E4 No More

In my humble opinion dead is dead, and Tennessee law protects you from suit in a justified shooting: however, if you're in a trial you have bigger problems than this.

I think it was fake. Even if the shot went through the bill of the cap the hot gasses would have blinded him. I call BS.

That's how I understand it too.

Many banks are jumping on this bandwagon. I'd like to know if the credit unions will follow suit.

I agree that it's outside the law as it is currently written: however, I don't see the 500+ retards in Washington and the X-number in the individual states actually addressing this: otherwise, it would have been done by now.

Obviously we've digressed into thoughtless anologies now, so I'm out. You will not change my opinion that the subject in question made a conscious decision to renounce his citizenship AS FAR AS HE WAS CONCERNED and turned on his country and declared war upon it by joining forces with a group of people who declared war upon us: therefore, he was an enemy of the state unprotected by the Constitution and thus a valid military target...period.

It's not an "it's for the children" plea; it's about the hypocrisy of the point some are making here. It's like a herd mentality. They think it'll never happen to them; just to someone else: therefore, they trivialize the point with snide comments like comparing it to "It's for the children" because they consider it so unlikely to actually happen to them. That's all well and good until the lion has you by the throat. Then it is real.So this clown was involved with the failed underwear bomber. Consider this: if the underwear bomb had gone off and your loved one was on that plane and died; this a-hat was hiding in a country that would not capture/extradite him to the US to stand trial; the country would not allow our government to capture and take him to stand trial; the a-hat continued to kill many more innocent Americans, would you be okay with the extremely unlikely hope that one day, just maybe, the a-hat would slip up and get captured to stand trial but likely would die of old age?

I disagree. I think your opinion would change dramatically.

Agreed! Some people think that we still live in the time of 1812 codes of conduct for rules of war.

I believe that he was engaged in the act of seriously harming another citizen(s), and whether directly or indirectly it matters not to me. I'm wondering if ya'll would still hold to this belief if one of your loved ones was killed while the US waited to expedite this fellow into the country for a trial? I would imagine not.

"...yet imagined by men..." I guess they weren't as visionary as ya'll thought, huh?

Playing semantics is all well and good, but you'll not convince me with that argument. I'll state this again, the Founding Fathers couldn't comprehend terrorism as it exists today: therefore, they didn't plan for it. If they were alive today they would have been more aggressive in going after this clown.

We are at war with terrorism which lacks an official state, so what's your point?

What have you done about the things that I mentioned going on right here in this country if not doing precisely that? Does the first amendment say accept in a court of law? Does it not say that we are guaranteed the right to a fair trial?FYI: Before you ask me I'll tell you that I sacrificed a career by leaving the police department in protest over what I saw in our court and in others.

I think your priorities are skewed.

Contempt of Congress Isn't just about everyone in the US guilty of that?

I hate to tell you this but your rights have been under attack for more years than you have been around. It happens in every court in the land in the form of contempt of court and judicial/prosecutorial/police misconduct. You can get your panties in a wad over a military target being eliminated in an unfriendly country who would not capture and extradite the terrorist to be tried, but not have outrage for what's going on in this country every day? WOW!

Based on a Supreme Court ruling when? Before terrorism? Before the Internet? What would they rule now?I guess I'm just not paranoid enough to think that this circumstance would be perverted to mean coming after my guns.

Does that make sense to you, really? Where does it say that in the Constitution?

And how many people would have to die before that happens? What about their rights?

No, not at all. You owning a howitzer means nothing to me as long as you aren't trying to kill me or others with it. I'm saying that people like to cite what the Founding Fathers have to say about a situation like this when the Founding Fathers couldn't comprehend a situation like this. I'm sure that if they were around today they'd be saying that we need to deal with this quickly and decisively. I would wager that they would have been more aggressive than Oblama. We have fought many wars in this country and although I don't have statistics to prove it I'd be willing to go out on a limb and state that they weren't checking citizenship status on the battlefield. I'd would also assume that there's been plenty of Americans citizens killed on the German side of the line during WWII for instance.

Did our rights erode because women were given the right to vote? What about other changes over the years...did they erode from those as well? The Supreme Court ruled long ago that you do not have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Did that erode our rights to free speech? Personally, I think judges seizing the power to throw you in jail under the guise of Contempt of Court charges for exercising your rights to free speech as a huge assault on our freedoms, but where's the public outrage over that?Sorry, but he became a military target when he expoused killing innocent Americans, assisted the underwear bomber, and associated with known terrorists. The rights of one individual do not outweigh the rights of thousands of people to live.

I think the Founding Fathers couldn't even imagine the concept of a terrorist back then and didn't plan for that. I bet it was hard to imagine one person killing hundreds or thousands of innocent civilians with muzzle-loaders and black powder.

I consider his numerous posts over the years calling for the killing of Americans reason enough to brand him a terrorist. One can argue how we would know that he was the one who made the posts: however, he had plenty of time to come forward and set the record straight. Still, if you don't want to be killed then don't mingle with terrorists.

Well, since my father wasn't even a grin on my grandfather's face at the time I can only state that he was lynched for being Irish in the wrong place. As I understand it, the fellow wasn't exactly poor and didn't need to steal a chicken in order to eat.