testtest

Just one more.

mikep said:
They forgot to include BLM, Antifa and the New Black Panthers among the groups. I sure hope they fix that oversight. 🤔
Click to expand...
Of course they did. This bill isn't designed to actually do what it says.
Take this part:

"The prohibition would hold individuals liable who directly engage in certain types of conduct, including intimidating state and local officials, interfering with government proceedings, pretending to be law enforcement, and violating people’s constitutional rights, while armed and acting as part of a private paramilitary organization."

Now remove the last 9 words from this paragraph and there are already laws that prohibit this type of behavior. As there should be. " While armed and acting as part of a private paramilitary organization". Think about it a minute. What it is essentially is making things that are already a crime come with "Enhanced sentencing" if it is deemed to be part of a private paramilitary organization. Sound familiar ? Think hate crimes. The quiet part they aren't talking about is who decides if it's a hate crime or in this case who decides if it is a paramilitary organization. What is the precise definition of "Paramilitary organization" and who decides on the criteria used for the definition ? It's almost certain there is no language to clearly define it in the bill. They want it vague and subject to their own, fluid definition(s). You can be sure groups like BLM and Antifa will not fall into that definition, while any right wing group who doesn't have a specific by-law or enforced prohibition of arms will.

In practice this bill would certainly subject any group of people that train with firearms to heightened scrutiny from the FBI and the other corrupt alphabet agencies.


And yet the blindfold remains firmly on the eyes of the sheep. Why would anyone think our honorable and virtuous government would try to harm us ? Disarmed, untrained and unorganized is how they want us. Why ? They continually assert that anyone who believes they may need to defend themselves from their own government is an extremist, while simultaneously trying to create laws that very specifically attack our ability to do just that.
 
Bassbob said:
Of course they did. This bill isn't designed to actually do what it says.
Take this part:

"The prohibition would hold individuals liable who directly engage in certain types of conduct, including intimidating state and local officials, interfering with government proceedings, pretending to be law enforcement, and violating people’s constitutional rights, while armed and acting as part of a private paramilitary organization."

Now remove the last 9 words from this paragraph and there are already laws that prohibit this type of behavior. As there should be. " While armed and acting as part of a private paramilitary organization". Think about it a minute. What it is essentially is making things that are already a crime come with "Enhanced sentencing" if it is deemed to be part of a private paramilitary organization. Sound familiar ? Think hate crimes. The quiet part they aren't talking about is who decides if it's a hate crime or in this case who decides if it is a paramilitary organization. What is the precise definition of "Paramilitary organization" and who decides on the criteria used for the definition ? It's almost certain there is no language to clearly define it in the bill. They want it vague and subject to their own, fluid definition(s). You can be sure groups like BLM and Antifa will not fall into that definition, while any right wing group who doesn't have a specific by-law or enforced prohibition of arms will.

In practice this bill would certainly subject any group of people that train with firearms to heightened scrutiny from the FBI and the other corrupt alphabet agencies.


And yet the blindfold remains firmly on the eyes of the sheep. Why would anyone think our honorable and virtuous government would try to harm us ? Disarmed, untrained and unorganized is how they want us. Why ? They continually assert that anyone who believes they may need to defend themselves from their own government is an extremist, while simultaneously trying to create laws that very specifically attack our ability to do just that.
Click to expand...
the other phrase that caught my attention was "certain types of conduct". deliberately vague. they provide some examples but they can always "add more" if it suits their needs.
 
I'm going to get a little off topic. I hope Biden makes it through the upcoming election. Think about Kamala Harris becoming president. She's about as popular as a dose of the CL_ _.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top