As I've pointed out for many, many years -- if we gun-owners were 1/10th the hairy-backed, knuckle-draggers they paint us to be, they would have been dead long ago.
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
I don't think the dude who shot Giffords and the others...was a pro gun advocate.
He was/is just nuts.
As I've pointed out for many, many years -- if we gun-owners were 1/10th the hairy-backed, knuckle-draggers they paint us to be, they would have been dead long ago.
Here's a thought, maybe the DOJ should stop the BATFE from trafficking in illegal firearms for a start.
5.56mm
>Where do we muster? Who’s the CO? Which company and platoon do we report to?<
>Blowhards like you love to cut down American patriots because we haven’t rolled guillotines down Pennsylvania Avenue. If you took a historical measure, you’d discover that it took the Founders 25 years - 1750 to 1775 - to organize, find leadership and make a plan to take on the British.<
>>Militias are outdated. Look around the world,, leaderless resistance is far better. It’s extremely difficult to roll up. If you give up the luxury of a leader giving orders for this or that plan,,,you wind up with a movement that is much more to be feared.<<
When you organize military type units, sure you have fantastic firefights but who is it that gets killed? The men who decided that the firefight/war was required for defense of the nation or the patriots who love the nation?
If the same men had decided to take out the treasonous leader and the political crowd of the opposing force would that make the needed changes in how business is conducted? More than likely it would.
So now you get down to the issue of do you inform/warn them that if they don’t change their ways, they are going to experience a swift drop in body temperature or do you just go ahead and do it?
Where do you draw the line that such and such behavior is worthy of a quiet removal from Office? No public display of the bodies is required. The family will understand that broadcasts on the evening news should be kept to two short sentences. “X and XX was killed last night. We are leaving town this afternoon.”
Lots of questions, huh?
I didn’t mean to imply that he was pro-gun. I apologize.
Absolutely so. To quote the immortal words of Henry Bowman, "If you see something that needs doing, do it." Anyone who needs a playbook at this late date isn't even in the game.
Agreed. But we should welcome stragglers. We'll need as many as we can get if we want our Constitutionally limited Federal Republic back...
Aw, they'd never catch him, anyway. It'd just be another COINTELPRO hit.
Which is what I've been saying on here for a long time. Nobody did anything after the federal government passed farming laws, or all of those unconstitutional firearms laws. Nobody took a stand then, and I doubt nobody will take a stand today.
How about NFA ‘34? That was enacted far more than 25 years ago, and people still did nothing.
This is not the country George Washington fought for anymore, and it makes me sad to say it.
Do you have any idea what the current name for COINTELPRO might be? You know there has to be one operating with the Tea Party out there. LOL
They've gone by serveral alpha designations and a couple of numerical ones. but operate under T.R.A.C.
You know there has to be one operating with the Tea Party out there. LOL
I reckon they were the fellas caught stringing *telephone wring* inside the Murah Building in OKC the day before the explosion. After all, it was an FBI guy that tried to get an Arizona mob war going by starting a bombing campaign, around the time Phoenix newspaperman Dan Bolles was blown up.
It's not stupid when you consider that these same Democrats, if they are elected, now vote for most of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi agenda. It's like shooting yourself in the foot because your foot itches. The strategy is self defeating because you're not really advancing the pro-gun agenda by electing the enemy even if you think they're on your side on this issue.
What kind of man does a child grow in to when he is suspended in school for pointing his hand like a gun, or even drawing a gun on a piece of paper? This is a deliberate policy of emasculation and it's working. We have very little time left, if any.
When I was a child, around 1993-1996, all I drew were tanks and warbirds. I even remember writing this incredibly bad piece of poetry about Arafat that my teacher and parents went ballistic over; I wrote it that way mainly because of the odd name. I was never forcefully interviewed by police because of the things I drew, and that was in the NYC public education system.
You left out Oklahoma.
Then, by extension, a “single-issue” platform like the NRA’s would be similarly stupid. The NRA cannot endorse a Democrat because of what they might do on other issues, so that would negate the single-issue platform and concept.
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.
“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.”
Apply this to voting. Strong background check with complete records of dangerous and irresponsible people... After all, if it’s good enough for RKBA, they have no reason not to accept it for voting.
If they can’t agree to that and implement that before moving on any more gun control, then I cannot accept anything they propose.
Thanks!!
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.