http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
http://patdollard.com/2013/01/marine-tells-feinstein-i-will-not-be-disarmed/
Jan 1, 2013 28 Comments iResist
Stopping the spread of deadly assault weapons
Stay informed
In January, Senator Feinstein will introduce a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices.
To receive updates on this legislation, click here.
Press releases
- Feinstein to Introduce Updated Assault Weapons Bill in New Congress, December 17, 2012
- Feinstein Statement on Connecticut School Shooting, December 14, 2012
Television appearances
- Press conference, Dec. 21, 2012
- CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight, Nov. 17, 2012
- PBS NewsHour with Gwen Ifill, Nov. 17, 2012
- MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports, Nov. 17, 2012
- CBS’s Meet the Press with David Gregory, Nov. 16, 2012
Summary of 2013 legislation
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 or more military characteristics; and
- 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; and
- 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.
Effectiveness of 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban
Following are studies that have been conducted on the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban:
- In a Department of Justice study (pdf), Jeffrey Roth and Christopher Koper find that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal. They write: “Assault weapons are disproportionately involved in murders with multiple victims, multiple wounds per victim, and police officers as victims.”
- Original source (page 2): Jeffrey A. Roth & Christopher S. Koper, “Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994,” The Urban Institute (March 1997).
- In a University of Pennsylvania study (pdf), Christopher Koper reports that the use of assault weapons in crime declined by more than two-thirds by about nine years after 1994 Assault Weapons Ban took effect.
- Original source (page 46): Christopher S. Koper, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003,” (June 2004).
- In a Washington Post story, reporters David Fallis and James Grimaldi write that the percentage of firearms seized by police in Virginia with high-capacity magazines dropped significantly during the Assault Weapons Ban. That figure has doubled since the ban expired.
- Original source: In Virginia, high-yield clip seizures rise. By David S. Fallis and James V. Grimaldi, Washington Post.
- In a letter to the editor in the American Journal of Public Health (pdf), Douglas Weil and Rebecca Knox explain that when Maryland imposed a more stringent ban on assault pistols and high-capacity magazines in 1994, it led to a 55 percent drop in assault pistols recovered by the Baltimore Police Department.
- Original source (pages 297-298): Douglas S. Weil & Rebecca C. Knox, "Letter to the Editor, The Maryland Ban on the Sale of Assault Pistols and High-Capacity Magazines: Estimating the Impact in Baltimore," 87 American Journal of Public Health 2, Feb. 1997, at 297-98.
- A report by the Police Executive Research Forum finds that 37 percent of police departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons since the Assault Weapons Ban expired.
- Original source (page 2): Police Executive Research Forum, "Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground by Focusing on the Local Impact," (May 2010).
-
Assault weapons in the news
- "How to Get a New Assault-Weapons Ban Through Congress" (New York Times, Jan. 2, 2013)
- "A Tougher Assault Weapons Ban" (New York Times, Dec. 28, 2012)
- "NRA misleads on assault weapons" (Salon, Dec. 26, 2012)
- "Dems to push for more sweeping assault weapons ban" (Washington Post, Dec. 20, 2012)
- "A conservative case for an assault weapons ban" (Los Angeles Times, Dec. 20, 2012)
- "Obama Vows Fast Action in New Push for Gun Control" (New York Times, Dec. 19, 2012)
- "Trying, again, to ban assault weapons" (Los Angeles Times, Dec. 17, 2012)
- "Stop the sale of assault weapons" (San Francisco Chronicle, Dec. 17, 2012)
- "Reason to Hope After the Newtown Rampage" (New York Times, Dec. 17, 2012)
But note when Feinstein had concerns for her safety , what did she carry ????
http://www.infowars.com/feinstein-cuomo-admit-planning-australian-style-government-gun-buy-back/
Feinstein & Cuomo Admit Planning Australian Style Government Gun Buy Back
News that a mandatory, government sponsored gun buy back scheme is in the planning stages emerged last Friday.
Friday is well known as the day of the week in the news cycle to release information or statements that is unusually controversial or ” bad news” , the theory being that the general public will be so distracted by the upcoming weekend that they will pay little if any attention.
