New Bill Gives the Attorney General the Power to Block Gun Sales
to ‘Suspected’ Terrorists
Democrats in the House and Senate want to give the U.S. attorney general – that would be Eric Holder – the power to block the sale of guns and explosives to known terrorists, and also to anyone who is “appropriately suspected” of being a terrorist.
From the Blaze:
Under the bill, the attorney general would be able to stop the transfer of a gun or explosive to a “known or suspected” terrorist if it’s possible the person might use the firearm in connection with terrorism. The bill language says the attorney general can stop the transfer if he or she “has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.”
I am 100% in support of fighting terror and keeping weapons out of the hands of “true terrorists.”
Just don’t let Holder do it. And don’t pass a new law.
So goes ammo under the current m855 controversy, so goes personal freedom under any legislation giving any more authority to the current administration.
…Much has been written about the pending “rule-change” and I thought I’d make the point: The BATFE proposes changes to the definition of “armor piercing” because as Eric Holder demonstrates, when things are too hard, simply change the rules to suit your own agenda.
From the Politico:
In a lengthy discussion ranging from his own exposure to the civil rights movement of the ’60s to today’s controversies surrounding the shootings of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, Holder also acknowledged that he felt some of his own struggles with Republicans in Congress during his six years in office were driven partly by race.
“There have been times when I thought that’s at least a piece of it,” Holder said, adding that “I think that the primary motivator has probably been political in nature … [but] you can’t let it deflect you from … your eyes on the prize.”
No, we’re driven by his ineptitude and complete lack of accomplishment during this do-nothing administration. Holder went on to say,
“…that between now and his departure, probably in early March when the Senate is expected to confirm Loretta Lynch as his successor, he will call for a lower standard of proof for civil-rights crimes. Such a change would make it easier for the federal government to bring charges in the case of a future Ferguson or Trayvon Martin.”
…and what is it exactly, with the new reports we are seeing lately about jewish persecution? Where on earth does that come from? I have some ideas. There is a growing hue. And it’s not fair. It’s not right. And Condell is right on. You have to call it as it is, condemn it and fight it.
Just google the “new jewish exodus” and read. Stop the PC Sentiment, do whats right, and work to stop Islam/muslim extremism. In every single way.
Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.
Well, they better start understanding.
The scientists from the Global Challenges Foundation and the Future of Humanity Institute used their research to draw up a list of the 12 most likely ways human civilisation could end on planet earth.
…I’m just gonna go watch that bear cam now.