~ Where the Sun Will Never Set on Our liberty ~
Time to stock up folks!
On Monday, Alan Korwin, 2nd Amendment activist and author of Gun Laws of America, published a preliminary list of firearms and firearms accessories to be included in the yet-to-be announced, but much anticipated new version of the so-called Assault Weapons Ban.
The chief sponsor of the last ban, Sen. Diane Feinstein is said to be crafting new legislation now, which, if passed, President Obama would undoubtedly sign.
Writing for Red Flag Newswire, Korwin said:
Gun-ban list proposed. Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Brady’s plan to introduce shortly. I have an outline of the Brady’s current plans and targets of opportunity. It’s horrific. They’re going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They’ve made little mention of criminals. Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states’ rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment. The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):
Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
Sturm Ruger Mini-14
Olympic Arms PCR
Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or DragunovSVU
Fabrique National FN/FAL
FN/LAR, or FNC
Thompson 1927 Commando
Kel-Tec Sub Rifle
SKS with detachable magazine
SLR 95 or 96
Galil and Uzi Sporter
Galil Sporter or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz)
Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Olympic Arms OA
TEC-22 Scorpion or AB-10
Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG
SPAS 12 or LAW 12
Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below),
(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).
A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has:
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, and
(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.
Eric Holder: "Brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way!".
Would the Democrats really be so bold as to propose another gun ban when the majority of the American people clearly oppose gun control?
Remember, it was the Obama administration which sent thousands of assault rifles into the hands of drug cartel assassins in order to produce outrage among the American people, who would then support more government control over gun sales.
In March 2009, Obama administration officials held a White House press briefing announcing a "gun-tracing program" dubbed Operation Gunrunner (which later became Fast and Furious).
Of course, this program did not involve gun tracing, but gun walking, which resulted in at least 1,4000 weapons ending-up in the hands of the drug cartels.
Even worse, those weapons have been used to murder U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Jaime Zapata as well as hundreds of Mexican citizens.
So why would Ivy League educated, high-level government officials initiate a program that would seem doomed to result in more death and mayhem?
Eric Holder has, well documented anti-2nd Amendment history, as does Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano...all of whose departments were involved in the failed operation (SEE MARCH 24, 2009 PRESS BRIEFING).
Once the bodies began piling-up from the use of these weapons, the Obama administration could announce the fact that these guns came from U.S. gun stores and then announce the need for more gun control laws (or simply enact them through the use of Executive Order).
Think this theory is crazy?
Watch the video at left of then-U.S. Attorney Eric Holder addressing the Woman's National Democratic Club on the "need to change the way people think about guns."
Here we go folks! It's coming!
Barack Obama to announce guns task force!
Thanks for sharing the list Robin ... I did send it on to a few of my friends. I cannot believe it. My rifle - the Ruger mini 14 - is second on the list. The only gun incident I know that it was in was Ruby Ridge - where an innocent 14 year old boy had one and was investigating trespassers on his parents and his land. There were feds creeping there who shot his dog, and then shot the innocent 14 year old boy in the back - on his own land.
And so the answer from the politicians seems to be - citizens should have no guns - and then just quietly be shot in back. What time today, I ask, is the mourning for Ruby Ridge where also an innocent mother was sniper shot in her own kitchen by the feds? What time today for the 4 dead in Banghazi? For those 300 or so killed in Fast and Furious? For the 80 dead in Waco Texas including 10 children and 2 pregnant women? For the Coptic Christians killed by Muslim genocide in Egyptian Arab Spring? For 53,000 dead in Mexico whom no one seems to care about. I fail to see the tears for those people. I guess when someone dies we have to ask what political party are they with? What religion? And who can benefit from this tragedy? ... before we care.
Bans on high-capacity magazines (variously defined as those holding more than ten, fifteen, or twenty rounds) seem to be part of just about every law to ban assault weapons. The rationale is to prevent the ability to engage in killing sprees like the one on Friday in Connecticut.
Would a ban on high-capacity magazines (and not just a ban on new manufacture, as the 1994 federal law provided) make any difference in these massacres of the unarmed? I am hard pressed to see how. Detachable-magazine pistols and rifles have been in common use in the United States for more than a century. To replace an empty magazine with a fully loaded one typically takes one to two seconds, even under stressful conditions.
In a gunfight, being able to reload with new magazines is a real advantage, and this is why police officers and licensed civilians regularly carry spare magazines for their pistols. The deputy sheriff who was my concealed-weapons instructor in California emphasized to our class the importance of always having at least four spare magazines on your belt in case you are attacked.
When magazine bans were first proposed, the theory was that they would make police officers safer when attacked by criminals. But even the Clinton administration’s 1999 study of the federal assault-weapons ban (which banned new manufacture of magazines over ten rounds) found no statistically significant differences in murder rates of police officers because of the new law. This justification for the ban on high-capacity magazines has not survived real-world experiment.
How much actual “advantage” does a high-capacity magazine give to a monster who is shooting unarmed people? Practically none. The victims have no idea whether he is about to change magazines and are therefore in no position to flee or engage in a barehand attack (even if one of them has the remarkable coolness of mind to try something that courageously foolhardy). For practical purposes, a mass murderer with ten-round magazines is about as deadly as one with 20-round magazines. I suppose if you were to impose a really low limit, such as two or three rounds, you would start to make a real difference in these horrors, but that brings us to the other side of the equation.
A recurring question that I hear from gun-control advocates is, Why does anyone need high-capacity magazines? The implication is that they have no legitimate function. If they don’t, they should be prohibited to police officers, who carry handguns for self-defense; their job is not to shoot people in summary execution. A police officer’s use of a handgun is not so terribly different from that of a civilian with a gun in his home or, if licensed, on his person. While it is rare for either a police officer or a civilian to need 15 or 20 rounds in a gunfight, it is not unknown, and in some cases it is the difference between life and death for individuals engaged in self-defense. (When I lived in the Los Angeles area, I knew two different couples who experienced multiple invasions of their homes by intruders, with horrendous results. Yes, this has made me a little sensitive to the problem.)
There is one other situation where a high-capacity magazine serves a necessary, even praiseworthy function. During the riots following the Rodney King trial, many shopkeepers in the Korean section of Los Angeles confronted mobs threatening to loot and burn the stores. Some of the shopkeepers used high-capacity magazines in rifles to avoid taking lives. Yes, you read that right. By firing two or three shots over the heads of the rioters, the shopkeepers were able to impress on these criminals that they should keep their distance or risk death. Because they had 30-round magazines in their rifles, they could afford to fire two or three warning shots. Had they been limited to three or five rounds per magazine, they likely would have had the choice of abandoning their stores or making every bullet deadly.
On a shooting range, it’s really quite easy to keep every shot on the paper. Things are a bit different in a high-stress, poorly illuminated gunfight inside your home, where it is possible that for every three or four shots you fire, only one delivers an incapacitating blow to an attacker. Yes, you can change magazines rapidly with a modern pistol or rifle, but it is better not to have that distraction in the middle of a gunfight.
It is true that where I live now, I don’t worry about intruders or even burglary. I also haven’t had a flat tire in more than 100,000 miles, but I still keep a spare in the trunk: The cost of doing so is low, and the consequences of not being ready for that rare situation are too high. A high-capacity magazine is like that spare tire.
Well said Robin! What's the difference between one 30-round magazine or three 10-round magazines? Nine seconds. Absent a counter-force, the end result has a high probability of remaining the same.
It is difficult to fathom how people cannot rationally see that any ban will not stop violent offenders. Emotional reaction leads to irrational decision-making. Any tragedy is filled with emotion but we collectively must identify the root causes of the tragedy. Any ban on an inanimate object will cause the perpetrator to simply readjust, select some other weapon or merely bring more of lower capacity weapons.
The anti-gun crowd had no idea what igu
New York Governor: Gun Confiscation on the Table
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is getting his gun control proposals ready and they're looking pretty unconstitutional.
He added that he was focusing his attention on changing state laws restricting the possession of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. The governor described the state’s existing ban on those items as having “more holes than Swiss cheese.”
“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’ ” he said. At the same time, he noted that he owns a shotgun that he has used for hunting, and said, “There is a balance here — I understand the rights of gun owners; I understand the rights of hunters.”
In the interview, Mr. Cuomo did not offer specifics about the measures he might propose, but, while discussing assault weapons, he said: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”
Yes, Cuomo is actually suggesting authorities confiscate private property that belongs to law abiding Americans. He is also suggesting permitting these guns, which would put law abiding citizens into a data base and expose to criminals where they can go to steal guns for improper use.
To quote Mark Levin it's not called a Bill of Needs but a Bill of Rights. Who are they to decide what we need and don't need?