• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

US Rep Peter King and Sen Harry Reid working on Gun Ban


Regular Member
Aug 18, 2013
After Nor'Easter Sandy it seems to me that King has gone off the deep end. Another datapoint that supports my hypothesis.

According to this article I would venture to say membership in the NRA c/b considered by some Federal groups -e.g. Democrat House Members - t/b a right-wing organization that could be partial to participate in terroristic acts if say the Feds wanted to curtail ownership of some scary looking 'Assault weapons'.


The terrorist watch list that the Democrats are so anxious to use comprises well over a million names.
To cut to the chase, anyone can make their way onto the list by a Reasonable Suspicion standard. Reasonable Suspicion being, naturally, a suspicion that the listing agency thinks is reasonable. If you are a family member or associate of someone on the list, you, too can be entered on the watch list. You are not notified you are on the list. You have no way of contesting inclusion on the list.
The FBI is in a partnership with a lot of left-wing advocacy groups that purport to identify "hate groups." One, the Southern Poverty Law Center, has designated the Family Research Council such a group because it opposes homosexual marriage. How long before membership in that group becomes "reasonable suspicion" for entry onto the watch list?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Campaign Veteran
Jan 14, 2010
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
The only "terrorist loopholes" in our laws are those that un-Constitutionally infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

If everyone were armed, none of the four planes involved in 9/11 would have been successfully hijacked.

If everyone were armed, the Muslim psychiatrist would never have been able to gun down thirteen UNARMED soldiers while yelling praises to Allah on 11/5/2009 in Ft. Hood, TX.

If everyone were armed, the "devout Muslim" who staged an attack on a recruiting center at a strip mall before targeting a naval center on 7/16/2015 in Chattanooga, TN, would have died trying.

For now, at least, it is impossible to prevent those who believe in the Qu'ran, the Hadith, and the "traditions" from hating freedom-loving countries and their peoples throughout the world. By allowing all citizens to be armed, however, many of those attacks can be stopped in their tracks, and the dismal success rate will deter at least some of these attacks.

To show you how ridiculously stupid people like Harry Reid and others are, consider the following: "Hesham Mohamed Hadayet: With a .45 caliber firearm, went on a shooting spree at the L.A. International Airport, killing two people, including a 20-year-old unarmed woman. He wounded four others, shooting an unarmed 61-year-old woman, pistol whipping an unarmed man, and stabbing a security guard. Hadayet's wife blamed the United States and its "hate for Islam" for the attack, saying that her spouse was a "victim of injustice.""

The security guard, who was armed, drew his weapon and fired after being stabbed, killing Hadayet.

Had the 20-year old woman, the 61-year-old woman, the man, the four who were injured, or the 90 people who were standing in line been armed, it's highly doubtful Hadayet would have even attempted this attack, much less killing more than a single person.
Last edited: