Posted on 01/12/2013 11:25:29 AM PST by forty_years
Vice President Joe Biden said on Wednesday that President Barack Obama could use executive action and bypass Congress to further restrict gun ownership by private citizens. ...
"I want to make it clear that we are not going to get caught up in the notion (that) unless we can do everything we're going to do nothing," Biden said. "It's critically important (that) we act."
"Unless we can do everything?" What does this man mean? "Do everything" means an unlimited set of options. Does Biden mean that he and President Obama will ignore the U.S. Constitution, ignore legal precedents, and even call out the Armed Forces to take away the gun rights of all Americans? This sounds like a power-grab -- and a fear of empowered citizens -- given the fact that gun control has no effect on reducing crime. For example, "the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban." Biden's words are absolutely frightening, but even more so as he uttered them in the same venue where he tabled the equally ominous possibility that "President Barack Obama could use executive action and bypass Congress to further restrict gun ownership by private citizens." We already know that President Obama is willing to disregard the Constitution he is sworn to uphold:
A new paper by John Yoo (UC Berkeley School of Law) and Robert J. Delahunty (University of St. Thomas School of Law, Minnesota) raises many questions about President Obama's decision to grant legal status to nearly two million illegal aliens under deferred action and concludes that the president's act "threatens to vest the executive branch with broad domestic policy authority that the Constitution does not grant it." If taken to its logical conclusion, President Obama's lawless action has the power to undermine the entirety of immigration law, while expanding the presidential power in all domestic policy areas. ...
Are we faced with the president who would be king? This nation was founded on the throwing off of tyranny. Are we now seeing the return to tyranny, where Obama rules by caveat? The president has friends in high places when it comes to attempting to take away Americans' right bear arms.
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has crafted legislation that is a direct attack on the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. Her "bill" would place all sorts of heinous restrictions on U.S. citizens' sacred right to bear arms:
According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein's website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of "assault weapon" that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. ...
Feinstein's legislation is Orwellian in the restrictions it would impose on Americans. For example, her bill would "ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California's highly restrictive ban." She's not even satisfied with her own state's (California's) over-the-top gun laws. The bill uses extremely complex definitions which could be applied to many different types of firearms. This type of language will set up a scenario where armies of gun-control lawyers will use convoluted law-fare to try to ban everything under the sun:
... For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the "pistol grip" of which "protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon," the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any "grip ... or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." Also, the new bill adds "forward grip" to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as "a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip." Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. ...
Just reading the wording of this law-babble is nauseating -- but it's meant to be confusing. Feinstein uses scare tactics, wants to create Stalinist-era-like lists of citizens, prevaricates about the effectiveness of gun control, and sets forth unconstitutional provisions. Her legislation:
... Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein's 1994 ban listed "grenade launcher" as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill carries goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing "rocket launcher." Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add "nuclear bomb," "particle beam weapon," or something else equally far-fetched to the features list. ...
... Requires owners of existing "assault weapons" to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE's permission to transport the firearm across state lines. ...
... The Department of Justice study. On her website, Feinstein claims that a study for the DOJ found that the 1994 ban resulted in a 6.7 percent decrease in murders. To the contrary, this is what the study said: "At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995. ... However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously.""Assault weapon" numbers and murder trends. From the imposition of Feinstein's "assault weapon" ban (Sept. 13, 1994) through the present, the number of "assault weapons" has risen dramatically. For example, the most common firearm that Feinstein considers an "assault weapon" is the AR-15 rifle, the manufacturing numbers of which can be gleaned from the BATFE's firearm manufacturer reports, available here. From 1995 through 2011, the number of AR-15s -- all models of which Feinstein's new bill defines as "assault weapons" -- rose by over 2.5 million. During the same period, the nation's murder rate fell 48 percent, to a 48-year low. According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles of any type.
Traces: Feinstein makes several claims, premised on firearm traces, hoping to convince people that her 1994 ban reduced the (relatively infrequent) use of "assault weapons" in crime. However, traces do not indicate how often any type of gun is used in crime. As the Congressional Research Service and the BATFE have explained, not all firearms that are traced have been used in crime, and not all firearms used in crime are traced. Whether a trace occurs depends on whether a law enforcement agency requests that a trace be conducted. Given that existing "assault weapons" were exempted from the 1994 ban and new "assault weapons" continued to be made while the ban was in effect, any reduction in the percentage of traces accounted for by "assault weapons" during the ban, would be attributable to law enforcement agencies losing interest in tracing the firearms, or law enforcement agencies increasing their requests for traces on other types of firearms, as urged by the BATFE for more than a decade. ...
... Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm "overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose." Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines "overwhelmingly chosen" by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, Feinstein's list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name ... contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.
