BIG Announcement from POTUS

a reply to: introvert

Yes, but the thing is, even though he's right on that, that's been his position all along. Its a point they've been harping on since day 1. Its nothing new.

a reply to: neo96

You forgot the Mexican naro-cartels. They can apparently buy them from US straw purchasers too.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Im telling you the part of how to fight terrorism is the same speech he did before a while back, I think I had a link to it, it was on counterterrorism.

He will keep allowing Refugees come to the US. He didn't say anything specific on how ISIS is using vulnerable laws in the US when it comes to US issuing visas.

For those that are not getting it, when Obama wants to deny rights to people he places on a list, it is in violation of the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Text

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Bold is mine

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: neo96

You forgot the Mexican naro-cartels. They can apparently buy them from US straw purchasers too.

I didn't forget.

My blood is boiling.

So now we not only have 'no fly' lists.

We now are going to have 'no gun' lists.

Without any due process what so ever.

And an end run around the BILL of RIGHTS.

originally posted by: neo96
To fight 'terrorists' we need to arm TERRORISTS.

The man seems to have an unfortunate incomprehension of Sun Tzu. Either that or there are coyotes in the chicken coop.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
For those that are not getting it, when Obama wants to deny rights to people he places on a list, it is in violation of the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Text

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Bold is mine

Just like how the IRS put the TEA Party on a 'No Approve' list.

a reply to: DBCowboy

That is why is no going to happen, I wonder if the special courts that were established under the patriot act will be doing the list, after all before that it was the FBI the one that did it.

For the record. The 'no fly list' is a 14th amendment VIOLATION.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

www.law.cornell.edu...

a reply to: neo96

Remember that was made under the Patriot act, now I don't think they can get away with it, I am sure it will be challenged this time.

a reply to: queenofswords

Yes, that was the only part of his speech where he showed real emotion. Too late. Everyday muslims radicalizing almost overnight has other Americans cautious of this "religion of peace". Not buying it anymore. The trust is not there now. We will look at them through different eyes now like any day they could grab their machete or gun and go all terrorist on you.

Then we have lost.

Terrorism and fear have won because we let fear bring us to the point that we are willing to turn on each other.

I don't know why people get upset if more laws and security gets put into place, it's for our protection and our freedom.

His analogy is a good one about the no fly list because it's kind of like should we ban spoons to stop obesity. Losing the freedom to board a plane means you are too dangerous so why would we give a dangerous person a gun? There are lots of laws with alcohol it's crazy to think someone at 18 can go to war but they can't have a beer. Everyone accepts drinking laws like age, driving, alcohol percentage, legal pour, intoxication, public drinking and life goes on. I don't see what the big deal is with his two suggestions. I'm sure if there are common hunting weapons in the assault weapons category if they put strict laws they would probably re-categorize those guns to firearms or whatever.

I'd rather have any authority fighting against more serious threats in the community than having nothing to do and harassing citizens. Imagine if the police spent more time researching who could be the next US mass killer/terrorist maybe there would be less stories of police brutality? Why is there not a security red flag that goes up for the making of stock-pile purchases of deadly-war like guns and ammunition? Wouldn't you rather have the headlines read police raid home filled with 1000's of rounds of ammunition, explosives, fake passports, well written plan of mass killing, and arrests suspects....

a reply to: DarthFazer

So close,

His name is Michael.....

a reply to: introvert

Please don't tell me that if you see something suspicious around you, your are not going to say anything because that is bringing fear to the point of turning onto each other, remember that same way of thinking allowed 14 people to be killed, because neighbors didn't want to sound like bigots and racist.

Even the FBI said that we all should be aware of our surroundings, that they do not care if the tips are nothing at the end.

Be careful what you post, because while I understand what you are trying to say, sometimes it can be taken with other meanings.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: queenofswords

Yes, that was the only part of his speech where he showed real emotion. Too late. Everyday muslims radicalizing almost overnight has other Americans cautious of this "religion of peace". Not buying it anymore. The trust is not there now. We will look at them through different eyes now like any day they could grab their machete or gun and go all terrorist on you.

Then we have lost.

Terrorism and fear have won because we let fear bring us to the point that we are willing to turn on each other.

Nobody is talking about turning on anybody. It's common sense. I'll use an example that may not be as offensive to you. After the multiple reports and the eventual proof that priests were molesting little boys on a fairly wide scale, it was hard to look at a priest without thinking "no way am I letting my little boy near him without supervision".

That might be an over reaction in your eyes, but to me it is common sense rationalization. Till we get a firm grip on what is causing otherwise normal muslins to radicalize virtually overnight, then I, for one, will not turn my back for a second on any of them.

a reply to: queenofswords

Appearances can also be very deceiving.

Several weeks ago...when a group of co-workers were giving Farook and his wife a lovely baby shower...bassinets...adorable baby clothes...gifts and laughter shared between the proud Farook parents and their dear friends from work...I'm sure most of them would've sounded exactly like INTROVERT back then.

Last week, Farook and Malik, their bodies covered with flak vests; their faces covered with masks, turned their guns on these very same people, brutally, mercilessly and cold-bloodily pumping their bodies full of bullets at a Holiday party.

a reply to: Irishhaf
I thought most the guns that these people used in San Bernardino where purchased by someone else.

So if I want guns and my name is on a list, then I won't be able to buy "legally", doesn't mean I can't get them, or I can do like these guys did. Have somebody buy them legally for me.

I might be illegal after the fact, but too late. I still have the guns.

Just doesn't make sense, since people have been killing people long before guns were ever made, and if gun disappeared overnight, people will still be killing people singly and in mass. History has proven this time and time again.

I think the big thing that most are forgetting. Most of these terrorist don't give a damn about what is legal and what is illegal. They don't plan on being around long enough to be punished for all they kill, they are seeking their reward n the other side.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Appearances are soo deceiving, now more than ever we have to be vigilant.

What I am about to say. Can NOT be said enough.

Neither of the SB attackers were on either a 'no fly' list or a 'terrorist' watch list.

So.............................

a reply to: neo96

Oh, but see the no-fly list isn't a "law" per se because no Congressional body voted on it and passed it and no president signed it.