Exploiting this common practice, word emerged at the end of last week that Congresswoman Dianne Feinstein and NY State Gov Andrew Cuomo are actively working on a planned govt fiat to seize lawfully owned private property without cause. In the form of an Australian style MANDATORY firearms buy back program, going so far as to tout that Countries program and so called positive results, while conveniently omitting the fact that Australia’s violent crime rate dramatically increased in the wake of the scheme and continues unabated.
While details are scant in both Feinstein’s and Cuomo’s press release on the plan, Cuomo was quoted as making it clear that the buyback would be compulsory and participation mandatory. Although it remains a question what the penalties for non compliance would be. Cuomo further added that they would make gun owners “an offer they can’t refuse” when referring to buyback amounts of up to 500 dollars.
Sounding more like a NY mafioso then a “leader” in a Free State with significant Constitutional Protections in the way. Cuomo’s offer serves not only to further reveal his elitist arrogance, but also highlights his ignorance, presuming that the owner of a 1 , 2 or 3000 dollar firearm (or multiple ones)would roll over and comply for a cash value orders of magnitude below retail values.
Also worthy of note is Dianne Feinstein’s previous quotes on the news program 60 Minutes several years ago. During her interview with Mike Wallace about the 1994 to 2004 Clinton Era “Assault Weapons Ban” , where Feinstein lamented the fact she felt the law didn’t go far enough and stated “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”
This is the same Feinstein who admitted in another, different interview that when she felt threatened by terrorists, she carried a gun for self defense and stated “I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.” — 27 April 1995.
And Gov Cuomo has a taxpayer supplied 24/7 security detail armed with actual, real fully automatic “assault weapons” at his side and disposal for his safety and the safety of his loved ones.
There should now be overwhelming evidence to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that we are no longer being “led” by elected Officials that took their Oath of Office seriously, but by rulers, tyrants who would be Kings, no different then King George III. We might as well take down Old Glory from every State Capitol and the US Capitol in DC and replace it with the Union Jack, while we’re at it, we can rename Congress, Parliament, because there really are no significant recognizable differences between the yoke of tyranny we are under today and the one we threw off over 200 years ago.
If Feinstein’s and Cuomo’s plan is allowed to proceed even one step further without being vociferously and publicly protested and killed in utero, they will have effectively struck the match and lit the fuse on a Second American Revolution.
and while the pols do their work , the PR against US gun ownership comes from interesting quarters....
http://www.infowars.com/foreign-media-lectures-americans-on-gun-rights/
Obama Teams Up With Foreign Media and Governments to Destroy Second Amendment
Russian, Chinese, British, Australian talking heads attack second amendment
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
January 4, 2013
In the three weeks since the Sandy Hook school shooting, Americans have been browbeaten by a plethora of foreigners in the media keen to lecture them on how their constitutional right to keep and bear arms should be eviscerated.
It started with British CNN host Piers Morgan, who seized upon the tragedy within hours to push his fanatical anti-second amendment agenda, calling for a British-style total gun ban. This eventually led to a White House petition calling for Morgan to be deported which went viral and has thus far attracted over 100,000 signatures.
As USA Today highlights, the Morgan controversy served to enflame a global gun control debate with foreign media personalities around the world lecturing Americans on what rights they should be able to exercise.
“In news outlets around the world, editorials, news stories and columns demand American gun control. Our political debates have gone global and American conservatives are outnumbered in a way few even realize. Factor in the impact of worldwide social media and the Internet has given our home-grown liberals an incredible advantage and distorted what should be a uniquely American debate,” wrote Dan Gainor, noting that quasi-state owned media outlets like the BBC and Qatar’s Al-Jazeera were also demanding Americans be stripped of their inherent second amendment rights.
It was then the turn of the Communist Chinese government to jump on board the anti-gun bandwagon. An editorial in the official state-run media front Xinhua called on Barack Obama to declare “war” on the second amendment and disarm U.S. citizens as soon as possible.
China’s rhetorical assault on the second amendment was particularly ironic given that it was Chairman Mao himself who said, “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Mao’s policies were responsible for the deaths of 40-70 million people, the vast majority of whom had no means of defending themselves against the genocide overseen by Mao and his henchmen during the Cultural Revolution.
Not to be outdone, the Kremlin-funded Russia Today television network also lined up to attack gun rights. During an interview with former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, an RT anchor repeatedly interrupted Roberts when he refused to agree that the Sandy Hook massacre should lead to draconian gun control laws in America.
“I was surprised to see that RT Moscow’s interest was to spread the official US story of the shootings and to ask me if I thought “assault weapons” would be banned as a consequence,” said Roberts, noting that RT refused to acknowledge Roberts’ attempt to cite media reports that confirmed Adam Lanza’s assault rifle was left in his car and was not even used during the massacre.
In a separate discussion about the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, a Russia Today host and an RT editor tried to savage Alex Jones’ impartiality by accusing Infowars of being money driven.
Russia Today accusing another media organization of allowing their accuracy and bias to be dictated by finance is somewhat rich given that RT is funded to the tune of billions of dollars by three term dictator Vladimir Putin’s government and was conceived by Putin’s press spokesperson Aleksei Gromo.
Dan Gainor notes that RT is “the voice for the Putin regime,” and that it seized upon the Sandy Hook shooting to launch an exercise in “America-bashing” which portrayed the United States as being “filled with meth labs, murders and anti-government opponents.”
Federally-funded NPR also showcased how Australians were calling on Americans to be disarmed, despite the fact that as the Wall Street Journal documented, “Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres.”
It makes a serious statement when virtually every major global media outfit in the world is on board with the Obama administration’s aggressive campaign to eviscerate the second amendment, and serves as a reminder that Americans are under ideological assault from political enemies both foreign and domestic.
http://www.infowars.com/vanity-fair-lets-repeal-the-second-amendment/
Vanity Fair: “Let’s Repeal the Second Amendment”
Melissa Melton
Infowars.com
January 4, 2012
Yesterday Kurt Eichenwald, contributing editor at Vanity Fair Magazine, wrote an article that did not beat around the bush about his agenda: “Kurt Eichenwald: Let’s Repeal the Second Amendment.”
Screen Capture.
Filed under politics, the piece begins with Eichenwald saying “gun-rights folks” have consistently tended to “whine” that “it’s politicizing tragedy to talk about” gun control in relation to the Sandy Hook shooting. So instead, Eichenwald mentions several other shooting incidents and proclaims, “Enough. We talk now. And my position is going to be direct: America needs to repeal the Second Amendment.”
While banker-run The Economist proclaimed, “If you want to be safer, change the Constitution” in its anti-Second Amendment propaganda piece a few weeks ago, this Vanity Fair article literally gets right to the point with several arguments against our Bill of Rights and an outright call to do away with our Second Amendment altogether.
Argument #1: “As written [...], the amendment has nothing to do with modern America.”
Eichenwald says this particular amendment has been “twisted and bastardized in ways that could never have been conceived at the time of the nation’s founding.” So the Constitution is automatically time- and technology-dependent?
He makes this claim with the point that Michigan now allows concealed carry in daycare centers. Nevermind that history has shown concealed carriers would actually help to deter a gunman from shooting up a daycare center.
The people’s right shall not be infringed by repealing the Second Amendment or pretending that, because time has passed or technology has improved, it means our rights can now be infringed.
Argument #2: The Second Amendment is “a grammarian’s nightmare.”
While the Second Amendment seems straightforward enough, Eichenwald claims that the actual meaning is “almost impossible to discern,” then notes what he claims is a grammatical issue that changes the meaning:
“Let’s start with the words that now exist. As adopted by Congress, the amendment reads:”
- 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.
“But is that really the amendment? Check out the version of the Bill of Rights held by the Library of Congress, and compare it with the Bill at the National Archives—they’re different. The one at the Archives was passed by Congress, while the other includes the words and punctuation ratified by the states and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson. It reads:”
- 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.
