Tag Archives: Gun grabbers

The NRA stood tall and tough when it counted most

By Doug Book, editor

Though liberal Democrats have little appreciation for the spiritual meaning of Christmas, events of December 2012 would bring Joy to the Political World of every avid, gun-hating politician in Washington D.C.

For on December 14th, twenty children and six adults responsible for their care were shot to death at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Their killer ended his own life minutes later with a round to the head.

Understanding the importance of disarming the American people, gun confiscation advocates like Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein and Barack Obama no doubt wished the death toll had been higher. But as children were involved, even 20 dead would have the American public ready to accept—however unwillingly– a raft of new, anti-gun edicts. Democrats and the national media would see to that. For neither the NRA nor pro-gun Republicans would have the gall to stand in the way by quoting chapter and verse of the 2nd Amendment. Not this time.  After all, never had the left been blessed with such a delicious level of exploitable carnage! It would be a legislative gimme!

Then, four days after the killings, the NRA offered its eagerly anticipated response to the left’s set-up story of evil “assault weapons” and the ease with which they can be acquired. But refusing to be cowed by liberal Democrats or their equally anti-gun proponents in the national media, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told the American public that “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” The next psychopath intent upon taking advantage of the defenseless victims of “gun free zones” will only be stopped by the armed response of good people, not a new layer of ineffective legislation.

The media was stunned. Liberal Democrats were taken aback, feigning disgust at the brazen, unfeeling nature of LaPierre’s remarks. Of course the unexpressed media/Dem Party response was really one of: “Damn, what happened!” This collection of dedicated gun grabbers had expected a contrite, almost apologetic NRA. They would relish the unconditional surrender of an NRA which had for some years displayed a less confrontational side; one which earned the contempt of members across the country. The NRA had endorsed Harry Reid for God’s sake!

But far from apologizing for a history of oft times rigid, pro-gun positions, LaPierre hit the left right between the eyes. And guess what! The American people–gun owners and non-owners alike–stood 4-Square with the NRA. DC Democrats were apoplectic. All of their plans of gloating over the defeated carcass of the once feared gun group went up in smoke. Visions of mandatory gun registration, confiscation of “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines, SWAT teams intimidating American citizens with midnight raids and the ultimate manufacture of subjects from what had once been free citizens—it had all gone to Hell. The NRA had picked the right time to be tough. It had defined the problem of gun free zones and offered the only solution for the defense of unarmed innocents.

There is no question that NRA higher-ups have sometimes displayed weakness, stupidity, even lunacy. How can the premier American gun-rights organization endorse Harry Reid?

But one very courageous statement offered at exactly the right time did more to derail a dangerous, liberal assault against gun owners than the combined efforts of DC Republicans for the past decade. As gun owners, we owe the NRA a lot.

“Nobody wants to take your guns”

by Doug Book,  editor

There is nothing so dependably disingenuous as a liberal who proclaims a willingness to have an honest debate or engage in a legitimate compromise. For decades spent in the practice of calculated deceit have made truth a foreign concept to these unprincipled vermin.

And no subject has been the cause of more outright dishonesty from the left than the right to keep and bear arms.

For decades, liberals have begun each new call for “common sense” gun legislation by reassuring gun owning, 2nd Amendment supporting Americans that nobody wants to take their guns. “No one is seriously proposing to ban or confiscate all guns,” claims Martin Dyckman, Associate Editor of the St. Petersburg Times.  “You hear that only from the gun lobby itself, which whistles up this bogeyman whenever some reasonable regulation is proposed.” Rather than suggest Mr. Dyckman may not be telling the absolute truth, let’s hear from the “bogeyman” himself:

“Our ultimate goal–total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time.” “The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.”
Richard Harris in The New Yorker, quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.

“It will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have “woken up” — quote — to what’s happened, it’s gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be.”
Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass: Speaking of the banning of firearms in the US, beginning with “the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not “household” weapons.”

“There is little sense in gun registration.  What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . .  Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands.”
Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros and Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke, upon signing the Communitarian Network’s “Case for Domestic Disarmament.”

“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs).”
Sen. John H. Chafee (R.-R.I.): In View of Handguns’ Effects, There’s Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992, at 13A.

“Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition.”
Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993.

