Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Another big feather in the cap of Republicans as they push extending this monstrosity through the house with none other than Eric Cantor leading the charge...

“Clearly we wanted to see the bill passed,” said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) when asked to defend his method of summoning the Patriot Act renewal to the floor last week.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02 ... latestnews

Absolutely pitiful...that is unless you dont believe in our Constitution...then you're good to go...

Here's an interesting write up (mostly neutral) by NPR on the pros and cons:

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/patrio ... sions.html

I wonder how "neutral" NPR would be if George W Bush was still President?

I saw on Fox yesterday how an "American" citizen was inprisoned for being a "terror plotter" (that was quoted). He was held in jail for four years without being officially or publicly charged with any crimes. He was in a cell with no mattress, pillow or clothes most of the time. He was beaten and called all kinds of names that reportedly will have a lifetime impact on him. He is now suing the gov. and rumsfield for false imprisonment, and violation of his human rights as well as the gov's violation of his constitutional rights. This is all part of the (patriot act).

Should I be the first to mention this is an official SHTF scenario? What are your thoughts about this? No prosecution, long jail term, abuse/torture and no toothe paste to boot! Remember, this is an American Citizen born in this country that was held with no official charges, for four years. I thought we were better than this.

I haven't read the Patriot Act, so I'm not sure of its exact content, except for what's been reported by the media. Based on my limited understanding of the law, I think that I'm ok with it as long as the term "Terrorist" is properly defined in order that appropriate people are targeted. All this crap about "Homegrown terrorists" and trying to lump anyone and everyone into that group (a la Janet Napolitano) is what concerns me.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that there are a lot of "Homegrown terrorists" in the US. However, the classification of Jim-Bob as a terrorist because he owns guns and has private property in the mountains just doesn't fly with me.

The term "Terrorist" has taken on too broad of a definition. Perhaps we should change the term to "Jihadist", leave normal people alone, and go after "Homegrown Jihadists".

Nothing to see here.

As long as you are innocent you have nothing to worry about.......riiight.

Leaving aside the civili liberties issue, the patriot act also mandates certain spending requirements.. Another boondoggle for the defense industries....

Some parts of the PATRIOT Act aren't that bad.

The banking, and finance parts clearly are designed to keep terrorist from getting funding through false means. It's called "Know your Customer".

As to the wiretaps, TSA, and imprisoning without due process? Yeah, no. That ain't right.

davasmith wrote:
Should I be the first to mention this is an official SHTF scenario? What are your thoughts about this? No prosecution, long jail term, abuse/torture and no toothe paste to boot! Remember, this is an American Citizen born in this country that was held with no official charges, for four years. I thought we were better than this.

WAR,REVOLUTION,INSURRECTION, mass hangings of politicions.

The big deal about the PA is it gives the government the "right" to forgo our rights if they suspect us of "terrorist" activities. Recall that a DHS report a couple years ago pretty much loosely labels most of us as terrorists. Aside from that, letting the government forgo our rights under any circumstance is just plain stupid...

Hot off the press...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02 ... rovisions/

I think parts of the Patriot act II are worse than the original.

marked8 wrote:I think parts of the Patriot act II are worse than the original.

IMHO nothing good about the original either...laws that allow the government to strip our Constitutional rights on a "hunch" are utterly ridiculous.

Reminds me of something I think Benjamin Franklin said...something like -- citizens who give up liberties for security deserve neither...

I think many citizens today read that as -- citizens who give up all liberties for security deserve neither...so its ok if I give up a couple...or they just flat dont believe in it at all.

I could not agree more DK. The whole thing needs to be repealed. If the gubmint is so sure that you or I are terrorists, they need to present their evidence in a legal manner and bring up charges. Else, they need to stay out of our lives!

allingeneral wrote:I haven't read the Patriot Act, so I'm not sure of its exact content, except for what's been reported by the media. Based on my limited understanding of the law, I think that I'm ok with it as long as the term "Terrorist" is properly defined in order that appropriate people are targeted. All this crap about "Homegrown terrorists" and trying to lump anyone and everyone into that group (a la Janet Napolitano) is what concerns me.

Well, I have read it, all 750+ pages of it. It was a mistake in 2001 and it's a mistake today. It steps all over the Bill of Rights in the name of "security" and was merely another piece of knee-jerk, feel-good, "see, folks, we DID something!" legislation. Kind of like the gun-restriction laws like the AWB of 1994 or those currently being proposed now, after Tucson.

allingeneral wrote: Don't get me wrong, I understand that there are a lot of "Homegrown terrorists" in the US. However, the classification of Jim-Bob as a terrorist because he owns guns and has private property in the mountains just doesn't fly with me.

No, the classification of Jim-Bob as a terrorist happens when he starts burning crosses in people's yards, beating up Sikhs for being "towel-heads" (they're neither Muslim or Arab, BTW), etc. Unfortunately, yes, these sorts of things still happen.

allingeneral wrote: The term "Terrorist" has taken on too broad of a definition. Perhaps we should change the term to "Jihadist", leave normal people alone, and go after "Homegrown Jihadists".

"Jihadist" being a Muslim-specific term, that leaves out the Klansman, Aryan Nations, Neo-Nazis, and similar folks. Hmmm.....