OMG, Insanity in the US Senate!! Check FoxNews Right Now on TV!!

of course you know "IF" they ever got a ban of firearms, knives would be next.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...al-Election-MUST-bring-change-to-Britain.html

"...Knife crime is out of control. Over 100 serious knife crimes are committed every single day in this country.

And now I feel you are more likely to be convicted of speeding at 45 miles an hour than if you knifed somebody in the street. The problem is we have just got used to this.

Part of the solution is zero tolerance to anyone carrying a knife, but also giving kids who have run out of hope the feeling that they are being listened to and they have a future."

Yep folks, that's right. Stopping knife crime in Britain would only happen if you have zero tolerance for people carrying knives.:barf:

by the way, I for one believe the should drop the name "Great" from Great Britain's name.....They stopped being Great generations ago. Sad to see what they people to do to the golden goose.
 
Last edited:
I was under the impression you could take a clump of plutonium and throw it at the ground and it would detonate?! LMAO!
Click to expand...

It takes a huge explosion or an event that gets the plutonium molecules moving this creates the friction that makes it all go boom.


Powdered plutonium could be sent into the atmosphere and scattered, the fallout would be very harmfull to a lot of people, not a good thing.

The propane bomb he tried to build? Not as effective as the OK bomb.

Anyone with a chemistry or pyro background can build a device from materials gathered from ebay that would do a better job than what he built. But why would anyone wish to do this? I just dont get the mentallity of this bombing thing. Guess I am not cut out for that kind of stuff, to harm another person just to harm them. I couldnt do it.
 
HMMMMM....maybe the Mayor is upset about the guns LEAVING New York? And he wants to close the loophole that allows them to leave?
You know, New Yorks Bad Guys only have so many guns to go around, they may have to start sharing pretty soon. Just imagine all the problems they run into with the shortage of available handguns when respectable, lawabiding Citizens are buying up and holding onto all the extra guns.

Supply and demand my friends....keep buying those handguns and lock em up before they fall into the wrong hands. Its the least we could do for our country.
 
OK, I just happened to tune in on the middle of this testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee. I heard "9mm" mentioned, and just assumed that it had to be a handgun. However, I see now that the press indeed says that it was a compact rifle: A Kel-Tec. So I was mistaken in assuming it was a handgun.

Apparently the rifle had been purchased fully lawfully. And that is what the Police Commissioner seemed to be so very upset about.

I've not been able to find any video of the Commissioner himself talking, which is what I saw. However, it turns out that Mayor Bloomberg himself testified immediately before him. And that the new law that they were discussing ( which was not explained while I was watching the Commissioner talk ) is a law to ban anyone on the nation's no-fly list from being able to buy guns. So I had no idea what was specifically being proposed. All I knew was that America's lax gun laws were being blamed for Shahzad having been able to buy a gun.

This article at the link just below talks about the testimony in the committee today. It also has a short video of Bloombery talking, and you can see the police commissioner sitting on his left, waiting for his chance to testify.

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seat...-naturally-focuses-on-terror-suspects-firearm

The Huffington Report also has a big write up about the new "Terror Gap" that now exists in our gun laws. Here is their story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-bloomberg/terror-suspects-are-buyin_b_564069.html

Finally, a new political action group has been formed to lobby the government and the American people to strengthen gun laws to keep them out of the hands of Terrorists.

wrapper_bg.jpg


http://www.terrorgap.org/

Perhaps this new proposed law does make sense? Could Mayor Bloomberg possibly be right for once? Or could a law like this be abused by the Government?

.
 
Last edited:
Since most people on the terrorist watch list are Muslim, would this be politically correct? Would the ACLU step forward and sue? Would it progress from the terrorist watch list to those on the no-fly list?

There are a lot of innocent people on the no fly list and to get yourself off that list takes a heck of a long time. There have been US Senators on this list, and it took time for them to get off the list.

So, be careful. Anything the Mayor of NY and his peons think up can be dangerous to all of us.
 
As I understand it, what they're proposing is that anybody on the "terror watch" list be prohibited from purchasing a firearm.

It seems like the real concern is that the media wanted the terrorist to be a tea-partier, rather than the islmo-fascist he was.

My concern is that anyone who attendes a tea party or listens to Rush could be put on the terror watch list....
 
Lance Oregon said:
Perhaps this new proposed law does make sense? Could Mayor Bloomberg possibly be right for once? Or could a law like this be abused by the Government?
Click to expand...

Seems like a Catch-22. Denying them a purchase lets them know in no uncertain terms that they've been had, allowing the purchase potentially puts the public in danger.

So far as "abused". Well, can you think of a law that HASN'T been abused by the government.
 
It seems like the real concern is that the media wanted the terrorist to be a tea-partier, rather than the islmo-fascist he was.