“There is no reason for anyone in this country, anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun.” “I now think the only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns.”
Michael Gartner (then president of NBC News), Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?, USA Today, Jan. 16, 1992

Speaking of the Assault Weapons Ban:  “Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”
Charles Krauthammer (nationally syndicated columnist), Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet, Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996

“I think there should be a law — and I know this is extreme — that no one can have a gun in the U.S.  If you have a gun, you go to jail.  Only the police should have guns.”
Rosie O’Donnell. Shannon Hawkins, Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999  

“We’re talking about limiting people to one gun purchase or handgun purchase a month.  Why not just ban the ownership of handguns when nobody needs one?  Why not just ban semi-automatic rifles?  Nobody needs one.”
Statement by Time Magazine, National Correspondent Jack E. White
L. Brent Bozell III, Lock-and-Load Mode Against the 2nd, Washington Times, May 8, 1999

“We will never fully solve our nation’s horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons.” 
Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns

“The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States.”
 Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000)

“We Are NOT “Gun Banners”-and never have been… Handgun Control, Inc., has never advocated banning firearms used for legitimate purposes such as hunting and recreation.”  Measures We Don’t Support,” Handgun Control Inc. March 16, 1999
As Eugene Volokh of the UCLA Law School points out: “Hopefully you noticed Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign) doesn’t include self-defense as a “legitimate purpose” for owning a firearm.”

Apparently, as long as the Brady Campaign considers a specific firearm usage “legitimate,” gun owners have nothing to fear.   

Just remember: Nobody Wants to Take Your Guns!

Sources:

http://www.gunscholar.org/gunban.htm

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnobody.html

When gun confiscation begins, ALL politicians must be viewed as enemies of freedom until proven otherwise

by Doug Book,  staff writer

As the far left pass into law unconstitutional and unforgivable statutes by which to confiscate the firearms of the American people, a number of gun rights supporters believe the reclamation of our 2nd Amendment rights must depend upon the continued election of declared,  pro-2nd Amendment Republicans. 

Unfortunately, such is the rose-colored-glasses thinking of individuals either too foolish, too gullible or too cowardly to recognize the perpetual treachery of elected Republicans for what it truly is— a politician’s perception of political necessity taking precedence over his duty to support the God given rights of the American people.

And never mind the argument that politicians who vote for gun confiscation will be in imminent danger of losing their jobs and therefore get what they deserve. That is irrelevant to the situation. For such politicians are traitors to the nation and to the American people. They are intent upon eliminating a God given, constitutionally codified and protected right! Therefore, reclaiming their elected office ceases to be an issue of any import as the very fact of their vote to abolish the right to keep and bear arms means they have lost all right to be a lawmaker in a free country.

In fact, it is not the right to their job which has been forfeited, but their right to continued existence. For as enemies of freedom and liberty, they have become implacable enemies of the American public. And no American has the obligation to tolerate the continued efforts or existence of anyone whose clear purpose is the enslavement of American citizens. Any laws implemented by such traitors are void and like all unconstitutional, illegal legislation, need not be obeyed.  

In short, these politicians have already forfeited their jobs. Upon the implementation of gun confiscation, it shall be up to Americans to decide if they have also forfeited their lives.

Over the years, the Republicans Party has displayed nothing if not a well-known willingness to “go along to get along.” The importance Republican politicians place on retaining their jobs and power rather than doing what is right—protecting the Constitution by honoring their oath of office—has proven that no political party should ever be depended upon to secure the rights and liberty of Americans. In the end, that is OUR responsibility. Too long we have entrusted politicians with the care of our liberty and watched as it has been either trampled or stolen away. It is long past time we demand politicians follow the dictates of the Constitution or be removed from office. And NOT by the next vote, but by force.

God given rights are not negotiable. They cannot be bartered away by politicians in search of some nebulous “greater good.”  And Americans must never permit the importance of their rights to be re-defined downward from the meaning and weight given them by the Founders.  For in so doing we lose our constitutional republic and become no more than the slaves the left is so intent upon making us.

 

Firearm dealers told to ignore federal law, begin de facto registration of gun owners

by Doug Book,  staff writer

Barack Obama’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has sent an open letter to all Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders/licensed gun dealers in the United States, recommending they “…enhance public safety and assist law enforcement by encouraging and facilitating transfers of firearms between private individuals through their business.” In short, FFL holders are being told to perform background checks and keep records of private gun sales between American citizens, EVEN THOUGH federal law may NOT require that they do so! (1)

According to current federal law, gun sales between private individuals must be handled by FFL holders ONLY if the private parties are residents of different states. Residents of the same state may conclude the sale of a firearm without submitting to a background check, having the sale recorded or paying a fee to a FFL holder/licensed gun store. Yet in the ATF’s January 16th letter to gun dealers, this vitally important distinction in federal law is ignored.

Why would the ATF suddenly “suggest” to gun dealers that they unnecessarily intrude themselves into private sales not currently controlled by federal law?

Six of the 23 executive actions recommended by Obama to curb gun violence involve the “sharing” of background check information throughout the executive branch bureaucracy. If gun dealers in the 50 states begin making it known to customers now that private sales must be handled through their stores—regardless of the true language of the law—it is hoped by gun grabbers that when the law really DOES change and Americans lose the right of private sales, no one will notice and no one will complain! The American public will be used to having their transactions recorded by the federal government! (2)

It is an underhanded tactic which FFL holders will be FORCED to impose upon the American people. After all, gun store owners depend for their very existence upon the good will of the ATF–the government organization which can revoke the gun dealer’s Federal Firearms License, effectively putting him out of business should he not toe the ATF line. So when the ATF “recommends” a FFL holder misrepresent federal law to a would-be private seller, he will do so or risk losing his investment and his livelihood.  

How great a danger to the 2nd Amendment rights of the American people does this contempt for existing federal law represent? Gun Owners of America has sent an alert to its members, warning that “increasingly ATF is going into gun dealers and Xeroxing all of the 4473’s…” Each of these forms represents a gun sale. It is ILLEGAL for the ATF to copy them or make records of them except in a criminal investigation. For making a record of these forms is the equivalent of beginning a planned, federal registration of gun owners!

Clearly the government intends to record every gun sale it possibly can, regardless of the law. For recorded sales mean information as to who owns a weapon and where it can be confiscated when the time comes!

Make no mistake: Barack Obama is coming after the guns of the American people. We will stop him by any means necessary.

  

 (1) http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2013/01/011613-ffl-open-letter-facilitating-transfers-of-firearms-between-private-individuals.pdf

(2) http://www.examiner.com/article/atf-exposes-dealers-to-pressure-and-risks-to-satisfy-obama-s-executive-action?CID=examiner_alerts_article

(3) http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=62330756

Americans may soon be permitted to RENT guns but not own them

by Doug Book,  staff writer

The widely anticipated senate bill soon to be introduced by gun-banner extraordinaire Diane Feinstein will do far more than eliminate “assault weapons” (AW’s) and “high capacity” magazines.

According to a summary on the senator’s website, concealed carry license holder Feinstein–who proposed an outright ban on all handguns while packing her own for self-defense—will demand that owners of guns affected by her legislation: pay a $200 fee for EACH banned weapon owned; submit pictures, fingerprints and register AW’s with the ATF; have local law enforcement attest to the owner’s identity and specify the address at which each weapon will be kept.

But the NRA reports that the senator intends to go much further than bans or registration. For assessment of an acquired draft of Feinstein’s bill reveals a provision demanding that guns defined as assault weapons be immediately turned over to the federal government upon the current owner’s death.   

Under existing Federal Firearm Legislation, owners of AW’s are permitted to sell their weapons outright, modify them or pass them along to heirs. But not anymore. For should Feinstein’s bill become law, AW’s will be grandfathered into the possession of their current owners and “…[will] remain with [that] …owner until [his] death, at which point they [will] be forfeited to the government.” (1)

In short, our political ruling class would literally appropriate millions of “assault weapons,” rent the freshly acquired firearms back to their original owners and then seize them after those flagrantly cheated individuals have died. 

It is a very clever scheme of mortality-based confiscation!

Registration of the appropriated weapons will be conducted according to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the law which among other things, regulates ownership of machine guns and silencers. Fortunately the $200 per weapon fee has historically been charged only on the transfer of a weapon rather than on a yearly basis. But of course those banned, “high capacity” magazines must also be taken into account—and taxed.

Feinstein’s bill has yet to be completed, though she has vowed to read it on the Senate floor by January 3rd. Given the massive, nationwide dissent and bitter animosity which would surely result should the contents of the bill be published in an open and honest form, it’s possible that, like ObamaCare, congress will have to pass the legislation before the American public finds out what’s in it.

One thing is certain–gun owners will acquire many new responsibilities while preserving very few rights.

For example, Feinstein and Co. might demand holders of “assault weapons” purchase some form of renter’s insurance in order to protect themselves from legal responsibility should a gun be stolen and used in a crime. Naturally, the legal responsibility would be levied either by Congress itself or one of its partners in crime—the ATF comes to mind. After all, it would be a swell way to pick up a few bucks while encouraging a “pre-demise” weapon turn-in by owners who wish to avoid legal exposure or the expense of congressionally mandated insurance coverage.  Imagine the required purchase of an “ATF-approved” policy at $500 per year per weapon. A protection racket to make even Capone blush!

Will the Feinstein bill succeed? Almost certainly not. But consider how much closer it will likely come to passage now than a year ago. And what will happen after the next brutal murder spree deliberately facilitated by the left and its “gun-free zone” legislation?  And the next and the next?

Feinstein’s legislation reveals what the left is determined to achieve, sooner or later and by any means necessary. Those who wish to remain free must be prepared to do anything necessary to defeat them.

(1) http://cms.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/feinstein-goes-for-broke-with-new-gun-ban-bill.aspx

(2) http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIG4.html

Additional reading on “assault weapons” and the Feinstein bill:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/sen-feinstein-unveils-sweeping-gun-control-agenda/

http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/handguns-rifles-magazines-sen-feinstein-wants-them-all