Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Suspected terrorists"? That's just the kind of ambiguous law the government wants to be able to arbitrarily deny whoever they want.
That is right on the money!!!!
Remember when the head of the DOJ, Eric Holder, lied on a warrant and judge shopped until the 3rd judge gave him permission to spy on reporter/journalist James Rosen. The head of the DOJ lied to get the warrant. Said he was a flight risk, etc.
THE HEAD FOR THE DOJ LIED TO GET A WARRANT ON JAMES ROSEN.
HARRY REID FAlSELY ACCUSED MITT OF NOT PAYING TAXES TO SWING AN ELECTION.
THESE TWO GUYS WERE NOT SOME LOW LEVEL BUREAUCRATS.
Lois Lerner chose to delay approvals on organizations she politically opposed placing them in limbo so as to just miss the 2012 election. The activism in federal agencies is condoned and a result of the unethical administrion's behavior. So pass an ambiguous law and get in another unethical administration we suffer the consequences.
Obama slices and dices the language, moves a comma and adds a preposition to mean something other than what the normal person would think the words mean.
Allowing ambiguity in the law is to lay a feast of words before obama to arrange a meal that would kill a Beefeater and make Lucretia Borgia smile.
holder, the liar, said domestic terrorists were the greatest danger and he wasn't talking islamic terrorists.
Labeling is used by obama tocreate and solve problems. Fort Hood shooting was workplace violence to avoid having a terrorist attack on obama's watch.
Ifyou were happy being told 'we have to pass it to see what is in it, then you'd be happy with with the phrase, 'suspected terrorist'. By those standards your fathers and uncles yelling at the tv news would be considered terrorists. The kid who chewed a pop tart into the shape of a gun would be considered a terrorist.
When someone can be added to the "terror suspect list" based on arbitrary criteria and discretion, without even knowing it, and when there is no due process afforded BEFOREhand, yep, that's exactly what I'm saying.
It's not necessarily arbitrary, the FBI places these people on a list based on some intelligence, seems prudent to lean towards tighter restrictions and they can challenge their designation.
I don't see it being that effective in any event unless they close the other loopholes in the gun laws, they can always get a gun online or at a gun show or just head to Georgia.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.