posted 01-16-2003 02:46 PM            

And keep believing that by the way.

posted 01-16-2003 02:54 PM            

That's easy.

The New World Order.

A collection of power mad globalists who run this country and our government.

A short list.

The Bilderberg Group, the CFR,
the Trilateral commission, the WTO,
the UN, the federal reserve private bankers..
ad nauseum.

All who want US national sovereignty abolished.

"What is at stake is a big idea, a New World Order."

posted 01-16-2003 03:04 PM            

That is why I am pushing constitutional sovereignty above all else.

It's absolutely essential to have it, otherwise we are all screwed.

posted 01-16-2003 03:06 PM            

Mech. There are people who want to confiscate your guns in America. They have a name. We call them liberal Democrats. They are not in power now (thank God, and no thanks to you). Given that the NRA was a big supporter of the Bush campaign, I sincerely doubt that guns will be confiscated under the Bush administration (at least as a federal program). Secondly, if martial law is ever declared, my prediction is that it wouldn't happen under Bush administration either. That would be the last thing any leader would want, and the quickest way to end his career as president. It would be impossible to enforce, precisely because we are an armed country. This is a made-up imaginary concern of yours based upon absolutely NO evidence.

And furthermore, you keep moving the goal posts back. Now you are saying that if America is attacked again, martial law will be declared, whereas before you were saying martial law will be declared once war breaks out.

I'm going to hold you to the first claim because war is fairly predictable at this point and another attack on America is not. If it were a nuclear attack on DC, then I can see where a martial law system might be temporarily necessary in the immediate area. Don't you think? But, previously, you have been saying that the government just wants to declare martial law with the implication that that's just what they want for whatever nefarious reason.

posted 01-16-2003 03:21 PM            

Some examples of BUSH legislation that make THE AMERICAN PEOPLE the "terrorists"

THE USA PATRIOT ACT

MODEL STATES EMERGENCY HEALTH POWERS ACT

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT

TOTAL INFORMATION AWARNESS OFFICE (TIA)

"----I sincerely doubt that guns will be confiscated under the Bush administration ...----"

Then what the hell is Bush's

OUR LADY OF PEACE ACT.

Hmmm?

You've been played.

Suckered,

Hoodwinked,

Blindsided.

I'm not the one you should be mad at.

posted 01-16-2003 03:33 PM            

You brought up an excellent point. We pay taxes, right? Government only has power from taxpayers in a healthy economy. Then the last thing the "government" needs is a taxpayer who can't work (because he can't pay taxes) or an economy that is not healthy to sustain the jobs required to pay taxes.

posted 01-16-2003 03:37 PM            

I'm not voting for Joe Wimperman

not voting for (skull and bones) Kerry

and certainly not JUNIOR either.

I'm done playing with you.

posted 01-16-2003 03:40 PM            

What do you make of the fact that Hitler and Goebbels used the termed "New World Order", the CIA was formed of former Nazis, and Nixon and McCarthy were Nazi sympathizers until Tricky Disc turned on Joe? Why did our country, including Prescott Bush, support and fund Hitler?

Why does the US support dictators such as Pol Pot, Pinochet, Hussein, Suharto, Franco, Noriega, Shah of Iran, Marcos, and Mobutu? Why help overthrow democratically elected governments in same countries?

What about the slaughter of the red man? What about the poisoning of blacks in the government sponsored Tuskegee experiment?

We'll stay and resist all the liberals and conservatives who are rolling over for the NWO. You are so worried about losing your 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms from liberals, that you are forgetting that conservatives are poop-canning the other 26. They are in this together. When this place becomes so disgustingly fascist, they we'll move to a saner place like Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, or Iceland. Or stay here to bother some of you in this post.

posted 01-16-2003 03:43 PM            

"Background on "Our Lady of Peace Act"
Since 1968, federal law has required state and local government agencies to report the names of persons "adjudicated as mentally defective" to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which is responsible for conducting the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NCIC) for people seeking to purchase firearms. However, most states and localities have never complied with this law. HR 4757/S 2826 authorize a set of incentive grants to state and local agencies to report these names. Although NAMI recognizes the importance of screening individuals who wish to purchase guns, there is mounting concern that this legislation contains overly broad language and has potential to reinforce stigma and compromise the privacy of individuals with mental illnesses.

The term "adjudication as a mentally defective," as defined in HR 4757/S 2826, encompasses a variety of categories. While it is much narrower than all individuals diagnosed with a mental illness, it does include all individuals that have been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility, without regard to functional impairment, when the commitment occurred or the reason for the commitment. Additionally, any determination (formal or otherwise) by a governmental agency that a person is a danger to themselves as a result of a mental disorder or illness would serve as a basis for reporting their name to the FBI's NCIC. Likewise, a determination that a person lacks capacity to contract or manage their own affairs would also trigger a disclosure to the NCIC.

Second, as currently drafted HR 4757/S 2868 is lacking adequate protections to safeguard the privacy of individuals whose names are reported to the FBI for maintenance in the NCIC system. Specifically, the bill directs the Attorney General to work with states, local law enforcement and the mental health system to establish regulations and protocols for protecting privacy. However, the bill contains no specific parameters or guidelines for doing so.

Finally, in NAMI's view the very use of the language "adjudicated as a mentally defective" in S 2826 is outdated and highly stigmatizing of people with mental illness and would possibly deter some people from seeking necessary treatment."

posted 01-16-2003 03:46 PM            

for example I've asked mech oh about a billion times what specifically is unconstitutional about the patriot act...I have my own thoughts about it..but he does not...

what a facade he is....

posted 01-16-2003 03:50 PM            

It's an outright VIOLATION.

http://www.gunowners.org/a111202.htm

posted 01-16-2003 04:00 PM            

Have you even READ the Patriot Act?

It's TOTALLY UNCOSTITUTIONAL!!!!

I'll give you ONE small tidbit.

It gives police the power to enter your home without a warrant and search your place an NOT TELL ANYONE they have been there.

ONE MORE:

Defines terrorism as ANY act that can be considered "dangerous to human life" as terrorism.

They can tap your phone,

read private e-mails...

There is too much to list.

Read it yourself
http://www.ala.org/washoff/patriot.html

posted 01-16-2003 04:24 PM            

We are "Anti- American" for questioning the government in the new "HOMELAND".

CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL

"We weren't even allowed to read it"

"The founding fathers would have revolted over much lighter forms of tyranny......"

posted 01-16-2003 04:26 PM            

gas, conservatives want personal freedom freedom from government intervention free speech and all that....where in the world did you get your definition of a conservative ? conservatives are all about the individual...libs are about the collective...

do you even know who william f buckley is ?

posted 01-16-2003 04:31 PM            

http://www.infowars.com/HR_3162/Sec_802.htm

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

WE ARE THE TERRORISTS

posted 01-16-2003 04:35 PM            

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';

(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.

posted 01-16-2003 04:40 PM            

I would vote against this act based upon what I have just glossed over. But, then, I'm not schooled in law, and I doubt you are as well, or you would be out practicing rather than posting on a chemtrail message board all day. How do we know how this law will be interpreted, if it makes it into law?

I mean, there's a difference between active confiscation of guns and providing information to the feds, and from my brief reading of the wording of the act, it seems to me that this is all it seeks to do in it’s present form, and that is inform a federal agency if a person deemed to be "mentally defective" buys a gun. On it’s surface, this does seem reasonable to me.

It is reasonable to notify in the form of record, a law enforcement agency, however, it becomes unreasonable, and unconstitutional, to search this person and seize the fire arm before any criminal act has been committed. The courts are designed to uphold the constitution if we have the conservative judges that Bush wants in place.

To summarize, I would say that it is reasonable to place a person with a history of mental instability or violence or a criminal record, in an FBI record, should that person purchase a gun. It is not reasonable to put a citizen with NO criminal record, or history of mental instability, who legally purchases a gun, in this same data base however. In any case, the act, as it seems to me, is about gaining information for purposes of prevention of crime, rather than proactive confiscation of firearms. I do think it is poorly and broadly worded however, and is bad legislation because it is open to abuses.

So Mech, I think we can agree here, but not on Bush’s motives. I think your way out in left field if you think that Bush has any other hidden agenda than what he has stated. The reason I say this is because the legislation he has advocated matches his openly stated intentions. I think he is doing what HE thinks is necessary to protect this country from further acts like the 9/11 attacks, and the first thing he did was to determine the cause of those attacks. And that cause was in part due to poor intelligence gathering capabilities and inefficient coordination of our intelligence agencies that Billy Clinton spent so much time dismantling. I think Bush really does see this as the major cause and is doing exactly what he believes to shore up the problem. Now we can argue on the constitutionality of such acts, and agencies, and I will agree with you, I think some here are over the top, but I have no doubt that Bush is doing what he is doing for the reasons he openly states, to secure America (which is his job as president). I do not see any evidence of a hidden agenda here as you are suggestion. The motivations are wrong for that, as Ramb points out.