Posted on 06/11/2011 5:33:46 PM PDT by neverdem
PHOENIX, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- Paul Helmke, ringleader of the aggressive Brady Anti-Gun gang, released this statement about the “bipartisan” gun-control meeting the White House scheduled.
(Note: The “White House” is a building and can’t do anything; the person responsible in that building remains unidentified but appears to be Steve Croley) The meeting only included people who want to ban guns, an indicator of the plans, according to unidentifiable experts.
“On Tuesday, I attended a meeting at the U.S. Department of Justice with representatives from the White House, the Vice-President’s office, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the FBI, and others from the Obama Administration, along with leaders from the gun violence prevention movement, to discuss how to reach the goals outlined in the President’s statement. Officials from the Administration indicated that this was the first of what they hoped would be a series of discussions. They said they had not settled on, or excluded, any relevant proposals.
“I began the discussion by listing basic measures that the Brady Campaign, and others, felt could make a difference. The list included: a strong background check system, with good and complete records of dangerous and irresponsible people, applicable to all commercial gun sales; more tools for law enforcement to stop trafficking in illegal guns; increasing the number and type of military-style weapons, including "assault clips," that should not be readily available to civilians, like machine-guns and fully automatic weapons. Administration officials then asked questions. My colleagues and I gave examples and arguments for legislative, administrative, and voluntary policies that could help reduce the bloodshed.
“The meeting lasted more than 90 minutes. Having this many Administration representatives spend this much time on this initial meeting signaled to me that the president is serious. He wants to do something meaningful about gun violence. After meeting with others, including law enforcement and "gun rights" groups [note: no such meetings are known to have been held], Obama’s representatives will be presenting specific proposals. We hope those will include all the "sound and effective steps" that the president called for in his statement.”
No word has leaked on what or how the anti-rights leaders will attempt to implement their programs. Rumors are swirling that every effort will be made to avoid going through Congress, since it is well recognized that the peoples’ representatives there will not tolerate rights denial programs. Avoiding Congress would be a travesty bordering on treason, but since it is just one of many such moves, objections might be slight, and arrests of the perpetrators seem unlikely.
One leading gun-rights advocate, who was not invited to the “open” discussions, opined, “A seat at the table would be good, but only if used to present reasonable ideas — gun curricula, self-defense protections, justice for civil-rights violators (just injecting civil rights into the lexicon would be good), gun-free zones vs. make-believe gun-free zones, the debilitating effects of hoplophobia and failure to recognize or treat the sufferers, and have the antis dismiss such common-sense measures; also a chance to stand against the anti-rights movement and cast them as such. I’m not sure which gun-rights leader is best suited to that. I’d love to have a crack at it, but I wasn’t invited.” An opportunity to do any of that was considered unlikely.
There are serious issues American gun owners want discussed, such as restoration of rights, national concealed-carry reciprocity, cracking down on states like New Jersey, New York and California that routinely violate gun owners rights, lifting the administration’s ban on importation of historic WWII-era rifles, reining in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, especially the Phoenix office and its Fast and Furious and GunWalker operations, and the nomination of anti-gun rights Andrew Traver to head BATFE.
Plans to strip Americans of their guns, either in whole cloth or with a thousand cuts, are deep secrets at both the center of the U.S. government, and at the United Nations, which are known to be working in concert to attain those goals. We’ll be watching.
About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. "After Your Shoot" for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, "It doesn't make sense to own a gun and not know the rules." Visit: www.gunlaws.com
You should read some articles about gun ban down here in Australia. Gun crime actually went up when they put restrictive gun ownership on people. A friend here had a .22 long rifle for shooting varmints on her ranch - had to fill out 23 pages of forms. She just gave up.
Oh, I know how Rebecca “the bobblehead” Peterson F’ed you guys down there.
That woman is insane. Out of every country in the world, given the dangerous species of animals you have down there, you’d think that it’d be common sense that guns are a necessity.
Stupidity should be painful but for the people instigating this crap, not the folks like yourself who have to suffer because of it.
Hmmm. Two former FedGov employees, one with connections to Muslims in the Phillipines, and the other a Special Forces trainee who had a *private interview* with a couple of spooks from an unnamed unit, then dropped out of his SF qualification course.
Then, when they were nosing around Texas and Arizona, they were accompanied by a German ex-military intelligence spook, whose father is Gunther Strassmeir, Helmut Kohl's secretary of state, who had been reporting to the local BATF office...among others
Nope, I don't think OKC goes on the list.
I still hear rumors about the German. He is here and there where ever there is potential turmoil. Very odd movements, one day someone will take exception to his actions.
Well I’m a Yank working down here and I do get into gun issues. I told them how many guns we have at home and they want to know why. Made for an interesting evening.
I bet. I still don’t get how those folks let themselves be run under the bus like that.
It gets more interesting when I explain how our electoral system works and what the difference is between our states and their states. I’ve been at the pub evenings until way late.
But, the NRA IS a single-issue organization. Hedging their endorsements on other issues is simply foolish. The endorsement of the NRA should mean SOMETHING, other than a de-facto RNC stamp of approval."
You're mistaken if you think the NRA only lobbies on gun legislation. They lobbied very prominently against McCain/Feingold, and rightfully so, but that blows your point out of the water. Also, withholding endorsements of Democrats does not make them a rubber stamp for the Republican party, since they can withhold those endorsements as well. Endorsing Democrats who are good on guns only strengthens the Democratic Party since those candidates can and do support their party on most other things, such as ObamaCare. A national organization has to have a wider strategy than just thinking about a single candidate.
They lobbied against McCain/Feingold because it would have restricted their ability to run advocacy ads right before an election. They were defending their own rights to act as a proponent for 2A issues.
So, NO, it doesn’t blow my point “out of the water”.
How can you say that withholding endorsements from QUALIFIED democrats doesn’t make them a rubber stamp? If they do so, they’re doing it purely based on political party. If they withhold endorsements from Republican candidates, under your thinking, it’s not due to party, but due to 2A qualifications. That’s a DOUBLE STANDARD.
Again, all this does is bring light to my point about single-issue advocacy groups and platforms - they’re a double-edged sword.
Would you vote for a Democrat?
I’m not a single issue voter (usually), so I vote the party ticket unless a Republican strikes me as a scumbag. I cannot recall the last time I voted for a Democrat. However, I clearly identify myself as a Republican, so I vote for Republicans.
If I were the NRA, I would have to identify myself as a Republican arm if I only voted for (endorsed) Republicans. I could no longer claim to be a single-issue advocacy group, becaue I’d really only be advocating for the Republican party.
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.