LAT: Man kills 2 Edison co-workers before turning gun on self

[spin]

112. I have posted the idea of requiring an NICS background check for all private sales ...

in the Gungeon and the results were mixed. I was actually surprised that it got as much support as it did from gun owners. However it was pointed out that such laws would have to be enacted at the state level as the federal government regulates only interstate commerce. Of course the NRA opposes this idea as it is even stronger than a requirement to perform NICS checks at gun shows.

I do not feel that Obama poses an serious threat to gun owners. Nor do I disagree with his views on commonsense gun control measures as he does indeed propose reasonable improvements to these laws. However as I have mentioned I am worried about the power that is being granted by Congress to future Presidents and agencies of the government and the military in the efforts to thwart terrorism. I had hoped that some of the intrusions into personal liberty that were taken by the Bush administration would be overturned by the fact that for two years Democrats had control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency. Senator Obama in 2006 showed concern about abuses of the Patriot Act. His floor speech to Congress shows at that time he had some of the same worries that I have.

TOPIC: Homeland Security
February 16, 2006
Floor Statement of Senator Barack Obama
S.2271 - USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization
Complete Text

Mr. President, four years ago, following one of the most devastating attacks in our nation's history, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act to give our nation's law enforcement the tools they needed to track down terrorists who plot and lurk within our own borders and all over the world - terrorists who, right now, are looking to exploit weaknesses in our laws and our security to carry out even deadlier attacks than we saw on September 11th.

We all agreed that we needed legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. Americans everywhere wanted that.

But soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, a few years before I ever arrived in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every background and political leaning that this law didn't just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers it didn't need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion.

***snip***

The Majority Leader's tactics are even more troubling because we will need to work on a bipartisan basis to address national security challenges in the weeks and months to come. In particular, members on both sides of the aisle will need to take a careful look at President Bush's use of warrantless wiretaps and determine the right balance between protecting our security and safeguarding our civil liberties. This is a complex issue. But only by working together and avoiding election-year politicking will we be able to give our government the necessary tools to wage the war on terror without sacrificing the rule of law....emphasis added
http://obamaspeeches.com/053-Floor-Statement-S2271-PATRIOT-Act-Reauthorization-Obama-Speech.htm

However Obama has decided since gaining office to agree to grant even more power to the government despite the threat it would pose to civil liberty.

Obama Drops Veto Threat Over Military Authorization Bill After Revisions
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: December 14, 2011

WASHINGTON — President Obama will not veto a military authorization bill that contains several disputed provisions about the treatment of terrorism prisoners, the White House announced Wednesday, signaling a likely end to a political battle over detainees and executive power.

***snip***

But the bill includes a narrower provision, drafted by the Senate, authorizing the government to detain, without trial, suspected members of Al Qaeda or its allies — or those who “substantially supported” them — bolstering the authorization it enacted a decade ago against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/us/politics/obama-wont-veto-military-authorization-bill.html

The National Defense Authorization Act Explained: Part One in a Two-Part Series of Columns on the Act
December 21, 2011
Joanne Mariner

Passed by the House and Senate last week, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) now awaits the president’s signature. Because of its controversial provisions on indefinite detention, President Obama had threatened to veto the bill back in May, when the House passed one version of it, and again in November, when the Senate passed another, somewhat different version of it.

***snip***

But last week, after the House and Senate reconciled their two versions of the bill, the president lifted his veto threat. His press secretary explained in a written statement that the revised bill was considered acceptable because problematic provisions had been removed, and because “the most recent changes give the President additional discretion in determining how the law will be implemented, consistent with our values and the rule of law.”

Numerous human rights advocates, civil libertarians, and members of Congress disagree. Human Rights Watch said that President Obama’s decision not to veto the bill “does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad.” The ACLU said, “if President Obama signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law.” Representative Jerrold Nadler, who voted against the bill, said that it presents a “momentous challenge to one of the founding principles of the United States—that no person may be deprived of his liberty without due process of law.”...emphasis added
http://verdict.justia.com/2011/12/21/the-national-defense-authorization-act-explained

While I don't expect large scale abuses of civil rights to occur anytime soon, I fear what may happen in the future when a President like "Tricky Dick" Nixon decides to use his powers to his advantage to silence his critics. Also if the OWS movement grows and violent riots occur, could the rioters be deemed terrorists and imprisoned without trial? I'm sure many in the 1% would support such measures. The leaders of the riots might be nonviolent but agents provocateurs could infiltrate their movement and provoke violence in order to enable the government to crack down.

If the trend continues and we continue to lose our rights due to the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, is it not possible that eventually the Second Amendment may also be weakened and cast aside. If that were to happen, the 1% could run the country any damn way they please and the 99% could definitely be defined as slaves. The freedoms our Founding Fathers granted us would be finally relegated to the scrap yard of history. Our nation would be a modern example of feudalism. One nation of the rich and the corporations, for the rich and the corporations and by the rich and the corporations.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin