|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 24, 2009, 12:55 PM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,190
|
There's the initial DHS report, and then the lexicon DHS came out with that laid out definitions for "extremist," "domestic terrorist," etc. The lexicon was more damning than the initial report itself and, because it would define what those terms meant for DHS, would have an impact far greater than the initial DHS report.
|
June 24, 2009, 02:22 PM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
Link to the lexicon that buzz knox was referring to.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14884903/D...-Reference-Aid |
June 24, 2009, 02:36 PM | #53 |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
And, as I said, it does not say anything different than what was being said back in the 50's and 60's by the intel/law enforcement communities. Anytime there is an unpopular war such activity spikes in the ranks of disenfranchised ex-patriotic types. To try and spin it as a slam by the Obama administration against the troops is dishonest and weak.
Last edited by Playboypenguin; June 24, 2009 at 04:55 PM. |
June 24, 2009, 02:36 PM | #54 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
"sovereign citizens"
LOL, I guess they mant people who can think. Oh, never mind, they define it later. They defined "underground," and not what I would consider correctly. Some of those were pretty broad definitions. More crazy groups out there than I thought. I am going to start reporting my neighbors. |
June 24, 2009, 04:41 PM | #55 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
People on a terrorist watch list?
No....but nobody should be on a list like that unless they are worth watching 24/7. Otherwise its a witch hunt list.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
June 24, 2009, 08:09 PM | #56 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Location: Hemet, Ca.
Posts: 524
|
Quote:
kenny b |
|
June 24, 2009, 08:16 PM | #57 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
Quote:
All of it is a gross exaggeration and partisan game playing. This has been a stated fact since well before our current administration and is nothing new to either parties. Also, returning military personnel are not "flagged" for anything. The report discusses how some returning military persons who fit a particular profile are at high risk of being inducted into anti-government movements. This risk increases during times of unpopular wars. These watch lists are in no way exclusive to our military or even in any new way biased towards them. It is all old news and definitelt not the handiwork of "the current administration." The lists themselves are meaningless since they are so random and are nothing that should ever hold legal weight. Last edited by Playboypenguin; June 24, 2009 at 11:19 PM. |
||
June 24, 2009, 10:46 PM | #58 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
Quote:
|
|
June 24, 2009, 11:05 PM | #59 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
The DHS report......
Did, and still is upsetting a number of people. Primarily people who aren't looking beyond the initial sound bytes.
It is the job of people in organizations like DHS to be professionally paranoid. The report recently released covers about all the potential possibilities focusing on those on the "right" side of the political spectrum. The report was released by the current administration. Stating this is just a simple statement of fact. Reading an agenda into that statement is not. A very similar report, focusing on those on the "left" side of the political spectrum was released by the previous administration. Also a simple fact. I have issues with the idea of a "secret" list(s), and the way these things are being handled. While sometimes necessary during time of crisis, unchecked and unchallenged, these things become entrenched, and are fundamentally at odds with our professed system of government, and respect for the individual rights of our citizens. It is not an inconceivable leap of faith to go from secret lists to star chambers and the epic observations of Martin Niemoeller. "When they came for the trade unionists......" Legal avenues exist to prevent that sort of thing from happening in this country. Whether we use them effectively or not....is another matter.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
June 25, 2009, 05:36 AM | #60 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,310
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Caveat Emperor |
||||
June 25, 2009, 05:56 PM | #61 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 12, 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 130
|
Quote: "A very similar report, focusing on those on the "left" side of the political spectrum was released by the previous administration. Also a simple fact."
I did notice one major difference between the earlier report on the left, and the one on the right that the current administration issued. The earlier report was quite specific about which leftists groups were considered dangerous, often naming them. The current administration's report on the right uses such a broad brush to define potential right-wing extremists that as much as one-third of the adult population could be construed to be in that category. To me, it looks like an attempt to intimidate political opponents of current policies. "Don't be too vocal, or you will end up on a list." Even if that was not the intent, their definitions could easliy have a chilling effect on political opposition.
__________________
Gun laws are designed to extend and solidify the power of an elite over a peasantry. Sauron lives, and his orc minions are on the march. |
June 25, 2009, 06:13 PM | #62 | |
Junior member
Join Date: June 11, 2009
Posts: 87
|
Quote:
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf Page 3 seems to specifically define the threat as "white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups" and NOT mainstream Republicans. Further, it identifies the thread of "lone wolf" terrorists outside of any specific group. The report says that the threat comes from small groups and "lone wolves" and not "as much as one-third of the adult population" as you claim. The report also distinguishes between right-wing extremists and law-abiding citizens in a very explicit way. BTW, it is dishonest to describe either report as belonging to "this administration" since bother were commissioned by and rely on data gathered by the BUSH administration. Get a grip! |
|
June 25, 2009, 07:27 PM | #63 | |
Junior member
Join Date: June 11, 2009
Posts: 87
|
Quote:
|
|
June 25, 2009, 08:17 PM | #64 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
Quote:
Quote:
There are probably many more people who favor state or local authority over federal authority. And a huge number of people are dedicated to single issues that run counter to progressive orthodoxy. |
|||
June 25, 2009, 08:19 PM | #65 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Location: Hemet, Ca.
Posts: 524
|
Quote:
kenny b |
|
June 25, 2009, 08:38 PM | #66 | |
Junior member
Join Date: June 11, 2009
Posts: 87
|
Quote:
|
|
June 25, 2009, 09:05 PM | #67 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
So sorry, I disagree
Quote:
Sure, they may not have begun it, but this administration is in charge NOW. They are responsible. That IS the job they sought out and undertook! Whether they allow programs and policies from the previous administration to continue, or shut them down in favor of new programs and policies, either way, they are now the ones responsible. any other point of view is, to me, intelectually "dishonest"
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
June 25, 2009, 09:33 PM | #68 | |
Junior member
Join Date: June 11, 2009
Posts: 87
|
Quote:
Feel free to blame Obama for things that are actually his fault, but when a non-partisan study commissioned by Bush, conducted when Bush was in office, comes out when Obama is in office, it is flat-out wrong to blame Obama when the results hurt your feelings, and correctly implicate right-wing domestic traitors who might share some of your views. That doesn't at all, in any way, on any level mean that you are a traitor or a terrorist... that just means that some people who share your views ARE terrorists. That shouldn't seem like an implication of your own views, any more than if a terrorist eats at Burger King I should be worried because my dog is a huge fan of their onion rings. |
|
June 26, 2009, 12:47 AM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Location: Hemet, Ca.
Posts: 524
|
Guess I'm too old for this stuff anymore, I miss the old days when black was black and white was white. I get enough of " that may be what I said but thats not what I ment" from the wife.
kenny b |
June 26, 2009, 09:30 AM | #70 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 13, 2008
Posts: 20
|
Some things are easier to believe than others:
"All in needed to know about (him) I knew before the election." Re (his gun-control agenda.)
"We will change history." (Him.) In one of (his) post-election speeches. DON"T bury your guns, yet. Buy a few more and bury THEM in cosmoline. You'll need them. Watch (his) cronies and appointees, and VOTE RKBA in 2010, if we still can. "If you don't watch, then you won't know. And what you don't know won't hurt you." Yah, right! ANY combination of these 4 words is pretty dangerous, IMHO: " permanent government nonpolitical agencies." "Permanent government" sounds quite monarchical to me. It is what King George thought, at one time. "Government nonpolitical." Does this seem oxymorinical to only me? That's a LARGE uncontrollable entity! "Nonpolitical agencies." Would these relate to skull-&-bones, et al?? No agency is ABSOLUTELY nonpolitical, IMHO. Aren't "We The People" still in charge?? Last edited by .50FAN; June 26, 2009 at 01:01 PM. Reason: Couldn't find the orig., so deleted the source. Mea culpa, professor! |
June 26, 2009, 10:21 AM | #71 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
What?
John Knott - hey, this isn't some English Comp. free write class. Can we make some sense here. GEM
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 26, 2009, 11:07 AM | #72 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
What is with all the Obamapologists who feel they have to constantly justify voting for their chance at the feed trough over the Second Amendment? You can rationalize your vote until Hell freezes over and it won't change the proven anti-gun voting history of the current Congressional leadership, the President, or virtually every single person appointed to a position of power in this Administration.
Whether you like it or not, it is THIS administration proposing to remove even more rights based on the "terrorist watch list". I guess all that opposition to the idea has floundered now? The President supports the proposed bill and so does the party leadership. |
June 26, 2009, 05:15 PM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
|
The entire idea of the "no-fly list" is absurd. It only makes sense if you assume you could ever get every "dangerous" person on it, which obviously you will never do. Otherwise you have to have stringent security anyway, since you're always going to have terrorists who aren't on the list and likely fail to fit your profile (like ZeSpectre's doppleganger there, which made my day).
At which point who cares if a "terrorist" makes it onto a plane? At worst, you simply have to pull them aside for additional screening. But at that point a plane is the safest place for them to be, no? Because theoretically there should be no way they're armed. Safer than a mall, or a school, or a park. The idea that anybody can be too dangerous to board an airplane under restrictions so tight that I can't bring a darn bottle of water on board is ludicrous. Either our security is tight enough to prevent unnamed terrorists from doing harm, or it isn't..."known" terrorists should be no threat. Heck, now you've got them locked down for the next hour or few, which just makes them easier to track. As for whether they should be prevented from owning firearms? Well, I think the above should make my opinion obvious, but from a legal standpoint I ask one thing: would any reasonable person consider the requirements and process placing one on such a list "due process?" |
June 26, 2009, 05:40 PM | #74 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
It isn't like they fingerprint you. Fake documents are not all that hard to come by. Realize in many countries you can get real documents for a fake identity for a few hundred bucks to the right "underpaid" bureaucrat.
|
June 27, 2009, 06:16 PM | #75 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 16, 2007
Location: Gardendale, Alabama
Posts: 665
|
Quote:
__________________
"What is play to the fool and the idiot is deadly serious to the man with the gun." Walt Rauch,Combat Handguns, May '08 |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|