posted
I want a gun. I've decided. Living in East London does this to you. 'Course, it's illegal to won one. But can anyone recommend a good one for home defence? I'm keen for one that's not too heavy and without too much recoil, since I'd like to teach my wife how to use it and she's quite small.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
That's just scary. They don't have to have any evidence of anything. Which basically means that if the government decides they don't like you, they can lock you up. You'd think people would be smarter than to not see a problem with this.
-------------------- Picard: Mr. Crusher, what's our maximum speed this week? Wesley: [checking manual] Uh, 9.4, sir. Picard: Very good. Take us to Warp 9.8 then. Wesley: Aye, sir. Warp 9.2 it is.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
i've always been a big fan of the HK P7M13, but it's pretty different from most pistols, and it takes a while to get used to it.
IP: Logged
posted
Funny. If this were a 'standard' war, with enemy prisoners being held in POW camps behind friendly lines, nobody would even blink at not allowing them access to lawyers. Or holding them indefinitely, until the end of the war. ESPECIALLY 'enemy infiltrators,' as these people could be considered (agents of the enemy working inside another country without a uniform are generally termed 'spies' and can be dealt with rather harshly, even under the Geneva Conventions) In fact, NONE of the elements alluded to above are out of the ordinary for wartime.
Did the POWs have lawyers in WWII? Didn't think so. Korea? Nam? Nope. Desert Shield? No, not even them.
This is such a non-issue that the people trying to make a big deal out of it deserve only scorn and derision. And so they shall have it.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
I didn't see the government grabbing white christians after Tim McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma Building. Didn't see Timmy lose his right to a lawyer.
Regardless of what Bushy and the media would have you believe, we're not fighting a war. Not in the traditional sense, certainly not in the legal sense. Any laws that give the government the power to strip people within the US of guarenteed rights is wrong.
Of course you don't care about this. You're all about screaming "Big Brother!" when Billy is in office, but when Georgie is in office, it's all a-ok.
quote:The brief additionally stipulates that the government may declare anyone at all to be an enemy combatant, without presenting any evidence whatsoever, regardless of whether they were captured in battle or anywhere else.
This doesn't bother you AT ALL? Of course not. You're "Rob" ... and common sense and Rob don't go together. Bravo, Mr. Freedom Loving American who clearly isn't.
Or, as someone on another board replied after I posted this link:
When they took the Fifth Amendment, I didn't say anything becaue I wasn't a criminal. When they took the Fourth Amendment, I didn't say anything because I didn't use drugs. When they took the Second Amendment, I didn't say anything because I didn't own guns. Now that they have taken the First Amendment, I can't say anything.
posted
But as you continually pointed out they are not prisoners of war they have no status which is the problem, GWB has said that he will hold these people until the WAR ON TERRAH ends, well this is a perpetual war with no defined combatants so these people are screwed until somebody opens the cage someday and finds the bodies.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:The brief additionally stipulates that the government may declare anyone at all to be an enemy combatant, without presenting any evidence whatsoever, regardless of whether they were captured in battle or anywhere else.
Not EXACTLY what it says, more a third-hand interpretation of what it says.
quote:The filing also asserts the government's right to declare a prisoner an enemy combatant whether that person was captured on the battlefield -- such as Hamdi and Lindh -- or anywhere else, such as Padilla.
Writing that enemy combatants have no right to counsel, the Justice Department says: "That is true with respect to enemy combatants who are captured and detained on the battlefield in a foreign land; enemy combatants who are captured overseas and brought to the United States for detention . . . and enemy combatants who are captured and detained in this country."
That's a closer, still-out-of-context quote.
This 'brief' (which as I read it appears to be the ststement of the government's opinion, not a law or anything that's actually USEFUL,) has been applied to exactly three people so far.
The shoebomber, the 'dirty nuke' guy, and Hamdi, who was captured in Afghanistan.
Your slope is too slippery to stand on.
quote:I didn't see the government grabbing white christians after Tim McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma Building. Didn't see Timmy lose his right to a lawyer.
That man is made of straw, and you know it. 1. You can't show too many connections between the average white Christian and McVeigh. The individuals to whom this brief is being applied show, at the very least, a more-than-coincidental relationship to the enemy.
Timmy was not part of an organized military.
quote: Regardless of what Bushy and the media would have you believe, we're not fighting a war. Not in the traditional sense, certainly not in the legal sense.
M: (Inaudible) Talbot(?). Senator, thank you for this broad gauged approach to the problems we face. My question is this, do you foresee the need or the expectation of a Congressional declaration of war, which the Constitution calls for, and if so, against whom? (Scattered Laughter)
JB: "The answer is yes, and we did it. I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law. I'm the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House. I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction ... Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. And we defined in that Use of Force Act that we passed, what ... against whom we were moving, and what authority was granted to the President."
A Constitutional Scholar, AND a Democrat! Will wonders never cease?
It's a WAR. Anyone who tells you otherwise is an ignorant fuckwit.
quote:Any laws that give the government the power to strip people within the US of guarenteed rights is wrong.
OOOH, did you open a can you'll never close with THAT one. Trust me, you'll never be a cop if that little statement gets out.
Incidentally, the Constitution gives the President, and Congress, the right to do just that, under certain circumstances. Suspend habeas corpus, etc? Remember? Whup, better trash it.
And it's good to know for sure that you've dropped ALL advocacy of gun control.
Didn't you used to be one of the guys who said there were no such things as guaranteed rights, but only the rights one was "given" and that was why the Constitution was a 'living' document?
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
