Archive
Go To Hell Harry Reid and Dianne Feinswine (Stolen Gun Reporting)
Go To Hell Harry Reid and Dianne Feinswine (Stolen Gun Reporting)
Market Ticker ^ | 04/10/2013 | Karl Denniger
Posted on Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:38:33 AM by Rusty0604
A person who has their firearms stolen is the victim of a crime. To impose upon them the affirmative duty to report same to the Attorney General is an outrage. These people are not criminals, they are victims in that their property has been taken unlawfully.
This will lead to thousands of annual prosecutions of people who are claimed not have not reported “within 24 hours” their “alleged knowledge” of the theft. While there are certainly times that knowledge is obvious, such as when someone tears your gun safe off the concrete floor and rips a hole in the room in which it was formerly present to do so, a huge number of firearms are stolen without the person who has them taken being immediately aware of it.
Are We Being “Set-Up?”… “I can’t put my finger on it, but I have this nagging feeling that Senator Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons ban is not gone. My paranoia tells me the democrats are going to squeeze it through a “back door” somehow.”
I can’t put my finger on it, but I have this nagging feeling that Senator Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons ban is not gone. My paranoia tells me the democrats are going to squeeze it through a “back door” somehow.
There are those among gun right’s advocates who believe that having Feinstein’s assault weapons ban tacked onto another (a different) gun control bill, of some kind, will make it easier to pass the Senate.
Consider this: “It’s a trap! It’s a non-event. What’s going to happen is they’re going to take another bill, and that could be the veterans’ gun ban and then bring that to the floor,” said Mike Hammond, chief counsel for Gun Owners of America, a pro-Second Amendment group.
Hammond said bringing a less controversial bill to the floor will make it easier to find the 60 votes needed to open debate.
Hammond said Feinstein’s proposed ban on “assault weapons” will be offered as an amendment to Reid’s bill.
Is Government Readying For A Shooting War Against Gun Owners?… ““One of the definitions of a nation state is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence. And the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence.”” : Personal Liberty Digest™
March 18, 2013 by Bob Livingston
Is Government Readying For A Shooting War Against Gun Owners?
PHOTOS.COM

English: Dianne Feinstein http://bioguide.congress.gov/bioguide/photo/F/F000062.jpg (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Gun grabbing lawmakers at both the State and Federal level continue to push forward with their anti-American, anti-2nd Amendment, anti-gun agendas, even as more individuals, State legislatures and manufacturers of weapons, weapons accessories and ammunition push back. It almost seems as if the elected class is itching for a fight.
And when one considers that the Department of Homeland Security has contracted for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition — much of it hollow points or for use in sniper rifles — for its 55,000 armed agents, plus 2,717 armored personnel carriers and 7,000 select fire “personal defense weapons,” it seems even more apparent that’s the goal.
For perspective, 1.6 billion rounds is enough to fight the Iraq war for 20 years. It’s enough to shoot every American five times. It’s 28,000 tons, or the equivalent of three guided missile destroyers. It’s almost 30,000 target practice rounds per armed agent — but of course, because they are more expensive, hollow points are not used for target practice.
Hasta La Vista Assault Weapons Ban (Feinstein Bill Shot Down)
Hasta La Vista Assault Weapons Ban (Feinstein Bill Shot Down)
Breitbart.Com ^ | March 19, 2013 | Elizabeth Sheld
Posted on Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:21:22 AM by PJ-Comix
After a meeting yesterday with Harry Reid (D-NV), Sen. Dianne Feinstein learned that her controversial assault weapons ban mess will not be part of the gun control bill package heading to the senate floor next month.
How Many Bullets Are Enough? ~ (GyG: What “The Folks” Are Saying about This…)
Gun control advocates, in their infinite wisdom, seem to think they have the definitive answer to this question. The answer is “less than ten.”
Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York is seeking extensive gun control legislation to “tighten the assault weapons ban” and “ban all large-capacity gun clips.” To these ends, he addressed the gun “extremists” by quipping, “It’s simple — no one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs ten bullets to kill a deer.”
The Unintended Consequences of Gun Control
In 1996, John Ross penned what has become a classic story of what might happen when the federal government oversteps its bounds and clamps down too hard on guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans. So chilling is the story, so graphic in its descriptions of how some Americans might fight back, that Mr. Ross and his wife were hounded and intimidated by federal authorities.
An Intratec TEC-DC9 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an Assault Weapon under Federal Law. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Yet the title of his novel speaks loudly about what the gun-grabbers can expect when they legislate from emotion rather than fact. There, in Unintended Consequences, many of them lost their fictional lives. Here, in real-life America, we have magnets that draw armed lunatics into schools, malls, and other venues where guns are banned.
The Assault Weapons Ban: How Silly Was It? (Part One)
With the Obama admin and a Washington Post editorial calling for its reinstatement — amidst a tie-in to the Gunwalker scandal — it’s worth revisiting the boneheaded law.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, February 26, 2009:
As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.
The fabled “assault weapons ban.”
Few laws ever passed have been as idolized — and misunderstood — as Title XI of the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Subtitle A (the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act).
To listen to the Obama administration, the media, or the nominated head of the ATF spin it, the ban made it illegal to purchase machine guns, and outlawed the ownership or use of high-capacity magazines, saving billions, perhaps trillions, of lives.
That mischaracterization is as wrong as it is laughable. The law had nothing to do with machine guns and real military-issue assault rifles, and did nothing to measurably impact violent crime.
The purpose of the law was to ban the sale and importation of certain semi-automatic (one bullet fired per trigger pull) firearms by name, and a wider group of firearms that had an arbitrarily selected list of largely cosmetic features. These features did not affect the rate of fire, accuracy, or range of the firearms impacted. Firearms were determined to be “assault weapons” — a term that was created by the law itself — if it had two or more of the following features:























Recent Comments