Last week, the two sides of the gun control debate drew their battle lines. This week, the government made clear what it wants: your guns. Keeping their hands off them, is up to you.
Gun control by executive order?
As everyone knows by now, Vice President Joe Biden openly said the White House could issue Executive Orders to take some steps toward gun control. What steps the White House could or would take, Biden wouldn’t say. And then he had to walk it back. Because aside from using existing reports to build the vaunted national database, even Barack H. Obama could never order gun control by Executive Order. Not unless he wants a repeat of the 1946 Battle of Athens.
Still, Biden said something else: that if gun control saved even one life, it would be worth it. That prompted Judge Andrew Napolitano to sound the alarm. This isn’t about saving lives, in school or out of it. This is about taking your guns away. (Besides, those measures would not save any lives. If you don’t believe that, ask Melinda Herman.
Or maybe you should ask Alan Morrison. He and Ralph Nader invented consumer-interest lawsuits. Now he says that banning semi-automatic rifles would make people “feel good,” and do nothing else.
Unless you’re prepared to confiscate all of the assault weapons and prevent their sales in the future then it’s a gesture to ban assault weapons. It probably will make people feel good but I don’t think it will solve that much in the way of elimination of wrongful violence.
This might surprise you: he doesn’t sound very enthusiastic about confiscating guns. Not the way Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) sounded. In fact, he knows how important the Second Amendment is:
Why would it be in the Bill of Rights if it wasn’t a right? Why would it not be in the Constitution if it had to do with militia, since after all there were two provisions in the Constitution that dealt directly with the militia?
The masks come off
Those who want gun control have always worn the mask of “the reasonable.” That, of course, is what a hypocrite is: a play-actor, literally under the mask. But now the masks are coming off.
David Codrea, at examiner.com, found this gun control gem in Connecticut. The Connecticut gun rights group Connecticut Carry gave him the news. State Senator Edward Meyer introduced a bill to outlaw any gun that can fire more than one round without reloading. That would certainly include twelve-gauge three-shot shotguns, and .38 caliber revolvers like the one Mrs. Herman used to stop a home invader.
Of course, says Codrea, that bill will never pass. But it shows what gun control really means to those who want it in the worst way.
Piers Morgan at CNN made this plain to Ben Shapiro, the new editor at Breitbart.com.
You come in, you brandish your little book, as if I don’t know what’s in there.
By “your little book,” Morgan meant the Constitution. And he then showed that, though he might know what it says, he doesn’t know what it means or why it says it.
And freedom lovers strike back
The battle flag of the defenders at Gonzales. This was their answer to Generalissimo Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana, who demanded a return of their cannon.
Today the National Rifle Association finally told the government off. They gave the government their chance, and the government blew it, big-time. Futilitas, quod erat demonstrandum.
David Keene, head of the NRA (and Wayne LaPierre’s boss), laid it out. All the White House wanted to do was “check the box” to say they “met with strong Second Amendment supporters.”
LaPierre said this, in writing:
While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners — honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans.
Legislators in Wyoming went further. A local radio station said they introduced a “Firearms Protection Act.” That Act says anyone even trying to enforce a ban on semi-automatic rifles or high-capacity magazines (holding 20 or 30 rounds) will be guilty of a felony.
Who will win?
Kim Strassel of The Wall Street Journal has convinced herself that the gun control forces will lose. Sure, she says, the gun control advocates asked for their full laundry list. But will they get it? Strassel gave this example as evidence that they will not:
Senate Democrat Joe Manchin caused a media sensation when he declared, immediately after Sandy Hook, that nobody needed “30 rounds in a clip.” [But then] it took the Democrat about the time…your average West Virginian [would take] to drive to a ballot box to clarify that statement and to add that he’s “so proud of the NRA.”
Still, Dean Garrison at The DC Clotheslinewarned his readers to be ready to fight for their rights, as Patriots did at Lexington and Concord. And some commenters on his site warned of the baby steps the gun control crowd will take.
Small step: background checks for all ammo
Next small step: ban some ammo and background checks on all the rest
Next small step: ban all ammo
Next step: no need to ban weapons as they are now all just clubs.
(European Union Times) A new Federal Security Forces (FSB) report updating their 4 January “urgent action” memorandum to President Putin circulating in the Kremlin, today, states that the “death squads” unleashed upon America by President Obama have claimed their first two victims and warns that “another massacre” in the United States is “much nearer than first believed.”
Obama, emboldened by recent US Federal Court rulings giving him absolute authority to kill anyone he chooses in secret, and for whatever reason he deems necessary, dispatched at least 800 VIPER Teams (Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response Teams) throughout America in a bid to assassinate and neutralize any and all opposition to his planned seizure of his citizens’ guns.
The link to the “full story” ends in a “forbidden document” error. But VIPR does exist. This law authorizes it. VIPR belongs to the Transportation Security Administration. Even Wikipedia admits that no one is really sure what VIPR teams are supposed to do.