245 replies to this topic

[F3SS]

I'd laugh if you weren't serious.

[Stellar]

joc, on 05 February 2013 - 10:51 PM, said:

In all seriousness Stellar, you have to read 'between the lines'.  If you allow A out of the box, it is only a matter of time before B, C, and D raise their heads of acceptability.  Besides all of that, combine this news with the ongoing reality of the vast majority of American Cities already Droning Up...and you have a uniquely 'scary' situation beginning to unfold.  Drones are the policemen of the future.  Run from the cops, they don't need a helicopter to chase you down...drones copters can outrun anyone...and they are armed and remotely monitored.

The law doesnt work by reading between the lines. And if it's step C that you're worried about (using armed drones to kill an american with a 30rnd mag), then clearly step A doesn't allow for that.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

Did you bother to read the article before jumping to conclusions?

Yes

its a Decalaration of War on the American people at its basics. Unless your willing to blindly follow the POTUS over the cliff.

They have no restraint and it says they can be used American Citizens, the public would still not know about this if it hadnt been linked by our good hackers. Oh and what if you were a collateral innocent bystander to one of these supposed events. On no because they never kill civilians by accident with drone strikes. Allowing military hardware to be used on American citizens on American soil is a Declararation of War against the People of the country. The citizens. Theres no grey in that document. There is only what wasnt leaked about the memo that is missing.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

step A doesn't allow for that.

The only people that care about A in that document are Al Queda.

Citizens care about B and what was not said in the document. It does not include any restraint and allows for the same rules they use to go after foreign terrorists to be used against American citizens that find themselves at odds with the Govmnt. Which today is more then a handful. Why dpo you thinks its a big deal even in the Main Stream media. Not for its innocuous wording.

Hold on be right back I hear a whiz bang sound outside and its headed towards my direction. Get real Stellar. You have no clue and just sound lame on this topic.

[RavenHawk]

Stellar, on 05 February 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

Then show me where it gives any indication that they'll be able to blow you up with a drone for having a 30 round mag.

From the article (that you think I didn't read):

"In the unclassified Justice Department paper posted by NBC on its website, the authors laid out three conditions that the executive branch should meet before a drone strike is ordered.

A top U.S. official must determine that the targeted person "poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States," cannot be captured, and that the strike "would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles," the department said."

First of all, there is no geographic limitation here.  They are free to strike anywhere (even here).   1) Whose subjective opinion will be used as to what imminent means in any particular case?  The Barbarian is constantly at the gate.  China just recently ramped up their cyber attacks on us.  2) Again, in whose opinion is it going to be determined that someone cannot be captured (in time) or it's just not convenient to capture them?  3) In the fog of war, who monitors the applicable law of war principles?  The first rule of war is that there are no rules.  And when the first shot is fired, all the well laid out plans go out the window.

Let's take a peek into the character of this Administration.  In the run up to the 2008 campaign he talks about having a NCSF (National Civilian Security Force), just as well funded, just as well armed as the military and all owning their allegiance to Obama and not the nation.  That waned but was replaced with the idea of using NATO (North Command) to use foreign military in case of emergencies in this country to control the population.  That was more of a thought rather than a consideration but it shows how this Administration is thinking.  In 2009, the DHS with Napolitano's approval released a memo about returning vets from the wars who owned their own guns and believed in the Bible were possible threats to this Administration (not nation).  As with all lists, they are not exclusive to the situation, therefore, any vet, any gun owner, any Christian were a possible threat to the Administration.  Then in 2010 Obama encouraged people to snitch on their neighbors with flag@whitehouse.gov.  But I think this has been pulled down as being illegal, at least removed for public consumption.  Then earlier this year, the POTUS issues 23 EOs or gun laws that rival the 1928 Nuremburg Gun Laws.  This is an Authoritarian Executive more power hungry than any of the previous Presidents.  None of this has anything to do with public safety as it does public control.  And that that person with the one 30 round clip is an exaggeration, but it makes the point.  This President is putting all the chess pieces in place and soon, no one will be safe.  And anyone either blind or not aware of this deserve what is about to happen.

[Stellar]

Please, you're reaching here...

Quote

1) Whose subjective opinion will be used as to what imminent means in any particular case? The Barbarian is constantly at the gate. China just recently ramped up their cyber attacks on us. 2) Again, in whose opinion is it going to be determined that someone cannot be captured (in time) or it's just not convenient to capture them? 3) In the fog of war, who monitors the applicable law of war principles? The first rule of war is that there are no rules. And when the first shot is fired, all the well laid out plans go out the window.

1) Imminent is imminent. Simply posessing a 30 round mag will not be considered by anyone to be an "imminent threat of attack"
2) Are you telling me that your US Vet sitting at home going back and fourth to work every day will be considered "not capturable" by everyone?
3) I dont see how the "laws of war" have an applicability in your fantasy scenario here.

[Corp]

joc, on 05 February 2013 - 10:51 PM, said:

In all seriousness Stellar, you have to read 'between the lines'.  If you allow A out of the box, it is only a matter of time before B, C, and D raise their heads of acceptability.  Besides all of that, combine this news with the ongoing reality of the vast majority of American Cities already Droning Up...and you have a uniquely 'scary' situation beginning to unfold.  Drones are the policemen of the future.  Run from the cops, they don't need a helicopter to chase you down...drones copters can outrun anyone...and they are armed and remotely monitored.

Thing is that's a slippery slope fallacy. That we can't let A happen because maybe one day D will happen, which isn't a solid argument. While it's cause for concern and careful consideration it is not a reason to reject something in and of itself. It's akin to saying cars should never be used because maybe one day they'll have a nuclear fuel source and could destroy a city.

The new drone directive is troubling and needs to be carefully watched and given very clear guidelines in its use. But we are far, far away from the government using drones to kill anyone that looks at them sideways.

[Uncle Sam]

Uncle Sam, on 06 February 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

Ladies and Gentlemen, we are now faced with a Tyrant Government.

Obama has the ability now to attack Americans with very little proof that we are immediate threat to the government with drone strikes, which infringes upon our right for due processes and jury by our peers. By being extremely vague, he is able to launch a drone strike against any citizen who is part of a militia, regardless of the militias intentions and purpose. Basically saying he is able to wage a illegal war against the citizens whenever he feels the current government establishment is threaten by a revolution or civil war. By the way, all citizens of U.S. are a militia.
Source

He is currently trying to erode our second amendment by passing laws with executive orders, by passing congress all together, to make it harder for legal law-abiding citizens to be able to obtain any type of gun or ammunition for their guns. He is using seductive words during a time of tragedy to push his agenda of removing all guns from all homes of law abiding citizens in attempt to remove the threat of us being able to overthrow our government and replacing it with a legit one.
Source

An new law was passed making it illegal to protest in city or town that he is visiting in, which deny our right for peaceful protests. So now you will be arrested if you are protesting in a city and Obama decides to show up, meaning he will go unopposed when it comes to making speeches. Direct assault to our right of free speech.
Source

He extended Bush's Act that allows for no search warrants when it comes to search and seizers by the government. This infringes upon another one of our constitution rights and inalienable rights all together. We can be eavesdropped by our government whenever they feel like on either on our computers or on our phones. Feds don't need any search warrant to bust down your doors and they don't need any reason to do so, they can use this to confiscate your guns like they did during hurricane Katrina saying it is for their own protection. None of the citizens was able to retrieve their guns, thus leading to a direct violation of the second amendment.
Patriot Act
Illegal Gun Confiscation

The current Feds are trying to abolish local sheriffs in a stealth effort to grab power, removing the right of the state to elect its own local police. This is another infringe upon the constitution rights we hold dear and cherish. Having this type of power allows for our government to take over power of the states, effectively policing the citizens.
Source

Obama also went against Arizona's state rights by siding with Mexico, by suing Arizona over its immigration law that it enacted because the Federal Government wouldn't deport the illegal aliens from its soil. This was straight up treasonous behavior that seemed to not register in the public's minds because no one brought up the constitution.
Source

So far he has infringed upon...
1st Amendment - Protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government

2nd Amendment - Protects an individual's right to bear arms

4th Amendment - Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause

5th Amendment - Sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protests the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy

6th Amendment - Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel

7th Amendment - Provides for the right to trial by jury in certain civil cases, according to common law

10th Amendment - Limits the power of the federal government to those delegated to it by the constitution

11th Amendment - Immunity of states from suits from out-of-state citizens and foreigners not living within the states' borders. Lays the foundation for sovereign immunity
Source

In total, he and the government has infringed up 8 amendments which is 1/3 of the amendments we have on our constitution. So I plead to other Americans, get your heads out of your ass and start paying attention to what is going on! We are basically having all our rights eroded away by the government for temporary safety measures. When the threat is gone, we won't have any freedoms left because you gave them all away! So when are you going to put your foot down and say no more?

From another thread. Read and understand where I come from. You decided when 1/3 of our constitution is under attack by the government at large.

Edited by Uncle Sam, 06 February 2013 - 05:34 PM.

[F3SS]

Stellar, on 06 February 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

Please, you're reaching here...



1) Imminent is imminent. Simply posessing a 30 round mag will not be considered by anyone to be an "imminent threat of attack"

Then why are 30 round mags being treated as imminent by the likes of yourself?

[AsteroidX]

I do believe our Govmnt has declared 30 round mags an imminent threat to society..Good one Fess

[Stellar]

-Mr_Fess-, on 06 February 2013 - 11:08 PM, said:

Then why are 30 round mags being treated as imminent by the likes of yourself?

What do you mean?

[F3SS]

I'll let somebody else take that one.

[Stellar]

If youre trying to imply that possession of a 30 round mag makes you an imminent threat to attacking the US, then you're alone in that statement. The only people trying to portray the situation as that are those that are quick to exaggerate everything the government does because of some misplaced need to be against the government in everything.

[DieChecker]

Isn't the arguement that no one "needs" a 30 round magazine for home defense. Thus, if someone has a 30 round magazine they can be assumed to not be using it for home defense, hunting, ect... but for some other reason. The most spark striking reason then would be domestic terrorism. Thus if you have a 30 round magazine, you're going to be lumped in with the terrorists and thus be subject to being attacked and killed, unless you Repent and abandon your 30 round magazines now.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

If youre trying to imply that possession of a 30 round mag makes you an imminent threat to attacking the US, then you're alone in that statement. The only people trying to portray the situation as that are those that are quick to exaggerate everything the government does because of some misplaced need to be against the government in everything.

I see that as nothing but the Liberal propaganda machine in overtime. If you b elieve that I have a bridge in New York thats for sale.