I don’t understand why this is so bad. (*Caution: I haven’t read all the description - much less seen the actual proposal.) Do we really need to jump on it as “anti-2A”?
“known (or appropriately suspected) to be or to have been engaged in conduct constituting, preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism, and has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use the firearm in connection with terrorism”
If they know this person has had terrorist activities, instead of simply denying him a gun when he tries to buy, why not just, oh, say, ARREST him?
According to Justice Clarence Thomas, the Feds don’t even have the enumerated power to outlaw machine guns in the hands of felons. It’s up to the states to pass such laws.
Obama singlehandedly surrendered in the war on terror. He banned that term. Therefore, he cannot consider terrorists to be enemies. They are ‘criminals’ who need miranda rights.
So when we resume the war against terror, we can declare who is an enemy, and then the president has war powers. But we should identify them as ISLAMIC terrorists, which 0 will never do. Otherwise, a member of the tea party could be listed as a terrorist.
I’m glad you are offering a counterpoint. Here’s something else to bear in mind:
Judge orders release of 9 ‘militia’ members
http://freep.com/article/20100503/NEWS06/100503031/1319/Judge-orders-release-of-9-Hutaree-militia-members
[’Terrorist’ militia members out on bail?]