“[Democrats] just spent all year trying to effectively destroy the gun lobby, so why in heaven's name [should] we give them this Christmas present?" -- GOA’s Michael Hammond on the plastic gun ban (ABC News, Dec. 3, 2013)
FreeRepublic: The U.S. House of Representatives did a very dangerous thing Tuesday -- and, apparently, it did so with the consent of one gun organization.
By voice vote, the House slammed through a ten-year re-authorization of the poorly drafted 1988 plastic gun ban.
Lest anyone be confused about how the anti-gun Left views this, USA Today crowed, on the front page of Wednesday's newspaper that the “HOUSE SAYS YES TO ONE GUN BILL -- Plastic gun ban only firearm legislation to pass since November.”
Taken alone, this gives the Obama administration, if it chooses, another three years to use the 1988 law to ban large numbers of guns.
But there is an even bigger danger: Chuck Schumer held a press conference the same day to indicate that he will use the House-passed bill as a vehicle to pass even more gun control. We don't expect to know Schumer's bill number or language before he actually offers it, but it will purport to deal with guns from 3-D printers, while actually being much broader.
So here's what we are doing: We are asking our friends in the Senate to put a “hold” on any effort by Schumer to amend the House bill.
The Senate will only be in session four or five days next week before the House goes out for the year, and Schumer may not be able to get time on the Senate floor without “unanimous consent” from all senators.
So, by doing this, we would force Schumer to give up on his vehicle for banning printer-guns if he wanted any reauthorization of the 1988 bill. If Schumer remains adamant, there will be no re-authorization at all. Even if he capitulates, we'll see what happens.
It's not a perfect outcome. But we think it's an outcome we can probably achieve.
ACTION:Click here to Contact your Senators. Ask them to oppose any effort by Senator Chuck Schumer to add gun control to the H.R. 3626, the plastic gun ban reauthorization which passed in the House.
The Watcher’s Council has spoken, the votes have been cast and the results are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council match-up.
“When one with honeyed words but evil mind Persuades the mob, great woes befall the state.” ― Euripides, Orestes
This week’s winner, Joshuapundit’sWhite House On Benghazi: ‘No More Questions!!’, is my reaction to testimony and statements from SecDef Leon Panetta, JCS Chief General Dempsey, the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the Benghazi debacle that all directly contradict each other… and the White House’s insistence that we all move along now, no more questions. Here’s a slice:
The White House is getting downright testy about U.S. Senators (not to mention the rest of us) continuing to ask unanswered questions about the Benghazi debacle.
White House spokeshole Jay Carney had a major hissy fit after Senator Lindsay Graham threatened to put a hold on the nominations of Chuck Hagel and John Brennan unless the administration was more forthcoming:
White House press secretary Jay Carney on Monday blasted Senate Republicans for threatening to block Defense Secretary-nominee Chuck Hagel and John Brennan, nominated to head the CIA, in a quest for more information about what President Obama did on the night that terrorists killed four Americans in the U.S. Consulate in Libya.
“We have answered these questions,” Mr. Carney said. “The president found out about the attack in Benghazi in a meeting with his secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs from his national security adviser. He immediately ordered those two leaders to take every action necessary to try to position forces in a way that could assist in Benghazi and also potentially take action, if necessary, elsewhere, because of all that was enfolding around the region.”
He added that Mr. Obama was “regularly updated and kept appraised [sic] of events in Benghazi and in the region throughout that evening and into the night.”
“Those are the facts,” Mr. Carney said.
Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta told lawmakers last week that he didn’t have any communication with the White House on the night of the Benghazi attack after informing Mr. Obama of the assault during a meeting at the White House late in the afternoon.
To use Mr. Panetta’s exact words, “He left it up to us.”
So Jay Carney is either misinformed or lying. Or both. Actually, I assume President Obama probably voted present that evening, based on past performance. The questions I want answered are far different.
In our non-Council category, the winner was Amity Schlaes with The Small Presidency submitted by Joshuapundit. It’s a wonderful piece on why returning to small government may be the ultimate answer to America’s problems, by a superb writer whose upcoming biography of Calvin Coolidge I can’t wait to get my hands on.
Okay, here are this week’s full results. Only the Right Planet was unable to vote this week, but was not subject to the mandatory 2/3 vote penalty:
See you next week! Don’t forget to tune in on Monday AM for this week’s Watcher’s Forum, as the Council and their invited special guests take apart one of the provocative issues of the day with short takes and weigh in… don’t you dare miss it. And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that!
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 24, 2013, to introduce legislation on certain semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein along with several fellow Democrats and a group of police officers and gun victims unveiled legislation Thursday that would restrict access to firearms, presenting an organized front in the face of opposition from the gun lobby. So How Do These Gun Totting Libs Justify Their Anti-Gun Stance and Legislation?
One by one, the California lawmaker and her co-sponsors said that a ban on certain semiautomatic weapons would help stop gun massacres. Many of bill’s sponsors are longtime gun-control advocates, and have become more determined to reinstate a ban on semiautomatic weapons deemed assault weapons after the December shootings in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 schoolchildren and six school staff members dead, as well as the alleged shooter and his mother.
“Our weak gun laws allow these mass killings to be carried out again and again and again,” Ms. Feinstein said.
“Newtown is a call to action,” Senator Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) said, acknowledging that passing the bill “will be a hard fight.”
The initiative faces an uphill climb in Congress given opposition from Republicans and gun-state Democrats. The influential National Rifle Association said in a statement Thursday that “it’s disappointing but not surprising that she is once again focused on curtailing the Constitution instead of prosecuting criminals or fixing our broken mental health system. The American people know gun bans do not work and we are confident Congress will reject Senator Feinstein’s wrong-headed approach.”
The ban would target an estimated 158 specific weapons. The prohibition would also apply to other semiautomatic weapons with certain features, such as compatibility with detachable, large-capacity magazines. Under the measure, it also would be illegal to make, import or sell magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds.
“If they’re not in the stores, they can’t be bought,” said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D., N.Y.), who has a reputation as the loudest advocate for gun-control laws in the House. Her husband was killed and her son severely injured in a 1993 shooting.
Mindful of opposition, the Democrats said they don’t intend to take away guns from hunters and sportsmen.
Philadelphia Police Chief Charles Ramsey joined the press conference to throw his weight behind the legislation.
“Twenty children slaughtered at one time in a school house,” Mr. Ramsey said. “If the slaughter of 20 babies does not capture and hold your attention, then I give up because I don’t know what else will.” Really? So how come nothing that President Obama proposed in his gun control speech would have helped to prevent the shooting or the deaths?
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)—author of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004—has announced that on the first day of the new Congress—January 3rd— she will introduce a bill to which her 1994 ban will pale by comparison. On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, “I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation” and “It will be carefully focused.” Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012.
According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein's website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of "assault weapon" that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein's new bill are as follows:
Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms. The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.
Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the "pistol grip" of which "protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon," the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any "grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." Also, the new bill adds "forward grip" to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as "a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip." Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban.
Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein's 1994 ban listed "grenade launcher" as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill carries goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing "rocket launcher." Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add "nuclear bomb," "particle beam weapon," or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.
Expands the definition of "assault weapon" by including:
Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1944 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.
Any "semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds," except for tubular-magazine .22s.
Any "semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches," any "semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds," and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.
Requires owners of existing "assault weapons" to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.
Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.
Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.
Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines “overwhelmingly chosen” by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, Feinstein’s list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.
Contains a larger piece of window dressing than the 1994 ban. Whereas the 1994 ban included a list of approximately 600 rifles and shotguns exempted from the ban by name, the new bill’s list is increased to nearly 1,000 rifles and shotguns. Other than for the 11 detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles and one other semi-automatic rifle included in the list, however, the list appears to be pointless, because a separate provision of the bill exempts “any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.”
