Alan Korwin
Infowars
March 13, 2009
Here it is, folks, and it is bad news. The framework for legislation is always laid, and the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they want to impose upon us. They really do not believe you need anything more than a brick to defend your home and family. Look at the list and see how many you own. Remember, it is registration, then confiscation. It has happened in the UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that for some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know that you did.
Remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the citizens.
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):
M1 Carbine,
Sturm Ruger Mini-14,
AR-15,
Bushmaster XM15,
Armalite M15,
AR-10,
Thompson 1927,
Thompson M1
AK,
AKM,
AKS,
AK-47,
AK-74,
ARM,
MAK90,
NHM 90,
NHM 91,
SA 85,
SA 93,
VEPR
Olympic Arms PCR
AR70,
Calico Liberty ,
Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,
Fabrique National FN/FAL,
FN/LAR, or FNC,
Hi-Point20Carbine,
HK-91,
HK-93,
HK-94,
HK-PSG-1,
Thompson 1927 Commando,
Kel-Tec Sub Rifle
Saiga,
SAR-8,
SAR-4800,
SKS with detachable magazine,
SLG 95,
SLR 95 or 96,
Steyr AU,
Tavor,
Uzi,
Galil and Uzi Sporter,
Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).
Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110,
MAC-10,
MAC-11, or MPA3,
Olympic Arms OA,
TEC-9,
TEC-DC9,
TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,
Uzi.
Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG,
SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
Striker 12,
Streetsweeper. 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.
Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any “semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.”
Note that Obama’s pick for this office, Eric Holder, wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says, “there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.” In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.
The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn’t have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose — is that devious or what? And of course, “sporting purpose” is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.
Respectfully submitted, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm
Lou Dobbs on Obama administration firearm ownership policy/stance:
A partial list of gun rights groups:
Gun Owners of America
http://gunowners.org/Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
http://www.jpfo.org/FREEDOM=GUNS
http://www.tcsn.net/doncicci/freedom.htmNational Rifle Association
http://www.nra.org/Second Amendment Committee
http://www.libertygunrights.com/Second Amendment Foundation
http://www.saf.org/Second Amendment Sisters
http://www.2asisters.org/Women Against Gun Control
http://www.wagc.com/
Loading ...
April 11th, 2009 at 7:07 am
Note to myself:
Dear self,
Please reread and correct before submitting anything else! That last was pretty rough.
Sincerely,
Myself
April 11th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
You keep saying conservative and liberal as if there is a difference. The democrats and the republicans are tag teamed against the american people. The only difference between the democrats and the republicans is, the democrats do the same thing as the republicans but at a quicker pace. Except for a few football issues meant to sidetrack the public mind, such as abortion and stem cell research. It’s retarded.
The people whom control our society openly write they’d like to go back to a feudal caste style system. I fail to see how you can equate that with a “liberal movement”.
This is about allowing the bankers which have controlled us since 1913 to slip away after having looted the country blind with the federal reserve system. Leaving a “rear guard” of police, military, foreign troops to oppress the US citizens. Which is why it’s important to have the police and military understand who the criminals really are.
I’m not a conservative. I’m an individual, the smallest minority.
April 13th, 2009 at 6:07 am
To: Congress Check:
“You keep saying conservative and liberal as if there is a difference. The democrats and the republicans are tag teamed against the american people. The only difference between the democrats and the republicans is, the democrats do the same thing as the republicans but at a quicker pace.”
There IS a difference between “conservative” and “Liberal.” Please note that I use the capitalized letter L although that isn’t necessary for there to be differences between “conservative” and “liberal.” In order not to punish the point, I refer you to your dictionary.
Now, after having that nonsense, hopefully, behind us. I suspect we agree more than we disagree on the lack of difference between Republicans and Democrats. Where we agree, I think, is that neither of these two political parties have served us well the last 50 years or so. Despite vastly different political philosophies, both major parties have done nothing but increase the national debt, further and further overburden us with overly restrictive laws, ignore the prosecution of those who break even sensible laws, and vote themselves more and more benefits at taxpayer cost.
I suppose you mean the Democrats work “at a quicker pace” in reducing the nation to what would be bankruptcy for us everyday citizens. If that assumption is correct, then we agree although I think I would phrase it a bit differently — but that’s a minor point.
“The people whom [sic] control our society openly write they’d like to go back to a feudal caste style system. I fail to see how you can equate that with a “liberal movement”. “
This is your idea, not mine. I don’t equate feudalism with Liberalism, or a “liberal movement”. Since you make this point, I think it’s only fair that you explain it because I’m not familiar with this line of thinking. Specifically,
1. to whom do you point when mentioning “The people whom [sic] control our society?”
2. What have they said about their preference that we “go back to a feudal caste system,”
3. and where do I go to either hear or read it for myself?
Is it your contention, then, that “bankers” have and continue to control our society? While I don’t consider myself very knowledgeable on the subject, if you believe the Federal Reserve is a very bad idea, I’d agree with you. Beyond that, having acknowledged that I’m no expert on the subject, I’d probably say that market forces are sometimes beyond the control of anyone including bankers and including “The Fed.”
We agree that the police and the military should know that the people are not the criminal element in the larger scope of things. Politicians bear much more guilt, and I suppose so do “the bankers,” and the Federal Reserve Bank.
Although previously a life-long Republican since 1962 when I became 21 years of age, I left that party in May of 1992 when I realized that I no longer felt comfortable being a member of a political party that had drifted so far to the left that they were more “Liberal” than John F. Kennedy had been back in 1963.
Maybe i’m missing something here, but I don’t find your claim to be “an individual” to be very exclusive. Who among us, regardless of their views, political or otherwise, would you say is not an individual? Perhaps you mean that you are an “individualist?” If so, there again, a definition would be helpful, or do you, in this case, refer me to my own dictionary?
“I’m not a conservative. I’m an individual, the smallest minority.”
Ok, but what does that mean? Do you mean to say that the terms “conservative” and “individual,” or maybe “individualist,” are mutually exclusive – that one can’t, for instance, be a “conservative individual?” Come on! Really? Maybe we’re flinging terms around supposing they have meaning when they don’t? Do you think?
Lastly, if you believe that abortion and stem cell research are nothing more than “football issues meant to sidetrack the public mindI,” then I disagree with you entirely . For that matter, I’m doubtful that there is such a thing as a “public mind.” I wonder, since I have absolutely no idea whatsoever, what is the public mind up to these days?
I don’t know if they’d be considered part of “the public mind” or not, but I know a fairly large number of people to whom both stem cell research and abortion are religious issues of great importance to them…not trivial, distracting “football issues.”
Otherwise, I think you and I probably agree on a great number of things. I’m just not precisely sure what they are yet.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:22 am
[...] [SIZE=5][/SIZE] [SIZE=5][/SIZE] [SIZE=5][/SIZE] [SIZE=5][/SIZE] [SIZE=5][/SIZE] [SIZE=5]Obama
December 9th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster! They should call this the idiot gathering site!