Someone get this guy a proctologist to find his head. If/when terrorists start doing local attacks, it will be with explosives, not guns. More bang for the buck. They gave up on the shooting-spree tactics long ago. Too many people shooting back and not enough dead victims for extensive news coverage.
In the Fight Against Terrorism, Some Rights Must Be Repealed
- Thread starter Wildcard
- Start date
- Status
Someone get this guy a proctologist to find his head. If/when terrorists start doing local attacks, it will be with explosives, not guns. More bang for the buck. They gave up on the shooting-spree tactics long ago. Too many people shooting back and not enough dead victims for extensive news coverage.
Humm, Seems to me that one of the first "terrorist" attacks several years ago was outside the CIA main offices in VA were they not? An alleged Pakistani on a visa bought an AR-15 the returned it for an AK-47 copy at a gun shop and used it to shoot up the cars going to work....The company has denied ever since it was a "Terrorist" attack but if it walks like a duck and sheds water.....Is this what he is using as an excuse?
Last thought; I have often pondered what would happen if "the order" was given to the military, would they obey their oath and protect the Constitution or follow the orders of the tin pot in office??
Last thought; I have often pondered what would happen if "the order" was given to the military, would they obey their oath and protect the Constitution or follow the orders of the tin pot in office??
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Before I log off for the night, I wonder about the arguments in other threads where folks are vigorously proposing and/or defending the warrantless taps, searchs, etc. It is ok for our leader and national security.
Anybody pro that getting all a twitter about this guy? It is all cut from the same cloth.
Anybody pro that getting all a twitter about this guy? It is all cut from the same cloth.
Here in New Hampshire, it's $10 for four years, and can be applied for by mail.
Warrantless intercepts and tracking of INTERNATIONAL communications with KNOWN terrorist organizers and financiers. It's a little different situation than a categorical ban on self-defense. Does an agent of an enemy power have an essential liberty to private communications with his handlers overseas during wartime?
If they're "known" organizers and financiers, why all the sneaky, underhanded, illegal tactics employed by this Administration? Suspected != proven.
If you have proof, or even compelling evidence, a warrant takes five minutes to obtain. If you can't back your case to a magistrate, which in the US takes no effort at all, then you're wrong. Yes, even if you're Lord High Emperor, or President.
BTW, your first word in that quote is the most important. "Warrantless" applies to you as well as to "known" baddies. Considering what a bunch of chuckleheads are in charge of these investigations and prosecutions, do you really believe that YOUR rights are secure? Because if you do, I have a real estate deal which may interest you.
Yeah, it's like he's saying that muslims should siphon off whatever good they can get for themselves out of this country. It doesn't sound like he's saying BE a part of this country, BE a citizen -- it sounds like he's saying MILK this country. I don't like it, either.
If this country, the U.S.A., is so friggin' bad and horrible and must be fought, why don't jerkoffs like this guy go live in the countries they seem to favor?
I guess it must be that living in those countries is S#!T!
But the U.S.A. is a horrible place.
-azurefly
If this country, the U.S.A., is so friggin' bad and horrible and must be fought, why don't jerkoffs like this guy go live in the countries they seem to favor?
I guess it must be that living in those countries is S#!T!
But the U.S.A. is a horrible place.
-azurefly
MeekAndMild
New member
Wildcard, I think you've got me on this one. 
I can't think of a single reply to the content of this article which is printable under the loosest interpretation of politeness and good taste.
It is good though to learn who are the enemies of human rights and freedom.
I will remember the name Junaid M. Afeef a long time.
I can't think of a single reply to the content of this article which is printable under the loosest interpretation of politeness and good taste. It is good though to learn who are the enemies of human rights and freedom.
I will remember the name Junaid M. Afeef a long time.
MeekAndMild,
Was not trying to get you in anyway. Just wanted to let all know what we are up against as gun owners. I still scratch my head trying to understand this guys reasoning.
A radical muslim activist, who wants to grab all guns, and do away with the 2nd amendment.
Radical Muslim activist's who fly planes into our buildings and want the USA to die.
Hmm. I think we have the same to fear from both the above.
Was not trying to get you in anyway. Just wanted to let all know what we are up against as gun owners. I still scratch my head trying to understand this guys reasoning.
A radical muslim activist, who wants to grab all guns, and do away with the 2nd amendment.
Radical Muslim activist's who fly planes into our buildings and want the USA to die.
Hmm. I think we have the same to fear from both the above.
http://www.ispu.us/about_ispu/our_team.html
http://www.ispu.us/about_ispu/board_of_advisors.html
i wouldn't trust any of them,but when a bunch of Islamic folks say that we shouldn't be allowed to own guns then i smell something fishy or maybe it's my paranoia kicking in
http://www.ispu.us/about_ispu/board_of_advisors.html
i wouldn't trust any of them,but when a bunch of Islamic folks say that we shouldn't be allowed to own guns then i smell something fishy or maybe it's my paranoia kicking in
MeekAndMild
New member
Wildcard, what I meant was you had me stumped. 
