The Mask Has Been Officially Discarded: Obama Fully Backs Feinstein Gun Control Bill

[AuH20]

Not a surprise to the RP Forum dwellers but definitely a surprise to Joe Schmoe.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-backs-gun-control-initiative-20121218,0,2404127.story

[cajuncocoa]

Not so sure Obama's core supporters will be surprised....I would imagine they also support this idea.

[Lucille]

A reminder:

Stopping the spread of deadly assault weapons
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

120 specifically-named firearms
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds


Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:

Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans


Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:

Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons


Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration



A pdf of the bill summary is available here (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=10993387-5d4d-4680-a872-ac8ca4359119).

[AuH20]

Not so sure Obama's core supporters will be surprised....I would imagine they also support this idea.

To the casual Obama voter, who kept reminding me what a great, non-threatening guy he was. "Great" "non-threatening" guys don't advocate for Nazi gun control and firearms registration. I'm tired of being surrounded by sheep asking to be sheared.

[Brett85]

I still think Obama will simply ban "assault weapons" through an executive order.

[cbrons]

I still think Obama will simply ban "assault weapons" through an executive order.

And the gun owners will do....


nothing.

[Matt Collins]

This has zero chance of passing.

[AuH20]

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-10-14-aflback.jpg

[AuH20]

And the gun owners will do....


nothing.

The "hobby" gun owners will do nothing. Eff those bastards anyway. :)

[Brett85]

This has zero chance of passing.

It will pass through an executive order.

[John F Kennedy III]

Title correction:

The Mask Has Been Officially Discarded: Obama's Globalist Masters Give Him Green Light To Fully Back Feinstein Gun Control Bill

[John F Kennedy III]

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-10-14-aflback.jpg

LOL

http://community.us.playstation.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/4731i5439B8282A42795D/image-size/original?v=mpbl-1&px=-1

[awake]

A Greece style economic collapse + half a million firearms = gun control at all costs.

[AFPVet]

Have we forgot about the UN gun treaty? Hmm... tie this into that....

[John F Kennedy III]

Have we forgot about the UN gun treaty? Hmm... tie this into that....

And Agenda 21:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?370987-UN-Agenda-21-Explained&p=4341841#post4341841

[JK/SEA]

should we start a 'They came for my guns today' thread?

[Lucille]

This (http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/):


It is time the critics of the Second Amendment put up and repeal it, or shut up about violating it. Their efforts to disarm and short-arm Americans violate the U.S. Constitution in Merriam Webster’s first sense of the term—to “disregard” it.
[...]
The people either have the right to own and bear arms, or they don’t, and to the extent legislators, judges and bureaucrats disparage that right, they are violating the U.S. Constitution as it was originally conceived, and as it is currently amended.

[TheTexan]

This (http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/):

Yup. If they want to take away our rights, at least do so honestly. They're eschewing honesty in favor of word manipulation, rewriting history, and outright denial to assaulting our 2nd amendment rights because they are fucking afraid of what would happen if people actually wised up to it.

[Anti Federalist]

should we start a 'They came for my guns today' thread?

How would anybody reply?

Maybe a code text or post of the next in line.

"The Chair is on the Wall" = another one of us has bit the dust.

[cbrons]

This has zero chance of passing.

In its current form, no. But she is over-reaching so that it the length required to water it down is not so far as to render it useless. She really thinks she is going to get some of her unconstitutional gun-grabbing through.

[Philhelm]

Expect gun violence to rise dramatically...

[Anti Federalist]

This (http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/):

Wow, in Forbes of all places.

Deserves the entire post:



Gun Control Tramples On The Certain Virtues Of A Heavily Armed Citizenry
United States Constitution

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/

It is time the critics of the Second Amendment put up and repeal it, or shut up about violating it. Their efforts to disarm and short-arm Americans violate the U.S. Constitution in Merriam Webster’s first sense of the term—to “disregard” it.

Hard cases make bad law, which is why they are reserved for the Constitution, not left to the caprice of legislatures, the sophistry and casuistry of judges or the despotic rule making of the chief executive and his bureaucracy. And make no mistake, guns pose one of the hardest cases a free people confronts in the 21st century, a test of whether that people cherishes liberty above tyranny, values individual sovereignty above dependency on the state, and whether they dare any longer to live free.

