They never give up!

[rhertz]

Originally Posted by joepole

"Terrorist" is largely in the eye of the beholder. Bin Laden was our friend when he was terrorizing the Russkies. Saddam was, too, when he was going after Iran.

Yeah I guess that means there are good terrorists and bad terriorists. The good ones are on our side. The bad one's are not on our side. Some switch sides and therefore go from bad to good, or good to bad. That is to say that they go from our side to their side or vice versa. Now it's time to look at the statistics.. Most of the bad ones that are not on our side fit a certain profile that is policitially incorrect to stereotype. Who is "their side"? That is our enemy, not just the individuals on both sides who flop around seeking fame, glory, money, Allah, or whatever.....

[Al Swearengen]

If that piece of totalitarian garbage does'nt scare the hell out of you folks, it should! So dont just sit there, write those e-mails and letters, make those phone calls. We all have to get involved, before its too late.

[joepole]

You left out a few important parts:

"Upon request of the petitioner or the court's own motion, the court may review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera. The court shall determine whether the summaries or redacted versions, as the case may be, are fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents."

Also, the bill only prevents the transfer of weapons, not the possession. Your seizure situation isn't valid.

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by joepole

You left out a few important parts:

"Upon request of the petitioner or the court's own motion, the court may review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera. The court shall determine whether the summaries or redacted versions, as the case may be, are fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents."

Also, the bill only prevents the transfer of weapons, not the possession. Your seizure situation isn't valid.

I left out nothing. The article I posted was taken verbatim from the July '07 issue of "American Rifleman". Also, you either failed to read or comprehend the language of the bill..."It shall be unlawful for any person...to possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition."

[joepole]

You (or the article by way of you) left out the above quoted text I copied from the bill itself. A pretty important part, i might add.

>Also, you either failed to read or comprehend the language of the bill..."It shall be unlawful for any person...to possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition."

That is just flat out wrong. Did you actually read the bill or did you just trust that "American Rifleman" had all the facts straight? The portion of the bill that is referring to is the part that amends USC 18.922(d) which reads:

"It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—"

...and then it goes on to list 9 conditions under which it is illegal to sell a person a gun. This new bill adds a 10th:

"(10) has been the subject of a determination by the Attorney General under section 922A, 922B, 923(d)(1)(H), or 923(e) of this title.'."

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by joepole

You (or the article by way of you) left out the above quoted text I copied from the bill itself. A pretty important part, i might add.

>Also, you either failed to read or comprehend the language of the bill..."It shall be unlawful for any person...to possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition."

That is just flat out wrong. Did you actually read the bill or did you just trust that "American Rifleman" had all the facts straight? The portion of the bill that is referring to is the part that amends USC 18.922(d) which reads:

"It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—"

...and then it goes on to list 9 conditions under which it is illegal to sell a person a gun. This new bill adds a 10th:

"(10) has been the subject of a determination by the Attorney General under section 922A, 922B, 923(d)(1)(H), or 923(e) of this title.'."

You're forgettin somethin, aintcha? A lil somethin Mr. Harlan B. Carter said, about "Judge a law by the worst reading, and in the hands of the worst enemies of the Second Amendment." Joe, you're a stickler for detail, but ya blew past that bit of minutia and never looked back, didntcha?

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by Al Swearengen

You're forgettin somethin, aintcha? A lil somethin Mr. Harlan B. Carter said, about "Judge a law by the worst reading, and in the hands of the worst enemies of the Second Amendment." Joe, you're a stickler for detail, but ya blew past that bit of minutia and never looked back, didntcha?

And do YOU really think using the worst possible case scenario is the best way to judge this law? That's like locking your daughter in the basement because she might get raped and murdered in the outside world one day. Justifying your actions with the worst possible case scenario.

I'm a firm believer in The Patriot Act, and have fully supported it's use in every instance that I'm aware of....

As for LN comments, DUDE.....don't you think it's pretty difficult for a normal, hard working, tax paying citizen to be labeled an enemy combatant?

And let's face it....if you're calling or making any kind of transaction with any person in/from/or around the middle east, then I want the govt. watching your @$$ too!!