No way to reply to the article content without saying words that aren't in the dictionary.
No way to reply to the article content without saying words that aren't in the dictionary.
I am not surprised that the majority of terrorists in the world are muslim males between the ages of 18-49 and here we have a muslim, who claims to be an American citizen, calling for the disarming of the American public and destruction of the Bill of Rights in the name of keeping firearms out of the hands of terrorists. Of course, we all know that striking the 2nd amendment from the Bill of Rights will accomplish this. Most muslims in America are working to destroy us from the inside. Does he think that when disarmed his muslim brothers will want a big group hug with us. The muslim terrorists will kill the men, rape the women and enslave the children. And we shouldn't be profiling? We sure wouldn't want to offend them. This Domestic Terrorist along with the ACLU should be tried for Treason and deported back to the desert as an example. While he has a right to his opinion, he wants to serve us up to be slaughtered by his muslim brothers. But of course it would be in the name of Islam.
Look what happens in areas with both no RKBA and large muslim communities:
Remember - rape is a crime of power and humiliation, and both are part of the "Dhimmi", the islamic treatment of non-muslims. That a muslim group wants to disarm Americans should come as no suprise. Dhimmi cannot be allowed to carry arms.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20646
Remember - rape is a crime of power and humiliation, and both are part of the "Dhimmi", the islamic treatment of non-muslims. That a muslim group wants to disarm Americans should come as no suprise. Dhimmi cannot be allowed to carry arms.
Chris Phelps
New member
Not that anything I am about to say is going to come as a shock to anyone... I was probably one of the last ones here to think about things like this.
The government is somehow always yelling about handguns and rifles, and now this guy is saying that noone should own guns of any kind. Simple fact of the matter is, the only states in the nation that allow CCW with absolutly no permit of any kind (anyone can carry) are all the lowest crime rate, as well. Which ones have the highest crime rates? The ones that do not allow CCW at all. See a link here?
Also, there is all kinds of talk about people opening fire on government officials who try to take our weapons. Then I read the post about how the constitution says we have the right to keep and bear arms to keep the government in check. They are one in the same. Effectivly what we are saying is that we will deal with 99% of the government's BS, but there will most definitly be a rebelion on the sad sad day that they actually try to enforce a new no-gun law. People like this guy think our military is strong enough to fight us all, but sadly, I dont believe it for one second.
I also think he is looking at it all wrong. I once heard a saying "make it illegal, and only criminals will do it." This holds true here as well. Even if he disarms every citizen in this country... does he really believe that will solve the problem? The criminals will still have ways of aquiring firearms. I say, if you are really worried about someone walking into a mall and opening fire... do away with CCW laws. Arm and proporly train everyone. Worst case scenerio - Mexican standoff. If I were a criminal, which would I be more likely to do... Walk into a mall where they have anti-gun laws, knowing full well I could not be stopped... or walk into a mall where I suspect every single person there is armed, and there is a good chance I would be dead if I opened fire?
In short... where is the logic in such statements about disarming people?
The government is somehow always yelling about handguns and rifles, and now this guy is saying that noone should own guns of any kind. Simple fact of the matter is, the only states in the nation that allow CCW with absolutly no permit of any kind (anyone can carry) are all the lowest crime rate, as well. Which ones have the highest crime rates? The ones that do not allow CCW at all. See a link here?
Also, there is all kinds of talk about people opening fire on government officials who try to take our weapons. Then I read the post about how the constitution says we have the right to keep and bear arms to keep the government in check. They are one in the same. Effectivly what we are saying is that we will deal with 99% of the government's BS, but there will most definitly be a rebelion on the sad sad day that they actually try to enforce a new no-gun law. People like this guy think our military is strong enough to fight us all, but sadly, I dont believe it for one second.
I also think he is looking at it all wrong. I once heard a saying "make it illegal, and only criminals will do it." This holds true here as well. Even if he disarms every citizen in this country... does he really believe that will solve the problem? The criminals will still have ways of aquiring firearms. I say, if you are really worried about someone walking into a mall and opening fire... do away with CCW laws. Arm and proporly train everyone. Worst case scenerio - Mexican standoff. If I were a criminal, which would I be more likely to do... Walk into a mall where they have anti-gun laws, knowing full well I could not be stopped... or walk into a mall where I suspect every single person there is armed, and there is a good chance I would be dead if I opened fire?
In short... where is the logic in such statements about disarming people?
azredhawk44
Moderator
Thank you, Coinneach.
I looked up "warrant" in the dictionary today.
There is the noun, the object, which is a writ of authorization (in legalese) or a testament to authenticity in layman's terms.
The verb, however, heavily relies upon ideals of justice and guarantees.
dictionary.com said:
I think a warrant should only be issued if it is warranted, and if it isn't warranted, then it does not warrant being issued and the action of spying is not warranted.
- Status