Posted: February 8, 2013 in by Bobby Ray Stacy
Tags: ,

Gun Control Poster 


The Public Getting Punked

The public is in the process of getting “punked” by the oldest con in the book: “the lesser of two evils”, aka: “the carrot or the stick” as they are seduced, bullied, and browbeaten into accepting unconstitutional legislation as “the law of the land”  regarding individual gun rights and ownership.

This is of course compounded with the standardized ‘Crisis – Reaction – Solution”- style approach to business as usual with this crowd, as they love to hear us beg for it, apparently…


Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die So That Broader Gun Policy Legislation Can Live

WASHINGTON — Barring an unexpected turn of legislative affairs, a ban on military-style semi-automatic assault weapons will not make it into law, top Hill aides and gun policy advocates say.

The ban will get a vote. But the purpose of that vote will be in part to facilitate its demise. The expectation is that there won’t be 60 members of the upper chamber to support the bill’s inclusion in the final legislative language.

The likelihood that an assault weapons ban ends up in the legislative scrapheap is hardly unexpected, the Wall Street Journal  also reported on Monday morning:


Senate to Move on Gun Control

Magazine Capacity Likely to Face Limit

“Senate Democratic leaders expect a gun bill to move to the Senate floor that includes most of the proposals backed by President Barack Obama, with the notable exception of a ban on military-style, semiautomatic weapons, a top aide to Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said.

The bill would likely seek to limit the capacity of ammunition magazines; expand background checks to include sales at gun shows and other private transactions; and require better record-keeping to keep guns out of the hands of those with mental illnesses…” (Sources: Corey Boles, Neil King Jr., Wall Street Journal, 02/04/2013) 


Assault Weapons Only One of Four Prime Components

The ban is the most controversial of four major components of the gun control platform that the Obama administration introduced and that congressional Democrats have touted. The other three — a universal background check for firearms sales, a federal trafficking law, and a ban on high-capacity magazines — are likely to be part of a final bill, Democratic aides say, though there is growing concern about whether a ban on high-capacity magazines can make it into law.

“When the assault weapons ban comes to the floor, proponents including us will have to contend with the fact that very few assault weapons are actually used in a crime,” Jim Kessler, a former director of policy and research at Americans for Gun Safety and co-founder of the centrist-Democratic organization Third Way. “That’s the challenge with passing this law. On the one hand, it seems that in a civil society we should draw a line on what kind of weapon a person can own. And weapons designed for warfare belong on the other side of that line. On the other hand, if you are going to die at the hands of a criminal with a gun, it’s going to be a handgun.”

There is also a chance the Judiciary Committee won’t report out a comprehensive bill at all. Leahy, according to one Senate Democratic aide, has not “ruled anything out or in” with respect to separating the pieces of gun legislation rather than pushing one comprehensive proposal. That would increase the likelihood that some aspects of gun policy reform make it into law, without the more controversial aspects risking passage. But House Democrats are skeptical about that approach, concerned that it would result in Congress passing things like mental health funding while leaving unaddressed the proposals that deal with weapon capacity.


The Shell Game


The Shell Game Exposed

The Obama administration and allied Democrats, however, have been heartened by the fact that bipartisan coalitions already exist in congress for background check legislation and a trafficking bill.

“The vast majority of Americans, including a majority of gun owners, support requiring criminal background checks,” Obama said on Monday, calling the proposal “common sense.” “We don’t have to agree on everything to agree it’s time to do something.”

The maneuvering around the assault weapons ban underscores how delicate the process of putting together a bill has become. Facing legislative hurdles, top lawmakers are gaming out procedural steps to placate both longtime gun control advocates and those more wary of an ambitious package of reforms.

As it stands now, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is keeping his hands clean, letting Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) take the lead on a gun policy package. “We are not dictating to Judiciary what is in the bill,” said a Senate leadership aide.

But Reid has made promises. Among them is that the assault weapons ban will get a vote, something that President Barack Obama also called for during a speech on gun violence in Minneapolis on Monday. The question is: In what form or capacity will that vote take place?

If the bill emerges from the Judiciary Committee without an assault weapons ban in it, then Reid will allow for the ban to be introduced as an amendment on the Senate floor. If the bill emerges from the Judiciary Committee with an assault weapons ban in it, the expectation is that Reid will allow for a vote to strip it out. Leadership prefers the former, as it would give more conservative Democrats the chance to publicly say they beat back the ban. If the latter were to take place, it would put Reid in an uncomfortable position of allowing for the procedural axing of a measure that remains popular in the party.

As for which will happen, even Hill aides aren’t quite sure.

“There is a chance that the Judiciary committee bill will include [an assault weapons ban], but it is unclear,” said one a committee source. (Sources: Sam Stein, The Huffington Post, 02/04/2013)


Obama Dog and Pony Show


But the whole thing has been a typical dog and pony show: a ruse. The Universal Background Registration  provision is the real cash cow, and what these guys have been after from the start…

Because “universal weapons registration” always precedes complete national disarmament, by all historical accounts so far.

And complete national disarmament is their chief underlying goal. Nothing more, nothing less. They’ve just been using the “assault rifle” (they are not assault rifles) ban as a smokescreen and a lever to pry the golden goose out of the misinformed, propaganda-spun-senseless public at large…

That’s why we’ve never implemented — nor been willing to accept — this type of registration, successfully resisting it instead throughout the entire history of this nation. Because the very nature of it leads almost invariably to tyranny… and quite often, to mass genocide of those who have fallen under the yoke.  


Top Socialist Genocide Kingpins


Coulter to Obama: Gun Background Checks Mean ‘Universal Extermination… Screw You!’

Following Obama’s Monday speech in Minnesota calling on Congress to implement “real and lasting change” on gun control, Fox News host Sean Hannity blasted “The Anointed One” for being concerned with “accepting gay scout masters, gay marriage, gun control, watering down welfare requirements, abortion rights, war on women.”

“Connecticut, Aurora, Tucson, these are crazy people,” Coulter ranted in agreement. “That is the problem. Everything they are telling you about what they can do about guns is lie. The problem with universal background checks is we basically have universal backgrounds check now. Any licensed gun dealer is performing a background check.”

“The only way to enforce a universal — the last 0.1 percent of guns that are transferred by collectors and so on is to have universal gun registration,” she added. “Universal background check means universal registration, universal registration means universal confiscation, universal extermination. That is how it goes in history. Do not fall for universal background checks.”

“If Obama talks about gay rights, if Obama talks about guns, immigration and climate control, then the media race to every Republican, ‘What do you think about what Obama said?,’ and we don’t focus on the economy,” Hannity opined.

Coulter replied: “Not only that, just to follow up on your point right there, it’s just that they are talking about it, they must demonize people that are legal gun owners and, ‘Obama, look at him. He cares about the children.’”

“Screw you!” she exclaimed. “You think we don’t care about the children? You’re the one who won’t do anything about the mentally ill.” (Sources: David Edwards, The Raw Story, 02/05/2013)


Those Who Fail to Learn from History are Doomed to Repeat It 

England’s increasingly repressive firearms laws often are praised by those who would restrict the American right to arms, so it is important to realize that those firearms laws, which now prohibit the private possession of handguns, rest heavily on one foundation–the British gun owner licensing system.

The right to keep and bear arms had been alive in England for eight centuries when Parliament enacted the Pistols Act of 1903. The Act, which prohibited the sale of pistols to minors and felons, also dictated that pistols could be sold only to those who possessed a gun license. Since the license could be obtained at a post office with only the payment of a fee, and since no license was required to keep a pistol solely in the home, there was no opposition.

But within a few short years, the licensing system had moved from the post office to the police station. Suddenly, Britons who wanted to own handguns–or rifles–had to prove they had “good reason” for receiving a police permit. Shotguns were considered “sporting” and were exempted from licensing requirements until 1967.


Anti-gun lobbyists in the United States have called for a “needs-based licensing” system and some politicians have lined up to do their bidding.

Is licensing gun owners a good idea? After all, “we license people to drive cars don’t we?” If requiring gun owners to obtain a government license seems like a harmless idea to you, you may want to know about “Firearms Form 101.” That’s the “Application For A Firearms Certificate” that must be filled out by Britons in order to purchase a rifle or muzzleloading handgun. A separate form is required for a “shotgun certificate.”


Section 27 of the Firearms Act of 1968 (as amended by the 1997 Act) requires a chief officer of the Police Firearms Licensing Department to be satisfied that the applicant is “fit to be entrusted with a firearm.” (Emphasis added) As the applicant, you must provide:

* Your home address for the last three years. * Your occupation and business address. * Information about previous convictions, including traffic violations. * Information about any history of Epilepsy. * Information about past treatment for drug use, depression or nervous disorders. * The name of your doctor, and permission for the police to search your medical records to obtain “factual details” about your medical history. * A list of the firearms you already own, including caliber, type, maker’s name and serial number. * A list of the ammunition you already own, including caliber and quantity. * A list of the firearms you wish to purchase, stating the reason for wanting to purchase them and where you plan on shooting or hunting with them. * A list of the maximum amount of ammunition you wish to possess at any one time, by caliber. * A list of the maximum amount of ammunition you plan to purchase at any one time, by caliber. * An address where the guns will be stored, for possible future inspection. * Information about whether you have previously held a firearms certificate, or a shotgun certificate. * A letter signed by the secretary of your shooting club or each landowner where you plan to hunt attesting to the fact that you have permission to shoot at those locations. * Four passport size photos of yourself. * A fee of L56 (approximately $90).


As an applicant, you must also designate two “referees” who will fill out a reference form regarding your character. This form will never be shown to you even though it weighs heavily in the final decision to approve or deny the application. The “referees” must:

* Have known you for at least the last two years. * Not be a member of your family, a firearms dealer, a police officer or a police employee. * Be of “good character.” * Sign the application form declaring that it has been answered truthfully. * Sign and date the back of one of your passport photos attesting that it is an accurate representation of you at that time. * Explain in what capacity they have known you. * Indicate if they are members of a shooting club, and if so their license number and role in the club. * Provide their “opinion as to the applicant’s suitability to possess firearms.” * Provide information on your personal history, including any history of emotional problems, mental or physical disabilities and explain how knowledge of the information was gained. * Explain any difficulties you have with members of your family which “may give cause for concern given that a firearm or ammunition may be available in the household.” * Explain their knowledge of your experience with firearms. * Explain their knowledge of your attitude toward firearms. * Be subjected to a background check and allow personal information to be held on a police computer. (Sources: The NRA)



  1. Roy Mcdade says:

    You are 100% correct…. Registration means confiscation…

  2. upaces88 says:

    What is it you want changed from the “original” 2nd Amendment rights?
    I like it in its original form.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s