• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

***NDAA ALERT*** This is no joke...

This is one of those conversations that never ends. I've been going on about this for years now. Regardless if anyone thinks conspiracy or not, facts are facts. Things have been beyond our control for decades now but nobody opened their eyes to concern.

I'm not a crazy person by any means but I'm a realist. Martial law has always been a hot topic but this bill is just not surprising at all. It's been expected but when was the question. There's nothing to debate here either. I say that and it may sound ignorant but it cleary states that all parties, including U.S. citizens are subject to these laws. There is no other way to look at it.

Again, this is my opinion but you have to understand that the PEOPLE of congress, government, or political figures are all subject to some form of blackmale/forceful guidance. Rather it be salary, family, and so on. You can't honestly sit there and think that both parties would support such CLEARLY outrageous law. I'm not sitting here saying that this is the case but ANYTHING is possible.

I've researched and spent countless hours reading

I have a family myself and it scares the s**t out of me. When I first started researching these topics I had nightmares and I would cry when I looked at my kids. What kind of sick world are we living in.
 
MossLvR said:
Well Obama signed the NDAA into law yesterday and yes, it's in effect immediately.
Click to expand...

Yeah... cant help but to let my mind wander. Where can this possibly go? Is there something on the horizon the administration thinks is coming or is going to happen?

Are they worried about the global economy and are worried that the kind of protests seen in Europe could happen here? Will protestors be labled as terrorists?

Dont know... just cant see how this kind of legislation can be used for good. No way it can be applied judiciously.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Click to expand...
Benjamin Franklin
 
Yes, the protesters would be considered terrorists.

"Anyone that commits a belligerent act"

Anyone that doesn't support what they are doing 100% can fall under this category. As far as the horizon goes, you have to look at history. I'm not trying to be dramatic but nothing good will come of this to say the least.
 
I agree about comparing all this to historical events. I've been doin just that which is why its so troubling to me.

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
Samuel Adams
Click to expand...

Disarming the people is the surest and most effective way to enslave them.
George Mason
Click to expand...

This is the direction I feel and fear the govt wants to go, as well as Godlessness being their compass. Where the population looks to God, there is no need to have fealty, obligation, or to be beholden to government. When you look to God to provide your needs, you arent dependant on the welfare state.
 
Rossignol said:
When you look to God to provide your needs, you arent dependant on the welfare state.
Click to expand...

Very well said.
 
I can agree with above.

The problem is that modern society has always wanted to disarm america. The general public fails to understand what complications that brings because of false sense of security that the media and political morons instill in them.

The old saying "people don't rob people with guns" is true. I not saying it doesn't happen but the logical criminals that aren't on drugs know better than to take the risk when they can go to the next guy without the risk.

My biggest issue is that theres nothing that has to be said or proven to force these actions on people in this act. They could literally target anyone or group and do as they wish.


Also found this news article. Kind of interesting for those that don't want to read the real deal.

http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_NDAA_ ... Obama.html
 
Thanks for the link, I appreciate you helpin out...

I just finished reading through all of it, including the links to pages that expand on the article.
 
Here are the complete lists of who voted "yea", "nay", or "present" or no vote...

In the US House of "Representative";
Congressional Votes

And from the Senate;
Senate Votes

The senators and congress men/women of my area voted "yea"...

Presidential candidates?
Ron Paul; "present"
Michele Bachmann; "present"
Rick Santorum; Currently does hold an elected office since 2007
Rick Perry; Gov' of Texas
Newt Gingrich; Currently does not hold an elected office
Mit Romney; Currently does not hold an elected office since 2007
 
Can someone explain to me why Sen. Diane Fienstein would vote YES for this legislation, and then turn around and try to make a bill to counter (at least some of) it? Something just doesn't make sense to that.

And I will be the first to tell you that she, along with Senators Shumer and McCarthy are your biggest threats to your 2nd Amendment right because they are constantly submitting bills to severely restrict it. I have watched their actions very closely in the last number of years.

I would have to see a final copy of her proposal before I could get fully onboard because I don't trust that she wouldn't put in so many other undesirable things in it.

If this is all it says, I'm all for it, but watch her guys. She's like a snake in the grass.
 
OK, I was able to find the bill proposal.

As it stands right now, I can support the bill, but I will be watching it later to make sure it's not poisoned by other additions and amendments through the steps.

Here's the bill as it stands if anyone is interested in reading it.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/ ... 1EF2893975
 
I find it odd that so many voted yes. It just seems off to me.

I'm sure she may have had things in her favor either now or then. It's like negotiating for the better deal.

I also think that the last link was loosely phrased "unless an act of congress authorizes such detention."

Really???
 
Chris111 said:
I find it odd that so many voted yes. It just seems off to me.

I also think that the last link was loosely phrased "unless an act of congress authorizes such detention."

Really???
Click to expand...

I also find it odd that so many voted yes.

Throughout the process, it doesn't surprise me to find that they could militarily detain enemy combatants during war time.

That's not unusual or even alarming to me.

But there is no clear definition of who a terroriest is. The War on Terror is not a traditional US versus Russia or Vietnam or Iraq or Iran or China or whoever.

When the final bill was signed into law that said they could basically detain anyone they want when they want to do it, and can hold them until the end of the declared war (which could theoretically never end... Just look at north and south korea, they've had a cease fire for decades, but no end of war declaration. ) This is the part that most people don't like. It is way too vague.

One of the gaurantee's from our founding fathers for US citizens was the right to a fair and speedy trial.

This new law goes against the whole concept to a fair trial.

I prefer to have people proven guilty or innocent. Even if the outcome is death by firing squad for treason, at least they've had a chance to tell their side of the story.

It reminds me of the old Jerry Clower story about giving the raccoon a chance to whoop all them dogs and go about his merry way, or don't.
 
That's exactly it. Really there was always a the option to do as they please but that's why it bothers me that this was proposed. There's no need for setting that they were already doing. The only thing different here is that they clearly stated that t can be used against citizens.

Regardless if someone committed a crime or not, they have a right to trial to prove the facts. There are wrongfully avoided people in all kinds of legal cases that we all see every day and what makes people think that this will be any different.
 
As we delve further into the NDAA legislation with regard to sec. 1021 and 1022;

I am most troubled after looking into Obama's signing statement. When he spoke about these two sections, he repeatedly said things like "this administration" "my administration" "I have no intention" "will interpret" "has/have no intention of" (I'm generalizing the comments)...

The things he said were to reasure those that are fearful that these things wont come to fruition.

But he is interpretting. So the legislation is so poorly or loosely written that its being iterpretted? And what if conditions change, or what about a change of heart (he changes his mind) or another administration? What of future interpretations?

John, I've never trusted Feinstein either, but we'll watch to see where this goes. As left and liberally as liberals are... they do often stand up for individual civil rights. So long as religion and firearms arent involved.
 
Yup.
Statement by the President on H.R. 1540

he seems to be very critical of it, as if he doesnt like it at all. Then why did he sign it?

Obama said:
Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.
Click to expand...
 
Rossignol said:
he seems to be very critical of it, as if he doesnt like it at all. Then why did he sign it?
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly.

The man doesn't have a pen he can circle certain paragraphs with and send it back to the senate and tell them I'm not going to sign this until this is removed, or this is changed????

It's happened lots of times before. Just because a bill reaches the presidents' desk doesn't mean he is obliged to sign it.

Sounds more like blowing smoke and classic back-peddling if you ask me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top