The Department of Justice study. On her website, Feinstein claims that a study for the DOJ found that the 1994 ban resulted in a 6.7 percent decrease in murders. To the contrary, this is what the study said: “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995. . . . However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously.”
“Assault weapon” numbers and murder trends. From the imposition of Feinstein's “assault weapon” ban (Sept. 13, 1994) through the present, the number of “assault weapons” has risen dramatically. For example, the most common firearm that Feinstein considers an “assault weapon” is the AR-15 rifle, the manufacturing numbers of which can be gleaned from the BATFE’s firearm manufacturer reports, available here. From 1995 through 2011, the number of AR-15s—all models of which Feinstein’s new bill defines as “assault weapons”—rose by over 2.5 million. During the same period, the nation's murder rate fell 48 percent, to a 48-year low. According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles of any type.
Traces: Feinstein makes several claims, premised on firearm traces, hoping to convince people that her 1994 ban reduced the (relatively infrequent) use of “assault weapons” in crime. However, traces do not indicate how often any type of gun is used in crime. As the Congressional Research Service and the BATFE have explained, not all firearms that are traced have been used in crime, and not all firearms used in crime are traced. Whether a trace occurs depends on whether a law enforcement agency requests that a trace be conducted. Given that existing “assault weapons” were exempted from the 1994 ban and new “assault weapons” continued to be made while the ban was in effect, any reduction in the percentage of traces accounted for by “assault weapons” during the ban, would be attributable to law enforcement agencies losing interest in tracing the firearms, or law enforcement agencies increasing their requests for traces on other types of firearms, as urged by the BATFE for more than a decade.
Call Your U.S. Senators and Representative: As noted, Feinstein intends to introduce her bill on January 3rd. President Obama has said that gun control will be a “central issue” of his final term in office, and he has vowed to move quickly on it. Contact your members of Congress at 202-224-3121 to urge them to oppose Sen. Feinstein’s 2013 gun and magazine ban. Our elected representatives in Congress must hear from you if we are going to defeat this gun ban proposal. You can write your Representatives and Senators by using our Write Your Representatives tool here: http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx
Millions of Americans own so-called “assault weapons” and tens of millions own "large" magazines, for self-defense, target shooting, and hunting. For more information about the history of the “assault weapon” issue, please visit www.GunBanFacts.com.
Take a good hard look folks… if Obama is re-elected the California Nanny State will be the mirror America will be looking into… if things go well. Greece and expansion of Sharia and International Law over the Constitution implemented through the United Nations is the other option!
UPI - California Governor Jerry Brown signed two laws protecting the "privacy" of children and vetoed one protecting the privacy of adults.
More Nanny State Insanity…
Look up insanity in the dictionary and a photo of California and that State’s Governor, Jerry Brown, are probably next to the word. If not, they should be, for there is no other explanation for two recently passed laws in that State.
The youngest legal age for using a tanning bed has been raised from 14 to 18, and children 12 years or older can obtain a vaccination “treatment” for sexually transmitted diseases without parental consent. This is nanny-state insanity.
And while Brown preens over protecting the “privacy” of children, he vetoed away the right of privacy for adults who are arrested by police. He struck down legislation that would have required law enforcement to obtain a warrant before searching the cellphones of arrestees.
ILLEGAL ALIEN TRI-FECTA IN CALIFORNIA!
Gov. Brown just signed a bill to ban cities and counties from mandating E-Verify for their contractors and businesses. Despite the Supreme Court ruling in August that state and local governments can mandate E-Verify to prevent taxpayer dollars from going to illegal aliens, this rogue, corrupt governor signed AB 1236 anyway. He is officially working with organized crime to destroy the rule of law in California.
Time for a Congressional Investigation to determine just who Jerry Brown is working for. Obviously with the 3 illegal alien bills he signed this weekend, he is beholden to foreign (Mexico) special interests.
Dozens of cities and counties in CA have been using E-Verify with no problems, except that illegal aliens are no longer being hired. Gov. Brown decided to side with the criminals again.
