• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Extremist both left & right wont be allowed to buy guns

MsSage

Well-known member
Come on people wake UP
At what point do you say whoa we are going down a very slippery slope and we will no longer have ANY freedoms?


A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans as potential "threats," could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others – any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential "extremism."

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any "known or suspected dangerous terrorist." The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is "appropriately suspected" of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general "has a reasonable belief" that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.

Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill's language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being "dangerous."

"[Rep. King] would deny citizens their civil liberties based on no due process," objected Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. "A 'known terrorist?' Look, if the guy has committed an act of terrorism, we shouldn't have to worry about him being able to buy a gun; he should be in jail!"

Pratt further warned WND of the potential overlap of H.R. 2159 and a recent DHS memo that warned against potential violence from "right-wing extremists," such as those concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty.
"By those standards, I'm one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano's terrorists," Pratt said. "This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they're all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009."
Pratt's biggest concern, however, is the sidestepping of the Constitution and due process that the nebulous language of this bill could permit.

"Unbeknownst to us, some bureaucrat in the bowels of democracy can put your name on a list, and your Second Amendment rights are toast," Pratt told WND. "This is such an anti-American bill, this is something King George III would have done."

As WND reported, right-wing "extremists" aren't the only Americans on the DHS watch list
Two weeks before the U.S. Department of Homeland Security penned its now notorious warning against "right-wing extremists" in the United States, it generated a memo defining dozens of additional groups as potential "threats."

That memo, the "Domestic Extremism Lexicon" expanded the list from typical "right-wing" causes to include left-wing extremism, animal rights activists, black separatists, anarchists, Cuban independence advocates, environmental extremists, the anti-war movement and more. It even insisted some of these groups were prone to violence.
For example, the lexicon defined the "tax resistance movement" – also referred to in the report as the tax protest movement or the tax freedom movement – as "groups or individuals who vehemently believe taxes violate their constitutional rights. Among their beliefs are that wages are not income, that paying income taxes is voluntary, and that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to levy taxes on income, was not properly ratified."

It further states that tax protesters "have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism in an attempt to advance their extremist goals."

The DHS memos were meant for distribution to law enforcement officials around the country, prompting some to worry the definitions might be used to classify Americans who simply disagree with government policies as being dangerous.

As WND reported, the relative of a Louisiana driver claims her brother-in-law has already been unfairly targeted by police simply for having a supposedly subversive, "Don't Tread on Me" bumper sticker on his car.

According to the relative, it happened this way: Her brother-in-law was driving home from work through Ball, La., which has a local reputation for enhancing its budget by ticketing speeders. He was pulled over by police officers who told him "he had a subversive survivalist bumper sticker on his car."

"They proceeded to keep him there on the side of the road while they ran whatever they do to see if you have a record, keeping him standing by the side of the road for 30 minutes," she told WND.

Finding no record and no reason to keep him, they warned him and eventually let him go, she said.

WND has withheld the driver's name and the relative's name at their request.

H.R. 2159 has six co-sponsors, from both parties, and has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

WND contacted Rep. King's office for comment on the bill, but received no response.
 

MsSage

Well-known member
Since I have a NRA sticker on my truck and I went to a tea party. I am very concered with illegal immigration, I am very tired of increased federal power. I feel they (government) are trying to ban guns. I am against abortion, for the death penlty (one choose the consequences, the other had no say)
The only thing I have killed or even shot at are coyotes and rabbits, which I was asked to get rid of as many as I could.
So I am an extremist ...according to you I should not be allowed to own a gun?
What about you? You have said in your own words you went hunting for a person with a gun ( I am NOT saying what you did was wrong) But is that not an act by an extremist? So you should not be allowed to own a gun either................
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Just by reading the title of your thread...I gotta say GOOD.


Extreme people are just that...EXTREME

Seems to me that advocating the denial of Constitutionally guaranteed rights to citizens with absolutely no due process would be pretty extreme - which would make you an extremist....
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Having the great one define extremist is awful scary

Then all he has to do is keep expanding the defintion to include everyone.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
MsSage said:
So I am an extremist ...according to you I should not be allowed to own a gun?
.


Ohhh...baby girl....there's more reasons that what you listed for you not owning a gun!!! :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:


At the time I went looking for that S.O.B...I prob SHOULD NOT have had a gun with me at that time!!!!!
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Larrry said:
I trust mssage with a gun a lot further than I do some women with a reproductive tract.


Now, with this I have to agree.


Write this day down cause it will prob the ONLY ONE where I agree with Little Larrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry
 

andybob

Well-known member
The obvious flaw in the reasoning in this article, is the assumption that terrorists and criminals buy the weapons they use illegally. Terrorists (extreamists) are supplied their weapons by their political/religeous masters, criminals use stolen/illegally imported/illegally manufactured weapons, not purchased firearms that might be traced back to them!
 
Top