Ammo For Sale

« « Duty to retreat | Home | Deal Alert » »

Internet Rumors

Allegations that SureFire supported the NDAA. And SureFire says no they did not.

12 Responses to “Internet Rumors”

  1. Sigivald Says:

    I wouldn’t care if SureFire did, since the NDAA doesn’t do what those asshats at Kos claim it does.

    They’re just repeating the same tired line all the other hysterics (left AND right) are repeating, which is incompatible with the actual text of the bill passed by Congress and signed by the President.

    (Oh, yes, it does “allow” for the indefinite detention of American citizens … in exactly the same circumstances that it was allowed for before it passed, as the precedents in Hamdi and the other court cases over detention and habeas corpus over the past decade have hashed out.

    The bill’s requirement for detention until disposition [which can be but need not be until the end of the war, as allowed by the Third Geneva Convention] explicitly does not apply to citizens.

    It’s not like it’s hard to look up the text of the bill as passed; is it just that they’re lazy? Or it’s Too Good To Check?)

  2. Kristopher Says:

    If you don’t want to get put in a POW camp, don’t enlist in an enemy army.

    Pretty simple.

    The only reason we have this on the table is because the current administration is afraid to try American AQ members for treason.

  3. Nylarthotep Says:

    Oh you got me. Daily Kossass’ are far from what I’d look into for reliable information.

  4. Bryan S. Says:

    Like any other bill, the devil is in the details. this is what happens when these huge bills go through. I bet we could all support some of it, but bet that none of us would support all of it.

  5. Sigivald Says:

    (And to agree with Bryan S., I am sure there are less-than-ideal parts of the NDAA, as there are for every year’s NDAA.

    It’s just that the “makes it legal to throw anyone in a Kamp forever just ’cause!” hype was and is completely unsupportable.)

  6. Bobby Says:

    I think everyones issue here is how long before things like the Tea Party, Etc are considered an “Enemy Army”.

    Its not the original intent of the law that is EVER the issue in America, Its the holes and possibilities it creates.

  7. Disavowed With Honor Says:

    Surefire says: “Weíre baffled how a Russian news source has become the expert on American politics and could stir up so many Americans into becoming anti-SureFire, but we digress.”

    I don’t think the Russians could do or say anything to make me “anti-Surefire”. Surefire does that well enough on it’s own by making their prices unattainable by the average American Citizen. Great stuff, but I think they’re a little too proud of it.

    Disavowed With Honor

  8. Stormy Dragon Says:

    If you donít want to get put in a POW camp, donít enlist in an enemy army.

    Four words: Richard Jewell, Stephen Hatfill

  9. SPQR Says:

    Stormy Dragon, that certainly establishes that you don’t want to rely upon the incompetent FBI to investigate.

  10. Stormy Dragon Says:

    I hate to break it to you, but as our domestic intelligence agency, the FBI would be the one investigating.

  11. Rauūbjorn Says:

    @Sigivald & Bryan S.

    Have either of you seen H.R. 3166? Politics is chess, not checkers.

  12. workinwifdakids Says:

    When analyzing any bill, I first start with this:

    “What can the most tyrannical person I can imagine do with this?”

    Rarely have I been disappointed.