What kind of gun do you have"
I have a 30-06 and a shotgun I got when I was fourteen for Christmas.
has any politician ever threatened to take it away?"
Why yes. Yes they have. The National Defense Authorization Act threatens my civil liberties, not to mention countless other bills which were somehow swept under the carpet without notice. See! I knew you would post. Oh, this is delightful.
Why no, no they haven't.
" National Defense Authorization Act threatens my civil liberties"
This act in no way tries to take yer guns.
"countless other bills"
SOURCE? This is ridiculous. Don't be scared, little one. No big bad man is going to take your guns. It's never even been a discussion. It's just a scare tactic that people buy into rather than worrying about actual problems.
take yer guns."
I can't tell if you misspelled on purpose or not. Yes there is a provision in there which allows them to bar you from owning weapons.
Here is the bill. Read it yourself. LINK
I really like the part where it says YOU, yes YOU can be held by the military until the end of hostilities without benefit of council or due process. So when terrorism ends completely is when you're released.
"countless other bills""
This was more about YOUR civil liberties being taken a little at a time. But who gives a shit! Right? We have universal health care! Wait. No we don't. But we have the Patriot Act! We have NDAA! I feel soooo safe now.
Hypothetically, these laws could be used against non-terrorists, and (if you want to be paranoid) could form the basis for a at least a temporary police state at some point in the future, but not even the military has the logistic capability to occupy the whole nation in perpetuity (and keep up international operations.)
"allows them to bar you from owning weapons."
Well no shit. Yes, there are reasons people are barred from owning weapons. This does not equate taking guns away from the average person on the street and hunting rifles and shotguns have never been debated. When a politician calls for gun control, this does not mean taking them away. That's like calling "pro-choice" "Pro-abortion"
"So when terrorism ends completely is when you're released."
Yes, being ridiculous about it makes a good argument.
"On December 31 and after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law, President Obama issued a statement on it addressing "certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of terrorism suspects". In the statement Obama maintains that "the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF". The statement also maintains that the "Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens", and that it "will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law". Referring to the applicability of civilian versus military detention, the statement argued that "the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost."
On 28 February 2012, the Obama Administration announced that it would waive the requirement for military detention in "any case in which officials [believe] that placing a detainee in military custody could impede counterterrorism cooperation with the detainee’s home government or interfere with efforts to secure the person’s cooperation or confession". Application of military custody to any suspect is determined by a national security team including the attorney general, the secretaries of state, defense and homeland security, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the director of national intelligence."
When I say site your source, I mean it. I won't debate ridiculous postulations and inflammatory remarks.
I WILL NOT BE BAITED THIS WAY!
military has the logistic capability to occupy the whole nation."
Yeah. It would be way tough. You'd need to include local law enforcement as well, which if my brother the cop is any indication, it'll never happen.
It could be more regionalized or localized, but I am just bothered that it got signed into law and that it is there at all. We've went way off the deep end after 9/11. I was in the Navy when it happened. It didn't seem like the same military after that. Everything changed even on the outside.
I WILL NOT BE BAITED THIS WAY! When I say site your source, I mean it. I won't debate ridiculous postulations and inflammatory remarks."
LOL I sited the actual bill!
Really? He killed an American in Yemen with a drone strike using that law. Hmm.
"On May 15, 2012, a U.S. District Judge [4th District Court Judge Katherine Forrest] blocked section 1021[2], which its critics claim allows indefinite military detention[3]. Her statement follows: “As set forth above, this Court has found that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding their constitutional claim and it therefore has a responsibility to insure that the public’s constitutional rights are protected.
Accordingly, this Court finds that the public interest is best served by the issuance of the preliminary relief recited herein.” [4]"
The 2013 bill is currently being debated in Congress" LINK
If a district judge is challenging it, it means it's still in there. Of course this ruling was appealed.
Well. I will say it is a good sign for our Republic that so many are so passionate and informed about their government. Whether they agree or not.
Holy geez! You guys are on fire! Keep it up. New conversation direction: The Advantages/Disadvantages of Standardized Testing and How it Discriminates Against [insert your favorite demographic here] and Should/Should Not Be Eradicated!
Begin in 5...4...3...2...1...
NOW