My concern is that anyone who attendes a tea party or listens to Rush could be put on the terror watch list....
Click to expand...


Yes, that is a valid concern I think. If such a law was broad enough, it could then be used against folks who simply disagree with the government.

.
 
You guys get stirred up over anything. :rolleyes:

Since when did anyone make Fox News Channel as an authoritative figure on FACTS?


Once people realize that they are only in the BUSINESS of spreading propaganda and 'what ifs' the better of we will all be.

I mean come on ...

I heard that the 'terror suspect' that they accused was actually a foreign exchange student that died in Colorado during a climbing accident over 3 years ago. Who are you going to believe? FOX News Channel who is sly as a Fox, or CNN the Communist News Network.
 
The Usual suspects stumping for their usual aganda

Reported on the news that they want people on the watch list AND on the no fly list to be banned from firearm purchases.

Considering the secret nature of these lists, and the mechanism for appeal (none?) I have a huge problem with this.

As our own government has lost 206 Kg of plutonium
Click to expand...
Kimberdawg, I would really love to see your source for this claim. Please provide one, or I will have to call BS on this.
 
You guys get stirred up over anything.

Since when did anyone make Fox News Channel as an authoritative figure on FACTS?
Click to expand...

Dude:

If you had read my message you would see that I was not commenting about anything said by any Fox employee.

They were broadcasting the Homeland Security Committee hearing live. The video was not edited in any way at all. And my reaction was to the testimony that I heard direct from the mouth of the NYPD Commissioner.

The Foxs News team actually seemed to ignore the references being made to firearms and the need for more gun control, as they were busy talking about other issues.

So sorry, I heard this direct from the horse's mouth, via live coverage of the hearing. I saw and heard this with my own eyes and ears.

.
 
Reported on the news that they want people on the watch list AND on the no fly list to be banned from firearm purchases.

Considering the secret nature of these lists, and the mechanism for appeal (none?) I have a huge problem with this.
Click to expand...

I am with you. To deny a civil right without due process, based essentially on an anonymous accusation, would seem to be unconstitutional on the face of it. I'd love to hear from the lawyers on here.
 
Perhaps this new proposed law does make sense? Could Mayor Bloomberg possibly be right for once? Or could a law like this be abused by the Government?
Click to expand...

Hello? He wasn't on the no-fly list until a few hours before he got on the plane. He bought the gun months ago. The no-fly list didn't even prevent him from buying a ticket - with cash, for a one way ticket to the middle east. The no-fly list didn't prevent him from waltzing through TSA.

The only thing that stopped him was that the authorities actually followed him to the airport, then went in and pulled him off the plane.

If somebody is on the no-fly list they ought to be in custody, not another entry in a data bank that's already ignored by everyone concerned.
 
There are some political flare ups in this one and I am pondering the direction it has taken.

As long as we don't stray further, I think this belongs in Law & Civil Rights.

Let's go there.
 
As kodiakbeer pointed out, even if this law had been in effect, this guy would still be able to buy the rifle legally because he did not get put on the no-fly list until after he tried to blow up Times Square.

Pretty much the only law that would stop him from buying a firearms is one that would stop an American citizen with no criminal history from buying a firearm - while I'm sure that such a law would please the Bradys immensely, it isn't a law most Americans will support.

Second, there is the effect Peetzakilla pointed out - if a terrorist wants to know whether the government is watching, all he needs to do is try to buy a firearm. Denial means he is one of almost 400,000 people in various terrorism related databases.

Personally, I think this is all just kabuki-theater. We already know from Heller that the right to own a handgun in your home for self-defense is a fundamental right expressly protected by the Bill of Rights. As such, even under rational basis, you cannot deny it to people without due process. Which means the Supreme Court would likely overturn it and the Administration will use it as a talking point to try and win points with people who get their entire education on an issue in 30 seconds - "The Supreme Court says terrorists can legally buy guns! Can you believe that?" After all, if you have a big nomination fight coming, you want people to be motivated to "correct" the problems on the Supreme Court...

Imagine if the media could lose their First Amendment right to blather cluelessly if they were on a secret terrorist watchlist and there was no appeal to such a decision. Would anyone think that was OK? Would we see U. S. Senators proposing such a bill? Yet despite a long, long list of national security problems created by ignorant media with free speech rights, some of which have no doubt actually killed people, we don't do that.
 
Imagine if the media could lose their First Amendment right to blather cluelessly if they were on a secret terrorist watchlist and there was no appeal to such a decision. Would anyone think that was OK? Would we see U. S. Senators proposing such a bill?
Click to expand...
That's a brilliant idea. Of course it wouldn't pass, but that's not the point; think of the debate it would spark. (offer it as an amendment to S.1317 just to make sure they understand the metaphor)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top