HR 646- Opinions?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Genevieve, Mar 17, 2010.

  1. Genevieve

    Genevieve I'm done - gone

    1,585
    0
    Found this today on Black Listed News - HR 646: U.S. Preparing for Civil Unrest? - BlackListed News

    BlackListed News


    also a link to the bill- Read The Bill: H.R. 645 - GovTrack.us

    Read section 2 #4- 4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
    appropriate needs can cover a lot things people. very vague if you ask me.

    also read down to section 6 Definitions if you read #2 and use the link for the definition of "emergency" you get this:
    (1) Emergency.— “Emergency” means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States.
    US CODE: Title 42,5122. Definitions



    theres been no coverage of this by anyone in the news. not even Fox. They're all so mesmerized by the smoke and mirror acts going on with the health care Bill and such that crap like this will get passed and nobody will know until too late. Makes me a tad nervous to say the least. Just who will determine what an emergency is and when will they. makes ya wonder
     
  2. UncleJoe

    UncleJoe Well-Known Member

    6,764
    108
    I'LL DO IT!! :d
     

  3. sailaway

    sailaway Well-Known Member

    1,922
    0
    I'm level headed, I'll help, Oh No, I'm part of the gubermint:eek:
     
  4. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    I'd help but I'm part of the problem...:D :beercheer: ( I love the beer smilie)
     
  5. UncleJoe

    UncleJoe Well-Known Member

    6,764
    108
    A lack of planning and preparing on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part. :)

    This job's gonna be cake. :2thumb:
     
  6. kyfarmer

    kyfarmer Well-Known Member

    638
    0
    Guess i'll serve a few on that one. :D :beercheer::beercheer::beercheer::beercheer::beercheer: That orta be enough to get primed anyway. :2thumb: Might as well, by next week one of the king's men will stub a toe and we all will be under marshall law.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2010
  7. Genevieve

    Genevieve I'm done - gone

    1,585
    0
    ok. I see that this is not the forum to use for any sort of IMPORTANT political talk. I'll remember that and not post in this section again. Sorry I used the bandwidth now.
    I don't consider any of this funny. To me, this could very likely be used against me and mine, so I consider it important.
    You people diappointment me. Guess prepping is a fun game or hobby to you all. I'll keep that in mind when dealing with others here on this board.
     
  8. NaeKid

    NaeKid YourAdministrator, eh?

    8,000
    10
    Genevieve - don't take it too personally, us neanderthals look at things like that and need to laugh .. otherwise we would end up :cry: ... and neanderthals don't like to do that .. :sssh:

    As for your original posting - it is just another part of the control-grab by those who think they can do it ... sickens me, but, I can't do much for my friend's south of the border, other than to invite them up here for bison-burgers-n-beer.
     
  9. Boris

    Boris Active Member

    33
    0
    G-

    this info is important. sometimes you have to laugh just to keep from crying. but make no mistake. i take this very seriously. it is not a game. DHS can and most likely will at some point turn this and use the provisions of this against the common folk. i do not know at this time if this has become law since the chosen one has been busy insulting the country and it's sheeple and trying to take over health care. as a parent with a special needs child, that is a big deal. but w gotta watch out for this stuff, even i it does not become law. just the fact that some knucklehead introduced it is a problem. eventually when no one is watching, it will get done. perhaps the following statement that i learned in the law enforcement and security world will motivate us ,to wit: SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE IS TRAINING TO KILL YOU. WHAT ARE YOU DOING?
     
  10. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    Genevieve all this stuff is out there and frankly there is nothing you can do about it..believe me , I've spent years at it... I started back when I had to get a piece of paper and pen and write to my Congress Critters, hell I had to actually lick the stamp!! and I got back the usual form letter suitable to my issue, one time our gun club all wrote to our so called Representative, all complaining about a proposed gun bill...we all got back the same for letter agreeing yada yada...BUT!! one of the members daughter wrote that she was so in favor of the proposed law, her letter from the same a$$wipe was telling her how he was in agreement etc etc... THEY ALL LIE!!...

    Then I switched to phoning my ConCrites office, so much so that his local office staff would answer and I'd say HEY !! Betty!! hows it going, OH !! great TJ !! how have you been ...etc etc...

    Now, I e -mail but they can just block my e- mail so...

    All this is to tell you that all you can do is prep and prep some more, with the 100% understanding that you will one day need all those preps...and yes you will need the guns and ammo...and yes one day a lot of us will die fighting these corrupt bastards to the death, we have no choice, we either fight or roll over and spread our legs... and I'm not into that...

    We weren't making light of your post, I know I wasn't.. I'm just burnt out with it all, "They" are not going to listen, "They" answer" to a higher power and his name ain't God.

    Their biggest fear is knowing that out of the 80 million gun owners with over 300 million guns there will be 3 % who will bring the fight to them...and that's a lot of pissed off people who are armed ...and while they are taking us on they will stomp on the other 97% who will say screw this chit...and more will join...

    They can pass all the laws they want but they can not kill or lock us all up...There will be another Concord Bridge, it may be in Two Dot, Montana, or Possum Butt,Alabama but it will happen ...and we will win..failure is not an option and sooner or later the real "Higher Power" will crawl out from under his or her rock and they will see that they will not win...

    That's how I see it, but then again I'm old and don't know much... so...

    :beercheer::beercheer::beercheer:
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2010
  11. mitchshrader

    mitchshrader Well-Known Member

    65
    0
    the federal government is one heck of a lot more worried about state national guardsmen than any home grown militia.

    and the move to defederalize them will attract negative federal attention faster than state firearms sovereignty laws.

    after this election i expect an awb / .50bmg ban, and 10 round mag limit, nationally.. unless Republicans retake at least one house of congress.

    and ammo limits, background checks for 'large' sales, microstamping, etc.

    Everybody was wondering when the gun grabbers would attack? right after the november elections.
     
  12. NaeKid

    NaeKid YourAdministrator, eh?

    8,000
    10
    We have had a 10-round limit here in Canada for years in our semi-autos and for hunting, depending on the gun is either 3 or 5 round maximums (bird hunting = 3 round of shot, trap shooting is 5 round of shot). It just means that having a backpack full of pre-loaded magazines will keep you shooting (legally) without needing to reload the magazines ... not a big deal as far as I am concerned.

    BTW: Who needs a .50 for hunting? No elephants in my neck of the woods that would fit in my freezer :scratch
     
  13. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    The problem is defining rights as "needs." We don't "need" guns for hunting. I use a bow and arrow for much of mine. The real question is why shouldn't we be able to own any type of firearm (and as many of them) we desire? It's the person behind the gun, not the gun that is dangerous. One of the largest mass murders in the history of the US was done with a gallon of gasoline and a match at a night club.

    And like you said, with a ten round limit you just need a handful of magazines and change them more often. If it's that easy and effective then why outlaw 30 or 40 round magazines? And heck, if semi autos are bad then outlaw them? I've got a pump 30/06 that I can shoot almost as fast as a semi-auto. In fact, some gov't's. even outlawed pump shotguns. Even sillier is the idea that the outward appearance of a firearm makes a diffference. That's why some would outlaw an AK or AR but decide a browning or remington autoloader with the "right" stock is okay for private ownership.

    If the look of a tool such as a firearm brings out the bad in people then maybe we should outlaw red cars if they bring on more driver aggression. Or spoons because using them makes you fat.

    Then there's the argument about owning full-auto firearms. Why not? I know people who own full-auto weapons legally and I like having them as friends and neighbors. It just makes the area seem a little more safe from thugs and bad guys.

    I had a freind whose brother visited Montana from Calif. The first thing he said was he understood why there were no bike gangs in MT when he saw so many pick-up trucks with guns in the back windows. He fully understood that crinimals prefer unarmed/poorly armed victims. It might also explain why we have no serious gang problems either.

    The whole thing is a slippery slope when gov't. decides what kind of firearm you should own.

    England has gun control. So gangs of men just walk in the house with baseball bats and take what they want.
     
  14. NaeKid

    NaeKid YourAdministrator, eh?

    8,000
    10
    I understand where you are coming from on wants vs needs - but - that is the very argument that has gotten many North Americans into financial troubles.

    I want a 72" TV but I don't NEED a TV - and a 22" would be just fine.

    I want a massive fuel-hogging SUV but I don't need one - a bicycle could do the same job of transporting me from home to the grocery-store.

    I want a gun that can shoot 1000 rounds without reloading but I don't need a gun at all, I can take a stick and fashion a stone to it and throw it.

    The Canadian government has tried to implement a system where the needs for hunting are met as well as putting in certain restrictions that are within reason (I might shoot off one or two bullets in a day of hunting deer - no need for a 40-round magazine when I can carry a magazine already setup with spare rounds).

    I guess what I am getting at is what we are needing vs wanting to survive are two different things and we, as individuals need to figure out where that line needs to be drawn.
     
  15. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    A lot of people don't understand the concept of the Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms was never about owning hunting guns. It has always been about an armed populace as the last line of defense against a tyrannical government.

    The people who came to this country and founded it were quite familiar with tyranny. They wanted to ensure that it didn't happen here and knowing how power corrupts they wanted checks and balances upon any civil authorities. They were especially distrustful of centralized federal authority. So they set up three levels of legislature (The Supreme Court, the Congress, and the Preisdent.) The ultimate and final check on government authrity was the first and second amendments.

    I realize that other countries don't have this option and if your government is trustworthy that's great. History seems to prove that it's also rare. Our government is not to be trusted. They've proven this many times over the years. To turn the firearm debate into one about hunting rifles and "need" is to completely ignore the wisdom of those who brought his nation into existence.
     
  16. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    For the next few months the PTB are going to make nice and act fluffy in hopes of the attention span of the average sheeple to become more interested in who Tiger is screwing today or what color baby Brad and AJ are adopting this week... and it may work..

    I decided long ago that they can pass all the Unconstitutional laws they want, but I'm a free American, I can read, I know what the founding fathers wrote and more important I know what their intent was, I don't need some left leaning lawyer to decipher it for me, I don't need a Rosetta stone to translate it, I will obey the Constitution , as written , and I won't obey any laws they are not legal under the Constitution. if I do then I'm in violation of the oath I took as a 17 year old about to become a US Marine, and later several times as a LEO, both city, county, and Federal... the oath is the same for all including the beltway buttheads...

    Our own country tried and hanged both German and Japaneses for "Only following orders"... Obeying an illegal order makes you as guilty as the person giving the order...

    Yea I know, a simplistic point of view...but a true one , an honest one , Yawl do what your beliefs tell you to do, I already know where I stand...

    And I noticed that after we all tried to explain to the OP what we meant that she didn't come back... her loss... too bad folks get their panties in a wad before looking beyond the moment....

    stack em deep and stack em high boy...and girls, hard times a coming..