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?
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)
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.
Schakowsky: Assault Weapons Ban ‘Just the Beginning’
Big Government ^ | 11 mar 2013
Posted on Monday, March 11, 2013 9:50:54 AM by rellimpank
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a member of the Democratic Party’s leadership in the House of Representatives, suggested to Jason Mattera at a Feb. 13 women’s rights rally that plans for an assault weapons ban and private-sales background checks were only the beginning of a broader gun control agenda extending to handguns as well.
Schakowsky evidently did not recognize Mattera, a conservative video journalist and senior investigative reporter for Talk Radio Network, who infamously confronted Vice President Joe Biden in the Capitol. (Mattera introduced himself to Schakowsky by name but did not indicate that he was filming or that he is conservative.) She spoke to Mattera as if he were a fellow gun control enthusiast–and Mattera played along, eliciting answers about Schakowsky’s enthusiasm for gun control.
By Doug Patton Thursday, February 21, 2013
Evan Todd was a student at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado in the late 1990s. He is a miraculous survivor of the infamous living nightmare that occurred there on April 20, 1999. In fact, he was the first student shot when Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris began their rampage that day.
One might think Evan would be supportive of the misguided efforts by President Barack Obama to restrict the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding citizen in the United States of America. Nothing could be further from the truth: for the past decade, he has been an outspoken opponent of additional gun control laws. Now Evan has written an open letter to the president about the issue.
Democrat Senator Supports 2nd Amendment as “Safeguard Against Tyranny” (!)
Guns (magazine): “Know Your Lawmakers” ^ | February, 1960 | Hubert Humphrey
Posted on Friday, February 01, 2013 12:45:39 PM by Beelzebubba
“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s office confirmed that she will be introducing in the Senate Thursday a new version of the so-called assault weapon ban. A spokesman said the full text will be released at a press conference on Thursday.
The California Democrat intends to expand on the ban that expired in 2004, by including handguns and shotguns, in addition to rifles. She would decrease from two to one the number of cosmetic features on a gun to have it be considered an “assault weapon.” This means that if a gun has just one item like a pistol grip or bayonet lug, then it is illegal. Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law the same ban in New York last week.
Photos: Obama’s face all over the place (Truly barf-worthy)
CNN ^ | January 18, 2013
Posted on Friday, January 18, 2013 9:55:31 AM by rightwingintelligentsia
Posted on Friday, January 18, 2013 8:38:04 AM by Reaganite Republican
Thirty-six percent of the surveyed voters think the president is possibly “hiding important information about his background and early life,” the Fairleigh Dickinson University PublicMind survey found…..
NRA president: Door-to-door gun confiscation a “legitimate fear”
CBS News ^ | January 16, 2013 | Lindsey Boerma
Posted on Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:54:00 AM by 2ndDivisionVet
The National Rifle Association didn’t disagree with everything in President Obama’s proposal today to cut back on escalating gun violence, the group’s president David Keene told CBS News Senior White House Correspondent Bill Plante today, but with coming talks of reform, he said there are “legitimate” fears on the horizon for law-abiding gun owners.
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.”
We were told that the GOP achieved a coup in the fiscal cliff negotiations because they lured Obama into an agreement to lock in the Bush tax rates except for the highest-income earners. Never mind that Obama agreed to no spending cuts or entitlement reform after demanding a “balanced approach” to deficit reduction; they told us he’d be forced to address those matters in a couple of months in the debt ceiling negotiations.
Posted on Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:18:21 AM by pookie18
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.
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.
As WCBS 880’s Marla Diamond reported, among the departments considering taking action is the NYPD. Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said if Congress were to reinstate the ban, police are wondering whether it will be their responsibility to confiscate them.
The National Rifle Association, jumping on President Obama’s new and firm support for a Clinton-style assault weapons ban, is stepping up its attack on the president in Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Wisconsin with a new “we told you so” theme.
In his 2008 campaign and while president, Obama has distanced himself from gun issues, aware that it could hurt him politically in key battleground states. But when pressed about gun violence during the Tuesday town hall-style presidential debate, he fully embraced a Clinton-style assault weapons ban. Clinton’s ban expired in 2004.
Suggesting a ban not just on semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 but maybe even handguns, the most popular rifle in America, the president said, “What I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap handguns.”
We know it failed, they know it failed. So what could possibly give the Obama admin and gun-control advocates the confidence to push for it again?
The Washington Post, May 23, 2011:
On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control: “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.
“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
In every practical respect, the firearms-related provisions of the “assault weapons ban” were an objective failure. But absurd restrictions on firearms weren’t the only part of that legislation that passed only to succumb to an outcome quite different than it’s anti-gun progenitors had in mind.
Along with creating the term “assault weapon,” this Clinton-era law also created the similarly arbitrary term “high-capacity magazine.”
A detachable magazine is a container that holds cartridges for a given firearm, and the number of cartridges typically varied with the size and the purpose of the weapon at hand and the size of the cartridge it fired. Small turn-of-the-century handguns typically carried magazines of just 6-7 cartridges. The standard magazine capacity of many pistols that became popular in the 1980s was 15 rounds or more. The standard capacity of military grade rifles and carbines was 20-30 rounds. As time progressed, firearm designers were finding ways to put a larger number of cartridges in the magazines of their weapons.
When legislators decided that the “assault weapons ban” should also include a restriction on the number of cartridges that any given magazine could hold, they declared that any magazine that held a greater amount of cartridges was a “high capacity” magazine. It didn’t matter to them that many of the firearms in question had as their standard capacity magazines with round counts from 13-30 rounds or more, or that some of these firearms had had such a capacity since before the congressmen and congresswomen writing the law were born.
Congress arbitrarily decided that 10 rounds was “enough” for American citizens, and included provisions that once the law went into effect, any magazine manufactured after the date the law went into effect that had more than ten rounds would be illegal for anything other than law enforcement use.
Like the firearms provisions of the bill, these magazine provisions also had unintended consequences.
As it turns out, firearms magazines are both typically very robust and reliable in design, and incredibly easy to mass manufacture. Once made, they last indefinitely.
Between the time Congress started signaling that they would create a magazine capacity restriction and the implementation of the law, factories worked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week churning out millions of nothing but high-capacity magazines, which were stockpiled by manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers in massive warehouses.
As a result, “high capacity magazines” for most common firearms were freely available throughout the life of the ban. As e-commerce came into early maturity during this time period, many high-capacity magazines were more available than they had been before the ban was signed into law.
Congress had neglected to……………………..
MORE @ LINK…
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.
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: