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 ...
I suspect that Feinstein et al are not going for a gun ban as such. What they would rather do is to smother gun ownership in regulations, fees, taxes, etc. so that the average citizen couldn’t possibly afford to legally own a gun but people in the “elite” (say, leftwing Hollywood types) can still get whatever guns they want for their bodyguards; people like that will have the money and connections to navigate the regulations. All perfectly legal, of course.
After all, they really think that they’re better than us mere commoners. Why wouldn’t they like it this way?
A total gun ban would incite a war in the streets.
What would that mean?
Every:
a. government bureaucrat and elected official;
b. every law enforcement officer, since they all have become federalized;
c. one of your neighbors who are in the National Guard and Reserve, active or inactive;
d. every one of your friends, relatives, sons and daughters who are presently in the military;
have just become suspect as “working for the Crown”, and shall be targeted for extinction, simply because of their status and attached stigma, whether they say so or not. (Who can say in that time, how many will be DHS ‘plants’?)
Since Obama is stacking the deck with military staff, that have answered ‘yes’, to shooting their own countrymen, he has already initiated the war, IMHO.
We have never been in this kind of mind-numbing scenario, since 1865. We have become anesthetized to the madness, brutality, and bloodshed, that this will mean, and on a scale that would make that business with Janet Reno and Texas, commonplace.
But, the cancer is very deep, and coming to stage 4.
Are you, the reader, ready for this?
Heck, am - I - ready for this?
I swore an Oath, once. I put my life on the line for 3 years, once. If it means I don’t get to see 80, I’ve seen, been, and done more than some in 60 years of life, but always with a love for THIS country, and what it has always stood for.
We shall see.
The same administration that won’t defend the borders wants to disarm the citizenry? It’s amazing these clowns haven’t been removed from office yet.
That has been the plan since 1962.
As I have posted many times, military style rifles are just a smokescreen. Their ultimate goal is the total abolition of the RIGHT to own firearms of any type.
It has always been about handguns. Assault rifles are just a decoy to try and get their anti-gun foot in the door.
Once they get a ban on AWs then they will use the same reasons to go after handguns.
John Kennedy killed with a 5 shot bolt action rifle.
Medgar Evers, shot with a 5 shot 1917 bolt action Enfield rifle.
Martin Luther King, shot with a 4 shot Remington 760 pump action Gamemaster rifle.
Bobby Kennedy with a .22 Iver Johnson Cadet revolver.
George Wallace wounded with a 5 shot Charter Arms .38spl revolver.
Howard Johnsons shooter killed nine, wounded thirteen with a 4 shot RUGER .44 mag Deerslayer rifle.
Gerald Ford attacked with a 7 shot 1911 semi auto.
Edmond OK post office with two National Guard 7 shot 1911 pistols.
Ronald Reagan and Jim Brady with an RG-14 .22 revolver.
What do they all have in common? NONE over 7 rounds, yet after each one came a cry of panic to ban all of them.
And if you still have doubts consider this by Nelson P Shields, founder of Handgun control Inc.
Nelson T. ‘Pete’ Shields
Founder of Handgun Control, Inc.
“I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest.
Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time.
So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again.
Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time.
My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered.
And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.”
-Pete Shields, Chairman and founder, Handgun Control Inc., “A Reporter At Large: Handguns,” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58
For those who may still doubt, Up until the 1980s HCI said they “Only wanted to control handguns. Long guns would not be affected.” Then they decided to go after semi-auto military style rifles along with handguns.
It’s pretty simple, really.
That's why I always laugh at the term "Conservative Democrat." There is no such thing. When push comes to shove, they vote with the party first.
If they are really conservatives, why the h*** do they belong to a political party that is communist in everything but name? To me, that shows a lack of discernment, at the very least. And don't get me started on so-called "Christians" who vote Democrat. Are you kidding me?
Well said!!!!!
No law like that is going anywhere in the Senate, much less the House.
The real problem is in states, despite the fact that the SCOTUS has incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the states, by using the 14th Amendment.
NY’s law doesn’t even exempt police.
Not today, perhaps, but two, four or six years from now when demographics give both houses to the Democratic Socialists? Would you bet $1,000 that it can't happen?
Never trust any politician with a D and very few with an R. There are very true in D.C. who have proven that they will go to the wall for the sake of conservative principals.
Any government Fed, state, local which passes ANY gun laws/regulations is in direct violation of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. There is no wiggle room in SNBI.
The RTKBA SNBI is unambiguous to any HONEST person and hence the problem we find ourselves in today. There are no honest people in Washington DC and in many state governments and certainly very few in the media.
Lawyers? It goes without saying as those bottom feeders would sell us out in a heart beat and they have.
I figure that it is a screen to distract from the budget fiasco.
Sufficient unto the day are the troubles thereof.
Feinstein’s law exempts government officials. That could be a ‘Titles of Nobility’ violation of the constitution.
Not just a Total Gun Ban, but openly abrogating The Constitution and The Bill of Rights completely!
this will push 3d printing development
3d printing will spread to other products.
3d printing spreading to other products will mean on demand production.
3d printing on demand will be a black swan moment that will alter production and manufacture
less bulk manufacture will make regulation on MULTIPLE fronts impossible.
finstein’s power grab causing unintended consequences destroying congressional stock portfolios.
(PS. don’t forget that UN small arms treaty folks. That would be a way for Obama to bypass the constitution.)
I'm glad we are finally talking about real facts. The politicians know they are raping the Treasury and raping future generations to increase their wealth and power, and they know someday the bill will come due. They are terrified of their "Storm the Bastille" future.
With AR and AK prices in the stratosphere, I expect the mafia, biker gangs, Mexican cartels (oh, the irony) and other not-so-legal organizations to get in on the act of procuring and manufacturing said weapons. If children in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the like can be taught to make rifles, surely children and adults here and in Mexico can do the same, especially now that they’re going for $3,000 to $6,000 and more. Wait and see. Making “assault rifles” has become like spinning straw into gold.
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.