Posted on 05/09/2009 10:15:02 PM PDT by markomalley
And the bill was introduced by a Republican, no less.
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.
Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bills language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a persons Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being dangerous.
I dont think anyone really has a problem with keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists. The problems arise when it comes to who gets to define who is and is not a terrorist. And what standards are used. Also, since when can our rights be denied us because we might commit a crime?
According to the Department of Homeland Security attending a tea party, being a federalist, having an NRA sticker on your car or being pro-life indicates that you may be a terrorist. Or may, at least, have inclinations toward extremism and violence.
Now, I doubt that even if this law passed that wed see a crackdown on gun-owning pro-life activists. But the problem here is that this law provides such a vague definition of who may and may exercise their 2nd amendment rights that the door is left wide open to no small amount of abuse.
Vaguely-written laws like this are extremely problematic because they put the decision as to whether or not weve committed a crime entirely as the discretion of cops and prosecutors. And if thats the case, the only thing keeping us from being arrested and/or prosecuted are the whims of our law enforcement agents.
"Due process" was thrown out a long, long time ago. But you weren't watching.
America -- a great idea, didn't last.
No there aren't. All I see is people who make a lot of noise online in like-minded forums. There is no fighting, there is no insurgency. Nowhere in this country. The sheeple are passively accepting what the Founding Founders rejected.
America -- a great idea, didn't last
The Rule of Law is dead; all hail the Rule of Man.
Good.
The point is that whether Sean, Rush, or even Mark say something is not a reason to accept what they say as divinely inspired truth. That is what liberals do with their little cult of personality that they have. Conservatives, like us, think.
Spot on. Well said.
King has an “F” rating from the Gun Owners of America.
bttt
No F’King way!
Seriously? Here's Peter King's "past words". I take it you agree with the following?
"Joe Lieberman best measures up, more than anyone in either party, as vice presidential candidate, or, quite frankly, as a presidential candidate."
- Congressman Peter King, August 2008
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,408981,00.html
"Dede [Scozzafava] is the only Republican candidate in this race, and the only candidate with a proven record that Republicans can trust in Washington. A vote for either of her opponents is a vote for Nancy Pelosi"
-- Congressman Peter King, October 19, 2009
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2366051/posts
"We've had now 17 years of this stuff, of just trying to tear down the president and demonizing. There was no reason to demonize Bill Clinton, no reason to demonize George Bush, and we should not be demonizing Barack Obama. With you -- I agree with him, by the way. I agree with President Obama on Iraq and Afghanistan and on some of his homeland security decisions."
-- Congressman Peter King, April 2009
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/ny03_king/MSNBC_041609.html
"I've endorsed Rudy's campaign. Rudy Giuliani is the best qualified for President. We'd both ride the Long Island Rail Road into Manhattan/ Last Friday, we took Amtrak down to D.C. for a conservative conference. I said to myself, 'Forty years later, and I'm still riding the train with Rudy."
-- Congressman Peter King, March 8, 2007
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/
"[Homeland Security under President Bush] raises very serious questions about the judgment and the sincerity of the Department and everything they do. So I am going to be investigating them from top to bottom and one clear example is this whole scandal with [ex-]Congressman Duke Cunningham, which has now unfolded to include orgies at the Watergate hotel. It involves prostitutes and booze and gambling and CIA agents. People were driven to the Watergate hotel for these orgies in limousines... [Homeland Security] will be sorry they did this to New York"
-- Congressman Peter King, June 2, 2006 [after Chertoff denied King more congressional pork for Long Island]
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/2/85122.shtml?s=ic
"Hillary Clinton has done an absolutely fantastic job for this state. When it comes to New York, Senator Clinton is always there for us"
-- Congressman Peter King, April 2005
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1387340/posts
Do I need to go on with King's own words over the years?
What a RINO!
Gee Panaxanax I hope you just missed those comments by King!
The first and last ones in particular would my make my hand shake if I ever went to pull the level to vote for him.
My comments in post #30 were based on what I had heard him say via FOX news clips. Re: “I have never heard [Peter] King say anything that I didnt agree with.” Not having the luxury of time nor the desire to follow his every word from the past, I did think that he was “one of the good ones”.
I stand corrected. Get over it.
The only bills that can pass currently are those completely acceptable to the Pelosi-Reid leadership, who have an insuperable lock on getting legislation through.
Even a bill that starts out with laudable goals (and this execrable bill by Congressman King has no redeeming features to begin with) will swiftly be transformed into a nightmare, an Orwellian inversion of whatever good it might have originally had.
No need to be snippy chum. You were the one lecturing people on “doing their homework” when it was in fact yourself who failed to complete the assignment. ;)
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.