If you ever wonder why the framers of the Constitution and our founding fathers thought the Bill of Rights was so important to the Constitution, you need to look no further than the liberal politicians in the State of California.
California’s left wing government thinks there is a constitutional right for homosexuals to marry but you cannot have a gun in California. In California, the authorities try to restrict speech based on the fact that they do not like it.
I have read the Constitution. No matter where you fall on the issue of gay marriage, something can be said with absolute certainty. The Constitution protects free speech. The Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution is absolutely silent on the issue of gay marriage, not to mention marriage at all.
Another nail has been driven into the coffin containing Constitutional rights in California. California has just enacted a law that bans the open carrying of unloaded handguns and registration of long guns.
California has banned the open carry of loaded handguns, except in a few exceptions and California has made it very difficult to obtain a concealed carry permit. In fact, one of the requirements to get a concealed carry permit in California is that you must be a brain dead celebrity who rants about the horrifying fact that some people actually own guns.
Our founding fathers knew a couple of things. First, an armed populace is a great deterrent against tyranny, invasion and bad behavior.
Leftists scream about how dangerous guns are. They scream that if we allow mere citizens to carry guns, there will be bloodbaths. If we let mere citizens carry weapons, there will be shootouts in the streets.
However, as with all liberal hysteria, those tirades are long on silly emotional screaming and very short on facts. A majority of states allow either open carry or as I like to call it, “Constitutional carry” or concealed carry.
Not only are the bodies not piling up in these states, these are also the states that have the lowest crime rates. Criminals may be lazy but are not totally stupid. They look for the easiest target and certainly do not want to mix it up with someone who is carrying a gun and probably knows how to use it.
While the left screams about the myth of how dangerous guns are, they are amazingly silent on something else. Almost every week, we hear stories about people who legally own and carry firearms. Not only are they not committing crimes, they are stopping crimes.
Interestingly enough in Chicago and DC, after handgun bans were struck down, crime dropped!
Compare that to what happened in Britain, Ireland and Australia. When they banned guns, their crime rates went through the roof.
As California works to further ban guns, look for crime to continue to rise in the land of fruits and nuts. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will eventually reverse that decision and impose some sanity on California.
In the meanwhile, Jerry Brown and company are proving the truth of the statement that our country was designed by geniuses and run by morons.
California is guilty of breeching the Constitution.
By Marion Algier an ex-Californian who remembers when California was the state everyone wanted to move to…
I think the best part of Bob Livingston’s blurb on Personal Liberty on California’s Nanny State Insanity are the comments that followed… Here are a few of them below:
Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.
I guess Gloria Allred is proud. She was perhaps a singular figure in Brow’s win. We can’t call it a victory, as that implies it was desirable. His actions to remove citizens rights is incomprehensible, yet he showed his concern for all by upping the age for mirrored tanning. That tanning was such a social problem! Gloria, you can’t be so stupid as to believe this is what California needs as governor. Then again, attorney’s seldom care about things that affect others, unless it enriches them personally.
I am amazed at how everyone blames Jerry Brown for the state of affairs in California…. It is not “jerry’s fault) it is the FAULT of the Left Media and the air heads of California (whose brains have been baked by the sun) that are at fault…. They hate to raise taxes but love freebies… they hate the unemployment but support illegals in their state ( that also begs for Federal Bail out… that is OUR tax money going to support those that are too lazy and stupid to take care of their own problems) The State of California is a cancer to the rest of the nation….. Maybe a frontal labotomy would really clear their heads….
I thought it was now called,”Calico” a combination of California and Mexico….or maybe it’s, “Mexifornia”….since there seem to be illigal hispanics than Americans living there.
Last week it was reported that the State Department and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were deeply involved in the scandal known as Operation Fast and Furious, or Project Gunwalker. Today, however, new evidence has surfaced indicating that not only was Hillary deeply involved in the scandal but was one of the masterminds behind it.
According to investigative citizen journalist Mike Vanderboegh, sources close to the development of the Gunwalker scheme state that early on, Hillary and her trusted associated at State, Andrew J. Shapiro, devised at least part of the framework of what would later become Operation Fast and Furious. It was Shapiro who first described the details of the proposed scheme early in 2009 just after the Obama Administration took office.