According to Eichenwald, the punctuational difference of a missing comma means the first clause qualifies the second. He also states it is “incomprehensible under any normal rules of grammar.”
Again, this amendment ends with, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” To this end, there is not a grammatical argument. Comma or no comma, the amendment’s conclusion is the main point here as evidenced by the words of our founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson:
“To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.” — George Mason, 1788
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” — Richard Henry Lee, 1788
“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — Tench Coxe, 1788
“The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves,…or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed…” — Thomas Jefferson, 1824
“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…” — Samuel Adams, 1850
Argument #3: “A free State” does not mean “A free country.”
The argument here is that the Second Amendment is referring to individual state militias at the time the Constitution was conceived because the “s” in “State” is capitalized. In addition, he believes it is specifically State militia fears of being disarmed by the federal army that this amendment is based on. Supposedly, then, the Bill of Rights was talking about state rights Eichenwald says, “since the states didn’t trust the federal government.” State distrust at the time the Constitution was conceived is worthy of an amendment, but our distrust now somehow isn’t?
Again, this claim ignores the “the people” part at the end of the amendment as referenced above. We’ll get to that part next.
Argument #4: The phrase “the people” does not mean all people. (So it can mean even less people?)
Eichenwald says voters and representatives have passed laws to disallow mentally ill people and convicted felons from legally obtaining guns, so all people having the right to bear arms without exception no longer applies to the Second Amendment anyway.
The bottom line here is that Congress does not actually have the power to contradict the Constitution. It never did. As Stewart Rhodes of Oathkeepers and others have pointed out, when congresspeople take office, they swear an oath to obey — and are thus subordinate to — the Constitution of the United States of America. They do not have the power to pass laws that contradict it. The only way the Constitution may be changed is to amend it.
Conclusion: We need a new amendment and gun owners should be forced to purchase insurance.
Eichenwald then writes his own version of a “new amendment” to replace the Second Amendment once it’s gone. He claims it should read:
“The people retain the right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable restrictions deemed necessary by the Congress and the President to secure the lives and well being of others.”
Really?
So we turn over the power to the government to determine and interpret what “reasonable restrictions” are “deemed necessary” when it comes to our rights to protect ourselves against said tyrannical government?
Eichenwald also goes on to say, “But here’s the restriction I really want to impose: force all gun owners to purchase liability insurance.” Obamacare for gun owners?
So, to recap, we are to give up our rights and trust the government that Eichenwald even admits in argument #3 the state militias did not originally trust when this country was conceived, which is supposedly what caused the Second Amendment’s necessity in the first place?
Eichenwald concludes with this:
“Some gun owners—some—will rage about this idea, saying that they have the right to protect themselves. Well, so do the rest of us—the right to protect ourselves from them.”
Democide — or death by government — has actually killed so many more people than legal gun owners could ever possibly conceive of. Nearly 300 million people were killed by their governments in the 20th century alone. Governments were able to do so primarily when when their people were disarmed.
The Second Amendment is absolutely necessary. We need to be able to protect ourselves from the greatest cause of unnatural death in human history: government.
Thomas Jefferson said it best:
“On every question of construction (of the constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
The mainstream media needs to stop inventing meaning against the Constitution and stop helping the establishment dilute and dismantle our rights and the law of our land. The Second Amendment was written to protect us against government tyranny.
Again —
The right. Of the people. To keep and bear arms. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.
PERIOD.
Jakari Jackson and I sat down to discuss this article at-length in relation to the mainstream media’s immediate post-Sandy Hook war on the 2nd Amendment last night:
- 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 or more military characteristics; and
- 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; and
- 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.
Effectiveness of 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban
Following are studies that have been conducted on the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban:
- In a Department of Justice study (pdf), Jeffrey Roth and Christopher Koper find that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal. They write: “Assault weapons are disproportionately involved in murders with multiple victims, multiple wounds per victim, and police officers as victims.”
- Original source (page 2): Jeffrey A. Roth & Christopher S. Koper, “Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994,” The Urban Institute (March 1997).
- In a University of Pennsylvania study (pdf), Christopher Koper reports that the use of assault weapons in crime declined by more than two-thirds by about nine years after 1994 Assault Weapons Ban took effect.
- Original source (page 46): Christopher S. Koper, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003,” (June 2004).
- In a Washington Post story, reporters David Fallis and James Grimaldi write that the percentage of firearms seized by police in Virginia with high-capacity magazines dropped significantly during the Assault Weapons Ban. That figure has doubled since the ban expired.
- Original source: In Virginia, high-yield clip seizures rise. By David S. Fallis and James V. Grimaldi, Washington Post.
- In a letter to the editor in the American Journal of Public Health (pdf), Douglas Weil and Rebecca Knox explain that when Maryland imposed a more stringent ban on assault pistols and high-capacity magazines in 1994, it led to a 55 percent drop in assault pistols recovered by the Baltimore Police Department.
- Original source (pages 297-298): Douglas S. Weil & Rebecca C. Knox, "Letter to the Editor, The Maryland Ban on the Sale of Assault Pistols and High-Capacity Magazines: Estimating the Impact in Baltimore," 87 American Journal of Public Health 2, Feb. 1997, at 297-98.
- A report by the Police Executive Research Forum finds that 37 percent of police departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons since the Assault Weapons Ban expired.
- Original source (page 2): Police Executive Research Forum, "Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground by Focusing on the Local Impact," (May 2010).
Assault weapons in the news
- "How to Get a New Assault-Weapons Ban Through Congress" (New York Times, Jan. 2, 2013)
- "A Tougher Assault Weapons Ban" (New York Times, Dec. 28, 2012)
- "NRA misleads on assault weapons" (Salon, Dec. 26, 2012)
- "Dems to push for more sweeping assault weapons ban" (Washington Post, Dec. 20, 2012)
- "A conservative case for an assault weapons ban" (Los Angeles Times, Dec. 20, 2012)
- "Obama Vows Fast Action in New Push for Gun Control" (New York Times, Dec. 19, 2012)
- "Trying, again, to ban assault weapons" (Los Angeles Times, Dec. 17, 2012)
- "Stop the sale of assault weapons" (San Francisco Chronicle, Dec. 17, 2012)
- "Reason to Hope After the Newtown Rampage" (New York Times, Dec. 17, 2012)
But note when Feinstein had concerns for her safety , what did she carry ????http://www.infowars.com/feinstein-cuomo-admit-planning-australian-style-government-gun-buy-back/
Feinstein & Cuomo Admit Planning Australian Style Government Gun Buy Back
News that a mandatory, government sponsored gun buy back scheme is in the planning stages emerged last Friday.Friday is well known as the day of the week in the news cycle to release information or statements that is unusually controversial or ” bad news” , the theory being that the general public will be so distracted by the upcoming weekend that they will pay little if any attention.Exploiting this common practice, word emerged at the end of last week that Congresswoman Dianne Feinstein and NY State Gov Andrew Cuomo are actively working on a planned govt fiat to seize lawfully owned private property without cause. In the form of an Australian style MANDATORY firearms buy back program, going so far as to tout that Countries program and so called positive results, while conveniently omitting the fact that Australia’s violent crime rate dramatically increased in the wake of the scheme and continues unabated.While details are scant in both Feinstein’s and Cuomo’s press release on the plan, Cuomo was quoted as making it clear that the buyback would be compulsory and participation mandatory. Although it remains a question what the penalties for non compliance would be. Cuomo further added that they would make gun owners “an offer they can’t refuse” when referring to buyback amounts of up to 500 dollars.Sounding more like a NY mafioso then a “leader” in a Free State with significant Constitutional Protections in the way. Cuomo’s offer serves not only to further reveal his elitist arrogance, but also highlights his ignorance, presuming that the owner of a 1 , 2 or 3000 dollar firearm (or multiple ones)would roll over and comply for a cash value orders of magnitude below retail values.Also worthy of note is Dianne Feinstein’s previous quotes on the news program 60 Minutes several years ago. During her interview with Mike Wallace about the 1994 to 2004 Clinton Era “Assault Weapons Ban” , where Feinstein lamented the fact she felt the law didn’t go far enough and stated “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”This is the same Feinstein who admitted in another, different interview that when she felt threatened by terrorists, she carried a gun for self defense and stated “I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.” — 27 April 1995.And Gov Cuomo has a taxpayer supplied 24/7 security detail armed with actual, real fully automatic “assault weapons” at his side and disposal for his safety and the safety of his loved ones.There should now be overwhelming evidence to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that we are no longer being “led” by elected Officials that took their Oath of Office seriously, but by rulers, tyrants who would be Kings, no different then King George III. We might as well take down Old Glory from every State Capitol and the US Capitol in DC and replace it with the Union Jack, while we’re at it, we can rename Congress, Parliament, because there really are no significant recognizable differences between the yoke of tyranny we are under today and the one we threw off over 200 years ago.If Feinstein’s and Cuomo’s plan is allowed to proceed even one step further without being vociferously and publicly protested and killed in utero, they will have effectively struck the match and lit the fuse on a Second American Revolution.and while the pols do their work , the PR against US gun ownership comes from interesting quarters....http://www.infowars.com/foreign-media-lectures-americans-on-gun-rights/
Obama Teams Up With Foreign Media and Governments to Destroy Second Amendment
Russian, Chinese, British, Australian talking heads attack second amendmentPaul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
January 4, 2013In the three weeks since the Sandy Hook school shooting, Americans have been browbeaten by a plethora of foreigners in the media keen to lecture them on how their constitutional right to keep and bear arms should be eviscerated.It started with British CNN host Piers Morgan, who seized upon the tragedy within hours to push his fanatical anti-second amendment agenda, calling for a British-style total gun ban. This eventually led to a White House petition calling for Morgan to be deported which went viral and has thus far attracted over 100,000 signatures.As USA Today highlights, the Morgan controversy served to enflame a global gun control debate with foreign media personalities around the world lecturing Americans on what rights they should be able to exercise.“In news outlets around the world, editorials, news stories and columns demand American gun control. Our political debates have gone global and American conservatives are outnumbered in a way few even realize. Factor in the impact of worldwide social media and the Internet has given our home-grown liberals an incredible advantage and distorted what should be a uniquely American debate,” wrote Dan Gainor, noting that quasi-state owned media outlets like the BBC and Qatar’s Al-Jazeera were also demanding Americans be stripped of their inherent second amendment rights.It was then the turn of the Communist Chinese government to jump on board the anti-gun bandwagon. An editorial in the official state-run media front Xinhua called on Barack Obama to declare “war” on the second amendment and disarm U.S. citizens as soon as possible.China’s rhetorical assault on the second amendment was particularly ironic given that it was Chairman Mao himself who said, “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Mao’s policies were responsible for the deaths of 40-70 million people, the vast majority of whom had no means of defending themselves against the genocide overseen by Mao and his henchmen during the Cultural Revolution.Not to be outdone, the Kremlin-funded Russia Today television network also lined up to attack gun rights. During an interview with former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, an RT anchor repeatedly interrupted Roberts when he refused to agree that the Sandy Hook massacre should lead to draconian gun control laws in America.“I was surprised to see that RT Moscow’s interest was to spread the official US story of the shootings and to ask me if I thought “assault weapons” would be banned as a consequence,” said Roberts, noting that RT refused to acknowledge Roberts’ attempt to cite media reports that confirmed Adam Lanza’s assault rifle was left in his car and was not even used during the massacre.In a separate discussion about the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, a Russia Today host and an RT editor tried to savage Alex Jones’ impartiality by accusing Infowars of being money driven.Russia Today accusing another media organization of allowing their accuracy and bias to be dictated by finance is somewhat rich given that RT is funded to the tune of billions of dollars by three term dictator Vladimir Putin’s government and was conceived by Putin’s press spokesperson Aleksei Gromo.Dan Gainor notes that RT is “the voice for the Putin regime,” and that it seized upon the Sandy Hook shooting to launch an exercise in “America-bashing” which portrayed the United States as being “filled with meth labs, murders and anti-government opponents.”Federally-funded NPR also showcased how Australians were calling on Americans to be disarmed, despite the fact that as the Wall Street Journal documented, “Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres.”It makes a serious statement when virtually every major global media outfit in the world is on board with the Obama administration’s aggressive campaign to eviscerate the second amendment, and serves as a reminder that Americans are under ideological assault from political enemies both foreign and domestic.
http://www.infowars.com/vanity-fair-lets-repeal-the-second-amendment/Vanity Fair: “Let’s Repeal the Second Amendment”
Melissa Melton
Infowars.com
January 4, 2012
Yesterday Kurt Eichenwald, contributing editor at Vanity Fair Magazine, wrote an article that did not beat around the bush about his agenda: “Kurt Eichenwald: Let’s Repeal the Second Amendment.”Screen Capture.Filed under politics, the piece begins with Eichenwald saying “gun-rights folks” have consistently tended to “whine” that “it’s politicizing tragedy to talk about” gun control in relation to the Sandy Hook shooting. So instead, Eichenwald mentions several other shooting incidents and proclaims, “Enough. We talk now. And my position is going to be direct: America needs to repeal the Second Amendment.”While banker-run The Economist proclaimed, “If you want to be safer, change the Constitution” in its anti-Second Amendment propaganda piece a few weeks ago, this Vanity Fair article literally gets right to the point with several arguments against our Bill of Rights and an outright call to do away with our Second Amendment altogether.Argument #1: “As written [...], the amendment has nothing to do with modern America.”Eichenwald says this particular amendment has been “twisted and bastardized in ways that could never have been conceived at the time of the nation’s founding.” So the Constitution is automatically time- and technology-dependent?He makes this claim with the point that Michigan now allows concealed carry in daycare centers. Nevermind that history has shown concealed carriers would actually help to deter a gunman from shooting up a daycare center.The people’s right shall not be infringed by repealing the Second Amendment or pretending that, because time has passed or technology has improved, it means our rights can now be infringed.Argument #2: The Second Amendment is “a grammarian’s nightmare.”While the Second Amendment seems straightforward enough, Eichenwald claims that the actual meaning is “almost impossible to discern,” then notes what he claims is a grammatical issue that changes the meaning:“Let’s start with the words that now exist. As adopted by Congress, the amendment reads:”- 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.
“But is that really the amendment? Check out the version of the Bill of Rights held by the Library of Congress, and compare it with the Bill at the National Archives—they’re different. The one at the Archives was passed by Congress, while the other includes the words and punctuation ratified by the states and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson. It reads:”- 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.
According to Eichenwald, the punctuational difference of a missing comma means the first clause qualifies the second. He also states it is “incomprehensible under any normal rules of grammar.”Again, this amendment ends with, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” To this end, there is not a grammatical argument. Comma or no comma, the amendment’s conclusion is the main point here as evidenced by the words of our founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson:“To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.” — George Mason, 1788“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” — Richard Henry Lee, 1788“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — Tench Coxe, 1788“The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves,…or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed…” — Thomas Jefferson, 1824“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…” — Samuel Adams, 1850Argument #3: “A free State” does not mean “A free country.”The argument here is that the Second Amendment is referring to individual state militias at the time the Constitution was conceived because the “s” in “State” is capitalized. In addition, he believes it is specifically State militia fears of being disarmed by the federal army that this amendment is based on. Supposedly, then, the Bill of Rights was talking about state rights Eichenwald says, “since the states didn’t trust the federal government.” State distrust at the time the Constitution was conceived is worthy of an amendment, but our distrust now somehow isn’t?Again, this claim ignores the “the people” part at the end of the amendment as referenced above. We’ll get to that part next.Argument #4: The phrase “the people” does not mean all people. (So it can mean even less people?)Eichenwald says voters and representatives have passed laws to disallow mentally ill people and convicted felons from legally obtaining guns, so all people having the right to bear arms without exception no longer applies to the Second Amendment anyway.The bottom line here is that Congress does not actually have the power to contradict the Constitution. It never did. As Stewart Rhodes of Oathkeepers and others have pointed out, when congresspeople take office, they swear an oath to obey — and are thus subordinate to — the Constitution of the United States of America. They do not have the power to pass laws that contradict