Posted on 01/26/2013 12:53:18 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Gun rights advocates worry that an assault weapons ban — like the one proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (r-Calif.) — would be the start of a slippery slope that would end with a total gun ban in the U.S., as has happened in the UK and Australia.
There already have been some calls for outright confiscation, including from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo as well as from other lawmakers. Feinstein says this isn't her intention. But do gun owners have anything to worry about?
Feinstein said on PBS Newshour that she would not attempt to ban and confiscate all guns. But is this political posturing — a falsehood meant to lull Americans into accepting her bill? Can Feinstein be trusted not to attempt gun confiscation, when she has stated that her true wish is for all American's to turn in their guns — if only she could just get the votes?
PBS Newshour's Gwen Ifill asked Feinstein directly about gun owners’ fears of banning all guns.
Ifill: What do you say to people who support the right to own arms that this is the 'camel's nose under the tent' — that the next thing, you'll be after concealed carry weapons, you'll be after other kinds of gun rights?"
Feinstein: Well that's just not true. It wasn't true with the prior bill that was the law for 10 years, and I just think, candidly, 'that dog doesn't hunt.
Ifill: Why shouldn't it be true? Why wouldn't you go after those other laws?
Feinstein: Because it's not what I've done in the past and it's not what I'm doing right now.
Taken at face value, Feinstein isn't going after all guns...
(Excerpt) Read more at policymic.com ...
Bump.
Bump.
Bump.
“THIS Woman is NOT to be trusted.”
No politician with “-D” after their name is to be trusted.
I’ll go further.
No American with “-D” as their political affiliation is to be trusted.
It’s pretty simple, really.
The article has an R behind her name! She is a big Rat! And being a big Rat she fears what is coming. She knows this country is going down the drain and that she and other politicians will be blaimed - so her demand for gun control! Get rid of the evil Black weapons before they are used on politicians!
Sadly for Di her bill is going straight to committee where it will die. Dingy Harry is not going to bring this bill to the floor for a vote. There are too many Dems up for re-election in 2014.
You’re welcome. We have much to be encouraged about. Right now the left is giving the ‘gun culture’ a lot of free publicity. They’re painting us as bad. It’s up to us to use the opportunity to paint a good picture and win as many new converts as we can. We can passively let the left slowly push more Americans into the ‘gun culture’ or we can open the doors up wide and invite more in. Join the party. Guns are fun!
Amen! Look what the ‘94 AWB did for gun ownership. Record setting sales. It remained high when Bush was in office too because he said he would sign its renewal if Congress put it on his desk. And since ‘08 the fear that 0bamugabe would do what he is finally trying to do has made the record sales of the ‘90s look like slow business.
A “war in the courts” does nothing to stop anyone from being disarmed by agents of the state. What would have been the fate of those in the militia on April 19, 1775 had they obeyed the orders of the British army and laid down their arms trusting in a later favorable determination to be made by the court of King George III? They, as well as we will be disarmed in the interim and subject to the will of others. No my friends. We live in an age in which we have no true representation; but instead we live under the rule of those who occupy political office for the sole purposes of enriching themselves, their friends and associates, while imposing their personal agendas upon us. Far and away from the repesentation we are due and entitled to as set forth by the founders.
War? More like a resistance to a usurpation of power. Self defense and the possession of effective means of providing for it to resist the power of the state or criminal actors is a natural right. Parity with the force government may offer against our well being should be the goal and any attempt to remove the weapons we possess for that defense should be met not with compliance, based on the hope of a finding that the act of confiscation was illegal, but rather with resistance in the first instance of it when and wherever that may occur. Would you surrender to an armed individual if you yourself were armed and place yourself at the mercy of your captor? Would you surrender control of your life to your enemy on the battlefield while you still possessed the means to resist and allow that enemy to decide your fate? A government demand to disarm is no less of a threat. Government, meaning those disloyal to their oath of allegiance to support and defend the Constitution of the United States by promulgating restrictions on the possession of arms by the citizenry, is no less a menace than a common armed criminal. “...shall not be infringed.” “Well here we are. Imagine where we’ll be”
Ladies and gentlemen, you and I alone will determine at what point to offer resistance to the demands of armed agents of the state when they call for your disarmament. Will you know their intent if you comply? Toward a better understanding an in order to educate yourself as to the possibilites that may await you I suggest you read The Gulag Archipelago and this brief essay by David Mamet, a playright and former member of the “brain dead left”, in his own words. Having completed these assignments you will be better prepared to deal with the reality of the moment when you are asked to surrender your arms and by doing so surrender the last of your abilities to control your freedom. Mamet’s essay here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-of-chelm-by-david-mamet.html
As a ‘law abiding citizen’ when does it become necessary to be otherwise? Time to choose.
The NRA should request everyone who owns a gun to sign up. Then pass out fliers of everyone who doesn’t. I’m almost serious.
I will go farther than you:
No politician can be trusted.
Watch as Rubio, Graham, and McCain sell us out to the illegals.
If her ugly plastic lips on her ugly plastic face were moving, the ugly hag was LYING.
I don’t think they believe they can get a significant gun ban.
I am beginning to suspect this is where they start negotiating expecting to settle for registration and taxes similar to cigarettes.
It could also lead to a live fire reenactment of the April 19, 1775 event on Lexington Green and most likely will.
Which is PRECISELY what Obozo, Fineswine and Schmuckie Schumer want!
What they fail to understand is that such events can go EITHER WAY!
I’d suggest they review the last known photo of Mussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci to get some idea as to their fate should, God willing, it go OUR way.
No negotiations with terrorists!
sorry...but that is one ugly woman. That make-up, geez..
“Gun rights advocates worry that an assault weapons ban — like the one proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (r-Calif.) — would be the start of a slippery slope that would end with a total gun ban in the U.S., as has happened in the UK and Australia. “
There is one big difference between those countries and the U.S.
They don’t have a ‘2nd Amendment’ but we do and we’ll exercise that right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.