It certainly looks as this entire scenario that resulted in untold number of people being killed in Mexico along with a US. Border Patrol Agent, Brian Terry and ICE Special Agent Jamie Zapata were killed in Mexico in February 2011 while on assignment. He was killed by a gun traced back to Operation Fast and Furious (Gun Walker) neither the Terry or the Zapata’s families will ever see justice. According to Mexico’s Attorney General, at least 200 of its citizens have been murdered in this operation.
We start breaking up the NWO crowd by sending this woman and all involved to federal prison with no opportunity for presidential clemency or pardon.
Justice may not be rendered because the Obama/Holder Justice Department has absolutely no interest in Justice. If fact a better name for the department would be the Department of Injustice, as it stalls, and perjurers while testifying before the Congressional Oversight Committee run by Congressman Darrell Issa.
“We have to recognize and accept that the demand for drugs from the United States drives them north, and the guns that are used by the drug cartels against the police and the military, 90 percent of them come from America.”
The person who spoke the words quoted above was Hillary Clinton. The year was 2009 in an interview with Lara Logan of CBS News, just prior to a trip to Mexico City to meet with Mexican officials concerning gun and drug smuggling.
Her statement shows that not only was the State Department heavily involved in the Gun Walker scandal but Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself was at the forefront of pushing the false assertion that ’90% of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels come from the United States.’ It has only now been discovered the extent to which Clinton was involved.
This is, in essence, Hillary’s smoking gun, the bombshell proof that she was personally involved in what became known as the Operation Gun Walker scandal–an illegal scheme that was concocted in order to claim that draconian new gun restrictions and gun bans were needed in the United States, given that ‘most of the guns criminals use in Mexico come from America.’
As previously reported, the meme parroted by Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, and Hillary Clinton concerning the number of American guns used by criminals in Mexico was patently false, and they knew it was false. This is precisely why the Obama Administration concocted the scheme in the first place. If the facts do not prove that 90% of the guns come from the States, then make sure those numbers can be proved correct by walking the guns straight across the southern border directly into the hands of criminals.
Thus, the State Department, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the ATF, the FBI, ICE, and a host of other federal agencies went to work to send thousands of guns across the border, deliberately placing them in the hands of the cartels.
And despite the Administration’s claim that this was done only in order to trace the guns to criminals so that they could be found, arrested, and prosecuted, not a single arrest was made resulting from Gun Walker in spite of the fact that at the very least, 2500 guns were sent to Mexican criminals by the U.S. government.
One month after Hillary’s trip to Mexico, Barack Obama visited with Mexican President Calderon, where he stated once again, “This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border.”
This was a blatant, barefaced lie.
But where did this notoriously false assertion originate? Mike Vanderboegh has uncovered the source. It came from none other than rabid anti-gun Senators Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin, both Democrats, who stated in a hearing during March of 2009:
Durbin said: “According to ATF [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], more than 90 percent of the guns seized after raids or shootings in Mexico have been traced right here to the United States of America.” Feinstein added: “It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico used to shoot judges, police officers, mayors, kidnap innocent people and do terrible things come from the United States, and I think we must put a stop to that.”
The problem, however, is that when both NPR and Fox News–one liberal, one conservative–put that 90% figure to a fact-check, it came up sorely lacking. The actual number was closer to 17% at the most, according to Fox. And even NPR, after a contentious interview with an Obama Administration official, totally debunked the 90% claim, although they could not determine the exact number. And as Pajamas media later discovered, the correct figure was a mere 8%.
This prompted Vanderboegh to state the following:
So, not 17 percent, says the NPR expert, but not 90 percent either. This might result in the down fall of this administration in members of congress had any testosterone or estrogen circulating in their pathetic bodies.
The Secretary of State said 90 percent. The President said 90 percent. The Senators said 90 percent. NPR is not FOX. Even their supporters watch NPR, so does most of the media elite and nattering nabobs, as Spiro Agnew once called them. 90 percent has been discredited, at least in part. According to my sources, this did not go over well with Hillary. Not at all.
Documents and data made available from this time period in the scandal also show that the big question among Administration officials was how to push for massive new gun control and ‘assault weapons’ bans without paying a heavy political price for it…more evidence that from the start the entire scheme was not about catching criminals but restricting the Constitutional rights of American citizens.
Below is a little History Lesson On Hillary and Guns:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was on to something when she conceded that America shares blame for the crime and violence that has engulfed Mexico as a result of drug prohibition. Being who she is, of course, Clinton blamed demand for drugs, rather than prohibition as the culprit, and threw in a pointless call for additional restrictions on firearms. Continue reading on Examiner.com If Hillary Clinton wants to end Mexico's drug violence, she should call for legalization - National Civil Liberties | Examiner.com [link to www.examiner.com]
And:
“Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade,” Mrs. Clinton said, using unusually blunt language. “Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians.” [link to www.nytimes.com]
On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States. The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.
The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.
This is not a joke nor a false warning. As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.
Read the Article:
U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade WASHINGTON (Reuters)
The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed. This is a very serious matter!
Silence will lead us to Socialism… or perhaps worse!!!
Steve "Devil Dawg" Semper Fi USMC, Patriot, Dong Ha Combat Base,Viet Nam Vet 68/69 Not As Lean, Just As Mean, But Still A Marine ! We Will Never Forget Our Fallen..... God Bless Our Country and All Who Defends Her. I Will Stand By My Oath To My Death. Don't Tread On Me, You Will Live To Regret
The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --Thomas Jefferson
I believe the signs only point to the sad end game of one world domination. Look at all of the crazy legislation that is being authored. These bills include gun restriction (HR2159) that is getting tighter by the bill, complete farm/food production take over (HR875), complete internet take over (S773), production and energy use take over (HR2454), Water take over (streams, ponds, lakes, etc…) (S787). There are more where these came from. If you read in to any of these dishonestly named bills, you will see plenty of creepy entries that allow the government to take control at anytime they see fit.
We are sinking deeper into the UN, which is a fraud and as corrupt as the day is long. Obama is calling for a one world financial order. Many past presidents have used very similar terminology as we have crept this insidious direction.
Have you ever thought, “why would the powers that be want to take guns away?” or “Why do politicians want to make gun ownership harder and more expensive?”. Common sense tells us that criminals are never effected by such laws. Only those honest and law abiding citizens will be rendered unarmed and possible victims. There is a reason the powers that be want us unarmed.
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing ~ Adolf Hitler
Disarming Americans is one of the UN and the Obama Administration’s top priorities.
In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”
The United States of America in 1791 was a new democracy, in a new land. That year 10 Amendments were added to our Constitution. Those Amendments are known today as the Bill of Rights. A formal statement that the people shall have unalienable freedoms and that congress shall make no laws against those freedoms.
Amendment II A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
President Obama’s Chicago, House Speaker Pelosi’s San Francisco and Attorney General Holder’s Washington, D.C. are a reflection of what they think of the 2nd Amendment. That it is just fine to infringe upon, impede and restrict your right to keep and bear arms.
Are these the officials you trust to protect your Constitutional rights? Are these the people that will protect our 2nd Amendment?
Who will protect our Constitutional freedom? We the people. Through our strength in numbers we can send a message to those that disregard our 2nd Amendment will not be tolerated.
This is an invitation from Human Events, to you, to join the National Rifle Association. Our Founding Fathers pledged their blood, their treasure and their sacred honor. We can honor that pledge today with our membership in the organization that has protected our 2nd Amendment freedom since 1871 – the NRA.
Join, renew your membership or give the gift of membership. This is the single most important thing you can do to protect the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.
spxz says:
2WarAbnVet says:
ALL AMERICAN says:
Jwe3142 says:
Barney says:
Al Sieber says:
MontieR says:
Average Joe says:
