Vulkar![]() Level: 9 Posts: 4/10 EXP: 2293 For next: 869 Since: 12-06-07 Since last post: 14.4 years Last activity: 14.1 years |
|
| Like I said on XGF, there's actually only one part of this whole article that anyone should look at. It's not the guys opinions, it's not how he talks about the "loose definition" politicians and the military have.
Look at this part, the only part where he quotes the bill. Originally posted by the article If you read the rest of the article, all it says is that people could be in trouble for planning an act of violence, or using violence to force someone to believe something. All this is really doing, in my opinion, is reinforcing the constitution. In other words, this bill says that you'll be fine as long as you don't go and MAKE plans to force your religion or beliefs through use of violence. It doesn't mean critisizing someone or talking about how much you disapprove of something. It means that if you decide to directly hurt people in the process, then you'll have a problem. I'd reccomend that people read at least the first couple parts of this, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1955_rfs.xml before having a huge arguement with the bill. I really can't see them using this to fight anainst people who run blogs or post in forums...unless they make plans for violence. |





, I don't know what does.

























