Our Rights Taken and no Defense from Supreme Court
Apr 30, 2014 06:35:14 #
Supreme Court green lights detention of Americans
Lets stand arrests of 'anyone viewed as a troublemaker'
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.
A decision from the U.S. Supreme Court means the federal government now has an open door to detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker, critics of the high courts ruling said.
The high court by its own order this week refused to review an appellate-level decision that says the president and U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals.
Officials with William J. Olson, P.C., a firm that filed an amicus brief asking the court to step in, noted that not a single justice dissented from the denial of certiorari.
The court ducked, having no appetite to confront both political parties in order to protect the citizens from military detention, the legal team told WND. The government has won, creating a tragic moment for the people and what will someday be viewed as an embarrassment for the court.
WND reported earlier when the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act were adopted, then later challenged in court.
The controversial provision authorizes the military, under p**********l authority, to arrest, kidnap, detain without trial and hold indefinitely American citizens thought to represent an enduring security threat to the United States.
Journalist Chris Hedges was among the plaintiffs charging the law could be used to target journalists who report on terror-related issues.
A friend-of-the-court brief submitted in the case stated: The central question now before this court is whether the federal judiciary will stand idly by while Congress and the president establish the legal framework for the establishment of a police state and the subjugation of the American citizenry through the threat of indefinite military arrest and detention, without the right to counsel, the right to confront ones accusers, or the right to trial.
The brief was submitted to the Supreme Court by attorneys with the U.S. Justice Foundation of Ramona, California; Friedman Harfenist Kraut & Perlstein of Lake Success, New York; and William J. Olson, P.C. of Vienna, Virginia.
The attorneys are Michael Connelly, Steven J. Harfenist, William J. Olson, Herbert W. Titus, John S. Miles, Jeremiah L. Morgan and Robert J. Olson.
They were adding their voices to the chorus asking the Supreme Court to overturn the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the plaintiffs didnt have standing to challenge the law adopted by Congress.
The brief was on behalf of U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Virginia Sen. Dick Black, the U.S. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Center for Media & Democracy, Downsize DC Foundation, Downsize DC.org, Free Speech Defense & Education Fund, Free Speech Coalition, Western Journalism Center, The Lincoln Institute, Institute on the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln Foundation and Conservative Legal Defense & Education Fund.
Journalist Chris Hedges, who is suing the government over a controversial provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, is seen here addressing a crowd in New York's Zuccotti Park.
The 2014 NDAA was fast-tracked through the U.S. Senate, with no time for discussion or amendments, while most Americans were distracted by the scandal surrounding A&Es troubles with Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson.
Eighty-five of 100 senators v**ed in favor of the new version of the NDAA, which had already been quietly passed by the House of Representatives.
Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and others filed a lawsuit in 2012 against the Obama administration to challenge the legality of an earlier version of the NDAA.
It is Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, and its successors, that drew a lawsuit by Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex OBrien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had altered their activities.
Video mania: The instruction manual on how to restore America to what it once was: Taking America Back on DVD. This package also includes the Tea Party at Sea DVD.
Its clearly unconstitutional, Hedges said of the bill. It is a huge and egregious assault against our democracy. It overturns over 200 years of law, which has kept the military out of domestic policing.
Hedges is a former foreign correspondent for the New York Times and was part of a team of reporters awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the papers coverage of global terrorism.
The friend-of-the-court brief warned the precedent leaves American citizens vulnerable to arrest and detention, without the protection of the Bill of Rights, under either the plaintiffs or the governments theory of the case.
The judiciary must not await subsequent litigation to resolve this issue, as the nature of military detention is that American citizens then would have no adequate legal remedy, the brief explained.
Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown itself to be an advocate for the government, no matter how illegal its action, rather than a champion of the Constitution and, by extension, the American people, said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.
No matter what the Obama administration may say to the contrary, actions speak louder than words, and history shows that the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes. What the NDAA does is open the door for the government to detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker.
According to government guidelines for identifying domestic extremists a word used interchangeably with terrorists, that technically applies to anyone exercising their First Amendment rights in order to criticize the government, he said.
Its not like rounding up innocent U.S. citizens and stuffing them into prison camps hasnt already happened.
In 1944, the government rounded up thousands of Japanese Americans and locked them up, under the approval of the high court in its Korematsu v. United States decision.
The newest authorizes the president to use all necessary and appropriate force to jail those suspected of helping terrorists.
The Obama administration had claimed in court that the NDAA does not apply to American citizens, but Rutherford attorneys said the language of the law is so unconstitutionally broad and vague as to open the door to arrest and indefinite detentions for speech and political activity that might be critical of the government.
The law specifically allows for the arrests of those who associate or substantially support terror groups.
These terms, however, are not defined in the statute, and the government itself is unable to say who exactly is subject to indefinite detention based upon these terms, leaving them open to wide ranging interpretations which threaten those engaging in legitimate First Amendment activities, Rutherford officials reported.
At the trial court level, on Sept. 12, 2012, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District Court of New York ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and placed a permanent injunction on the indefinite detention provision.
Obama then appealed, and his judges on the 2nd Circuit authorized the government detention program.
Since the fight started, multiple states have passed laws banning its enforcement inside those states. Herb Titus, a constitutional expert, previously told WND Forrests ruling underscored the arrogance of the current regime, in that they will not answer questions that they ought to answer to a judge because they dont think they have to.
The judge explained that the plaintiffs alleged paragraph 1021 is constitutionally infirm, violating both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment as well due process rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.
She noted the government did not call any witnesses, submit any documentary evidence or file any declarations.
It must be said that it would have been a rather simple matter for the government to have stated that as to these plaintiffs and the conduct as to which they would testify, that [paragraph] 1021 did not and would not apply, if indeed it did or would not, she wrote.
Instead, the administration only responded with, Im not authorized to make specific representations regarding specific people.
The courts attempt to avoid having to deal with the constitutional aspects of the challenge was by providing the government with prompt notice in the form of declarations and depositions of the conduct in which plaintiffs are involved and which they claim places them in fear of military detention, she wrote. To put it bluntly, to eliminate these plaintiffs standing simply by representing that their conduct does not fall within the scope of 1021 would have been simple. The government chose not to do so thereby ensuring standing and requiring this court to reach the merits of the instant motion.
Plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the 1st Amendment, she wrote.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/supreme-court-green-lights-detention-of-americans/#k1DPFQOxCJBYk4Q6.99
Lets stand arrests of 'anyone viewed as a troublemaker'
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.
A decision from the U.S. Supreme Court means the federal government now has an open door to detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker, critics of the high courts ruling said.
The high court by its own order this week refused to review an appellate-level decision that says the president and U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals.
Officials with William J. Olson, P.C., a firm that filed an amicus brief asking the court to step in, noted that not a single justice dissented from the denial of certiorari.
The court ducked, having no appetite to confront both political parties in order to protect the citizens from military detention, the legal team told WND. The government has won, creating a tragic moment for the people and what will someday be viewed as an embarrassment for the court.
WND reported earlier when the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act were adopted, then later challenged in court.
The controversial provision authorizes the military, under p**********l authority, to arrest, kidnap, detain without trial and hold indefinitely American citizens thought to represent an enduring security threat to the United States.
Journalist Chris Hedges was among the plaintiffs charging the law could be used to target journalists who report on terror-related issues.
A friend-of-the-court brief submitted in the case stated: The central question now before this court is whether the federal judiciary will stand idly by while Congress and the president establish the legal framework for the establishment of a police state and the subjugation of the American citizenry through the threat of indefinite military arrest and detention, without the right to counsel, the right to confront ones accusers, or the right to trial.
The brief was submitted to the Supreme Court by attorneys with the U.S. Justice Foundation of Ramona, California; Friedman Harfenist Kraut & Perlstein of Lake Success, New York; and William J. Olson, P.C. of Vienna, Virginia.
The attorneys are Michael Connelly, Steven J. Harfenist, William J. Olson, Herbert W. Titus, John S. Miles, Jeremiah L. Morgan and Robert J. Olson.
They were adding their voices to the chorus asking the Supreme Court to overturn the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the plaintiffs didnt have standing to challenge the law adopted by Congress.
The brief was on behalf of U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Virginia Sen. Dick Black, the U.S. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Center for Media & Democracy, Downsize DC Foundation, Downsize DC.org, Free Speech Defense & Education Fund, Free Speech Coalition, Western Journalism Center, The Lincoln Institute, Institute on the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln Foundation and Conservative Legal Defense & Education Fund.
Journalist Chris Hedges, who is suing the government over a controversial provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, is seen here addressing a crowd in New York's Zuccotti Park.
The 2014 NDAA was fast-tracked through the U.S. Senate, with no time for discussion or amendments, while most Americans were distracted by the scandal surrounding A&Es troubles with Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson.
Eighty-five of 100 senators v**ed in favor of the new version of the NDAA, which had already been quietly passed by the House of Representatives.
Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and others filed a lawsuit in 2012 against the Obama administration to challenge the legality of an earlier version of the NDAA.
It is Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, and its successors, that drew a lawsuit by Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex OBrien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had altered their activities.
Video mania: The instruction manual on how to restore America to what it once was: Taking America Back on DVD. This package also includes the Tea Party at Sea DVD.
Its clearly unconstitutional, Hedges said of the bill. It is a huge and egregious assault against our democracy. It overturns over 200 years of law, which has kept the military out of domestic policing.
Hedges is a former foreign correspondent for the New York Times and was part of a team of reporters awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the papers coverage of global terrorism.
The friend-of-the-court brief warned the precedent leaves American citizens vulnerable to arrest and detention, without the protection of the Bill of Rights, under either the plaintiffs or the governments theory of the case.
The judiciary must not await subsequent litigation to resolve this issue, as the nature of military detention is that American citizens then would have no adequate legal remedy, the brief explained.
Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown itself to be an advocate for the government, no matter how illegal its action, rather than a champion of the Constitution and, by extension, the American people, said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.
No matter what the Obama administration may say to the contrary, actions speak louder than words, and history shows that the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes. What the NDAA does is open the door for the government to detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker.
According to government guidelines for identifying domestic extremists a word used interchangeably with terrorists, that technically applies to anyone exercising their First Amendment rights in order to criticize the government, he said.
Its not like rounding up innocent U.S. citizens and stuffing them into prison camps hasnt already happened.
In 1944, the government rounded up thousands of Japanese Americans and locked them up, under the approval of the high court in its Korematsu v. United States decision.
The newest authorizes the president to use all necessary and appropriate force to jail those suspected of helping terrorists.
The Obama administration had claimed in court that the NDAA does not apply to American citizens, but Rutherford attorneys said the language of the law is so unconstitutionally broad and vague as to open the door to arrest and indefinite detentions for speech and political activity that might be critical of the government.
The law specifically allows for the arrests of those who associate or substantially support terror groups.
These terms, however, are not defined in the statute, and the government itself is unable to say who exactly is subject to indefinite detention based upon these terms, leaving them open to wide ranging interpretations which threaten those engaging in legitimate First Amendment activities, Rutherford officials reported.
At the trial court level, on Sept. 12, 2012, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District Court of New York ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and placed a permanent injunction on the indefinite detention provision.
Obama then appealed, and his judges on the 2nd Circuit authorized the government detention program.
Since the fight started, multiple states have passed laws banning its enforcement inside those states. Herb Titus, a constitutional expert, previously told WND Forrests ruling underscored the arrogance of the current regime, in that they will not answer questions that they ought to answer to a judge because they dont think they have to.
The judge explained that the plaintiffs alleged paragraph 1021 is constitutionally infirm, violating both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment as well due process rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.
She noted the government did not call any witnesses, submit any documentary evidence or file any declarations.
It must be said that it would have been a rather simple matter for the government to have stated that as to these plaintiffs and the conduct as to which they would testify, that [paragraph] 1021 did not and would not apply, if indeed it did or would not, she wrote.
Instead, the administration only responded with, Im not authorized to make specific representations regarding specific people.
The courts attempt to avoid having to deal with the constitutional aspects of the challenge was by providing the government with prompt notice in the form of declarations and depositions of the conduct in which plaintiffs are involved and which they claim places them in fear of military detention, she wrote. To put it bluntly, to eliminate these plaintiffs standing simply by representing that their conduct does not fall within the scope of 1021 would have been simple. The government chose not to do so thereby ensuring standing and requiring this court to reach the merits of the instant motion.
Plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the 1st Amendment, she wrote.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/supreme-court-green-lights-detention-of-americans/#k1DPFQOxCJBYk4Q6.99
Apr 30, 2014 07:19:55 #
C**pdecu wrote:
Supreme Court green lights detention of Americans ... (show quote)
So much for freedom of anything now. We've been taken over without firing a shot.
Apr 30, 2014 07:28:58 #
C**pdecu wrote:
Supreme Court green lights detention of Americans ... (show quote)
The tyranny of the Federal Govt continues to expand. The Supreme Court was established to protect the people through interpretation of the Constitution. The refusal of the court to hear arguments in this matter are appalling and show that the Supremes are politically motivated to do the bidding of the Administration. Unfortunately, this is just showing further decay of the peoples rights and to further show that there is no protection of the rights of individuals in this country. These justices should be recalled and replaced if they are not willing to do their jobs. Change the Constitution where these judges are appointed for a limited term instead of life. The founding fathers errored in this provision. Time for a Constitutional Convention to make some needed changes in several areas of the Constitution such as term limits at all levels of government from the Congress all the way down to all judges at all levels.
Apr 30, 2014 07:55:30 #
This is the set up for this. It is straight off of the Military website and cant be disputed that this is the plan. If they can make us all criminals then in their own words they can herd us into "Civilian Inmate Labor Programs"
http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/r210_35.pdf
Please read this so you know what their plan really is.
"11. Purpose
This regulation provides Army policy and guidance for establishing civilian inmate labor programs and civilian prison
camps on Army installations. Sources of civilian inmate labor are limited to on and offpost Federal corrections
facilities, State and/or local corrections facilities operating from onpost prison camps pursuant to leases under Section
2667, Title 10, United States Code (10 USC 2667), and offpost State corrections facilities participating in the
demonstration project authorized under Section 1065, Public Law (PL) 103337. Otherwise, State and/or local inmate
labor from offpost corrections facilities is currently excluded from this program.
12. References
Required and related publications and prescribed and referenced forms are listed in appendix A.
13. Explanation of abbreviations and terms
Abbreviations and special terms used in this regulation are explained in the glossary.
14. Responsibilities
a. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment) (ASA(I&E)) will
(1) Provide policy guidance and resolve policy issues.
(2) Provide overall program direction.
(3) Serve as approval authority for establishing civilian inmate labor programs and civilian inmate prison camps on
Army installations.
(4) Provide procedural guidance on real property acquisition, management, and disposal relating to establishing
prison camps on Army installations.
b. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller) (ASA(FM&C)) will
(1) Provide reimbursement policy guidance on interservice, interagency, and/or interdepartmental support agreements
between installations and corrections facilities to establish civilian inmate prison camps on Army installations.
(2) Provide reimbursement policy for civilian inmate labor utilization, other than reimbursement for inmate labor
itself.
(3) Review all actions pertaining to the Civilian Inmate Labor Program for compliance with Army fin
http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/r210_35.pdf
Please read this so you know what their plan really is.
"11. Purpose
This regulation provides Army policy and guidance for establishing civilian inmate labor programs and civilian prison
camps on Army installations. Sources of civilian inmate labor are limited to on and offpost Federal corrections
facilities, State and/or local corrections facilities operating from onpost prison camps pursuant to leases under Section
2667, Title 10, United States Code (10 USC 2667), and offpost State corrections facilities participating in the
demonstration project authorized under Section 1065, Public Law (PL) 103337. Otherwise, State and/or local inmate
labor from offpost corrections facilities is currently excluded from this program.
12. References
Required and related publications and prescribed and referenced forms are listed in appendix A.
13. Explanation of abbreviations and terms
Abbreviations and special terms used in this regulation are explained in the glossary.
14. Responsibilities
a. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment) (ASA(I&E)) will
(1) Provide policy guidance and resolve policy issues.
(2) Provide overall program direction.
(3) Serve as approval authority for establishing civilian inmate labor programs and civilian inmate prison camps on
Army installations.
(4) Provide procedural guidance on real property acquisition, management, and disposal relating to establishing
prison camps on Army installations.
b. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller) (ASA(FM&C)) will
(1) Provide reimbursement policy guidance on interservice, interagency, and/or interdepartmental support agreements
between installations and corrections facilities to establish civilian inmate prison camps on Army installations.
(2) Provide reimbursement policy for civilian inmate labor utilization, other than reimbursement for inmate labor
itself.
(3) Review all actions pertaining to the Civilian Inmate Labor Program for compliance with Army fin
Apr 30, 2014 08:34:10 #
C**p here is a good video interview with Hedges.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZnKKMFL6no&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZnKKMFL6no&feature=player_embedded
Apr 30, 2014 08:43:04 #
no propaganda please
Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
stan3186 wrote:
The tyranny of the Federal Govt continues to expan... (show quote)
I am afraid we have lost the America we believed in and loved and what it has been replaced with is the form of tyranny we know to be evil. The "progressives" however are undoubtedly celebrating this decision.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Apr 30, 2014 08:44:12 #
Patty wrote:
This is the set up for this. It is straight off of... (show quote)
See you in the rice paddies! The ones the Regime will undoubtedly try to establish in Northern Minnesota, after they've begun to believe their own tripe about "g****l w*****g!" LOL
Apr 30, 2014 08:50:16 #
Paul Andy wrote:
See you in the rice paddies! The ones the Regime will undoubtedly try to establish in Northern Minnesota, after they've begun to believe their own tripe about "g****l w*****g!" LOL
I don't believe it will be as easy as they are predicting it will be. Im a country girl and I know country men. They will not go without a fight and they are the most sk**lful h****rs in this country.
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/051740-2009-06-13-we-would-find-a-rifle-behind-every-blade-of-grass.htm
Apr 30, 2014 08:51:45 #
hprinze
Loc: Central Florida
C**pdecu wrote:
Supreme Court green lights detention of Americans ... (show quote)
==================================
The supremes also refused to hear a case challenging Obama's eligibility for the office of president. One justice admitted on national TV that they were evading the issue.
When judges, including sumpreme court justices, are afraid of other politicians, they can simply cop out by refusing to hear a case they are afraid of.
Apr 30, 2014 09:27:10 #
C**pdecu wrote:
Supreme Court green lights detention of Americans
Lets stand arrests of 'anyone viewed as a troublemaker'
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/supreme-court-green-lights-detention-of-americans/#k1DPFQOxCJBYk4Q6.99
Lets stand arrests of 'anyone viewed as a troublemaker'
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/supreme-court-green-lights-detention-of-americans/#k1DPFQOxCJBYk4Q6.99
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is a d********g, but not surprising, finding by SCOTUS. It seems now that everyone who can do anything to stop this heinous political c**p has been roped in with the criminals, whether by choice or by threat or payment we may never know.
I read a lot of the citizens' comments on WND re this article, and some seem ready to do battle. It is reaching the point that we can rest assured it is us vs THEM. They have all the might. It is to our advantage that WE have all the "right", all the American fervor, all the grit, and all the propriety AND the US Constitution on OUR side. No nation is coming to save us. No one in office will be saving us. It would appear we have been had. If we fight, most of us will die. I don't want to die. Do you? Do we prefer living in captivity, or even under a dictator even if not in captivity? I believe now is the time to seriously make the decision about how we handle this horrid news. It's either us, or nothing, people. I firmly believe that now.
Apr 30, 2014 09:40:26 #
Patty wrote:
I don't believe it will be as easy as they are predicting it will be. Im a country girl and I know country men. They will not go without a fight and they are the most sk**lful h****rs in this country.
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/051740-2009-06-13-we-would-find-a-rifle-behind-every-blade-of-grass.htm
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/051740-2009-06-13-we-would-find-a-rifle-behind-every-blade-of-grass.htm
You know Patty, I wish you were right and you know I support the same positions as you. However, as good as the country men are with guns and even if they outnumber the Federalist, they won't win in a shoot out war. The military have untold amounts of fire power that is just not available to the people. Sophisticated weapons and guns that we can only imagine the destructive power of. Tanks, planes, attack helicopters, drones, gatling type guns that fire 6,000 rounds per second and who know what else. If we can't change the country the right way, through v****g and impeachment and criminal justice, then it is lost. I am afraid it is lost and the only recourse is to get the f$$k out while we still can.
Apr 30, 2014 09:47:55 #
Maybe I have lived out here to long but I don't believe our military will be able to fire on the people as easily as they think and those weapons will become the peoples weapons again.
Look at what is happening in Ukraine. When push comes to shove they are unable to k**l their own people and the army and police are rapidly switching sides.
Look at what is happening in Ukraine. When push comes to shove they are unable to k**l their own people and the army and police are rapidly switching sides.
stan3186 wrote:
You know Patty, I wish you were right and you know... (show quote)
Apr 30, 2014 09:55:36 #
NanaSue57 wrote:
So much for freedom of anything now. We've been taken over without firing a shot.
...guess we should have listened to those wacko, patriots that fought the (un)Patriot Act? Uh?
Apr 30, 2014 09:58:27 #
Patty wrote:
Maybe I have lived out here to long but I don't believe our military will be able to fire on the people as easily as they think and those weapons will become the peoples weapons again.
Look at what is happening in Ukraine. When push comes to shove they are unable to k**l their own people and the army and police are rapidly switching sides.
Look at what is happening in Ukraine. When push comes to shove they are unable to k**l their own people and the army and police are rapidly switching sides.
Patty, this is chiefly why I'm not worried about my guns. I can hand each member of my household a weapon, go on, knock on my front door jackass!
There are 40 million households that have weapons...how many doughnut processors, I mean Police Officers do we have...that was point to you originally. Finally dawned on you, eh? I didn't say all my weapons are registered did I?....
Apr 30, 2014 10:01:22 #
I have no idea what you said. I quit reading your crapola when I discovered you were just another troll.
Dummy Boy wrote:
Patty, this is chiefly why I'm not worried about my guns. I can hand each member of my household a weapon, go on, knock on my front door jackass!
There are 40 million households that have weapons...how many doughnut processors, I mean Police Officers do we have...that was point to you originally. Finally dawned on you, eh? I didn't say all my weapons are registered did I?....
There are 40 million households that have weapons...how many doughnut processors, I mean Police Officers do we have...that was point to you originally. Finally dawned on you, eh? I didn't say all my weapons are registered did I?....
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.