Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Congress refused to ban these weapons What impact has this had if any do you feel safer knowing it's legal?

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2977

To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 2, 2001

(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--

(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;

(ii) chemtrails;

(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;

(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;

(v) laser weapons systems;

(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and

(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.

(C) The term `exotic weapons systems' includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.

_____________________________________

Goto http://thomas.loc.gov/

This is the website to the US Library of Congress. Goto the column marked Legislation and click on the link for Bill Text for 101st - 108th Congress. At the top of the next page, click on the link for the 107th Congress. Once at the 107th Congress page, in the Search Engine box marked Bill Number. type in HR 2977 and click search. This will take you to Proposed Bill HR 2977 of the First Session of the 107th US Congress. It was a bill Proposed to keep Outer Space free of Weapons.

Update:

*** Extraterrestrial weapons ?

psychotronic weapons .........

"Zombies of Russia". Anisimov has been quoted by Foreign Military Studies Office, military analyst, Timothy L. Thomas in the Parameters, US Army War College Quarterly Vol. XXVIII, No.1, Spring 1998 article, "The Mind Has No Firewall".

http://mindjustice.org/golgotha.htm

Update 2:

Chemtrails --- why not ban them if they don't exist ?

Why are they classified as a weapon here ?

The bill calls for an outlaw of these weapons 60 km's above the earth --

The Chemtrail conspiracy theory holds that some contrails are the result of chemicals or biological agents being deliberately sprayed at high altitude for a purpose undisclosed to the general public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_...

Again --- why not ban something that doesn't exist ? --- Why protect the right to use something that hasn't been invented ?

Update 3:

tectonic weapons.

Earthquakes ..... they wanted to ban the use of weapons from space that could cause earthquakes and --- they said "no"

So --- uh -- causing earth quakes which is more than possible using micro wave beams to heat rock (which then expands) to cause tectonic shifts - is A OK with Congress ?

This bill only excluded weapons from 60 km above the earth and someone saw the need to protect that "right"

Update 4:

Cheeseburger

By that reasoning we should never have bothered banning car theft -- I mean they will just do it anyway --- what is the point ?

Update 5:

Wendy the only problem is the bill defines weapons

SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(2)(A) The terms `weapon' and `weapons system' mean a device capable of any of the following:

(i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by--

(I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;

(II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;

(III) directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object; or

(IV) any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.

(ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person

Read the entire bill

7 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Do people realize that a basic chem-trail is used to block ants from getting into the wood of their homes? Nope.

    Just think of what we haven't developed from area 51.

    Source(s): ol white biker
  • 1 decade ago

    "Weapons" can mean anything; specific descriptions merely exclude those which are not described. That's one of the biggest problems with laws... I've used a saying for many years: "Contracts are for people who don't trust each other." Laws, and those who make them, are always intended for "somebody else". I have an idea, rather like one of the earlier respondents, but carried further: Let's Ban Evil! (What about something used to destroy, say, an incoming asteroid or comet?)

    Albert Einstein said it in his Theory of Relativity: there is no such thing as a straight line. Once there is an effort at drawing a line, there are always exceptions and compromises. Then there is the question of boundaries; they always become fuzzier the closer they are examined (or defined).

    Let's face it: I certainly agree with another respondent when they said that such a ban would be worthless unless everyone else was party to it, & then there would always be at least one that would rationalize the violation quoting "national security interests" or some such thing. Another truism: People will do absolutely anything providing they can rationalize (justify) their actions.

    The best that we can hope for is a "balance of terror". Competition has always brought out the best - & worst - in humanity. I can't, in all honesty, exclude the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe; in fact, I have to say that there MUST be. We've made a mess of our planet... will others allow us to do the same elsewhere?

    Yes, I do feel safer; this legislation was dated 7 years ago. I'm sure that most, if not all, of this technology exists already & at least some of it is presently in use. BTW, I am a Life Endowment member of the NRA.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    To the contrary, I feel more endangered because these weapons could be used against the citizens at large. In addition if they are used on other countries the spill over and contaminants may hit us as well. In addition, if used on other countries, they could provoke a world war at the very least attacked countries could use them against us also.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Oh, I heard about the chem-trail horror stories. After digging into it, I'm fairly convinced that "something" is up.

    No, I don't feel safer at all. I would feel safer if no one had any weapons of mass destruction.

    Ordinary guns, I'm fine with.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    We need to ban "space-based weapons users" instead

  • 1 decade ago

    The bill doesn't really work unless every major country in the world signs on . . . it does nothing to prohibit Iran, Russia or China from doing so . . . so it's really stupid

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    No point in banning, if they want that particular weapon, they will somehow get it illegally...

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.