In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Defense Authorization Act: We Better Wake Up
n/a
Member Posts: 168,427 ✭
S 1867 the National Defense Authorization Act...A short McCain vs. Rand Paul clip, followed by a must watch 9 minute video of Rand Paul breaking this issue down.
It is coming. What side will you be on?
http://youtu.be/aUHh1iqe43w
http://youtu.be/rghhz_t5POo
It is coming. What side will you be on?
http://youtu.be/aUHh1iqe43w
http://youtu.be/rghhz_t5POo
Comments
Youtube clip on the same subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3t4wgZCO5M&feature=player_embedded#!
The government, by any office or authority, should have evidence to support their position and it should convince a judge.
I still can't believe McCain would sign on to this anti-constitutional crap.
Now if the "citizen" in question is Muslim, I reserve my judgement on a case by case basis
i think you know what side i'm on[;)]
Absolutely, tomahawk...always have, always will, Brother.[:)]
Also found the bill But need somebody to point me to the evil section they are all talking about.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:
There was an Amendment proposed (1107) that would change Section 1031 which relates to 'Covered Person(s)'.
And it failed to be removed on a vote today if my understanding is correct. It stands as written.[V][:(!]
but I hope that the Imperial scum McCain has his cancer come back... I really think he WAS brainwashed by the Vietnamese...or maybe KGB advisors
just for what its worth...
It is an amendment to a Defense Apportionment act. Lots of pork in that.
Kinda surprised McCain was in on it. 'Bout time for him to go.
I'm gonna wait til Herman Cain chimes in. [:X]
He's a little busy dodging dinner plates and rolling pins right now, but he'll get right back to you ASAP.
"Why?"
"We say so"
"Whats the charge?"
"We don't know yet, will let ya know."
PrezBO says he will veto...
just for what its worth...
It is an amendment to a Defense Apportionment act. Lots of pork in that.
Kinda surprised McCain was in on it. 'Bout time for him to go.
It's time for most, if not all to go...
Don
"Guilty!"
"Why?"
"We say so"
"Whats the charge?"
"We don't know yet, will let ya know."
You should see the observation camera towers they put up on the
st clair river border with Canada....
Don
Border cameras, I don't have a problem with that. But we will have a problem if Citizens of the USA are not allowed due process granted by the constitution.
(a) IN GENERAL. Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
section 1032, subsection (b)(1):
The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
subsection (b)(2):
The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
I would however keep an eye on things, governments have tendencies.
quote:Originally posted by FrancF
Border cameras, I don't have a problem with that. But we will have a problem if Citizens of the USA are not allowed due process granted by the constitution.
(a) IN GENERAL. Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
section 1032, subsection (b)(1):
The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
subsection (b)(2):
The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
I would however keep an eye on things, governments have tendencies.
If this is the new text/language/amendment. It did not fly. Keep an eye out.[:)]
quote:Originally posted by FrancF
Border cameras, I don't have a problem with that. But we will have a problem if Citizens of the USA are not allowed due process granted by the constitution.
(a) IN GENERAL. Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
section 1032, subsection (b)(1):
The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
subsection (b)(2):
The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
I would however keep an eye on things, governments have tendencies.
This is sec 1032 regarding custody, under 1031 s-1107, they will be able to detain[;)]
Don