Some of you may know about recently declassified Homeland security report that has labeled so called "Right wing extremists" as dangerous potential terrorists, it pretty much defines terrorists as " those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." Basically conservatives/ republicans/ libertarians and most likely people who did not vote for Barack Obama. Well now there a new gun law being considered in Congress called H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009. H.R. 2159 if understood through the lens of the new homeland security definition of terrorists could potentially outlaw guns for anyone who just so happens to disagree with the new administration. It's official the assault on your freedom's is well under way. Homeland security documents: http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf H.R. 2159: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2159

Yeah, but didn't the US Supreme Court just determine that the "right to bear arms" extends to a private citizen's right to have firearms, including handguns for self-defense? So Congress can go and write whatever laws it wants - they will be unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

Of course its Unconstitutional and illegal, that's the whole point of labeling law abiding citizens as potential terrorists as a means to pass such legislation and attempt to bypass constitutional protections. It's underhanded and criminal.

Obama's trying to make sure no one says 'no' to him anymore. Coward.

This is extremely relevant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBv3BKY_604&eurl

[quote]Well now there a new gun law being considered in Congress called H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009.[/quote] Good. It's about time America made guns illegal to the public. It's clearly a bad idea to let EVERYONE have weapons. It's why we HAVE democracy. No matter what I say, you won't understand, but I'm going to try and explain in a way that even the NRA should agree with. You shouldn't give a gun to someone you want to shoot. It's that simple, and the easiest way to enforce it, is to keep the guns in the military. What the hell does the average -civilian- need a gun for anyway? Gunna shoot the caps off your beer bottles? (For those who think I'm -not- being sarcastic here, firing a gun point blank at a beer bottle, no matter the direction, would leave you with very little beer.) To finish though, I shall recap my main point. I'm not saying that taking away a "right" is good, but, what's the point in having a gun in the first place?

[quote]What the hell does the average -civilian- need a gun for anyway? Gunna shoot the caps off your beer bottles? (For those who think I'm -not- being sarcastic here, firing a gun point blank at a beer bottle, no matter the direction, would leave you with very little beer.)[/quote] 1. Home defense. Not everyone lives 5 minutes from the police station. In a situation where deadly force is necessary, seconds save lives. And that's assuming the police act in your best interest anyway, which is often not the case. 2. Violent crime rates and burglaries/home invasions go DOWN when private citizens are given the right to carry arms, and especially concealed carry. It is riskier to commit crimes when you do not know if the person is armed. Most crime (that being nonprofessional crime), is a matter of opportunity combined with perceived risk. 3. Gun laws do not prevent [i]criminals[/i] from owning guns, because they don't usually obtain them through legal means anyway. This situation leaves law-abiding citizens defenseless and at the mercy of criminals, who are now the only ones with guns. 4. Accepting responsibility for learning to use a firearm safely, accurately, and in accordance with the law not only can be very satisfying but can make you a better citizen, and a better person. Your line about "You shouldn't give a gun to someone you want to shoot" makes no sense in terms of your argument. Most criminals NEED shooting, so why on earth would you want them to be the only ones who are armed?

[quote]1. Home defense. Not everyone lives 5 minutes from the police station. In a situation where deadly force is necessary, seconds save lives. And that's assuming the police act in your best interest anyway, which is often not the case.[/quote] Actually, anything up to 20 minutes is more than adequate. (I've not got a great deal of experience with crime, but I'm willing to bet you can't make off with anything other than loose jewellery in less than 5 minutes.) [quote]3. Gun laws do not prevent criminals from owning guns, because they don't usually obtain them through legal means anyway. This situation leaves law-abiding citizens defenseless and at the mercy of criminals, who are now the only ones with guns.[/quote] Gun laws do not stop professional criminals from getting guns, however, it can greatly impede the progress of those whom are just in your house to make a quick $200. [quote]4. Accepting responsibility for learning to use a firearm safely, accurately, and in accordance with the law not only can be very satisfying but can make you a better citizen, and a better person.[/quote] Oh, indeed accepting responsibility is a good thing. However, power corrupts. It's a fact of life.

he can try and take mine, they can have fun finding my good ol' AK-47 i buried that shit somewhere he wont find it.

[quote]Good. What the hell does the average -civilian- need a gun for anyway? Gunna shoot the caps off your beer bottles? (For those who think I'm -not- being sarcastic here, firing a gun point blank at a beer bottle, no matter the direction, would leave you with very little beer.) [/quote] How's about...shoot the criminal that wants to invade into your house or store?

[quote]How's about...shoot the criminal that wants to invade into your house or store?[/quote] Sure, and keep him alive until the ambulance gets there... How?

[quote]Sure, and keep him alive until the ambulance gets there... How?[/quote] Either you kill the criminal with one shot, or you wound him. Perhaps the crook will flee the scene and think twice about trying to rob, steal and kill just to take what doesn't belong to him in the first place. And if the crook dies, then that's too bad. I reckon that most crooks think that home owner don't own guns. They take chances at invading the house HOPING that all will go in their favor. I mean...if you don't want to own a gun, fine. Don't get one. You should get the best security system affordable. ...or learn to deflect bullets like a Jedi Knight, or dodge bullets matrix style. lol

[quote]You should get the best security system affordable.[/quote] That sounds incredibly sensible. But, I'm guessing the price of an AK-47 and two or three full magazines is less than a set of shutters. [quote]I reckon that most crooks think that home owner don't own guns. They take chances at invading the house HOPING that all will go in their favor. [/quote] That [i]is[/i] stupidity on their part. Even if someone doesn't have a gun, there are many ways they could still kill you, before you even get a chance to defend yourself. [quote]And if the crook dies, then that's too bad.[/quote] While I think you're fully entitled to your opinion, I strongly disagree with that statement. I'm not even Christian and yet I see the reasons of for filling "Thou shall not kill." Personally, I don't agree with putting people in prison either, but no one will ever bother listen to my ideas.

[quote]While I think you're fully entitled to your opinion, I strongly disagree with that statement. I'm not even Christian and yet I see the reasons of for filling "Thou shall not kill." Personally, I don't agree with putting people in prison either, but no one will ever bother listen to my ideas.[/quote] well, what would you suggest?

[quote]well, what would you suggest?[/quote] Therapy, perhaps. At any rate, having a productive member of society would be a nice outcome. It's expensive though, just so you don't go pointing out the flaws. *shrug*

[quote]Therapy, perhaps. At any rate, having a productive member of society would be a nice outcome. It's expensive though, just so you don't go pointing out the flaws. *shrug*[/quote] Therapy, however, is ineffective on sociopaths, many of whom make up a large population of convicts throughout the world. Prison is simply punishment for breaking the law. Why do you disagree with putting criminals in prison?

[quote]Yeah, but didn't the US Supreme Court just determine that the "right to bear arms" extends to a private citizen's right to have firearms, including handguns for self-defense? So Congress can go and write whatever laws it wants - they will be unconstitutional and therefore illegal.[/quote] Isn't the constititution amendable? Changeable? Therefore, making a new law that modifies it isn't unconstitutional.

[quote]Isn't the constititution amendable? Changeable? Therefore, making a new law that modifies it isn't unconstitutional.[/quote] Yeah, but it's pretty difficult to do. Although, one example where the constitution was changed was prohibition. They made alcohol illegal with a constitutional amendment, but because it caused so many more problems than it solved, it also got re-legalized with another constitutional amendment.

Yay, let's arm people who want to over throw or oppose the federal government; that is always a good idea. Hooray for letting violent people who believe in using violence against others they don't like or agree with! Gun crimes is free speech when its done by someone who is of an opposing view of the current administration? And where does it says Obama introduced this bill, it seems that it started in Congress? Oh no Obama still thinks he is a senator. A gun stealing senator who thinks he can introduce a bill to keep guns away from those who disagree with him not to shoot innocent people. gasp!

[quote]Yay, let's arm people who want to over throw or oppose the federal government; that is always a good idea. Hooray for letting violent people who believe in using violence against others they don't like or agree with! Gun crimes is free speech when its done by someone who is of an opposing view of the current administration? And where does it says Obama introduced this bill, it seems that it started in Congress? Oh no Obama still thinks he is a senator. A gun stealing senator who thinks he can introduce a bill to keep guns away from those who disagree with him not to shoot innocent people. gasp![/quote] Did that thought give you anal fissures on the way out? Seriously :|