A people cannot simultaneously live free and be bound to any human master or man-made institution, especially to politicians, judges, bureaucrats and faceless government agencies. The Second Amendment along with the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent individuals’ enslavement to government, not just to guarantee people the right to hunt squirrels or sport shoot at targets, nor was it included in the Bill of Rights just to guarantee individuals the right to defend themselves against robbers, rapers and lunatics, or to make sure the states could raise a militia quick, on the cheap to defend against a foreign invader or domestic unrest.

The Second Amendment was designed to ensure that individuals retained the right and means to defend themselves against any illegitimate attempt to do them harm, be it an attempt by a private outlaw or government agents violating their trust under the color of law. The Second Amendment was meant to guarantee individuals the right to protect themselves against government as much as against private bad guys and gangs.

That is why the gun grabbers’ assault on firearms is not only, not even primarily an attack merely on the means of self-defense but more fundamentally, the gun grabbers are engaged in a blatant attack on the very legitimacy of self-defense itself. It’s not really about the guns; it is about the government’s ability to demand submission of the people. Gun control is part and parcel of the ongoing collectivist effort to eviscerate individual sovereignty and replace it with dependence upon and allegiance to the state.

Americans provisionally delegated a limited amount of power over themselves to government, retaining their individual sovereignty in every respect and reserving to themselves the power not delegated to government, most importantly the right and power to abolish or replace any government that becomes destructive of the ends for which it was created. The Bill of Rights, especially the Second and Ninth Amendments, can only be properly understood and rightly interpreted in this context.

Politicians who insist on despoiling the Constitution just a little bit for some greater good (gun control for “collective security”) are like a blackguard who lies to an innocent that she can yield to his advances, retain her virtue and risk getting only just a little bit pregnant—a seducer’s lie. The people either have the right to own and bear arms, or they don’t, and to the extent legislators, judges and bureaucrats disparage that right, they are violating the U.S. Constitution as it was originally conceived, and as it is currently amended. To those who would pretend the Second Amendment doesn’t exist or insist it doesn’t mean what it says, there is only one legitimate response: “If you don’t like the Second Amendment, you may try to repeal it but short of that you may not disparage and usurp it, even a little bit, as long as it remains a part of the Constitution, no exceptions, no conniving revisions, no fabricated judicial balancing acts.”

Gun control advocates attempt to avoid the real issue of gun rights—why the Founders felt so strongly about gun rights that they singled them out for special protection in the Bill of Rights—by demanding that individual rights be balanced against a counterfeit collective right to “security” from things that go bump in the night. But, the Bill of Rights was not a Bill of Entitlements that people had a right to demand from government; it was a Bill of Protections against the government itself. The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights.

That is why the most egregious of the fallacious arguments used to justify gun control are designed to short-arm the citizenry (e.g., banning so-called “assault rifles”) by restricting the application of the Second Amendment to apply only to arms that do not pose a threat to the government’s self-proclaimed monopoly on the use of force. To that end, the gun grabbers first must bamboozle people into believing the Second Amendment does not really protect an individual’s right to own and bear firearms.

They do that by insisting on a tortured construction of the Second Amendment that converts individual rights into states rights. The short-arm artists assert that the Second Amendment’s reference to the necessity of a “well-regulated militia” proves the amendment is all about state’s rights, not individuals rights; it was written into the Bill of Rights simply to guarantee that state governments could assemble a fighting force quick, on the cheap to defend against foreign invasion and domestic disturbance. Consequently, Second-Amendment revisionists would have us believe the Second Amendment does little more than guarantee the right of states to maintain militias; and, since the state militias were replaced by the National Guard in the early twentieth century, the Second Amendment has virtually no contemporary significance. Gun controllers would, in effect, do to the Second Amendment what earlier collectivizers and centralizers did to the Tenth Amendment, namely render it a dead letter.

The truth is, the Founders understood a “well regulated” militia to mean a militia “functioning/operating properly,” not a militia “controlled or managed by the government.” This is clearly evidenced by Alexander Hamilton’s discussion of militias in Federalist #29 and by one of the Oxford Dictionary’s archaic definitions of “regulate;” “(b) Of troops: Properly disciplined.”

The Founders intended that a well-regulated militia was to be the first, not the last line of defense against a foreign invader or social unrest. But, they also intended militias to be the last, not the first line of defense against tyrannical government. In other words, the Second Amendment was meant to be the constitutional protection for a person’s musket behind the door, later the shotgun behind the door and today the M4 behind the door—a constitutional guarantee of the right of individuals to defend themselves against any and all miscreants, private or government, seeking to do them harm.

The unfettered right to own and bear arms consecrates individual sovereignty and ordains the right of self-defense. The Second Amendment symbolizes and proclaims individuals’ right to defend themselves personally against any and all threatened deprivations of life, liberty or property, including attempted deprivations by the government. The symbolism of a heavily armed citizenry says loudly and unequivocally to the government, “Don’t Tread On Me.”

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence said, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

Both Jefferson and James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, also knew that their government would never fear a people without guns, and they understood as well that the greatest threat to liberty was not foreign invasion or domestic unrest but rather a standing army and a militarized police force without fear of the people and capable of inflicting tyranny upon the people.

That is what prompted Madison to contrast the new national government he had helped create to the kingdoms of Europe, which he characterized as “afraid to trust the people with arms.” Madison assured his fellow Americans that under the new Constitution as amended by the Bill of Rights, they need never fear their government because of “the advantage of being armed.”

But, Noah Webster said it most succinctly and most eloquently:

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”

That is why the Founders looked to local militias as much to provide a check—in modern parlance, a “deterrent”—against government tyranny as against an invading foreign power. Guns are individuals’ own personal nuclear deterrent against their own government gone rogue. Therefore, a heavily armed citizenry is the ultimate deterrent against tyranny.

A heavily armed citizenry is not about armed revolt; it is about defending oneself against armed government oppression. A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government.

[jmdrake]

Wow, in Forbes of all places.

Deserves the entire post:



Gun Control Tramples On The Certain Virtues Of A Heavily Armed Citizenry
United States Constitution


Thanks to you and Lucille for posting! The author seems like a serious Ron Paul supporter.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/04/defend-liberty-draft-judge-napolitano-for-president-in-2016/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/16/its-time-for-rand-paul-to-vie-for-senate-leadership/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/10/29/are-federal-reserve-regulated-banks-laundering-dirty-money/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/10/07/romney-and-obama-are-both-committed-to-the-same-bad-policies/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/08/19/scariest-thing-in-washington-a-conservative-expert-with-a-plan/

[Danke]

It will pass through an executive order.

Then absent an Act of Congress, it will only be applicable to the Executive Branch.

[jclay2]

So as someone who only has a shotgun at home to defend the family, is it recommended that I go asap and purchase an ar/ak and handgun before they all become illigal?

[AFPVet]

So as someone who only has a shotgun at home to defend the family, is it recommended that I go asap and purchase an ar/ak and handgun before they all become illegal?

If you have the means, absolutely. Don't forget ammo!

[Philhelm]

So as someone who only has a shotgun at home to defend the family, is it recommended that I go asap and purchase an ar/ak and handgun before they all become illigal?

If you were inclined to purchase one of those, then I'd definitely get one while the getting is good.

[pacelli]

Since the 2nd amendment specifies ARMS, I wonder if the sand-cast cannons down the street will require registration? Also those improvised AA cannons? :)

[Tod]

Notice the RP sticker and the articulate delivery....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EzQC2GGtQUc

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-10-14-aflback.jpg

The American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA), founded in 2005, was a small United States-based group, which has set itself apart from the much larger gun owner organization, the National Rifle Association, founded in 1871, by advocating for increased gun control. Critics questioned the legitimacy of the group, including whether the membership was composed of or representative of gun owners, or was merely a front organization for misleading political endorsements.[1][2]

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

-t

[anaconda]

Great piece of writing. Can we get Rand to read it before the Senate?

[tangent4ronpaul]

Notice the RP sticker and the articulate delivery....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EzQC2GGtQUc

Unless this guy is a FFL holder, he's probably in jail right now. (the handguns).

-t

[Lucille]

Notice the RP sticker and the articulate delivery....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EzQC2GGtQUc

That was awesome.

I pity the people who kept no guns to defend themselves with, knowing the economic hell that Washington has cooked up will be unleashed in the next four years. A lot of those oldsters will rue that day.

[cajuncocoa]

To the casual Obama voter, who kept reminding me what a great, non-threatening guy he was. "Great" "non-threatening" guys don't advocate for Nazi gun control and firearms registration. I'm tired of being surrounded by sheep asking to be sheared.That depends on who is defining "great" and "non-threatening". To the Left (read: those who think the world would magically be a safer place if all the guns suddenly vaporized) that's exactly what they would say about a guy who wants to regulate firearms and control guns....Constitution be damned.

[shane77m]

http://thehomegunsmith.com/

[Anti Federalist]

This has zero chance of passing.

This is precisely the wrong attitude to have and a failure of vision to understand just how bad this could get.

We should approach this as "very likely to happen" and not sit on hands and whistle past the graveyard and "poo-poo" it off as a political impossibility.

If thirty years of this nonsense now has taught me anything, it is this:

If it involves the restriction/rescinding/forfeiture of individual liberty and freedom, anything is possible.

[Anti Federalist]

http://i.imgur.com/14mkR.jpg

[Pericles]

So as someone who only has a shotgun at home to defend the family, is it recommended that I go asap and purchase an ar/ak and handgun before they all become illigal?

You may have waited too late to buy one .....

[Pericles]

Unless this guy is a FFL holder, he's probably in jail right now. (the handguns).

-t

Not in Texas. There are no restrictions on purchase from non FFL individuals, and possession requires being 18 and not having been incarcerated for a felony in the past 5 years.

[sluggo]

oops. double post

[sluggo]

This has probably already been posted, but I thought it was good.

A soldier's letter to Feinstein:


Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man. I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps

2004-2012

http://victorygirlsblog.com/?p=9191

[specsaregood]

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-10-14-aflback.jpg

The guy in that pic looks like a cop. I'm sure obama is still all about protecting their rights to guns.

[sluggo]

The guy in that pic looks like a cop. I'm sure obama is still all about protecting their rights to guns.

Ha! I was thinking he looks like a Teamster.

[BAllen]

Great piece of writing. Can we get Rand to read it before the Senate?

LMAO!
Great idea!!! That oughta take up a day, at least.

[pochy1776]

A reminder:

Stopping the spread of deadly assault weapons
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

120 specifically-named firearms
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds


Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:

Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans


Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:

Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons


Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration



A pdf of the bill summary is available here (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=10993387-5d4d-4680-a872-ac8ca4359119).
Where Are the Liberals that thought the PATRIOT ACT sucked. This is PATRIOT ACT!

[Anti Federalist]

Where Are the Liberals that thought the PATRIOT ACT sucked. This is PATRIOT ACT!

Liberals no longer think PATRIOT Act sucks.

[TheTexan]

If Sandy Hook was indeed a set up, I fear we will be seeing another engineered tragedy shortly to seal the deal :(

[Origanalist]

Liberals no longer think PATRIOT Act sucks.

No, they dont. And they will with great offense call you unpatriotic now if you do. Red team, blue team......

[AuH20]

If Sandy Hook was indeed a set up, I fear we will be seeing another engineered tragedy shortly to seal the deal :(

And God help the person who tries to stop it. Imagine if a brave citizen foiled a special op by sheer chance????? The media would go into lockdown.

[cbrons]

WELL one thing is for sure: 2013 will be an interesting year for liberty (good or bad).

[osan]

And the gun owners will do....


nothing.

Not so fast. While you are probably right, we will not know until the time comes. You are using the "Trick" here. It is common practice and we all do it now and then, but we should be aware of it and adjust our modes of expression to reflect that awareness because our words form our thoughts and our thoughts our realities. Generally speaking, humans have become very imprudent with their words and it is helping to kill us.

Try this for more, fresh off the press:

http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2012/12/political-misuse-of-language.html

I for one will not be complying. They may come and take me away. They may not. Either way they are not getting my firearms.

[osan]

Red team, blue team......

Is it not funny... amazing... the rock-solidly reliable consistency with which everything boils down to this?

On the statistical whole, humanity is itself a most frightful nightmare.

I have come to the suspicion that humans in large populations are inherently and hopelessly dangerous.

[osan]

This has zero chance of passing.

Dangerous thinking. Dangerous position. Attitude FAIL.

Forgive me, but this is the sort of thinking Germans adopted in the 30s. Can't happen here. We have seen it in the USA for many decades and look where we sit. I'd bet this self-willed belief ran amok through the minds of the countless millions slaughtered during the 20th century. Just think it away... real hard... and it shall be so.

Hooboy.

[Philhelm]

Dangerous thinking. Dangerous position. Attitude FAIL.

Forgive me, but this is the sort of thinking Germans adopted in the 30s. Can't happen here. We have seen it in the USA for many decades and look where we sit. I'd bet this self-willed belief ran amok through the minds of the countless millions slaughtered during the 20th century. Just think it away... real hard... and it shall be so.

Hooboy.

I agree. While I do not believe that the bill will pass, that is irrelevant. The bottom line is that its mere existence and potential represent a serious threat to liberty. This is especially true due to the incremental nature of the encroachments on liberty.

[Romulus]

If Sandy Hook was indeed a set up, I fear we will be seeing another engineered tragedy shortly to seal the deal :(

This, very much This.