren't going to authorize an FFL to resolve the identity at the point of sale. Even if the buyer is an actual match, it eliminates Due Process on stripping a natural right enumerated in the COTUS from an American citizen. That's no bueno. :(
Fox suspended Col. Peters for that comment.
They also suspended Stacy Dash for her comment: "I feel he could give a shit - excuse me - he could care less".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MvFkc5Xdyk
Fox is a bunch of pussies.
I'm way out of my lane and am asking. If we declare war on ISIS, would that give him extra powers if the war is on American soil? Any kind of emergency powers, etc. I don't know of any other reason he wants it.
That's what I am wondering. He needs it for Offensive War. Then he says, well, ok, the war is on our soil. Then what? I would rather see him relieved of office than given more power.
Silencing the truth is lame.
Time to call spades a spade. Long past time really.
Big fans of Col Ralph Peters here.. Fox needs to get over the PC crap.
Outlander Systems
12-07-15, 19:01
Agreed. Furthermore, Society needs to get over the PC crap.
When one behaves in order to placate the PC, crybaby crowd, you simply empower them.
Enough is enough.
Stop letting whiners hold power of you.
Cowboy the **** up.
'Merica
Big fans of Col Ralph Peters here.. Fox needs to get over the PC crap.
"Fox suspended Col. Peters for that comment."
I suspect Col. Peters has been holding it in for a long time and now feels MUCH better. God knows he is 100% right!
I'm not sure why everybody is so upset at this "speech".
First of all, 7yrs ago, Obama said he wanted and promised to "fundamentally change america". He didn't say how, and no one asked.
....
I'll second that.
Well, some people asked but the the Cult of Silencing made sure they were ignored.
And since 9-11 when was the last time somebody in the US blew up a mosque or otherwise murdered dozens of muslims?
Well, since you asked, the local mosque here in Joplin, MO was torched about 4 years ago. It was eventually rebuilt on a different site, though.
That's why I mentioned pipe bombs. Even if they somehow were prevented from getting guns, people were still going to get killed.
Or Molotov cocktails such as were used in an attack in Egypt on Saturday. 16 dead in that attack. Imagine the carnage if the perps in San Berdoo used this method. What would Bathhouse Barry do then, ban gasoline?
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-07-15, 21:06
Big fans of Col Ralph Peters here.. Fox needs to get over the PC crap.
Never ask a man what he was thinking in private and then be offended by the answer.
That's what I am wondering. He needs it for Offensive War. Then he says, well, ok, the war is on our soil. Then what? I would rather see him relieved of office than given more power.
Between Posse Comitatus and the Insurrection act, things are pretty laid out what is kosher and what isn't. Presidential action is very delayed and limited. The one of the only exceptions is nuclear type stuff. That one is immediate, if I remember right.
I had this discussion with a constitutional expert a few years ago. We were drinking a bunch, lol....
But long story short potus and congress can't just wish it so. It relies the states first. Then a series of events have to happen.
If any if you guys are more knowledgeable, chime in. That's all I really remember of that conservation.
I skimmed over alot this morning reading this thread and started a post concerning the no fly list because I fly 4-8 times a year for work and a fellow employee has a synonymous name that is on 'The List' I believe. The extra security measures, BS and delays resulted in me just grabbing my bags and walking out of the airport. When querried why I laid it out for the fourth and final time that anyone whos tickect is purchased with so-so ticket is automatically included in the digit in the @ss fun. He wouldn't clear it up so in future travel arrangements book him seperate or I will not travel. Haven't had a problem since and about two years later he finally went to someone and discussed the issue.
As far as presidential powers during times of war if on domestic soil and martial law is declared 'for public safety' he basically has carte blanche. Without that, he would need a waiver from the DOJ based on PC to specifically target and act upon a specific individual or group of individuals that he can link to criminal activity (remember the broad powers we gave up in the Patriot Act) to use U.S. Force members to enforce civilian law(s) in a joint investigation with either the feds or local state, county and city authorities. This may not be correct and needs to be ran by competent legal counsel who is well versed in the waiver process and what is in their scope of authority. I'm not sure but as far as they went with the Patriot Act I'm sure the drafters threw in a couple of sections covering this in detail burried somewhere in it there.
As I was drafting this it kinda alarmed me with him smilin' like a cheshire cat, what ever it is I'll bet ya dollars to donuts he's waggin the dog and got something up his sleeve. As the sayin' goes, ya know he up to no good if his gums are moving.
What ever it is will NOT be valid according to God-Given/Natural Rights.
According to George Will. the American people have already voted "with their feet" on gun control, sales are way up. It's about time the Libs paid attention to the American public and stopped being a bunch of pc whiney pukes. And they need to quit comparing the US to places like Denmark and Sweden. They also need to look at 2A real hard and show me the part that has anything to do with hunting!
LowSpeed_HighDrag
12-07-15, 23:14
According to George Will. the American people have already voted "with their feet" on gun control, sales are way up. It's about time the Libs paid attention to the American public and stopped being a bunch of pc whiney pukes. And they need to quit comparing the US to places like Denmark and Sweden. They also need to look at 2A real hard and show me the part that has anything to do with hunting!
Why should the Dems care? They continue to win elections...
Well, since you asked, the local mosque here in Joplin, MO was torched about 4 years ago. It was eventually rebuilt on a different site, though.
Yeah, wonder if that wasn't a reichstag fire.
Cincinnatus
12-08-15, 09:30
Yeah, wonder if that wasn't a reichstag fire.
Yes, every time Dems want to stir up the race issue there are suddenly a bunch of black churches in the South that burst into flames. Some of them may be real racist attacks, but many of them are a little too convenient for truth. Used to happen all the time in the Clinton years, especially during election season.
Yes, every time Dems want to stir up the race issue there are suddenly a bunch of black churches in the South that burst into flames. Some of them may be real racist attacks, but many of them are a little too convenient for truth. Used to happen all the time in the Clinton years, especially during election season.
I agree. There are some rough folks out there but to them even a black church is still a church. Church burning? In the Bible Belt?
I still wonder about the church shooting in SC. Not a conspiracy guy, but there is still something 'off' about it.
JMO
brickboy240
12-08-15, 10:10
Even though it might APPEAR that gun control is a dead issue for Democrats, can you blame them for trying?
They got Obamacare passed and agreed to by the SC, got gay marriage and several debt ceiling raises. Many GOP'ers also approved Loretta Lynch's nomination as well.
The GOP might be making in-roads during mid term elections but on many, many fronts....you'd think the Democrats held majorities in Congress.
The Dems keep on winning and they have almost no real opposition.
Can you blame them for trying what is usually a dead issue for them? They have been "winning" when they should not be winning a damn thing.
You're confusing what a right is. It means the government doesn't have the power to stop you from flying on an aircraft - not that a business doesn't have the power to do so.
Just as a business owner can tell you to leave his store for holding a political rally in isle 4, but the government cannot.
On the subject of the thread, it absolutely disgusts me how Obama laughingly states 'what argument could there possibly be against no fly no buy.' It's asinine.
No confusion on my end. I get what you're saying, but scheduled commercial air service completely governed by Federal Aviation Regulations. It's not anything like running any other type of business. Because of the FARs it's federal law that says that an intoxicated individual can't board a commercial airliner and that the carrier is responsible for enforcing that law. Like wise, if the Feds say someone is on a no fly list, that's the law and the carriers must comply. Right or wrong the federal government does have the power to say who does and doesn't fly because they own the skies.
Just to be clear, I'm not on board any type of secret government list and it is totally unacceptable to deny any citizen their constitutionally protected right to purchase a firearm with out due process.
wilson1911
12-08-15, 17:51
How is Dick Heller 2 coming along ? I read not long ago it was trying to get fast tracked.
They got Obamacare passed and agreed to by the SC, got gay marriage and several debt ceiling raises.
With 51% of the nation in opposition to obamacare... We are lucky he did not take on AWB during first 2 yrs
PatrioticDisorder
12-08-15, 18:20
With 51% of the nation in opposition to obamacare... We are lucky he did not take on AWB during first 2 yrs
Not luck, Obama knew gun control was very unpopular and he didn't want to wreck his entire presidency. I knew he was going to push for it at some point in his second term and it didn't take long. I called it from day 1, it wasn't that hard to figure out... But yes those first 2 years were always a worry because they actually had the power to push it through.
Yes, every time Dems want to stir up the race issue there are suddenly a bunch of black churches in the South that burst into flames. Some of them may be real racist attacks, but many of them are a little too convenient for truth. Used to happen all the time in the Clinton years, especially during election season.
I bet a lot of those old dilapidated churches were fully insured. During the housing market crash a lot of rental properties had fires. Clearly it makes sense that these were HATE CRIMES against white and jeiwsh property owners.
I agree. There are some rough folks out there but to them even a black church is still a church. Church burning? In the Bible Belt?
I still wonder about the church shooting in SC. Not a conspiracy guy, but there is still something 'off' about it.
JMO
I think that was a case of "crazy ****er." Ted Kazcinsky's happen, there is usually a lot of "off" elements because these kinds are pretty "off" themselves.
titsonritz
12-09-15, 11:24
Anyone notice Obama's speech on the 13A was about the same length if not longer and (maybe I missed it but) nothing about Dec 7th?
So the gun sale ban is about to begin. I can't imagine this won't end up in court.
"(Reuters) - Connecticut would become the first U.S. state to ban the sale of guns to people on government watch lists under an executive order that Governor Dannel Malloy, a Democrat, said on Thursday he will sign.
The measure, which Malloy said needs federal approval, would require state police to review whether a potential gun buyer was on the federal no-fly list or on a watchlist for people suspected of ties to terrorism.
It would also revoke existing gun permits issued to people whose names were found on such a list."
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0TT2EM20151210
I don't have anything to cite, but I've heard of some pretty arbitrary reasons for people being put on these no-fly lists. Something as stupid as their name sounds kind of similar to some other person's name.
This could be real bad news for us if it gains any traction. They won't have to ban guns or even get any new gun control laws passed. They can just invent a reason to put anybody they don't like on a no-fly list...
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-10-15, 16:20
So the gun sale ban is about to begin. I can't imagine this won't end up in court.
"(Reuters) - Connecticut would become the first U.S. state to ban the sale of guns to people on government watch lists under an executive order that Governor Dannel Malloy, a Democrat, said on Thursday he will sign.
The measure, which Malloy said needs federal approval, would require state police to review whether a potential gun buyer was on the federal no-fly list or on a watchlist for people suspected of ties to terrorism.
It would also revoke existing gun permits issued to people whose names were found on such a list."
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0TT2EM20151210
Revoke the permit, what does that exactly mean? They show up at your door to collect your guns? How do they notify you? Am I reading it right that being on these lists literally revokes your 2A rights?
SOooooo, you can't know if you are on the list, so how do you know if you are breaking the 'law'.
Glad we are trying this out on a small scale. Let's see how bad it either fails in doing anything, or tying up legit people.
Can't we respect the rights of Muslims and gun owners?
Can't wait for all the money we'll pay to people of ME descent when their names are on there erroneously.
Leaveammoforme
12-10-15, 16:25
Not to mention I bet it instantly becomes easier to get yourself added to the list. Take out a loan? No fly for you.
fallenromeo
12-10-15, 16:38
Not to mention I bet it instantly becomes easier to get yourself added to the list. Take out a loan? No fly for you.
Exactly what I was thinking. "in other news, every legal, registered gun owner in state of Connecticut placed on no-fly list. When asked why the large increase in names added to federal no-fly list of seemingly law-abiding americans with no criminal history or terrorist ties, the governors office responded, 'it's super secret'"
BoringGuy45
12-10-15, 16:55
This is just the tip of the iceberg. How long till being placed on a watch list or no fly list means a citizen can be arrested and held without trial indefinitely? *Knock* *knock*. Hello, Mr. Jones. You're part of the CT Citizen's Defense League, correct? Come with us. What for? That's classified. Oh, and if have something to say to your family, say it now, because it will be the last time..."
Outlander Systems
12-10-15, 17:00
You gotta lay down, before someone can walk all over you.
http://vpstestgunscom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/gun-line-wtnh.jpg
You gotta lay down, before someone can walk all over you.
This picture sickens me every time...
So all a radicalized terrorist with future plans has to do to see if the authorities are on to him is go try to buy a pistol (a five shot revolver would be an ironically tongue in cheek choice).
You could say the same about buying a ticket to Vegas, but as I understand it not every watch list involves flight restrictions.
And like everyone else has already said, there is no potential here for abuse by liberal politicians with an agenda controlling LE (particularly those department heads that are appointed).
What could possibly go wrong....?
Cowards lined up. Truly crazy.
I like to think there were plenty of folks that stayed home in defiance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Cowards lined up. Truly crazy.
I like to think there were plenty of folks that stayed home in defiance.
IIRC only about 10% showed up and complied.
IIRC only about 10% showed up and complied.
Shame on the 10.
Kudo's to the 90.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Doc Safari
12-10-15, 17:35
Executive order(s) imminent:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/10/ap-executive-action-imminent-expand-background-checks-gun-buyers/
Presidential “Executive Action” expanding background checks on gun-buyers is imminent, according to a Dec. 10 Associated Press report.
Breitbart News previously reported that Obama was focused on finding ways around Congress to expand background checks, and CBS News reported that Obama had a team of White House lawyers looking at the possibility of setting an arbitrary limit of allowable gun sales so that private sellers who surpass that limit would be required to run sales through a background check.
Without indicating which avenue Obama plans on taking, the AP reports that White House Advisor Valerie Jarrett indicates Obama is ready to circumvent Congress. She said he has asked “his team to complete a proposal and submit it for his review ‘in short order.'”
So, I'm taking this to mean he's going to do an overreach like he did the immigration stuff that had to be struck down in court. In other words: whatever insanity he decrees will be law until and unless it gets repealed by a judge.
What's the story behind the line of men? The so called "list" will end up being a list of conservative white guys.
Doc Safari
12-10-15, 17:47
Not to mention I bet it instantly becomes easier to get yourself added to the list. Take out a loan? No fly for you.
Yep. Just what I was thinking. If your kid's on Prozac you're suddenly on the no-fly list and they come get your guns. Get a speeding ticket and you're on the 'no-fly' list and they come get your guns. Admit you watch the Red Green show and you're on the 'no-fly' list and they come get your guns.
I see a dark curtain descending over this country and Hillary will only add to it if she's elected.
You gotta lay down, before someone can walk all over you.
http://vpstestgunscom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/gun-line-wtnh.jpg
Surprised they're not all waving white flags:(
Doc Safari
12-10-15, 17:51
Surprised they're not all waving white flags:(
Worse: I wonder how many of those guys are standing there because their wives told them, "Honey we've got kids. We don't need to antagonize the government. Just go along with it for the sake of our family...."
Solution seems to be convert to Islam, then try and buy a gun...get denied...sue EVERYONE. Loretta Lynch has your back. If you can, be black or trans black.
Leaveammoforme
12-10-15, 17:58
Yep. Just what I was thinking. If your kid's on Prozac you're suddenly on the no-fly list and they come get your guns. Get a speeding ticket and you're on the 'no-fly' list and they come get your guns. Admit you watch the Red Green show and you're on the 'no-fly' list and they come get your guns.
I see a dark curtain descending over this country and Hillary will only add to it if she's elected.
Ahh man. It's been years, I need me some Red Green Show.
Solution seems to be convert to Islam, then try and buy a gun...get denied...sue EVERYONE. Loretta Lynch has your back. If you can, be black or trans black.
Black Tranny Muslim!! The holy grail of the left.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Outlander Systems
12-10-15, 18:24
Meme me up, Scotty.
36434
Outlander Systems
12-10-15, 18:26
No shit. My God, hath ye no shovels!?!?
Cowards lined up. Truly crazy.
I like to think there were plenty of folks that stayed home in defiance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
sevenhelmet
12-10-15, 18:30
Here it comes, boys... thunder clouds on the horizon. Get your harvest in before the storm hits.
Dist. Expert 26
12-10-15, 19:00
As much as I wish this would turn into a rebellion, in all likelihood this will instantly get shot down in court. The Heller decision said that the 2nd is an individual right, and this violates that right with exactly zero due process. I'm not concerned.
Travelingchild
12-10-15, 19:20
So here's a stupid question, what happens if someone hack's that list( which can never happen because Gov't Data bases are secure right) and simply puts everyone on that list and I mean everyone...
devildogljb
12-10-15, 19:23
So you dont think this will become a law?
As much as I wish this would turn into a rebellion, in all likelihood this will instantly get shot down in court. The Heller decision said that the 2nd is an individual right, and this violates that right with exactly zero due process. I'm not concerned.
As much as I wish this would turn into a rebellion, in all likelihood this will instantly get shot down in court. The Heller decision said that the 2nd is an individual right, and this violates that right with exactly zero due process. I'm not concerned.
At an even lower level than that, this violates CT state law. Their purchase/ownership permits are shall issue with a very specific list of criteria to pass. No where in that statute is a no fly list mentioned
Eta
Statute for reference
https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_529.htm#sec_29-36f
dmaxfireman
12-10-15, 19:43
Shame on the 10.
Kudo's to the 90.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unfortunately, from my observations, much more than 10% complied.
Solution seems to be convert to Islam, then try and buy a gun...get denied...sue EVERYONE. Loretta Lynch has your back. If you can, be black or trans black.
If you play your cards right, Shitstain Hussein might even say you look like his son if he had one.
Black Tranny Muslim!! The holy grail of the left.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Don't forget trans-abled. You gotta leverage all the SJW shit you can, you know?
Who is expecting to have a boating incident in 2016?
President Barack Obama's advisers are finalizing a proposal that would expand background checks on gun sales without congressional approval.
White House adviser Valerie Jarrett says the president has asked his team to complete a proposal and submit it for his review "in short order." She says the recommendations will include measures to expand background checks.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_GUNS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-12-10-12-31-01
UBCs => registration => confiscation
And then there is this:
Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.
https://newrepublic.com/article/125498/its-time-ban-guns-yes-them
So the gun sale ban is about to begin. I can't imagine this won't end up in court.
"(Reuters) - Connecticut would become the first U.S. state to ban the sale of guns to people on government watch lists under an executive order that Governor Dannel Malloy, a Democrat, said on Thursday he will sign.
The measure, which Malloy said needs federal approval, would require state police to review whether a potential gun buyer was on the federal no-fly list or on a watchlist for people suspected of ties to terrorism.
It would also revoke existing gun permits issued to people whose names were found on such a list."
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0TT2EM20151210
The measure will require federal apparoval, which IMO wont be granted as that would open up the secret list to the states and then immediately thereafter to any FOI request or pending lawsuit. The feds want that list kept a secret.
Flying, much like driving isnt a right otherwise the price of a ticket would be a poll tax that hinders the poor folk from exercising their right to fly. As soon as you deny the 2nd amendment to folks without due process they will sue and then the feds will be forced to justify their super secret list. Not something they will want to do. Either their list will get gutted or this EO will get overturned.
The folks in Commiecut should allow the gov to sign an EO that violates state and federal laws and then impeach the asshole.
I am actually waiting for some Chicom hacker to get into that list and put every single member of the presidential security detail on it so they have their guns taken.
Dist. Expert 26
12-10-15, 20:11
So you dont think this will become a law?
I'm not saying the idiot governor won't sign it, but I am saying that they will be sued within the hour and the law will never be implemented, if for no other reason than it would require federal agencies to cooperate and make public the super top secret 'no fly list'.
Dist. Expert 26
12-10-15, 20:15
We've discussed this in depth in at least a dozen different threads. Registration cannot and will not happen, and neither will confiscation. Obummer can posture all he wants, he's not a monarch. Any EO of this nature would require law enforcement at every level to enforce, and that won't happen either.
Take off the tinfoil hat and go outside for a while.
"If you've done nothing wrong; you have nothing to fear
If you've something to hide; you shouldn't even be here"
We've discussed this in depth in at least a dozen different threads. Registration cannot and will not happen, and neither will confiscation. Obummer can posture all he wants, he's not a monarch. Any EO of this nature would require law enforcement at every level to enforce, and that won't happen either.
Take off the tinfoil hat and go outside for a while.
UBCs will be here soon. Bans have already happened in NY and CT. Maybe you should do some research.
Dist. Expert 26
12-10-15, 20:28
At the state level, sure. Federal? Not gonna happen. I can count on zero fingers how many anti-gun laws have passed Congress since Obummer has been in office.
As for me, I'm gonna try and enjoy the last few months of affordable ammo before all the retards start panic buying thinking the next election means the end of the 2nd Amendment.
At the state level, sure. Federal? Not gonna happen. I can count on zero fingers how many anti-gun laws have passed Congress since Obummer has been in office.
As for me, I'm gonna try and enjoy the last few months of affordable ammo before all the retards start panic buying thinking the next election means the end of the 2nd Amendment.
Did you read the first link? Do you recall any history lessons in high school?
Never mind, ignorance is bliss.
MountainRaven
12-10-15, 20:36
I'm not certain how Obama can do this without massive Constitution-violating overreach.
And, to be fair, for whatever Obama wants to say, I'm not certain that I can think of another president who has signed more pro-gun legislation into law. Just saying.
From article: White House spokesman Josh Earnest welcomed Connecticut's move but said that the Obama administration was determined to press ahead with federal action on guns, noting that people can travel across jurisdictions to circumvent local laws limiting firearm purchases.
"There are necessarily some shortcoming to that approach," Earnest told reporters at press briefing on Thursday. "That is why ... the president's commitment to keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them continues to be a priority of his federal legislative strategy."
Interpreted: good effort, little governor, but don't steal our thunder. We're gonna do it to you anyway and your neighbor states.
It would also revoke existing gun permits issued to people whose names were found on such a list."
When a COP turns up on the list, does he lose his job?
When a COP turns up on the list, does he lose his job?
Clerical error. Unless he was a "troublemaker"
United Stasi of Amerika line of thinking
Eurodriver
12-10-15, 21:30
I don't have anything to cite, but I've heard of some pretty arbitrary reasons for people being put on these no-fly lists. Something as stupid as their name sounds kind of similar to some other person's name.
This could be real bad news for us if it gains any traction. They won't have to ban guns or even get any new gun control laws passed. They can just invent a reason to put anybody they don't like on a no-fly list...
I know a guy who is a corn fed country white guy from North Dakota with a good Christian name...Scott Williams. We were attempting to fly from Hilo, HI to Honolulu, HI one afternoon and he couldn't get on because he erroneously ended up on some Gov't no-fly list. The strangest thing about the whole thing?
We were active duty US Marines flying on a chartered civilian aircraft with our entire unit - on official orders. Additionally, we had just flown to Hilo, HI less than 3 weeks earlier. (Pohakuloa is the true land that God forgot) Even our Bn CO could not get this guy authorized to fly. He had to sit and hang out with the Army (ew) for weeks while it got sorted out.
It has forever made me skeptical of no fly lists.
This is an honest to goodness true story. I still have pics of the guy sitting on his sea bag as we all left. I'll try to find it.
Business_Casual
12-10-15, 21:37
Prior restraint, to name only one reason it won't work.
MountainRaven
12-10-15, 22:17
I don't have anything to cite, but I've heard of some pretty arbitrary reasons for people being put on these no-fly lists. Something as stupid as their name sounds kind of similar to some other person's name.
This could be real bad news for us if it gains any traction. They won't have to ban guns or even get any new gun control laws passed. They can just invent a reason to put anybody they don't like on a no-fly list...
Yep. Just what I was thinking. If your kid's on Prozac you're suddenly on the no-fly list and they come get your guns. Get a speeding ticket and you're on the 'no-fly' list and they come get your guns. Admit you watch the Red Green show and you're on the 'no-fly' list and they come get your guns.
I see a dark curtain descending over this country and Hillary will only add to it if she's elected.
I know a guy who is a corn fed country white guy from North Dakota with a good Christian name...Scott Williams. We were attempting to fly from Hilo, HI to Honolulu, HI one afternoon and he couldn't get on because he erroneously ended up on some Gov't no-fly list. The strangest thing about the whole thing?
We were active duty US Marines flying on a chartered civilian aircraft with our entire unit - on official orders. Additionally, we had just flown to Hilo, HI less than 3 weeks earlier. (Pohakuloa is the true land that God forgot) Even our Bn CO could not get this guy authorized to fly. He had to sit and hang out with the Army (ew) for weeks while it got sorted out.
It has forever made me skeptical of no fly lists.
This is an honest to goodness true story. I still have pics of the guy sitting on his sea bag as we all left. I'll try to find it.
After publicly criticizing the Bush administration, Ted Kennedy's name somehow ended up on the no-fly list.
So simply criticizing government apparently is sufficient grounds to be placed on such a list.
Unfortunately, from my observations, much more than 10% complied.
I seem to recall reading that in Australia, compliance with registration efforts was estimated at less than 50%. In Canada it was closer to 30% - before the Canadian government determined that the registry was too expensive to maintain, shut it down, and ordered all registration records destroyed. So I find it hard to imagine Americans complying in anything more than similar numbers - and more likely to be comply at a reduced or greatly reduced rate.
wilson1911
12-11-15, 00:31
Barry is untouchable. He has had 8 years to think about how to approach this. When is the last time someone slapped him on the hand and said "no" ?? He as already proven he is above the rule of law.
I would rather seem him execute his NDAA powers right after the next attack with mass arrests.
I don't have anything to cite, but I've heard of some pretty arbitrary reasons for people being put on these no-fly lists. Something as stupid as their name sounds kind of similar to some other person's name.
..
Like this poor little 4 yr old
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10725741/ns/us_news-security/t/-year-old-turns-government-no-fly-list/#.Vmp8RlNIjcs
Moose-Knuckle
12-11-15, 03:21
With his Mooselimb name I'm surprised Bathhouse Barry hasn't wound up on a no fly or terror watch list. I read an article the other day asserting that 72 DHS employees are currently on the terror watch list lol.
platoonDaddy
12-11-15, 06:40
Senator Kaine from VA was just on WMAL and is pushing to limit magazine capacity and wouldn't surprise me to see barry include that in his upcoming end-run around gun control.
Friggin VA was once a solid conservative state, but the libs have taken over Northern Va and basically control the state. L-N-L
WMAL also covered this: Loring Wirbel, board member of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Colorado chapter and co-chair of the ACLU’s Colorado Springs chapter, called for supporters of GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump to be shot before they vote for the billionaire businessman.
Comparing Trump to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, Wirbel wrote in his Facebook page:
PatrioticDisorder
12-11-15, 07:25
Senator Kaine from VA was just on WMAL and is pushing to limit magazine capacity and wouldn't surprise me to see barry include that in his upcoming end-run around gun control.
Friggin VA was once a solid conservative state, but the libs have taken over Northern Va and basically control the state. L-N-L
WMAL also covered this: Loring Wirbel, board member of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Colorado chapter and co-chair of the ACLU’s Colorado Springs chapter, called for supporters of GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump to be shot before they vote for the billionaire businessman.
Comparing Trump to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, Wirbel wrote in his Facebook page:
Thankfully Obama cannot limit magazine capacity via executive fiat, what he can do via EO is very limited in narrow in its scope.
Thankfully Obama cannot limit magazine capacity via executive fiat, what he can do via EO is very limited in narrow in its scope.
This remains to be seen. He has nothing to lose.
PatrioticDisorder
12-11-15, 07:49
This remains to be seen. He has nothing to lose.
Of course we all know he has nothing to lose and will push as far as he can. He cannot make laws out of thin air, he can only modify (clarify) existing law via executive action. For example, he is defining what is a gun dealer by how many guns they sell, circumstances around that, etc... That is existing law, there is no federal on the books dealing with magazine capacity.
I sent this to all of my reps this morning. Maybe I am miss guided or dont understand the laws, but I think I have a grasp on them.
"I have kept fairly quiet about the gun control debate, as I usually do, because in the end I dont think anything will come of it, BUT I read a report this morning that our feckless leader is going to enact some EO's and do an end run around Congress in order to close 2 "loop holes" in our gun laws. These two "loopholes" simply DONT exist though is the biggest problem, yet they are continuously talked about by the media(same as assault weapons which is another media term of a type of firearm that is already banned and has been in various forms since 1934 and much more specifically in 1986 with the Hughes ammendement to the GCA). I will address both "loopholes" separately.
1. The gun show loop hole. I have bought guns at a couple gun shows. I have ALWAYS filled out an ATF 4473 and had a background check done on me. What I believe they are talking about(and are constantly getting wrong) are private party transactions. The federal government cant legally regulate INTRASTATE commerce(from what I know). They cant regulate it in any way, firearms not withstanding. They can regulate INTERSTATE commerce and currently do, especially with firearms. I can not legally sell a firearm to another person privately that lives in another state without going through an FFL in that persons state. So what they are proposing, banning intrastate commerce, is illegal and will be challenged and will be won in my opinion. There is a reason the Fed's have not gotten this through before, yet several states have passed "universal background checks", which I dont believe work, yet I do respect the rights of the state to enact such laws under states rights.
2. Buying guns over the internet and they get shipped to your house without a background check. THIS DOESNT HAPPEN, EVER... EVER... EVER... Can I say that again? Sites like gunbroker which is similar ebay, but for firearms are very careful about following federal law in this regard. There are other similar sites as well. They all require the firearm to go to an FFL and a background check performed. There are local sites(facebook has quite a few) that allow for people to post firearms for sale and then meet up to do a face to face sale(intrastate commerce as discussed earlier), which is legal and the feds can not regulate. I recently ordered a gun from a large internet retailer and guess what, I had to have it sent to a gun shop, go to said gun shop, fill out the 4473 and have a background check run on me. If anybody knows of any online firearms retailers that will send guns to my house with no background check, you let me know.
So yet again, we talk and pontificate, over two items that dont really exist, wont fix the issue, yet again, and wouldnt have changed what occured, yet again."
I sent this to all of my reps this morning. Maybe I am miss guided or dont understand the laws, but I think I have a grasp on them.
"I have kept fairly quiet about the gun control debate, as I usually do, because in the end I dont think anything will come of it, BUT I read a report this morning that our feckless leader is going to enact some EO's and do an end run around Congress in order to close 2 "loop holes" in our gun laws. These two "loopholes" simply DONT exist though is the biggest problem, yet they are continuously talked about by the media(same as assault weapons which is another media term of a type of firearm that is already banned and has been in various forms since 1934 and much more specifically in 1986 with the Hughes ammendement to the GCA). I will address both "loopholes" separately.
1. The gun show loop hole. I have bought guns at a couple gun shows. I have ALWAYS filled out an ATF 4473 and had a background check done on me. What I believe they are talking about(and are constantly getting wrong) are private party transactions. The federal government cant legally regulate INTRASTATE commerce(from what I know). They cant regulate it in any way, firearms not withstanding. They can regulate INTERSTATE commerce and currently do, especially with firearms. I can not legally sell a firearm to another person privately that lives in another state without going through an FFL in that persons state. So what they are proposing, banning intrastate commerce, is illegal and will be challenged and will be won in my opinion. There is a reason the Fed's have not gotten this through before, yet several states have passed "universal background checks", which I dont believe work, yet I do respect the rights of the state to enact such laws under states rights.
2. Buying guns over the internet and they get shipped to your house without a background check. THIS DOESNT HAPPEN, EVER... EVER... EVER... Can I say that again? Sites like gunbroker which is similar ebay, but for firearms are very careful about following federal law in this regard. There are other similar sites as well. They all require the firearm to go to an FFL and a background check performed. There are local sites(facebook has quite a few) that allow for people to post firearms for sale and then meet up to do a face to face sale(intrastate commerce as discussed earlier), which is legal and the feds can not regulate. I recently ordered a gun from a large internet retailer and guess what, I had to have it sent to a gun shop, go to said gun shop, fill out the 4473 and have a background check run on me. If anybody knows of any online firearms retailers that will send guns to my house with no background check, you let me know.
So yet again, we talk and pontificate, over two items that dont really exist, wont fix the issue, yet again, and wouldnt have changed what occured, yet again."
Overall, I agree with your letter, but we should never sanction UBCs, whether enacted by state legislatures or Congress, because the ONLY way to institute UBCs is to set up firearms registration, which is their end goal. Once they know where the guns are, they can come and get them, when the time is ripe.
Overall, I agree with your letter, but we should never sanction UBCs, whether enacted by state legislatures or Congress, because the ONLY way to institute UBCs is to set up firearms registration, which is their end goal.
I get your point and I dont agree with them, but I am a states rights supporter and if a state decides(through whatever ****ed up methods) to enact them, I respect the right of that state to do as they see fit and that goes beyond firearms. I lean a bit libertarian in that regard. I also have the right to never step foot in such states.
Luckily all of my reps(rep and 2 senators) are R's so I dont believe they support any of the above anyway.
I get your point and I dont agree with them, but I am a states rights supporter and if a state decides(through whatever ****ed up methods) to enact them, I respect the right of that state to do as they see fit and that goes beyond firearms. I lean a bit libertarian in that regard. I also have the right to never step foot in such states.
Luckily all of my reps(rep and 2 senators) are R's so I dont believe they support any of the above anyway.
I respect your views, but I disagree for the simple reason that UBCs and registration violate the letter and spirit of not only the 2A, but of our God-given natural law too.
Senator Kaine from VA was just on WMAL and is pushing to limit magazine capacity and wouldn't surprise me to see barry include that in his upcoming end-run around gun control.
Friggin VA was once a solid conservative state, but the libs have taken over Northern Va and basically control the state. L-N-L
Tim "King" Kaine is a vile anti 2A ***. Terry McCauliffe is just as bad AND he is a wannabe VP for Hillary. Mark Warner is just as bad. Joe Biden appointed a Petersburg, VA ( south east VA ) Police Chief to the anti 2A movement. He is from a City that couldn't make itself grow in a farm full of fertilizer. His son is LEO arrested for DUI. The whole department is being investigated for some other arrests they made last year. Only City around where you may actually see actual gang crime... IOW, the most incompetent person he could have found in the entire USA. Anyway, he was testifying to House this week I believe and sure enough, same thing... 10 round mags will significantly cut down on crime because it gives people time to apprehend the shooter as he reloads.
House Bill 2130 - TX Red River Land Ownership --- So this is what Tim Kaine, the Petersburg Chief ( who should be back at his desk trying to clean up his City so someone might want to live there ) are running around wasting tax payer money for.. 10 round mags, 10 round mags! --- this bill chipped away by a "Loophole" .. .they love "loopholes" as that can mean anything and their voters can simply say... "oh my goodness, I don't want loopholes!" .. bang they go vote. A loophole and promise of something free and you got your Liberal voter at the ballot box.
http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/local/thornberrys-red-river-land-bill-passes-house-253-177-26789665-ce6e-7c3b-e053-0100007fd9a9-361360431.html
Democrats in the House weren't focused on the property rights issue, rather closing a loophole in gun laws that allow people on the FBI's no-fly list to be able to purchase firearms. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Massachusetts, called H.R. 2130 "trivial" compared to other matters the house should take up, further adding the "bill isn't going anywhere" because President Barack Obama's office has already said they will veto any legislation on the matter that reaches his desk.
The whole Liberal country is in the war on 2A at every turn. What have they got left? They got health care, they can already tax you to death. The only thing they can get voters to latch on to is 2A rights. I mean even the women's rights issue is not flying with the abortion farms exposed now. All they have to unite on is anti 2A.
Exactly as 762 said. I can appreciate states rights, but I'm a bigger fan of individual rights. No person, king or beggar, can trump individual, natural existing God given rights. That's liberty and accordingly should be the views of libertarianism.
SomeOtherGuy
12-11-15, 12:51
This remains to be seen. He has nothing to lose.
There is no part of the government strong enough to be effective without perceived legitimacy. Through the present day I would estimate US gun owners' voluntary compliance with federal law to be well above 95%. Some really stupid EO could simultaneously cause voluntary compliance to dry up and make LEOs at all levels skeptical of the legitimacy or need to enforce both that EO and other, existing gun laws.
I expect lots of political posturing but not much serious action.
Doc Safari
12-11-15, 12:59
When a COP turns up on the list, does he lose his job?
I remember when I worked in law enforcement and ATF just "added" the domestic violence provision to the 4473's and their regs. Overnight several officers at my place of employment no longer qualified for their jobs because they couldn't own firearms all of a sudden.
I think eventually a compromised was worked out that these individuals could still handle a gun while on duty, but those officers' jobs were in a state of flux for several weeks while it was worked out. A lot of them were reassigned to civilian positions IIRC.
Believe me, the dot guv don't give a hoot what disruptions their draconian measures cause.
Averageman
12-11-15, 14:04
I remember when I worked in law enforcement and ATF just "added" the domestic violence provision to the 4473's and their regs. Overnight several officers at my place of employment no longer qualified for their jobs because they couldn't own firearms all of a sudden.
I think eventually a compromised was worked out that these individuals could still handle a gun while on duty, but those officers' jobs were in a state of flux for several weeks while it was worked out. A lot of them were reassigned to civilian positions IIRC.
Believe me, the dot guv don't give a hoot what disruptions their draconian measures cause.
When Lautenberg was passed the entire Big Green Machine had to do new background checks. Battalions were at one time allowed to process up to six a day and until you've done it, you have no idea of the amount of paper and leg work was required to work your way through every individual Soldier.
Now it was such a "Hot Button" issue that a number of rather odd S#it things began to happen.
One of my NCO's was having some apparently loud and boisterous furniture moving sex with his Wife one afternoon and the neighbors called the MP's. Apparently they were under the assumption that anything that sounds that loud and rugged can't be mutual fun. The NCO's Wife, an I can't imagine how embarrassing this must have been, had to assure the Battalion Commander he wasn't "Hurting Her" and they weren't "Fighting".
The next was another NCO confided in me that his Wife had threatened to use the Lautenberg and cry rape and Wife beating if She didn't get everything She wanted in their divorce.
Every Time Liberals decide to get in on the Common Sense Gun Control legislation the level of stooped will get better than knee deep.
One glaring thing left out of Obama's speech....
He asks US to not use prejudice towards Muslims and want to take OUR AKs and ARs away but NEVER does he ask the Muslim community in America to help out in calling out or turning in THEIR kooks!
Ever notice this? We are all supposed to change and give up OUR freedoms but the Muslim community is NEVER asked to help control their kooks at all.
Strange how that is how it always goes...is it not?
More and more I have to believe that the so-called "conspiracy theorists" and "tin-foil hat wearers" are correct. Obama is nothing but a puppet, put in place to weaken our nation even further. It is easy to dismiss this theory as so much crap, but the fact remains that if you look at his behavior through this lens, and this lens only, everything he says and does makes sense. To delude yourself into thinking he is simply clueless is not seeing him for what he truly his. Obama has hated America virtually all of his life, and he has been put in a position to do the most damage he can to our society.
Look at Benghazi...if that was the Bush administration, there would have already been hearings, impeachment, and trials. I'm not a huge fan of either President Bush, but most Republicans in the Senate and House are gutless, and most Democrats simply go along with whatever Obama says.
Obama's agenda is to destroy the Constitution, destroy any traditional way of American life, make us more vulnerable in the world, and make Americans more dependent on the government. As more of us depend on the government for money and healthcare, we are more reluctant to vote for anyone who wants to reform such programs, giving the liberals a lock on major elections.
As the government allows more and more terrorist attacks, more and more fear is generated, and people are more likely to give up even more of their rights to privacy, more likely to be okay with wiretaps, with domestic spying, with a further erosion of our constitutional freedoms.
As more and more taxes and regulations are put in place by the EPA, the IRS, Labor Department, among others, our ability to live and conduct business freely is being slowly taken away, yet we allow ourselves to be distracted by such things as Katelyn Jenner or various NFL "scandals" or the latest cry of racism that somehow goes nationally. The average person wants, for some reason, to be blissfully ignorant of what the government is doing to us.
As more and more regulations are directed at fossil fuels like coal and oil and natural gas, our electric bills continue to climb, our cost of producing energy skyrockets, and we have less disposable income. Good paying domestic jobs are lost, and we become more dependent on OPEC and other foreign nations.
Most of our Senators and Representatives blindly go along with Obama, for they do not wish to be labeled as anti-Muslim and the resulting fallout from the mass media jumping all over them. They are not in office to serve us, they are in office to either serve themselves, or another agenda altogether. Again, this is not paranoia, this is the only thing that makes sense based on their actions or lack of action.
I've also noticed that the vast majority of our SME's stay out of these discussions, which I find quite disappointing. They are people who could motivate many to get off their butts and be giant pains to our elected officials, to remind them they serve us, not the other way around. But right now, this nation is very close to a totalitarian oligarchy.
People better wake up soon, or we won't have a country to defend. The America we were born into will be nothing but a memory.
Executive order(s) imminent:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/10/ap-executive-action-imminent-expand-background-checks-gun-buyers/
So, I'm taking this to mean he's going to do an overreach like he did the immigration stuff that had to be struck down in court. In other words: whatever insanity he decrees will be law until and unless it gets repealed by a judge.
But what if no one stops him?
What is worrisome is that more and more, the courts are agreeing with the federal government and Obama. The US Supreme Court just decided to NOT hear a case about the un-Constitutionality of Chicago and other cities imposing local bans on certain firearms or accessories, which means local governments can impose restrictions.
MountainRaven
12-12-15, 16:43
More and more I have to believe that the so-called "conspiracy theorists" and "tin-foil hat wearers" are correct. Obama is nothing but a puppet, put in place to weaken our nation even further. It is easy to dismiss this theory as so much crap, but the fact remains that if you look at his behavior through this lens, and this lens only, everything he says and does makes sense. To delude yourself into thinking he is simply clueless is not seeing him for what he truly his. Obama has hated America virtually all of his life, and he has been put in a position to do the most damage he can to our society.
Look at Benghazi...if that was the Bush administration, there would have already been hearings, impeachment, and trials. I'm not a huge fan of either President Bush, but most Republicans in the Senate and House are gutless, and most Democrats simply go along with whatever Obama says.
Obama's agenda is to destroy the Constitution, destroy any traditional way of American life, make us more vulnerable in the world, and make Americans more dependent on the government. As more of us depend on the government for money and healthcare, we are more reluctant to vote for anyone who wants to reform such programs, giving the liberals a lock on major elections.
As the government allows more and more terrorist attacks, more and more fear is generated, and people are more likely to give up even more of their rights to privacy, more likely to be okay with wiretaps, with domestic spying, with a further erosion of our constitutional freedoms.
As more and more taxes and regulations are put in place by the EPA, the IRS, Labor Department, among others, our ability to live and conduct business freely is being slowly taken away, yet we allow ourselves to be distracted by such things as Katelyn Jenner or various NFL "scandals" or the latest cry of racism that somehow goes nationally. The average person wants, for some reason, to be blissfully ignorant of what the government is doing to us.
As more and more regulations are directed at fossil fuels like coal and oil and natural gas, our electric bills continue to climb, our cost of producing energy skyrockets, and we have less disposable income. Good paying domestic jobs are lost, and we become more dependent on OPEC and other foreign nations.
Most of our Senators and Representatives blindly go along with Obama, for they do not wish to be labeled as anti-Muslim and the resulting fallout from the mass media jumping all over them. They are not in office to serve us, they are in office to either serve themselves, or another agenda altogether. Again, this is not paranoia, this is the only thing that makes sense based on their actions or lack of action.
I've also noticed that the vast majority of our SME's stay out of these discussions, which I find quite disappointing. They are people who could motivate many to get off their butts and be giant pains to our elected officials, to remind them they serve us, not the other way around. But right now, this nation is very close to a totalitarian oligarchy.
People better wake up soon, or we won't have a country to defend. The America we were born into will be nothing but a memory.
Cui bono?
It could really go a long way toward lightening the mood if just one of the candidates at the Tuesday debate would call for a total ban on the import of assault Muslims.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-12-15, 17:36
It could really go a long way toward lightening the mood if just one of the candidates at the Tuesday debate would call for a total ban on the import of assault Muslims.
Do we really want 'low capacity' muslims? Though having to have a minimum number of American made parts would be interesting.
It could really go a long way toward lightening the mood if just one of the candidates at the Tuesday debate would call for a total ban on the import of assault Muslims.
LOL... yep... you need to send that one to Trump.
