1 - Considering they have all the leeway they want to fight terrorism and you have no evidence to the contrary against a legal machine..... ummmm yes. I'm going to accept the worlds of my representatives over a website that offers no sources and makes leaps of logic that would drive my Engineer/retired DOD father into chuckles.
2 - Link?
3 - Lets see..... a confirmed terrorist in the possession of a gun..... mmmmmmmm....................................................
4 - Your proof of such actions and reasoning why the response to a terrorist act means we're all being marched to death camps? How about some evidence of Obama being an actual Socialist?
Mizzle - you have to be a troll, there is no other explaination that doesn't bring your intellect and mental health into question.
Again, you didn't link to your sources. You just accept whatever the TV box tells you. I will however, entertain your assertions.
Your dad used to work for the DOD - BFD. Defense is the largest industry in the country. Why don't you find some sources from the accused's defense team...or how about his family claiming there's no way he's part of some terrorist organization. No, you don't want the other side of the story, you have condemned a man before there has been any chance for someone to present evidence to the counter. I'd like to see how this guy's trial pans out, if there ever is one. It will likely be years from now when everyone has forgotten the event, and all evidence in his defense is striken from the courts thanks to the system we have in place today. With any luck though, the people that actually show up to jury duty are becoming more and more informed on their rights, and will refuse to convict the poor guy.
Here's a link to an article about the bill I was referring to, introduced by Lieberman:
http://www.countercurrents.org/segura100510.htmHe's not a confirmed terrorist. He hasn't had a trial. Remember that whole 'innocent until proven guilty.' That's around because of cases JUST LIKE THIS ONE, where the state tries to demonize a potentially innocent person. And again, owning a gun is not illegal. Apparently, the type of weapon he owned was a Keltec. Looks like a dangerous weapon, but it's a glorified 9mm pistol with a folding stock. A terrorist would at least have an AK, as they are cheaper and can penetrate up to class IIIa armor... Keltechs wouldn't go through class II armor, which most beat cops wear on a regular basis nowadays.
Where did I say anything about Obama?
But, for arguments sake...what about the Bailouts? What about 'pay czars?' I mean, for Christ sake, how much evidence do you people need? Do you need him to come out and say it, on live national TV or something? Does he have to personally come to your home?