Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
January 14, 2009
If Illinois Democrat Bobby Rush has his way, gun owners in America will be required to submit to the federal government a photo, thumb print and mental heath records. Rush’s proposed bill H.R. 45, also known as “Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009,” will make it illegal to possess a “qualifying firearm,” specifically any firearm that takes an ammunition clip, without a license.
 |
|
 |
|
| Illinois Democrat Bobby Rush. |   |
|
If passed, the law will amend the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license. It would establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse with the Attorney General. It should be noted that Obama’s proposed attorney general, Eric Holder, is a notorious gun-grabber.
The very name of the bill reveals what Mr. Rush and the Democrats think of gun ownership and the Second Amendment. “On the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Blair Holt, a junior at Julian High School in Chicago, was killed on a public bus riding home from school when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire after a young man boarded the bus and started shooting,” text from the bill states. The bill argues that children dying from gun violence is a legitimate reason for the government to monitor gun ownership and place restrictions on the Second Amendment.
As Drew Zahn notes, “H.R. 45 is a resurfacing of 2007’s H.R. 2666, which contained much of the same language and was co-sponsored by 15 other representatives and Barack Obama’s current chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel. H.R. 2666 was assigned to the House Judiciary committee, where no action was taken.”
In 2000, Barak Obama cosponsored a bill that would have limited the purchase of handguns to one per month. “According to the 1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test of July 2, 1998, Obama also supports the banning of all semi-automatic weapon sales and transfers,” Associated Content reported in March of last year. “The only reason to try to ban a whole class of gun, with such a wide stroke, is to start the progression of banning all guns eventually.”
Now that Democrats control Congress and the executive, they will aggressively move to ban gun ownership. “In the 20th century, the Second Amendment has become an anachronism,” explains the Brady Center. “The rights guaranteed by the Constitution have never been absolute… The vast majority of the American people support reasonable gun control laws and view them as necessary to reduce the level of gun violence in this country. The framers of the Constitution would surely agree.”
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
In fact, Thomas Jefferson would strongly disagree with Brady, the Democrats, and no shortage of allegedly conservative Republicans. “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms,” wrote Jefferson, quoting the criminologist Cesare Beccaria, “disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.”
Brady and the Democrats have deliberately distorted the meaning of the Second Amendment in order to take firearms away from the people. Democrat Bobby Rush and his ilk are shamelessly exploiting the young victim Blair Holt in order to dismantle our right to self defense, not only from thugs but from the government itself. As the framers understood, the Second Amendment is primarily about resisting tyrannical government, not hunting or target shooting.
Rep. Bobby Rush and the Democrats who support Brady and other gun-grabbers should read Samuel Adams’ Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Adams wrote that the “Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
Adams obviously understood something the gun-grabbers refuse to consider — liberty of the press and rights of conscience are intimately entwined with the right of peaceable citizens to keep firearms.
Loading ...
January 25th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Leif,
Where are you? You still need to answer the above fore mentioned questions. That right there is proof in point that your ilk including the Brady bunch of Left-loonies has no case and you know it. Some intellectual you try to be. You are so elitist that you can’t see obvious common-sense answers that are right in front of you. Crime control not gun control. Stop giving plea deals to career criminals and try enforcing the laws already on the books. If you believe that crap they are spoon-feeding you works, then why is Bobby Rush’s and Obama’s Chicago a war zone? They have full registration in place for guns. Funny thing is, that the law-abiding aren’t the ones causing the crime, the career criminals are. You have been duped by the liberal, crazy, socialist left. Liberalism is a mental disorder by the way. May you some day pull your head out of your crack and see the light. Till next time.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Just like a liberal, all talk and no spine. Leif when facts are thrown at you, you are no where to be found. Leif go hug a tree or stroke the “Goreagal”-(Al Gore).
February 5th, 2009 at 8:26 am
The notion of testing someone before a crime is committed is ridiculous on the face of it. Where does this type of testing lead to? Complete suppression of all human rights and only the rights the government bequeaths to you are the rights you have.
Are we to give everyone on the planet a psychological examination to ensure they are not going to commit a crime in the future? It seems our friend Leif would think so. And just who will test the testers? What assurance do we have that those in power do not use that power inappropriately to dominate the rest of humanity?
Look, it’s pretty axiomatic to understand that guns by themselves are completely inert and totally safe. The problem is the human equation. Are we to judge that everyone is assumed to be guilty of a crime not yet committed? Where will this lead? Are we to purge, through execution or even abortion should technology proceed along those lines, those who fail this psychological examination, even though no crime has been committed because there is a higher likelihood that a crime may be committed by one of these individuals as compared to other humans who are magically deemed, “normal”?
And given the fact that our criminal population doesn’t follow any of the laws anyway, are we naïve enough to believe that just because we restrict gun ownership away from the law abiding general public that the problems of murder, rape, robbery and drug activity are simply going to go away as if by magic?
Or are we being duped by criminal mined politicians who have determined it would be much easier to overthrow our government and exchange it for some dictatorial regime because the general citizenry has the lack of the ability to defend itself, with violence if necessary, because all of their weapons have been taken away from them by the very government that is supposed to protect their rights instead of taking them away?
This idiotic fool from Illinois is one of the congressional members totally out of control. It seems that today most of Congress represents themselves instead of the people who have elected them. The will of the majority of Americans simply isn’t important to them any longer.
We have plenty of good Gun Control laws already on the books. Enforce them instead of the band aide approach of passing yet another useless law that only makes things worse. Take the criminal off the street and if necessary execute them. Leave law abiding citizens alone, they are not the problem and it is a proven fact that when the chips are down that the only person rushing to aide you in defense of your life will be you and no one else. Either you drop the bad guy or he’s gonna drop you. All the police can really do, after the fact, is to make the report and put the toe tag on your lifeless corpse.
If I had criminal intent on my mind I would be 100% in favor of this bill as it would make my job of stealing you blind or having my way with you all the more easier because I would still have my gun and you wouldn’t have yours.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
The gun laws are sure getting crazy. Im glad I got my FFL a few years ago. I bet soon you wont be able to get one at all.
March 15th, 2010 at 7:48 am
I prefer the airsoft LMG’S, my most loved is the MG-42. Unfortunately with a few infants and a home loan i gotta settle for my SRC AK-74. Less than the aforesaid but continues to be fun as heck! One of these days I will have one though, possibly even a mini gun, if i win the lottery!