If he said it with the infamous Hussein lecturing voice the place would explode, right along with the moderators brain cell.
LOL... yep... you need to send that one to Trump.
LOL... yep... you need to send that one to Trump.
Military Style Assault Muslims
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-12-15, 19:20
Haven't they lowered the bar for new legislation against guns from if it would save just one life all the way to if it might do something.
Haven't they lowered the bar for new legislation against guns from if it would save just one life all the way to if it might do something.
Not ever that. It's just, "We have to do SOMETHING!"
I remember when I worked in law enforcement and ATF just "added" the domestic violence provision to the 4473's and their regs. Overnight several officers at my place of employment no longer qualified for their jobs because they couldn't own firearms all of a sudden.
I think eventually a compromised was worked out that these individuals could still handle a gun while on duty, but those officers' jobs were in a state of flux for several weeks while it was worked out. A lot of them were reassigned to civilian positions IIRC.
Believe me, the dot guv don't give a hoot what disruptions their draconian measures cause.
If a cop is violent towards the person he supposedly loves most in the world, I'm not sure he should be trusted with public safety.
echo5whiskey
12-12-15, 22:51
If a cop is violent towards the person he supposedly loves most in the world, I'm not sure he should be trusted with public safety.
I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment.
SomeOtherGuy
12-12-15, 23:02
If a cop is violent towards the person he supposedly loves most in the world, I'm not sure he should be trusted with public safety.
If they are actually violent, in the true sense, then I agree 100%. But there are far too many cases where claims of domestic violence appear to be false and used as a weapon. There also seem to be cases where verbal arguments, not involving any actual violence, have produced charges. And there are situations where "domestic violence" is not between spouses but between much more tenuous relations, but have been brought under a very broad definition of "domestic violence."
titsonritz
12-12-15, 23:06
If they are actually violent, in the true sense, then I agree 100%. But there are far too many cases where claims of domestic violence appear to be false and used as a weapon. There also seem to be cases where verbal arguments, not involving any actual violence, have produced charges. And there are situations where "domestic violence" is not between spouses but between much more tenuous relations, but have been brought under a very broad definition of "domestic violence."
Speaking from personal experience, this is a fact.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
12-12-15, 23:41
We can charge you for DV in NUMEROUS cases that don't involve violence towards the person that you have been intimate with.
Yep, in WA Domestic Violence is just an add on to the charge. You push your significant other, misdemeanor assault with a DV rider. My police academy roommate and I have a domestic violence relationship for the rest of our lives in WA because we were roommates. Made for some good jokes during defensive tactics training.
Moose-Knuckle
12-13-15, 01:18
More and more I have to believe that the so-called "conspiracy theorists" and "tin-foil hat wearers" are correct. Obama is nothing but a puppet, put in place to weaken our nation even further. It is easy to dismiss this theory as so much crap, but the fact remains that if you look at his behavior through this lens, and this lens only, everything he says and does makes sense. To delude yourself into thinking he is simply clueless is not seeing him for what he truly his. Obama has hated America virtually all of his life, and he has been put in a position to do the most damage he can to our society.
Look at Benghazi...if that was the Bush administration, there would have already been hearings, impeachment, and trials. I'm not a huge fan of either President Bush, but most Republicans in the Senate and House are gutless, and most Democrats simply go along with whatever Obama says.
Obama's agenda is to destroy the Constitution, destroy any traditional way of American life, make us more vulnerable in the world, and make Americans more dependent on the government. As more of us depend on the government for money and healthcare, we are more reluctant to vote for anyone who wants to reform such programs, giving the liberals a lock on major elections.
As the government allows more and more terrorist attacks, more and more fear is generated, and people are more likely to give up even more of their rights to privacy, more likely to be okay with wiretaps, with domestic spying, with a further erosion of our constitutional freedoms.
As more and more taxes and regulations are put in place by the EPA, the IRS, Labor Department, among others, our ability to live and conduct business freely is being slowly taken away, yet we allow ourselves to be distracted by such things as Katelyn Jenner or various NFL "scandals" or the latest cry of racism that somehow goes nationally. The average person wants, for some reason, to be blissfully ignorant of what the government is doing to us.
As more and more regulations are directed at fossil fuels like coal and oil and natural gas, our electric bills continue to climb, our cost of producing energy skyrockets, and we have less disposable income. Good paying domestic jobs are lost, and we become more dependent on OPEC and other foreign nations.
Most of our Senators and Representatives blindly go along with Obama, for they do not wish to be labeled as anti-Muslim and the resulting fallout from the mass media jumping all over them. They are not in office to serve us, they are in office to either serve themselves, or another agenda altogether. Again, this is not paranoia, this is the only thing that makes sense based on their actions or lack of action.
I've also noticed that the vast majority of our SME's stay out of these discussions, which I find quite disappointing. They are people who could motivate many to get off their butts and be giant pains to our elected officials, to remind them they serve us, not the other way around. But right now, this nation is very close to a totalitarian oligarchy.
People better wake up soon, or we won't have a country to defend. The America we were born into will be nothing but a memory.
Bravo.
This is spot on.
As for the comment about SME's, I do not speak for them but if you think about it they are public figures. As with their military careers they don't get involved with the political side of things. Now that doesn't mean they don't have their opinions on any said issue, but they are "Quiet Professionals".
Bravo.
This is spot on.
As for the comment about SME's, I do not speak for them but if you think about it they are public figures. As with their military careers they don't get involved with the political side of things. Now that doesn't mean they don't have their opinions on any said issue, but they are "Quite Professionals".
Just being a semantics dick here but while I'm sure they are quite professional I'll wager you meant that they are quiet professionals. :rolleyes:
Outlander Systems
12-13-15, 08:03
Long and Short of it: If you are getting a check from Uncle Sugar, you aren't allowed to discuss politics in public.
Bravo.
This is spot on.
As for the comment about SME's, I do not speak for them but if you think about it they are public figures. As with their military careers they don't get involved with the political side of things. Now that doesn't mean they don't have their opinions on any said issue, but they are "Quite Professionals".
A large distributor noted that their Pmags are backordered for about a month. Also, checked with another LARGE distributor, and they are completely sold out (previously had 40-50k of each Pmag variety).
Rep Gowdy in the House Oversight Committee on the No Fly List / Terrorist Watch List (edit) . In a two minute line of questioning, he summarizes and ends the discussion. Very well done.
https://www.facebook.com/Oversight/videos/10153418211287517/
Rep Gowdy in the House Oversight Committee on the No Fly -No Buy issue. In a two minute line of questioning, he summarizes and ends the discussion. Very well done.
https://www.facebook.com/Oversight/videos/10153418211287517/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNDcd1Fe5lg
Moose-Knuckle
12-14-15, 02:02
Just being a semantics dick here but while I'm sure they are quite professional I'll wager you meant that they are quiet professionals. :rolleyes:
Dyslexia strikes again!
He's a joke to the world. Actually the jokes to the world are those that twice put him into office. Even the Democrat party calls them the stupid voters .
Just in time for Christmas:
President Obama met with gun control proponent, nanny-statist, and former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg yesterday to discuss Obama's imminent executive actions to restrict the Second Amendment.
The meeting was not on the president's public schedule but obviously revealed after the fact to the press.
The conclave was "part of the administration's continuing push to address gun violence in America," the White House said in a statement.
"The two discussed ways to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have access to them and what more could be done at the state and local level to help address gun violence in America," the White House added.
Valerie Jarrett, who is spearheading the administration's gun control push, also attended the meeting.
The president has been meeting with many of the political celebrities on the gun control circuit like former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The two met last week to discuss the issue.
Jarret said last week that the unconstitutional executive action is in its final stages. We don't know exactly when the executive actions will be released, but I'm betting on a big, fat gun control Christmas present from the White House. (They aren't going to call it a Christmas present, of course.) Jarret said the new action will be revealed in "short order."
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2015/12/17/obama-meets-with-bloomberg-readies-new-gun-control-executive-actions
I'm thinking:
- import bans of AWs, including pistols (M92, MPX, etc.);
- import ban of all Russian ammo (think Wolf, Bear);
- ban of M855 and other ammo with anything but lead;
- UBCs for high-volume sellers;
- no fly, no buy lists;
Obama is pissed.
SomeOtherGuy
12-17-15, 13:14
Maybe those are possibilities, but all dubious. It's not clear he has any legal authority for any of those. For all his hot air, I don't think he wants a bruising political fight over such issues. He's bankrupt in terms of "political capital" and probably has more important issues to spend his credit on.
I wouldn't try giving them any ideas either.
I could see a push to regulate higher volume sellers who don't have FFLs, but I would think that would legally have to go through a notice of proposed rulemaking, comment period, and other Administrative Procedure Act requirements.
Dist. Expert 26
12-17-15, 13:29
If there was anything meaningful he could do on his own, he would have done it years ago. He's nothing more than a petulant child throwing a tantrum because things aren't going his way.
I still haven't figured out how an EO from Obama would affect sales of firearms between private parties (no FFL involved). Here in New Mexico, I can sell a rifle or pistol to anyone I want to without a dealer involved. At gun shows, there are dealers, then there are Mr. & Mrs. Average Citizen, selling firearms and accessories. I cannot see how the government can enforce this. If I see a nice revolver or shotgun on the dude's table, I just pay him and I walk out with the item. It would be no different than meeting some friend of mine and giving him $200 for the gun and a box of shells. To claim it's illegal to do it at a Gun Show without an FFL involved, would be no different than me buying the gun off of a guy I go to church with. You can't enforce this kind of thing. At the Gun Show, I could just make arrangements with the seller to hand over the gun off of property in a parking lot somewhere.
Reminds me of the time I bought a type A Uzi off a guy at the Tanque Verde Swap Meet in Tucson, AZ about 1981. I wish I hadn't sold that years ago.
BoringGuy45
12-17-15, 13:57
If there was anything meaningful he could do on his own, he would have done it years ago. He's nothing more than a petulant child throwing a tantrum because things aren't going his way.
This is so true, and yet people STILL buy the theory that he can repeal the 2nd Amendment with a swipe of the pen.
The fact is, he could only implement half the stuff he wants to if he had his own personal army along the lines of the SS, Revolutionary Guard, etc.
If there was anything meaningful he could do on his own, he would have done it years ago. He's nothing more than a petulant child throwing a tantrum because things aren't going his way.
Maybe those are possibilities, but all dubious. It's not clear he has any legal authority for any of those. For all his hot air, I don't think he wants a bruising political fight over such issues. He's bankrupt in terms of "political capital" and probably has more important issues to spend his credit on.
I wouldn't try giving them any ideas either.
I could see a push to regulate higher volume sellers who don't have FFLs, but I would think that would legally have to go through a notice of proposed rulemaking, comment period, and other Administrative Procedure Act requirements.
I still haven't figured out how an EO from Obama would affect sales of firearms between private parties (no FFL involved). Here in New Mexico, I can sell a rifle or pistol to anyone I want to without a dealer involved. At gun shows, there are dealers, then there are Mr. & Mrs. Average Citizen, selling firearms and accessories. I cannot see how the government can enforce this. If I see a nice revolver or shotgun on the dude's table, I just pay him and I walk out with the item. It would be no different than meeting some friend of mine and giving him $200 for the gun and a box of shells. To claim it's illegal to do it at a Gun Show without an FFL involved, would be no different than me buying the gun off of a guy I go to church with. You can't enforce this kind of thing. At the Gun Show, I could just make arrangements with the seller to hand over the gun off of property in a parking lot somewhere.
Reminds me of the time I bought a type A Uzi off a guy at the Tanque Verde Swap Meet in Tucson, AZ about 1981. I wish I hadn't sold that years ago.
This is so true, and yet people STILL buy the theory that he can repeal the 2nd Amendment with a swipe of the pen.
The fact is, he could only implement half the stuff he wants to if he had his own personal army along the lines of the SS, Revolutionary Guard, etc.
There is plenty he can do, of which I would include all in my list. He banned imports of Saigas with a signature.
This is a man who selectively enforces the laws legislated by Congress with impunity.
Doc Safari
12-17-15, 14:17
From what I understand, the president can add names to the no-fly list at will: no due process, no nothing.
If he can somehow specify that anyone on the no-fly list no longer qualifies for a firearm, then all he has to do is use that to add whomever he wants to the ban list at any time.
For example, suppose he gets his hands on the list of members for some conservative group and sim salabim all of them are on the "no-fly" "no-gun" list.
PatrioticDisorder
12-17-15, 14:19
From what I understand, the president can add names to the no-fly list at will: no due process, no nothing.
If he can somehow specify that anyone on the no-fly list no longer qualifies for a firearm, then all he has to do is use that to add whomever he wants to the ban list at any time.
For example, suppose he gets his hands on the list of members for some conservative group and sim salabim all of them are on the "no-fly" "no-gun" list.
That would never pass constitutional muster.
sevenhelmet
12-17-15, 14:28
That would never pass constitutional muster.
You mean like every other gun/free speech restriction out there already? I think we all agree "no fly no buy" is unconstitutional, but it isn't going to slow down the statists.
From what I understand, the president can add names to the no-fly list at will: no due process, no nothing.
If he can somehow specify that anyone on the no-fly list no longer qualifies for a firearm, then all he has to do is use that to add whomever he wants to the ban list at any time.
For example, suppose he gets his hands on the list of members for some conservative group and sim salabim all of them are on the "no-fly" "no-gun" list.
Exactly. And we already saw this type of political corruption with the IRS targeting Tea Party groups.
PatrioticDisorder
12-17-15, 14:31
From what I understand, the president can add names to the no-fly list at will: no due process, no nothing.
If he can somehow specify that anyone on the no-fly list no longer qualifies for a firearm, then all he has to do is use that to add whomever he wants to the ban list at any time.
For example, suppose he gets his hands on the list of members for some conservative group and sim salabim all of them are on the "no-fly" "no-gun" list.
You mean like every other gun/free speech restriction out there already? I think we all agree "no fly no buy" is unconstitutional, but it isn't going to slow down the statists.
NRA would immediately challenge it in court and win. Obama knows that and isn't in the mood to get pimp slapped again, he won't make a blatant move he knows is a losing hand. He will push, but that is a bridge too far even for him.
Doc Safari
12-17-15, 14:35
NRA would immediately challenge it in court and win. Obama knows that and isn't in the mood to get pimp slapped again, he won't make a blatant move he knows is a losing hand. He will push, but that is a bridge too far even for him.
Seriously? In this world you inhabit do unicorns fart rainbows?
All you need to look at is how the IRS was used as a tool to target conservative and Tea Party Groups and note how they suffered absolutely NO consequences. Do you honestly think the POTUS couldn't use some alphabet soup agency to suddenly add millions of NRA members to the no-fly/no-gun list, knowing that literally there will be NO ONE with enough testicular fortitude to punish the ones that do it?
I don't think he will take it quite that far, but it wouldn't surprise me if he gleefully oversteps the boundaries knowing he'll get away with it.
Outlander Systems
12-17-15, 14:44
Lest anyone want to fling around "the Constitution"...
...when has that stopped 'em before?
Remember the 4th Ammendment? Me too.
Forcing you to buy insurance is "Constitutional". Remember that.
From what I understand, the president can add names to the no-fly list at will: no due process, no nothing.
If he can somehow specify that anyone on the no-fly list no longer qualifies for a firearm, then all he has to do is use that to add whomever he wants to the ban list at any time.
For example, suppose he gets his hands on the list of members for some conservative group and sim salabim all of them are on the "no-fly" "no-gun" list.
Doesn't affect any firearms already in one's possession though, but yeah, that sucks.
Moose-Knuckle
12-17-15, 15:28
What a vagina . . .
I wished Bathhouse Barry would s**t or get of the pot already.
Go ahead and send tracked vehicles down Main St. USA . . .
Outlander Systems
12-17-15, 15:36
Meanwhile...
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user92183/imageroot/2015/12/PutinRifle_0.png
PatrioticDisorder
12-17-15, 16:36
Seriously? In this world you inhabit do unicorns fart rainbows?
All you need to look at is how the IRS was used as a tool to target conservative and Tea Party Groups and note how they suffered absolutely NO consequences. Do you honestly think the POTUS couldn't use some alphabet soup agency to suddenly add millions of NRA members to the no-fly/no-gun list, knowing that literally there will be NO ONE with enough testicular fortitude to punish the ones that do it?
I don't think he will take it quite that far, but it wouldn't surprise me if he gleefully oversteps the boundaries knowing he'll get away with it.
Do you believe BHO is a smart or stupid? He knows he cannot deny people a constitutionally protected right without due process. Remember the 23 or so executive orders he signed on guns after Sandyhook? That's about the extent of BHO's power, his executive order defining who is a gun dealer is an over step but one his admin is betting they have a fighting chance of winning in court after the NRA challenges it. They have no shot at putting through an executive order after legal challenges that disbars people from purchasing firearms who are put on an arbitrary list (terror/no-fly lisr). POTUS cannot make up law out of thin air, stop falling into the Alinsky strategy (Rule #1 “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.")
Sources say that President Obama will drop his new gun control executive orders after he rests up in Hawaii over the holidays.
Senior congressional aides and sources in the gun-control community expect the White House to use its executive powers to tighten federal gun laws shortly after President Barack Obama returns from a Hawaiian vacation in early January.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2015/12/18/sources-obamas-gun-control-will-come-after-his-hawaiian-vacation
U.S. Senators respond to the news of coming EOs:
Tri-State senators weigh in on talks of President Obama's proposal of executive orders on gun control.
U.S. Senator Rand Paul
“In the United States, we do not have a king, but we do have a Constitution. We also have the Second Amendment, and I will fight tooth and nail to protect it,” said Senator Paul.
U.S. Senator Joe Donnelly
“I am a strong supporter of the ability of law-abiding Hoosiers to exercise their right to own firearms. It is reasonable and responsible, however, to consider ways to reduce gun violence, specifically violence at the hands of those with criminal records or serious mental illnesses. That is why I continue to support expanding background checks, strengthening enforcement against straw purchasers and illegal gun traffickers, and preventing known or suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms. It’s my strong hope that Congress will do its job and act to address these gaps,” said Senator Donnelly.
U.S. Senator Dick Durbin
“In the absence of Congressional action to stem the rising tide of gun violence in our communities, I have called on President Obama to pursue all possible lawful options under his executive authority to reduce gun violence. Proposals to close loopholes in our background check system and crack down on illegal gun trafficking pipelines are supported by the vast majority of Americans. These loopholes are too dangerous to ignore. The tens of thousands of victims of gun violence across our country deserve action.”
http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/rand-paul-responds-to-gun-control-talks
KalashniKEV
12-22-15, 06:33
http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/article_173cb220-0e32-5e3a-b97b-6a618b5e946e.html
Beginning Feb. 1, Virginia will no longer honor the out-of-state concealed handgun carry permits of gun owners from more than two dozen of the states with which the commonwealth currently has reciprocal privileges.
Background:
1) Bloomberg gave millions of dollars to McAuliffe (a Clinton operative) to get elected as governor with the promise that he would bring strict gun control to the state of Virginia.
2) McAuliffe can't get the laws passed with a Republican majority plus "Blue Dog" Democrats.
3) A method must be conceived to bring gun control down on the people without passing any new laws- either through some type of Executive Action or... AN AUDIT!
Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring, follows an audit conducted by the attorney general’s office and the Virginia State Police pursuant to the state criminal code, which requires both agencies to determine whether reciprocating states “meet the requirements and qualifications” for recognition of their concealed handgun permits.
This will become the template moving forward to restrict the right to "bear" arms.
"Your flyover state doesn't meet our standards. Goodbye."
With CCW rights expanding nationwide, this is a pretty bold move...
He wants the VP spot with Hillary. It's all he's got.
"Isn't it time we had a Woman POTUS and anti-2A VP?"
.... oh wait.. we've already got that...... oh well.
This is the Virginia Sleaze Pack at work. McCauliffe, Kaine, Warner, Herring.
PatrioticDisorder
12-22-15, 07:40
Isn't there enough support to push through a veto proof concealed carry bill in VA that pimp slaps the punk's "audit" or "executive order?"
Mauser KAR98K
12-22-15, 08:08
Reason one not to stay home this election cycle, nor vote third party.
Same exact thing happened in PA and now my FL Non-Resident CCW permit is useless there.
A better question is, why am I unconstitutionally prohibited from picking up my M4A1 at ACE hardware? As we shall see, Heller will be instrumental in blessing additional gun control laws.
How many semi-automatic assault rifles does it take to make a ban on them unconstitutional?
Five million is enough, according to Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antoine Scalia. Earlier this month, in a dissent written by Thomas, the two justices objected to the Supreme Court’s decision to not review a lower court’s decision upholding a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons passed in 2013 by the city of Highland Park, a Chicago suburb.
n a landmark 2008 decision, the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote used a case on an exceptionally restrictive Washington, D.C., ordinance that had barred keeping guns in the home for self-defense to rule that the Second Amendment applied not only to a militia but also to an individual’s inherent right to bear arms for self-defense.
But the Court was also careful to wronglysay the Second Amendment didn’t bestow a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner “whatsoever for whatever purpose.
The Court cited the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons” and pointed out that the sort of weapons protected by the Second Amendment were those “in common use at the time. by the military”
It isn’t a question of what lawful citizens do. Citizens are law-abiding until they aren’t. The mass shooters in San Bernardino and at Umpqua Community College were law-abiding until they opened fire on others. just as a government is benovelent and lawful until it isn't, and this one isn't
Thomas would have us play a numbers game. How much is enough to be “common” use and is that even enough considering the damage that can be done when the law-abiding citizen gives in to the dark side? This is completely irrelevant, and erodes completely the teeth of the 2A
Some admittedly rough calculations: According to the Bureau of Census there are about 132 million households in the U.S. Various studies have estimated that about one-third of American households have someone who owns a gun.
So that means about 44 million households might have a gun of some kind. Let’s assume that all 5 million “modern sporting rifle” owners were in separate households. That means that 11 percent of the households with guns might have an assault weapon, which of course they only intend to use for target shooting, and some form of hunting that requires a semi-automatic weapon Of all the neutered choices available to We, The People, it's my PDW/AW of choice, and its merits for target shooting/hunting are inconsequential.
But that’s less than 4 percent of all households. Is that enough to be “common”? The "common" test is unconstitutional, and irrelevant
Now ask yourself what’s the percentage of mass shootings in which the perpetrator has used assault weapons? It is more than half in the last 30 years. More so in the last decade. POSs with rifles are responsible for a very small percentage (<4%) of all gun violence
The argument pits a community’s concern for the safety of its citizens against an NRA- and gun manufacturer-fueled arms race to sell enough assault weapons to make them common enough to fit into the Supreme Court’s constitutional protection of the right to bear arms. The 2A does not hinge on the numbers of certain firearms in circulation; rather, the 2A explicitly protects the law-abiding citizenry's Right to Keep and Bear select-fire Assault Weapons, detachable, hi-capacity magazines, AT4s, and claymore mines.
As Judge Frank. H. Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, who wrote the opinion upholding Highland Park’s ordinance, assessed the conflict, someone who’s not a good shot might want a weapon with a large capacity magazine to defend themselves.
“But assault weapons with large-capacity magazines can fire more shots, faster, and thus can be more dangerous in aggregate,” he continued. “Why else are they the weapons of choice in mass shootings?”Wrong. Our neutered firearms, which utilize century-old technology, can't fire faster than any other semi-automatic firearm on the market, and let's pray that POSs keep using firearms while committing their crimes, and do not resort to IEDs.
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/opinion/columnists/ron-eachus/2015/12/21/justice-thomas-adds-numbers-gun-control/77724034/
SilverBullet432
12-22-15, 15:14
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Doesn't specify what kind of arms. Bastards. If I want actual bear arms let me have them! :sarcastic:
The cannons and heavy ordnance used during the Revolution were all privately owned. The Founders knew this and this is the context in which the 2A was written. For anyone to think that the Founders equated our right to keep and bear arms to duck hunting is pure stupidity and should be treated as such.
Stop Hiding Behind the Second Amendment - http://huff.to/1O071Ld
Some people
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Stop Hiding Behind the Second Amendment - http://huff.to/1O071Ld
Some people
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Holy cow what a retarded article. Huffpo should stop hiding behind the first amendment. We all know it was only meant for quill pens...
The stupidity of that article is insane. It hurt my brain.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
12-22-15, 17:44
Meanwhile...
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user92183/imageroot/2015/12/PutinRifle_0.png
LOL, YA, because Russia has such AMAZING gun laws...
Only Russian citizens who are over eighteen years of age can own civilian firearms. Guns may be acquired for self-defense, hunting or sports activities only. Russian citizens can buy smooth-bore long-barreled firearms and pneumatic weapons with a muzzle energy of up to 25 joules. Rifles allowed after five years of ownership of a shotgun. Handguns generally are not allowed. Short barrel rifles and shotguns (less than 800 mm) are prohibited as well as silencers. An individual cannot possess more than ten guns (up to five shotguns and up to five rifles) unless part of a registered gun collection, guns that shoot in bursts and have more than a ten-cartridge capacity are prohibited.
Carrying permits are issued for hunting firearms licensed for hunting purposes. People who acquire firearms for the first time are required to attend six and a half hours of classes on handling guns safely and must pass federal tests on safety rules and a background check.[76] Gun licenses are for five years and can be renewed.
The stupidity of that article is insane. It hurt my brain.
Yeah I was thinking the same thing.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Outlander Systems
12-22-15, 19:55
Not a praise for Russia. Just a dig at POTUS.
LOL, YA, because Russia has such AMAZING gun laws...
http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/article_173cb220-0e32-5e3a-b97b-6a618b5e946e.html
Background:
1) Bloomberg gave millions of dollars to McAuliffe (a Clinton operative) to get elected as governor with the promise that he would bring strict gun control to the state of Virginia.
2) McAuliffe can't get the laws passed with a Republican majority plus "Blue Dog" Democrats.
3) A method must be conceived to bring gun control down on the people without passing any new laws- either through some type of Executive Action or... AN AUDIT!
This will become the template moving forward to restrict the right to "bear" arms.
"Your flyover state doesn't meet our standards. Goodbye."
With CCW rights expanding nationwide, this is a pretty bold move...
6.3 million concealed carry permit holders will be affected by this tyrannical action.
“Plain and simple, this is putting politics above public safety. This decision is both dangerous and shameful. The Attorney General knows that permit holders are among the safest groups of citizens in the commonwealth and the rest of the country,” Chris Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in an e-mail statement to The Daily Caller.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/22/nra-6-3-million-concealed-carry-permit-holders-affected-by-virginia-gun-control-move/
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.