If obama wins 2nd term, what would you do?

[Silent Service 7]

What's wrong with the Libertarians? Maybe I'm jaded from living in NJ my whole life, but the government has given me little reason to trust it to uphold my rights. Quite frankly, I would be happy if they just left us alone and were as small as possible.

 

Just my inner old man who lives in the woods with way too many guns talking...

 

Well then lets redistiribute the wealth a little my friend, I don't have nearly enough guns.

[Plinker 1]

I hope Obama doesn't get re-elected. But more importantly I think nobody seems to be paying attention to the Reps and Senators that are up for re-election or retiring. Several republicans are retiring which, if this trend continues, could mean the house and senate both end up under democrate control. That would be worse then having Obama re-elected. And if he is and they get all three branches, well, we're in really serious trouble.

 

I personally think it's more important for the dems to loose control of the Senate and for gop to retain control of the house.

[Texas Shooter 35]

But what is more dangerous? How about the current plan to disarm the population so a tyrannical government has an easier job taking away our liberties and keeping the alignment of power with the bankers and whatever other large corporations they are working with.

 

The irony for me personally is that my parents escaped a tyrannical government when I was very young so that I wouldn't have to grow up under the oppression. And my in-laws survived a far worse oppression. So, this topic does hit a bit of nerve for me. The oppression happens slowly and behind the scenes. By the time the average person becomes aware that something is going wrong, it's already too late. No tinfoil hat here, just speaking from family experience. And yes, the USA is still the best place to live. Let's keep it that way.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

celebrate

[SpacemanFry 51]

The irony for me personally is that my parents escaped a tyrannical government when I was very young so that I wouldn't have to grow up under the oppression. And my in-laws survived a far worse oppression. So, this topic does hit a bit of nerve for me. The oppression happens slowly and behind the scenes. By the time the average person becomes aware that something is going wrong, it's already too late. No tinfoil hat here, just speaking from family experience. And yes, the USA is still the best place to live. Let's keep it that way.

 

Same story here. Both my grandfathers spent time in jail for speaking against "the party" to the wrong people.

 

What irks me the most is when people dismiss clear infringements on our rights because they say "oh that won't affect me" (a very common sentiment with respect to Patrioct Act, illegal wire-tapping, NDAA etc).

[Soju 153]

 

What irks me the most is when people dismiss clear infringements on our rights because they say "oh that won't affect me" (a very common sentiment with respect to Patrioct Act, illegal wire-tapping, NDAA etc).

 

Exactly. And that is how they get you. Just like the NDAA you mentioned. "Oh, that provision on detaining citizens without trial, attorney, or due process, yeah, we won't use that, so you are good. Don't worry." And people believe that. "Oh, I know I am not a terrorist, so what do I, or any other non-terrorist have to worry about?"

 

And the cycle continues.

 

If Barry ends up being given a second term as POTUS, and you support that, or vote that way, please do me a favor, and burn any and every copy of the Constitution you come across. And if you are tech savvy, please also do what you can to destroy it in the technological world as well. Thank you.

 

Regards,

 

A real American.

[Texas Shooter 35]

I think it's a combination of "it can't happen here" and/or "they'll never do that". Both my parents and my in-law's parents said the same thing, because, you know, they were democratic, civilized countries and all. No one ever thinks it will happen to them.

[mipafox 438]

I plan to sell massive amounts of junk guns and ammo at profiteering prices but I don't see that poll option.

[woodentoe 14]

Same goes if Romney, Santorum, or Perry win... so, if you're about to swallow hard and vote republican you'd better make sure you're stocked up on kerosene.

 

Not a one of them would repeal the NDAA. And, Romney is as RINO as they come. I thought the Tea Party was supposed to have changed everything. How did Republicans wind up with Romney?

 

 

If Barry ends up being given a second term as POTUS, and you support that, or vote that way, please do me a favor, and burn any and every copy of the Constitution you come across.

[Qel Hoth 33]

Exactly. And that is how they get you. Just like the NDAA you mentioned. "Oh, that provision on detaining citizens without trial, attorney, or due process, yeah, we won't use that, so you are good. Don't worry." And people believe that. "Oh, I know I am not a terrorist, so what do I, or any other non-terrorist have to worry about?"

 

And the cycle continues.

 

If Barry ends up being given a second term as POTUS, and you support that, or vote that way, please do me a favor, and burn any and every copy of the Constitution you come across. And if you are tech savvy, please also do what you can to destroy it in the technological world as well. Thank you.

 

Regards,

 

A real American.

 

Could you quote the part that allows them to detain US citizens and legal aliens?

 

In the version of the NDAA in the Library of Congress I have been unable to find it. The only section I've found that relates to the military detaining people specifically says taht it does not apply to US citizens and legal aliens.

[SpacemanFry 51]

Could you quote the part that allows them to detain US citizens and legal aliens?

 

In the version of the NDAA in the Library of Congress I have been unable to find it. The only section I've found that relates to the military detaining people specifically says taht it does not apply to US citizens and legal aliens.

 

Did this in the other thread you asked before it got moved:

 

You can read the full thing here if you want:

http://www.gpo.gov/f...12hr1540enr.pdf

 

Sec 1021 and 1022 are the main controversial culprits. Sec 1022 actually does have a provision that exempts US citizens, but Sec 1021 is the more troublesome portion anyway because it explicitly allows indefinite detention without trial of people that are found to have "commited a belligerent act against US or it's allies or provided support to its enemies". Those are very poorly defined terms (ie what's a belligerent act or what constitutes support?) Then it goes to say in a very sneaky language that this section shall not be construed to affect existing laws or authorities for persons captured or arrested in the United States. That's a very slippery slope. So technically anytime you step outside the US you can be arrested and transferred to Gitmo and held indefinitely. Also considering you have no access to a court once you're in indefinite detention who exactly is going to contest where you were actually captured?

 

Here are some good articles explaining this in more depth:

http://verdict.justi...n-act-explained

http://verdict.justi...-ndaa-explained

[DevsAdvocate 112]

There is a big difference between Libertarian and Conservative. I would take either over the present Schumer that keeps hitting the fan, but I am a conservative. Paul is not a conservative and his foreign polices are dangerous.

 

Libertarian = Intellectually Honest, Small Gov't, Pro-Liberty mindset, who believes that diplomacy and non-interventionism is the best foreign policy.

 

Conservative = Intellectually Dishonest, Big Gov't spender who taxes like it's a Small Gov't (leading to debt), hawkish (going to war is apparently the only means of pursuing foreign policy), and wants to force their social morals on everyone else by pursuing crap like the War on Drugs and wasting time and energy on crap like: who can get married to who. God help this country if the gays are happy, because of all the things that'll bring us down, it will be that...

 

I kid, I kid... I know Ron Paul isn't perfect, but he's way better than any of those other GOPers that are running. At the very least, he is the first truly principled politician to run in a long time. While he talks the talk of ending the FED and eliminating government agencies, or taking a different tact when dealing with foreign nations, electing him won't be the end of this nation, but a return to it's founding principles. Not to mention: many of those things require a great deal of Congressional checks and balances, so as a man who respects his Constitutional duties and capabilities, he won't even bother acting alone... unlike the current moron in chief.

 

Folks really need to think through stuff when dealing with Ron Paul, instead of simply calling him a nut and moving on to less than enjoyable options like Mitt Romney.

[Qel Hoth 33]

No, I missed the response in the other thread before it was moved. I was wondering where that thread went.

 

Although sec 1021 doesn't specifically exempt US citizens, it does say that it does not grant any addtional powers to detain. Since the Constitution says that you cannot detain a US citizen without a trial...

[SpacemanFry 51]

No, I missed the response in the other thread before it was moved. I was wondering where that thread went.

 

Although sec 1021 doesn't specifically exempt US citizens, it does say that it does not grant any addtional powers to detain. Since the Constitution says that you cannot detain a US citizen without a trial...

 

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed

to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of

United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,

or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United

States.

 

Also need I remind you that the constitution says our right to bear arms shall not be infringed? How is that holding up?

 

The above paragraph could have been phrased a lot clearer and without leaving any doubt or loopholes. It was written like that on purpose so that if push came to shove the gov could talk their way around it. When it comes to these matters nothing must be left up to interpretation.

[Qel Hoth 33]

The federal government is a lot better at respecting our rights than most of the states are. Until 1868 the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at all, NJ could have just banned all civilian ownership of guns, established a state religion, or pretty much whatever they wanted so long as it was intra-state only.

[db1775 4]

The federal government is a lot better at respecting our rights than most of the states are. Until 1868 the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at all, NJ could have just banned all civilian ownership of guns, established a state religion, or pretty much whatever they wanted so long as it was intra-state only.

 

That's kinda true. The difference between state tyranny and national tyranny, is that you can move out of the state if it doesn't suit you. You can't easily or freely move out of your country if things go south.

 

I think we need to be much more cynical when analyzing the motives of all levels of government.

[Soju 153]

Could you quote the part that allows them to detain US citizens and legal aliens?

 

In the version of the NDAA in the Library of Congress I have been unable to find it. The only section I've found that relates to the military detaining people specifically says taht it does not apply to US citizens and legal aliens.

 

http://www.gpo.gov/f...12hr1540enr.pdf

 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the

President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to

the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;

50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces

of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection

(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section

is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided

the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,

or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported

al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged

in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,

including any person who has committed a belligerent act or

has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy

forces

[ktd1597 10]

Didn't this President refer to middle America as "Clinging to their GUNS and religion"? Those few words and tone say much without saying anything.....

[db1775 4]

BITTER clingers is what he called us, and not just in middle America. He was specifically referencing Pennsylvanians, while chatting up his elitist friends in San Francisco. But he was most likely referring generally to anyone who foolishly clings to the Constitution, 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments in particular.

[Kaiser7 33]

I'm currently buying more guns and ammo, and speaking out against him, so I guess I have to vote to, "keep doing what I'm already doing." I think that's how most on this forum would have to vote.

[johnp 45]

buys guns and ammo, build a cabin in the middle of nowhere, Alaska and love life!

[ktd1597 10]

You HAVE to vote......everyone!!

[tt-33 8]

start drink enough to support the local economy

[TCinJ 7]

I think OweBahMah is just pressing the accelerator down on the "socialism train" that we've been on for the last several decades or so. Too many takers and not enough makers in this society. Both parties are to blame, as both seem to be controlled by liberal progressives.

 

Collect your guns, ammo and invest in precious metals. I don't think the chit will hit the fan, but we will see Carter era inflation in the near future.