THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS GOING AFTER THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Some reading:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/18/Washington-tries-to-allow-police-search-homes
....and...
http://www.examiner.com/article/minnesota-democrats-pushing-gun-confiscation-bill-similar-to-missouri-s
....and...
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/01/20/NY-Assemblyman-exposes-gun-confiscation-agenda-of-Democrats
...and...
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/01/20/NY-Assemblyman-exposes-gun-confiscation-agenda-of-Democrats
...and...
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/gun-confiscation-by-presidential-decree/
These are just a FEW of the MANY calls....ALL BY DEMOCRATS....to render the Second Amendment meaningless and ineffectual.
Feinstein's legislation, while called (by her, the media, the DNC) an "assault weapons ban", is, in fact, a veiled call to ban every gun made...(the language is such that the definition of "assault weapon" can be interpreted to mean ANY gun).
Here, read the bill: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons)
Surely, this is not a recent development for Feinstein who, in 1995, on the show "60 Minutes", said:
"US Senator, If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”
On the other side of the issue.....the side SPECIFICALLY contemplated by our Founding Fathers, BTW....we have the Democratic Party, led by Obama, clearing the way for a) the US military to be utilized in order to put down ANY protest of anti-gun legislation and b) to utilize military weapons (drones) to attack US citizens:
http://www.infowars.com/nobel-peace-prize-nominee-obama-asks-military-leaders-if-they-will-fire-on-us-citizens/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/5/justice-department-memo-drone-strikes-us-citizens-/
With President Obama and the entirety of the Democratic Party setting their collective sights squarely on the Second Amendment, now is a VERY good time to take a look at the objective of their push...
....if it's not clear enough already.
Is the Democrats' claim of "reducing gun-related violence" (a claim which is included is EVERY White House gun-related statement, EVERY Democrat's quote on gun-control and EVERY gun-related media report) a legitimate reason for their push to ban "assault weapons"?
Simplest answer: It CAN'T be.
Why?
USDOJ report: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
According to the Department of Justice, two VERY interesting stats are, to me, glaringly obvious:
1. Handguns are the OVERWHELMING choice in gun related crimes. And, although trending down, are still used at a MUCH higher rate than any other type of gun.
2. "Assault weapons", along with ALL OTHER types of guns, are not only used at a FAR lower rate, but, even lumped together, come NOWHERE near the rate of handguns.
So, on one hand are handguns which are, BY FAR, the guns most used in crimes and, on the other hand, we have "assault weapons", which are simply lumped in with ALL other types of guns and, even as such, are FAR less likely to be used in crimes.
Yet, Democrats say they are only targeting "assault weapons".
WHY? Doesn't it make FAR more sense to go after handguns? Woudn't THAT go MUCH further in their claim of wanting to reduce gun crimes?
Folks, "assault weapons" is the very real "slippery slope": start with "assault weapons", then move on to other types of guns. Precedence? Of COURSE there is. Check out Sarah Brady's (Handgun Control, Inc) comment upon the passage of "The Brady Bill":
“The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough.”
Brady also made another statement which provides a GREAT lead-in to the point of this piece:
WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE?
By way of answer, I'd simply like to provide quotes of a few of history's pro-gun-control proponents:
First, Sarah Brady:
"Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Now, to some other of history's like-minded gun control advocates:
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”
- Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942
“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
- Joseph Stalin
“The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. … They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.”
- Benito Mussolini, address to the Italian Senate, 1931
“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
- Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6 1938
“Armas para que? (“Guns, for what?”)”
A response to Cuban citizens who said the people might need to keep their guns, after Castro announced strict gun control in Cuba.
- Fidel Castro
Hirota: out.
No comments:
Post a Comment