Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Who told you to give up the gun you own?
Last edited:
Legal killing of American Citizens
- Thread starter SaltyDawg
- Start date
Who told you to give up the gun you own?
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
Nobody yet. But people are suggesting that I might not be able to sell it in the future. And people are suggesting that I might not be able to buy the one I want in the future.
Taking it from me now is not all that much different from preventing me from getting it in the first place.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
The bigger question is, what the hell is causing these loud booms and shakes around my home? Anyone else noticing this? For probably at least the past 2 months every now and again my house will shake for a second or two. Anyone else experience this? I found this...
https://fox13now.com/2013/01/08/mysterious-booms-shaking-reported-throughout-wasatch-front/
https://fox13now.com/2013/01/08/mysterious-booms-shaking-reported-throughout-wasatch-front/
candrew
Well-Known Member
These suggesting people are most likely tied to or have a stake in the gun industry and have an economic interest in making you believe they're not gonna let you buy or sell guns in the near future - so come on over and pick out your twelfth gun before it's too late.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
Maybe so. I've suggested that in person a few times.
In the end I don't care who is behind it. The powers that be could and should end the discussion by saying it's not going to happen.
The fundamental problem here is that we have institutions, the whole maze of public organizations, which are now basing all their issues on the notions of statism. . . . . the convenience of sensible management of public affairs as they would term it. . . .assuming that people will recognize the importance of efficiency in solving problems. . . . it all makes sense, really. . . . . whatever the issue is, get up a bunch of experts, or hash it out with the big players and see what needs doing. . . .
We have "professionals" and "experts" make all the decisions for the good of the whole, so to speak.
oh wait, I know you guys nearly all think this is no problem, but the way to solve any problem.
However, to our founding fathers, well read in the classics of Greece and Rome and other civilizations, and having seen the magnificent British Empire at its finest hours making a splendid example of just what government by the finest and best men society can ask for will really do in a practical sense with unlimited power, just had a moment of clarity, and realized that it was a hard choice, but something people will always have to choose. Do we let others manage us for their convenience, or do we as human beings really have the right to govern ourselves.
I'm pretty tired of all you statists sitting in here trying to weigh in on how others must accept governance by the experts, by the elites, by the big money, and for their convenience.
Obama is a dunce. He claims to be all for the poor people, but he does everything the world governance crowd wants. Yes he is going to just kill people who get in the way, somehow, any way that annoys. Bill Clinton sent missiles into factories filled with innocent human beings to distract the media from some tart in a blue dress with no sense. George Bush, actually both of them, sent troops into combat at trillions in expense for the grand purpose of establishing American/UN dominance in a region populated by essentially medieval religionists with little or no real military relevance to our security.
Bush in particular had long and deep personal involvement with the Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia, and could probably have just asked for Bin Laden's head on a platter as a matter of diplomatic courtesy, if the real purpose was just to stop a terrorist.
Well, maybe I shouldn't say Obama is a dunce. He knows what he's doing. And to try to project the reasons he claims for his objectives is probably just very clever and very evil. What can I say? A lot of folks just don't see it that way.
The United States at its inception set forth a principle that the Federal government should be limited in power, and that people have inalienable natural rights, including the right to life.
Obama's statements claiming that he now has the perogative to issue death warrants without any legal process whatsoever, is a complete departure from his sworn oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Well, but that's not the one such departure, there are hundreds of such issues which this man believes should be in his power.
Sure a war puts everything on another footing, and that is why the founders tried to put the declaration of war in separate hands, and the making of treaties in separate hands, from executive branch, or the "commander in chief". It's the duty of congress to legislate what the rules should be for the exectutive, or the purposes of any war should be, and to define the "enemy" we should be fighting. Obama doesn't want to let Congress decide those things.
So it's just time to impeach Barack Obama.
Sneakers
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure they figured this out, I read it recently, air-force test drops? Something like that.
It sucks, and shows Obama is just as crooked and unprincipled as any politician out there, and a younger me would be ashamed of voting for him twice. An older me just sighs are realizes that than other a few small things it really doesn't matter who you vote for.
Though it is funny to see the Sean Hannity and the other right wing idiots of the world complaining about this, when they were perfectly fine with people like Jose Padilla being held indefinitely even though he was a US citizen.
If the dumbass war criminal before him couldn't get impeached I doubt Obama will.
Haha.
I thought something similar but read this.
https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo
If that is really how this is handled then I am absolutely against this.
Also define "terrory". Oh wait, the DHS already did with "suspicion of government", "gun rights" and being a member of a single issue org. such as a pro-life group on the list.
Hartsock
Banned
Im not totally sure what terrory means either, but i am totally confident I am not doing anything that would be considered terrory
That right there is the point. You are confident but what happens if you are on that DHS list for some reason. What happens if you make it on one of those "baseball cards" on "Terror Tuesday"? You are wacked and the story is that you were planning to blow up a greyhound bus. In fact the more I think about this the more I am against it. This gives the president way more power than he should have.
Who knows as they do not have to prove it. They killed a 16 year old American teenager in Yemin. Was he a terrorist? Probably but nothing was proven, they simply killed him.
Hartsock
Banned
Seems like they would want to have a fairly substantial burden of proof before killing an american
Go read up on it. Scary, scary stuff.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
If you don't even know how "terrory" is defined, how do you know you will never be on that list?
And how can we be sure the next president will define it the same as this current president?
Hartsock
Banned
I'm pretty confident going to work as a marketing director, playing basketball a few nights a week, and playing with my daughter will keep me safe. call me naive I guess