This legalese gobbledygook bears no resemblance to one of the founding principles of this nation as enshrined in the Second Amendment, stated simply and concisely:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The phrase "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is straightforward and certainly does not codify anything about "forward grips," "characteristics," "AR-15s," or "rocket launchers." How did we get from the time of being a nation that overthrew tyranny to now, where our ability to protect ourselves, families, friends, and other citizens, and to maintaining the ability to protect our democracy for internal and external threats, is threatened by people obsessed with control and power? Is it time to welcome back King George, er, ah, Obama? Look at a few examples of what our Founding Fathers said about Americans' right to bear arms:
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
"That the said 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 ... " -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
We have all this hoo-hah despite the fact that gun control doesn't do anything to reduce crime. For example:
Claim: The federal "assault weapon" ban "was effective" in reducing crime.[Fact:] "Assault weapons" have never been used in more than a small percentage of crime. Furthermore, firearm-related and non-firearm related crime were decreasing before the ban was imposed and have continued to decrease since the ban expired, all for reasons unrelated to gun control. ... (click here for very detailed information)
[Fact:] To the contrary, since the ban expired, as the number of "assault weapons" that Americans own has risen by more than 2 million to an all-time high, the nation's total violent crime and murder rates have fallen to 41-year and 48-year lows, respectively. (click here for very detailed information)
[Fact:] Not likely, for numerous reasons. Many of the cartels' guns don't come from the United States. The cartels have machine guns and other heavy weapons not sold in the United States. And, reinstating the federal "assault weapon" ban would only prohibit various firearms from being made in the U.S. with external attachments that don't affect how a gun operates. (click here for very detailed information)
[Fact:] Contrary to what gun control supporters say, traces do not trace firearms "to crime." Moreover, the BATFE and the Congressional Research Service say that trace results cannot be used to determine the degree to which any type of firearm is used to commit crime. (click here for very detailed information)
The list of facts supporting the right to bear arms, even "assault weapons," is endless: "Millions of Americans own so-called 'assault weapons' and tens of millions own 'large' magazines, for self-defense, target shooting, and hunting. For more information about the history of the 'assault weapon' issue, please visit www.GunBanFacts.com." Those of us who believe in our Constitution and cherish the right to bear arms must ACT NOW to stop the current push by people like President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Senator Feinstein to take our inviolable gun rights. We must make our voices loud and clear. We must act through democratic means by contacting our elected representatives, who are sworn to serve us, and tell them to uphold the constitutional right to bear arms, which they are sworn to uphold.
TAKE ACTION NOW TO PROTECT GUN RIGHTS
Write a polite and factual letter to the president and each of your elected representatives in Washington. Keep it short and sweet and to the point (e.g., "I urge you to oppose Sen. Feinstein's gun control legislation"). State the facts. Follow up by calling each of your elected reps, making a short statement emphasizing what you composed in your letter. Using any/all of the following links, you'll find the resources you need to:
You can also enter your zip code below and find contact information for all your elected representatives or click on these links:
|
||
|
||
|
||
I am waiting for the media to jump all over Biden for his stridency and unwillingness to negotiate and compromise, in the same way they attack conservatives.
Not.
This is not ominous at all.
The fed govt is without authority to do anything in gun control (and for that matter, the existing background checks, while an appealing idea I believe prudent, are patently unconstitutional in their own right... and no doubt would have to be struck down if NRA or someone mounted a challenge).
I read Biden’s comment as preparing the country for the “doing nothing” option, accompanied with, of course, tons of political BS speeches about how their hands are tied and how they wished so very much to “protect us” .. etc...)
ps: happened to drive within about a mile and quarter of a gun show, on way to another destination. The parking lots were all full (there are extensive parking lots!) and they had traffic lined up blocking all vehicular movement for a mile on each side of the show site.... cars waiting in the traffic lanes for a chance to squeeze into the lot as soon as anybody left the show. FYI. We were extremely lucky to be able to reach a corner where we were able to make a legal U-turn and get away from the traffic tie-up; we never did get to our intended destination. It is obvious that nobody plans to be giving up their guns — indeed I wish we had stock in the manufacturers’ companies they must be making a FORTUNE since O and Biden started spouting off their political bs about taking people’s guns away. (HUM... maybe O and Biden purchased stock in the companies last year...???????? ha! Naw, they’d never do anything dishonest.... forget it!)
Translation: "I'm too stupid to know that if I overreach, I'll cause a severe backlash."
Obama WILL try to ignore the Second Amendment, and he will try to ignore established US Statutes and the process for enacting Legal laws through both houses. Unequivocally!
He WILL issue Executive Orders that infringe on the citizens' rights to bear arms, and his lap dog Executive agencies like the ATF will establish regulations and BS rules that try to coerce citizens to comply.
An Executive Order is a directive to an Executive Branch agency to follow some administrative edict from the President. I contend that it is not LAW; any rule, regulation or order must have some basis in established Federal Law to be consitutional.
I am not his employee, I am not his frigging 'subject'. If the ATF whoever cannot cite established legal LAWS on which their rulings, edicts or demands are based, I am not going to comply, period. I won't have any weapons when they come.
Given the track record of the so-called “opposition party” that is the Republicans, do you doubt they will “roll-over”?
I will die when they come, the only question is haw many of them will also die.
I agree with everything you said.
What is truly infuriating is that we all know that the GOP-e leadership in D.C. will NOT stand up for the 2nd Amendment. They are are contemptible cowards.
If I was writing a fictional essay on what happens after the collapse, it would start with all the GOP-e being chased into oblivion and then move to taking on the evil left.
Boehner, McConnel are disgusting, panty-wearing girly men.
I agree, this is not iminous, it’s good news.
Biden is setting up the anti-freedom base for the outcome of a meaningless law or two getting passed.
What he means is that he knows nothing big will be passed regarding guns.
Standard Obama procedure, talk very big, do very little.
Who knows what Biden means. The man has never had a cogent thought in his life.
Uncle Joe is saying that the Regime won't take an all-or-nothing approach. That they will push through whatever they can get is the real message. It does our side no good whatsoever when we go off about what the other side didn't say. It's especially embarrassing when the entire quote is there to put Biden's words in context.
Stuning our beebers in the shower may make for hugh and vey series fun on FreeRepublic, but it harms our cause when we post material from bloggers who can't read.
>> Who knows what Biden means. The man has never had a cogent thought in his life.
WE HAVE A WINNER
“All Phasors sold may only have a Stun setting”
...to her bill..../S
Really, what good is a collectivist agenda without a suitable genocidal finale?
All or nothing—Fine by me.
I got first dibs on Holder.
Should be here in the next millenium or two.....
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.