it. The only way the Constitution may be changed is to amend it.Conclusion: We need a new amendment and gun owners should be forced to purchase insurance.Eichenwald then writes his own version of a “new amendment” to replace the Second Amendment once it’s gone. He claims it should read:“The people retain the right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable restrictions deemed necessary by the Congress and the President to secure the lives and well being of others.”Really?So we turn over the power to the government to determine and interpret what “reasonable restrictions” are “deemed necessary” when it comes to our rights to protect ourselves against said tyrannical government?Eichenwald also goes on to say, “But here’s the restriction I really want to impose: force all gun owners to purchase liability insurance.” Obamacare for gun owners?So, to recap, we are to give up our rights and trust the government that Eichenwald even admits in argument #3 the state militias did not originally trust when this country was conceived, which is supposedly what caused the Second Amendment’s necessity in the first place?Eichenwald concludes with this:“Some gun owners—some—will rage about this idea, saying that they have the right to protect themselves. Well, so do the rest of us—the right to protect ourselves from them.”Democide — or death by government — has actually killed so many more people than legal gun owners could ever possibly conceive of. Nearly 300 million people were killed by their governments in the 20th century alone. Governments were able to do so primarily when when their people were disarmed.The Second Amendment is absolutely necessary. We need to be able to protect ourselves from the greatest cause of unnatural death in human history: government.Thomas Jefferson said it best:“On every question of construction (of the constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”The mainstream media needs to stop inventing meaning against the Constitution and stop helping the establishment dilute and dismantle our rights and the law of our land. The Second Amendment was written to protect us against government tyranny.Again —The right. Of the people. To keep and bear arms. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.PERIOD.Jakari Jackson and I sat down to discuss this article at-length in relation to the mainstream media’s immediate post-Sandy Hook war on the 2nd Amendment last night:
Jan 1, 2013 28 Comments iResist
Breitbart – Joshua Boston, a retired Corporal in the U.S. Marine Corps, has a message for Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) concerning her newest gun banning bill. Corporal Boston says, “No Ma’Am.”
Boston posted an open letter to Senator Feinstein at CNN’s ireport site on December 27 to let DiFi know that he, at least, would not submit to the government denuding him of his Second Amendment rights.
Boston informed Sen. Feinstein that he will not register his weapons nor does he believe the Senator or anyone else in government has the right to require him to do so. Boston also scoffed at someone proclaiming “the evil of an inanimate object” even as she bestows upon herself the ability to carry a gun in contravention to her own proclamations.
“I am not your subject,” Boston insists. “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 will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
Mr. Boston’s message intrigues and he has even more to say than his open letter reveals. I took the occasion of his open letter to reach out to this brave member of our military. Here is our conversation:
Warner Todd Huston: What drove you to post this reply to Senator Feinstein?
Joshua Boston: I’ve been seeing this nonsense about gun control in the news since forever. Senator Feinstein regularly touts the effectiveness of the first Assault Weapons Ban while pointing out the “loopholes.” So she proposes this new ban legislation. Given the tragedy that happened recently it has considerably more traction with folks, most who rely in some major way on emotions and what they’re being told by the media about these “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” My Windham Weaponry SRC sits in my home loaded and ready to be used should the need ever arise. It does not make me a criminal.
I’m sick of being told by people in Washington D.C. what is okay for me to own for my own personal defense while they enjoy the safety of many armed guards with better firearms than I have access to. It’s hypocritical.
I’m sick of being told by people in Washington D.C. what is okay for me to own for my own personal defense while they enjoy the safety of many armed guards with better firearms than I have access to. It’s hypocritical.
WTH: In your opinion, what do you think the Second Amendment is for?
JB: Looking at the founder’s times and what they had just gone through, it was something they put in there for us should we ever find ourselves in their shoes and have to reassert, because of whatever manifestation of tyranny, our inherent right to freedom and liberty.
* * *
No comments:
Post a Comment