Could you be a Target? The answer is YES

[RRD3]

I think this is important enough to post even for those who may have already seen it. Could posting on this site or any other "Pro Gun" site make you a target?

Friday, May 15, 2009 Rumor was enough to get you burned as a witch in Salem, Massachusetts. It was enough to get you shot in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. It's enough to get your head chopped off in parts of Iraq infested with madmen claiming to carry out Allah's will.
And if U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) has his way, it may be enough to prohibit you from acquiring a firearm or federal firearm license, especially if the Attorney General is as opposed to gun ownership as Janet Reno was during the Clinton Administration, and as Eric Holder is today.
Fresh on the heels of a disturbing paper from the Department of Homeland Security, characterizing gun owners as rightwing extremists, on April 29 King introduced H.R. 2159, which he calls the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009."
King, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, describes himself as "a strong supporter of the war against international terrorism, both at home and abroad," so without reading the bill one might assume that H.R. 2159 is a legitimate effort to clamp down on genuine terrorists. However, King and his bill's co-sponsors—Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), Mike Castle (R-Del.), Jim Moran (D-Va.), Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), Mark Kirk (D-Ill.), and Chris Smith (R-N.J.)1—are extreme gun control supporters, and his bill is intended only to give the Executive Branch arbitrary, unaccountable power to stop loyal Americans from acquiring firearms. Here's how:
H.R. 2159 would give "the Attorney General the authority to deny the sale, delivery, or transfer of a firearm or the issuance of a firearms or explosives license or permit to dangerous terrorists. . . . if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism."


H.R. 2159 does not, however, impose any requirements or limits on the information the Attorney General could use to make a determination, and it proposes that "any information which the Attorney General relied on for this determination may be withheld from the applicant if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security."
In stark contrast to the scheme proposed in H.R. 2159, federal law establishes guidelines for the nine categories of persons currently prohibited from possessing firearms, and it protects the right of a person to be told why he is prohibited. The latter is important because a person who is not prohibited can be mistaken for someone who is, due to incomplete or incorrect records in the FBI's database of prohibited persons, or due to being mistaken for a prohibited person on the basis of a similar name or other personal information.
The trash bin of history is full of politically-motivated, authoritarian abuses of peoples' rights. As King and his bill's co-sponsors have shown, however, the concept behind the evil yet remains.

Link to article.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fe...d.aspx?id=4879

[Pancho Villa]

I lost all my guns in a tragic boating accident.

Even the guns I'm about to buy.

It is good to point these things out and keep a wary eye on them; however, it should be noted that almost all proposed laws die in committee (and rightfully so.) Until such a time as it is scheduled for a floor hearing, I tend to make note of it and check every few weeks to see if its made it out of committee. Until then I do not feel that it is worth worrying about.

[RRD3]

I tend to disagree. Any anti-gun legislation, thought, bill or anything that mentions related to anti-gun with this current administration is something to worry about.

See bellow.


Who's sponsoring H.R. 45

H.R. 45 -- President Obama's National Gun Registry and Citizen Disarmament Act -- was written by Illinois Congressman Bobby Rush (D). It currently has no cosponsors. But will it pass Congress?
Congressman Rush's bill an outrageous destruction of Constitutional Rights, but it's the compromises that are truly dangerous

Though far-left gun-haters routinely sponsor pie-in-the-sky legislation (anyone remember the days of Sen. Moynihan's annual 1000% tax on ammo?), H.R. 45 has set new lows for the depths to which hoplophobes will sink.

Is H.R. 45 dangerous? Yes. But is it likely to pass? No.... it's too far-reaching.

What is likely to pass, though, is a compromise, a deal cut with the gun-grabbers and the group that ostensibly represents gun owners, the NRA.

Think that can't happen? Rewind to the summer of 2007, when arch gun-hater Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy sat down with NRA board member Congressman John Dingell to craft a deal to expand Brady Checks into new realms of mental health records. A few months later, H.R. 2640 passed...with the approval of the NRA and McCarthy.

Congressman Rush's gun control ideas are much, much more dangerous as amendments to legislation that is already advancing.

Remember the Brady Bill? It didn't pass as a stand-alone bill. It passed as an amendment.

Even more frightening was that it passed with the approval of the NRA (click here for that full story)

The same is true of the Lautenberg Domestic Abuse ban, the Assault Weapons ban, 1986 McClure-Volkmer (which bans the manufacture of transferable machine guns), the 1968 Gun Control Act, and numerous other examples (especially if you look at state legislation).
Yes, we're watching H.R. 45. But beware the slight of hand -- it's often more dangerous.



Here's the link to that statement.
http://www.rmgo.org/alerts/2009-HR45.shtml

[Pancho Villa]

Thanks for the dose of reason, foxtrot.

The legislation is still troubling not because a super-efficient government will find me out from the intertubes but because its another tool for, say, a pissed off local law enforcement*, political figure or even a neighbor you don't get along with to make life a lot harder for you.

*I'm not saying all LEOs are corrupt or would do something like that, but even one bad apple with that kind of arbitrary power is a nightmare waiting to happen.

[Mtn.man]

yup only on CSI can they track an ip to your doorstep......LOL

[sniper7]

I am wearing my tinfoil suit right now. I tell you I hear the choppers...they are everywhere

[GunTroll]

You can't hear the choppers! They run on silent mode!

[vim]

yup only on CSI can they track an ip to your doorstep......LOL

I'm not much for tin foil, but if you're sitting at home using the Internet through your ISP and posting "interesting stuff" on a U.S.-based site, "the authorities" absolutely can track an IP assignment to your door, dynamic or static. It just takes time, coordination, and court orders.

[ssf467]

You are a target read their own documents. DHS looks at gun owners and veterans as threats. People the hour is late. The Republic is on her knees. Stand up to this tyranny or bow to Globalist slave masters.
Listen to the Treasury Sec and you'll know what the agenda is, it's not theory, they'll telling you what they are doing. Private owner ship of firearms is holding them up.

[Zcsdkr]

You are a target read their own documents. DHS looks at gun owners and veterans as threats. People the hour is late. The Republic is on her knees. Stand up to this tyranny or bow to Globalist slave masters.
Listen to the Treasury Sec and you'll know what the agenda is, it's not theory, they'll telling you what they are doing. Private owner ship of firearms is holding them up.

Amen