Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Next step? No guns allowed for right-wing 'extremists'
http://www.worldnetdaily.com ^ | May 08, 2009 | Drew Zahn

Posted on 05/08/2009 9:35:57 PM PDT by luv2ndamend

Bill empowers attorney general to forbid firearms for those 'suspected dangerous'

A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans as potential "threats," could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others – any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential "extremism."

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any "known or suspected dangerous terrorist." The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is "appropriately suspected" of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general "has a reasonable belief" that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.

(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; guncontrol
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: luv2ndamend; All
Any of you ever think that these outlandish attempts are a good way to flush out targets for re-election?

This will get zero traction.....the Dims are afraid of the NRA and Repubs don't have the nads to support it.

21 posted on 05/08/2009 10:06:02 PM PDT by Pistolshot (The Soap-box, The Ballot-box, The Jury-box, And The Cartridge-Box ...we are past 2 of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: luv2ndamend

Typical World Net Daily, a flashy headline which the details of the story do not back up.

Anybody can introduce a bill. The question is will it go anywhere, or is it going to die a slow death in the committee?

Given how toxic gun control legislation has been for the Democrats in the past, and the fact that this would face several constitutional challenges, I would not worry too much until and unless a committee vote were scheduled. However, I doubt it will get that far. The only reason the Democrats have a majority in the House is because of the pro-Gun “Blue Dog” Democrats. They would not be so stupid as to risk their seats by provoking the NRA on legislation like this.


22 posted on 05/08/2009 10:07:45 PM PDT by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot

You betcha.

They know who their constituents are. Atleast they better.


23 posted on 05/08/2009 10:08:33 PM PDT by stentorian conservative (I'm tired of being Johnny B. Goode and I'm gonna start being Johnny Reb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: luv2ndamend
If the gov’t is going to make me a criminal, I'm going to at least make it worthwhile.
24 posted on 05/08/2009 10:10:09 PM PDT by Nachoman (Think of life as an adventure you don't survive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: clamper1797
Bills like this will turn “potential threats” into real ones ...

That may be the intent.

25 posted on 05/08/2009 10:13:18 PM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pandoraou812
All I can do now is laugh at this, pandy. I "appropriately suspect" that my government has gone into full bore treason.

Molon Lave, MFrs!

26 posted on 05/08/2009 10:13:27 PM PDT by TigersEye (Cloward-Piven Strategy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GreenLanternCorps

Obama is soon to have two supreme court justices, a solid majority. Once that happens, the you know what will hit the fan.


27 posted on 05/08/2009 10:22:49 PM PDT by wafflehouse (RE-ELECT NO ONE !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: luv2ndamend

BRING IT.


28 posted on 05/08/2009 10:24:30 PM PDT by SIDENET ("You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fso301

They should be careful for what they wish for ...


29 posted on 05/08/2009 10:28:48 PM PDT by clamper1797 (FUBO ... protege of the unholy union of Karl Marx and affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: luv2ndamend

Bring it on!.... BTW, saw my first FUBO bumper sticker today, wife and I cracked up.


30 posted on 05/08/2009 10:29:33 PM PDT by matthew fuller (FEAR NOT- Buckwheat has your back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: luv2ndamend

Too late...


31 posted on 05/08/2009 10:47:30 PM PDT by Randy Larsen ( BTW, If I offend you! Please let me know, I may want to offend you again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: luv2ndamend

Nah. Ain’t gonna’ happen. The logistics would be too overwhelming to accomplish. I mean, everyone owns guns, and everyone’s got an opinion. The politicians could arrange for a few examples (through their law enforcement minions), but it would all be pretty transparent to the public. As to a pervasive enforcement of such a policy, consider the poor SWAT guys.

You don’t join a SWAT team to do “this” type of work. For the most part, you don’t put your life on the line for something you don’t agree with. A lot of these SWAT guys are Boy Scouts. They don’t view the possession of guns, by those of differing opinions, as a problem. I mean, they’re not idiots and aren’t going to go out and literally clear a city of home weapons when the legion of folks on the other side of the door view their position as the right one.

It’s just too much of a political circus to risk your life over if you got into the job because you wanted to catch bad guys. So in the end, who you gonna’ find to do the job? I don’t know any SWAT members that would, and I know more than a few (all Boy Scouts, and good for them!).

It’s just a political PR stunt that can’t be enforced for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that SWAT guys can just go back to their beats (and they will) if the government starts acting like idiots (which they always will).


32 posted on 05/08/2009 11:09:45 PM PDT by Habibi ("We gladly feast on those who would subdue us". Not just pretty words........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: luv2ndamend

Spread the word. Spread the fear. Spread the paranoia. Remind them that we still have the power to fire their sorry butts. Zero tolerance for anti-gunners, anti-lifers, and pro-amnesty politicans be they republicans or democrats.


33 posted on 05/08/2009 11:26:35 PM PDT by RC one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: luv2ndamend

Why are so many New Yorkers absolutely insane!


34 posted on 05/09/2009 12:03:47 AM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (THE SECOND AMENDMENT, A MATTER OF FACT, NOT A MATTER OF OPINION)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: luv2ndamend

What’s really hilarious about this is that this Clinton defender had his head so far up the IRAs ass you could only see his shoes.


35 posted on 05/09/2009 12:13:20 AM PDT by Stentor (The Criminal Obama Administration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gator113

Gator,, I’m with you ,, It’s getting close to the time for all of us to stand to up for our rights as AMERICANS.


36 posted on 05/09/2009 12:15:25 AM PDT by piroque
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: luv2ndamend

Μολὼν λάβε


37 posted on 05/09/2009 12:25:29 AM PDT by wastoute (translation of tag "Come and get them (bastards)" and the Scout Motto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC one
Remind them that we still have the power to fire their sorry butts

Remind them we still have the firepower.

38 posted on 05/09/2009 2:05:28 AM PDT by Salvey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

Thought control coloradan, now shut up or we’ll send the thought police to get ya for re-education.


39 posted on 05/09/2009 3:10:40 AM PDT by Joe Boucher (yEP,i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wafflehouse
Obama is soon to have two supreme court justices, a solid majority.

How so?

Souter and Ginsburg are both solid liberals, so the "balance" on the Court should not change.

40 posted on 05/09/2009 3:30:09 AM PDT by PalmettoMason ("an empty limousine pulled up in front of the White House, and Barack Obama got out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson