President Obama and his anti-gun pals know the first step to CONFISCATING every firearm in America is registering them.
Not just "some" guns. But every single one.
That's why every speech and comment from Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Biden and the other anti-gun loudmouths, starts with a demand for "universal background checks" or "expanded background checks" or "grand-fathered gun checks."
Don't be fooled. Those background checks are gun registration.
Time and again anti-gun state and federal bureaucrats have been caught keeping records of the checks, including the name of the gun owner and the specific gun purchased.
Besides, would you ever want to trust Barack Obama or Eric Holder?
Of course not!
That's why the National Association for Gun Rights is standing opposed to ALL efforts to give the federal government more information on gun owners.
But after an appearance by NRA President David Keene on CBS, the Associated Press stated:
"The head of the National Rifle Association says the organization has no problem with tighter background checks of gun purchasers.
[Keene said] the NRA is 'generally supportive' of them."
And sadly, that's not even close to the worst of it.
Frank, believe me, I wish I didn't have to write you this email.
In a moment, I will give you a link to NAGR's No Gun Ban petition that I urge you to sign immediately.
You see, this may be the most important letter I have ever sent you.
And if you and I are going to win this fight -- the biggest danger our Second Amendment rights have faced in a generation -- we have to be willing to look all of the facts square in the face, even those we may not like.
You see, President Obama and his anti-gun pals are pushing hard for "universal background checks" on ALL gun sales and transfers -- even just handing a hunting rifle down to your son.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the only way to enforce the scheme is for the federal government to keep a national gun registry of every gun and every gun owner in America.
That's why the Feinstein Gun Ban forces owners of all grandfathered weapons to register their guns in a national database.
And if the NRA is signaling a surrender on handing President Obama and his anti-gun pals more information about American gun owners, I shudder to think what deals may get cut as the anti-gun hysteria gets whipped to a frenzy just before a House or Senate vote.
Since their President came out publicly in support of a new "background check" national gun registration scheme, the NRA did issue one public statement pointing out some of the dangers I told you about weeks ago.
I was hoping that would signal a change in direction.
But now The Hill is reporting:
"Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said Thursday [January 24] that he was working on a bill with Senate colleagues and the National Rifle Association (NRA) that would implement universal background checks, a major component of President Obama's proposed gun-control reforms . . .
'I'm working with the NRA, to be honest with you, and talking to them.'"
Of course, the NRA is now denying all of it -- denying they're "talking to" one of their anti-gun, "A-rated" Democrats about expanding gun control.
I hope that's true, but this story has gone back and forth so many times, it's making me seasick.
This is the absolute WORST thing that could result out of the Newtown tragedy!
Full-scale national gun registration under the guise of background checks?!?!
But unfortunately, this is not the only place where the NRA is signaling pre-emptive surrender.
Just a few days ago, news broke that President Obama was enlisting "Obamacare" doctors to begin snooping on gun owners in the name of taking away guns from those with "mental illness."
After going dark on Facebook for days after the Newtown tragedy, the NRA signaled its support for a national mental health database at its December 21 press conference.
In fact, the NRA's Executive Vice President, Wayne LaPierre, stated:
"We have a completely cracked mentally ill system that's got these monsters walking the streets . . .
"How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation's refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?"
As I'm sure you agree, no one ever wants to be forced to deal with an armed madman.
But don't be fooled.
The "mental health" issue is a ruse to hand government bureaucrats the power to STRIP Second Amendment supporters of their God-given right to keep and bear arms, without trial or conviction by a jury of peers.
38 states have some sort of mental health database, and they're already being used to strip law-abiding Americans of their Second Amendment rights.
In fact, studies show that over 100,000 military veterans have been stripped of their gun rights already just from acknowledging stress on returning from war.
And one former Surgeon General estimated that 46.4% of Americans will have mental health issues at some point in their lives!
That should give you some idea of just how many law-abiding Americans can be stripped of their gun rights with "mental health" charges alone.
But how long until the gun-grabbers start adding folks they denote as "threats" to public safety to any Federal "Mental Health" No Gun Database?
Just a few years ago, the Department of Homeland Security issued documents calling those with the "wrong" Presidential candidates' bumper stickers on their cars possible terrorist threats.
Now, one West Point think tank is warning about "far right" threats from those who support "civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government."
Do you really trust President Obama to play fair with the massive new power he'd have with a National Mental Health Database?
But sadly, this is the way the NRA has operated for some time.
After the Columbine tragedy in 1999 -- and the media frenzy that followed -- the NRA sent similar signals to the Clinton Administration.
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre even stated his organization supported the very so-called "Gun Free Zone" policies that ensure bloodthirsty lunatics never run into armed opposition when they go on a rampage.
At their 1999 convention in Colorado, Wayne LaPierre stated:
"First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, t
How can we call it unalienable when we allow it to be suspended revoked or restricted?
Any representative that introduces a bill contrary to the constitution should automatically be convicted for treason.To raise money a lottery may be held for any citizens who want to be on the legal firing squad.
Folks ain't got a sense of humor no more. They don't laugh they just get sore.
Need to follow the rules. Just hard to determine which set of rules to follow Now the rules have changed again.
The politicians in Ohio and Missouri and elsewhere around the nation who are calling for the confiscation of guns have embraced tyranny in their pursuit of the illusions of power. They may have an inkling that American citizens will resist them and that the blood of Patriots and ordinary citizens will be spilled. What these politicians do not yet understand is that the blood on their
hands will be not only from the victims of their tyranny, but
from their own throats.
All the police are behind
her is total crap. Maybe police chiefs in many of the major cities
are; they're no longer cops anyways, just politicians in uniforms trying
to get money for their departments.
Note to Dianne Feinstein: You Do Need to be Lectured on the Constitution
In case you missed it, an interesting exchange took place in the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz politely asked gun-control crazy Dianne Feinstein how she would feel about applying her minimalist view on the Second Amendment to other parts of the Bill of Rights.
Feinstein went into orbit. "I'm not a sixth grader," she huffed. Invoking her extensive Senate history of spitting on the Constitution, she made it clear that she didn't appreciate being reminded of the Constitution's restrictions on her legislative will.
Feinstein suggested that Congress should pass anti-gun legislation without considering the Constitution, in the expectation that the courts will sort it out. Notwithstanding the fact that Feinstein and every other senator had taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
So here's where we are: In a few weeks, after Easter recess, Harry Reid will move to proceed to some gun control proposal, probably the Veterans Gun Ban (S. 54). He'll then use his privileged recognition to set up a whole lot of votes intended to get Democrats reelected in 2014.
Democrats will be given a shot at voting against the crazy Feinstein gun ban. But then Reid will do what he did on ObamaCare and play let's-make-a-deal for votes on other gun control.
Bribes and tradeoffs will be made. And votes will be scheduled with a view to making Republicans maximally vulnerable by making them vote against measures which biased polling shows are popular in their states. Republican senators need to join together as a caucus to oppose the "motion to proceed" to any gun control legislation.
Let the Democrats be the ones forced to bite the bullet and vote for a "motion to proceed" which is framed as a vote in support of the Feinstein gun ban.
Under regular order, 41 Republicans can block any gun control this way. Harry Reid can use a special procedure under the anti-gun rules changes to force a vote with 51 Democrats, but, if he does, Mitch McConnell gets to "stop the trains" by offering the first unamendable amendment - a process which Reid cannot relish.
ACTION: Click here to contact your Senators. Demand that they vote against any "motion to proceed" to any gun control proposal. Demand that he oppose a motion to proceed to the "gun control buffet."
How can we call it unalienable when we allow it to be suspended revoked or restricted?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum