Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Testimony of Aaron Titus, Liberty Coalition, before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs.

Here.

11 comments:

Brock Townsend said...

Most assuredly, an impartial statement, but it will be spun until it ends up coming from a right wing, racist, in/ill-bred, snaggled toothed Confederate.

Dennis308 said...

I don´t see any reasonable manner in which this bill could possibly pass and become law.
So we need to be ready for the worst. I´m sure that if it does pass everyone of us that tune in on this site are on the Terrorist watch list. Hell they have called out the Storm Troopers for Little Old Lady Tea Partiers.

Dennis
III
Texas

Taylor H said...

Read this earlier today. Great document, but I doubt it'll sway Holder if he's determined.

tyrantsbane said...

I thought this was a compelling argument for a nay vote on these bills. My one big gripe was the concession that "As with all Constitutionally protected rights, the Second Amendment is not absolute, and the government may regulate the Right to Bear Arms in a number of circumstances"; I am the kind of guy who takes things literally, except when sarcasm is being used. I do not believe our Founding Fathers intended the Bill of Rights to be taken as suggestions or sarcastic comments, so it makes my blood BOIL when I witness (every single fucking day) "reasonable" infringements of our Rights. The only Right that has minimally been trampled is the 3rd Amendment (I guess during Katrina there where a few instances of houses or building being commandeered). Dammit! I want to be able to own a Barrett .50 cal even if I can't afford one!!! The People's Republik of Kalifornia has "reasonably" infringed my 2nd Amendment Right. Now the Feds are [AGAIN] attempting to "reasonably" infringe my Rights...I have to Right (according to CA state law) to openly carry, provided the ammo is not attached in such a manner to render it ready to fire, but if I exercise this "right", I must either alert LE prior to doing so with precise detail as to where I will be, etc.; or, I can get proned out by one of the Only Ones with an itchy trigger finger looking for a furtive move and then 2 weeks leave with pay (a reference to the Palo Alto officer who said this on his Facebook page). If I feel like going to protest, I dunno, the G20 bankster circle jerk; I will either face an LRAD, tear gas, rubber bullets, batons, Tasers, shield bashings, or run-of-the-mill arrest or... diversion to a "free speech zone" in the best case. There is no "reasonable" violation of Rights. I don't want to give guns to felons or terrorists or people with mental illnesses, but what happens when the definition of any of the above categories are altered to include YOU?
I really wish all of the Testimony and pomp and circumstance worked, but I am afraid that I have lost faith in the system as it stands and this well-meaning Testimony likely fell on deaf ears. Plan B???

Brutus said...

Oh please! Why would a hard core dedicated trained terrorist go through all the unconstitutional loops just to buy a gun? I am sure that he will count on being on that list anyhow.

Anyone dedicated enough can buy on the street a fully automatic weapon. Heck, you can smuggle them in from Mexico. You can smuggle them in on shipping containers.

A little bit of gunsmithing will do.

This is nothing more than another head in the noose.

Put simply ... the wagons are circling around us boys.

Also note, that this even legitimizes all the hoops we already go through.

How about if someone just said ... "You don't have the constitutional authority to do what you are doing now. What makes you think you have the constitutional authority to do this?"

Never mind.

Malcolm Reynolds said...

Blah, blah, blah, or...

BANG, BANG, BANG!

Your choice.

Now or never.

Tom Wolff said...

I have only to paraphrase the old axiom
that my grandfathers drilled into me:

"Boy, when that bully messes with ya, you have two choices. Either lay down and piss on yourself or stand up to him and kick his ass."

There were also sayings about straws and camel's backs, but I'll have ta
get back ta y'all on alla that.

Somehow they seem related...

(Mike, I have a problem with the replies. If this is a repeat, delete it. TY)

Anonymous said...

Anti-terror Laws DO not stop terrorism. They only stop the law abiding from exercising freedom.

Anonymous said...

It would be VERY interesting to put the names of the proponents of these bills and their allies-in-mind (Lautenberg, Schumer, Pelosi, Boxer, etc, etc) on the no-fly and terrorist watch lists just for "suspicion", and see how well THEY like trying to prove their innocence and returning their lives to normalcy.

(But then again, given the Libtard Leftists' behaviour, who says their lives are "normal"?)

B Woodman
III-per

Anonymous said...

"The only Right that has minimally been trampled is the 3rd Amendment (I guess during Katrina there where a few instances of houses or building being commandeered)."

When troops moved into your farm and house, they poked their snouts into everything, pawed through it, used up and ate everything until you had no wealth left. The 3rd amendment was designed to ban the effect the income tax has today.

'The bill of rights was not intended to be sarcastic comments' -- I love it!

Dedicated_Dad said...

As previously noted, it IS a well-written Doc, and it IS a complete waste of time.

The Enemy HAS already said - numerous times and in plain language - that we who dare dissent against Dear Reader and the rest of the marxists currently in power is a "potential domestic terrorist".

As such, we're all already on some list - and now they want to use those lists to deny us the right to legally obtain firearms.

Their plan could not possibly be more transparent or obvious - and they will implement it regardless of *ANY* objections because it furthers their agenda.

Will *THIS* be the "intolerable act" that provokes open and armed revolt? Probably not, but it sure as hell adds a BALE of straw to the back of an already straining camel.

Of course, by saying this - even though my **ONLY** intent was to warn of obvious risk and advise caution - will ensure I am one of the affected if I wasn't already.

The "Emperor" TRULY has no clothes...

God help us -- and God Save Our Republic!!

DD