Hide your guns

General General Discussion
1

Original Article

I thought that this was pretty telling:

MILLER: Hide your guns
Democrats vow to pursue more gun-control laws

You didn’t hear the word “guns” voluntarily pass the lips of any Democratic speaker at this week’s convention in Charlotte, N.C. Liberals may be smart enough to avoid alienating the almost half of all Americans who have guns in their homes, but the same can’t be said for their party platform.

The Democratic policy statement approved this week calls for enacting “common-sense improvements — like reinstating the assault-weapons ban and closing the gun-show loophole.” The so-called “assault-weapons ban” in the 1990s banned scary-looking guns and magazines that held over 10 rounds. The platform does toss in a line that claims to recognize the right to bear arms, but it is “subject to reasonable regulation.” The left wants “an honest, open national conversation about firearms.”

I asked many Democratic leaders about the party’s position on firearms at the convention, but almost all claimed not to have read that section of the platform. [b]Jesse Jackson was one of the few willing to come out and say he wants to ban all guns except bolt-action rifles, shotguns and revolvers.

“You have the right to have a gun in your castle to protect your house. You have the right to have a gun to hunt,” the reverend said in an interview in Charlotte. “Semi-automatic weapons — military-style weapons — are beyond the zone of reasonableness.” The civil-rights leader asserted, “These mass killings in Aurora and Milwaukee … we must end easy access and ban these assault weapons.” He added, “Twenty-five percent of all police are killed by assault weapons, and they cannot defend themselves from that.”[/b]

The District of Columbia has the most stringent gun laws in the country, requiring registration of every firearm while denying any right to carry. D.C. Councilman Jack Evans, a delegate to the convention, explained to me, “We still feel very strongly about guns in the District — and people not having them.” Mr. Evans said of the platform, “the stronger the language, the better.”

In contrast, the Republican platform opposes restoration of the “ill-considered Clinton gun ban” and supports national reciprocity for concealed carry, a House-passed bill that’s currently stalled in the Democrat-controlled Senate. The GOP also opposes a new Senate bill to restrict “high-capacity” magazines.

Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan embraced the issue in Iowa on Wednesday. “I see a guy with an NRA hat, I see a bunch of camo. I have those myself,” said the Wisconsin congressman. He asked the crowd if they remembered when Mr. Obama said people in the Midwest were clinging to their guns and their religion.

When the crowd yelled, “yeah!” he responded, “This Catholic deer hunter is darn proud of that, and I’m guilty as charged. That’s who we are in this country. I happily cling to my guns and my religion.” In November, Republicans will appeal to more undecided voters with their words and policies supporting gun owners.

Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.

2

When you start thinking about burying all your guns, might just be time to dig them up…
^unknown to me

Not that I think they’ll be passing any legislation that would affect us gun owners, I think they’ll run out of time. But, might they make a run to ram a bill through post election, if they lose big? Yeah. Some have said there might be a coup of some type if Obama loses. I don’t buy that, but best be ready just in case.

3

Emily Miller has written quite a few articles about buying a handgun in DC post Heller. Look them up, and read them if you’re interested.

That said…guns are a major issue to democrats just that they’d rather spend political capital on other things than guns. They also realize, at the state level, gun bans are still holding out, and theres a shit ton of stupid state level gun laws still out there. Texas can’t even seem to pass pro gun laws.

4

I also have the right to tell Jesse Jackson and his ilk to go fuck themselves.

When they ban “assault weapons” I’ll make a Youtube video in which I invite Jesse and any other village idiot contemplating confiscation to come to my house and pick them up personally.

5

http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2012/08/jesse-jackson-jrs-foid-card.html

Sunday, August 12, 2012

Jesse Jackson Jr’s FOID Card

It’s well known among Illinois gun circles that anti-gun advocate Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (IL-2 D) has a FOID card and is a regular customer at a gun shop in the South Suburbs. Yes, double standards abound.

JJJ is also currently seeking mental health treatment at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN for Bipolar Disorder. Hope he is feeling better but here’s the crux of the matter, since he has now been in a mental health institution w/i the last five years, according to the FOID act, he is ineligible to possess a FOID card or firearms w/i this state:

(iv) He or she has not been a patient in a mental
        	
institution within the past 5 years and he or she has not been adjudicated as a mental defective;

Note: this is for initially obtaining one.

So that begs the question (one of many): Are the Illinois State Police going to revoke his FOID card as required by the act(sec8-e) or is he going to receive preferential treatment?

If so, does he have a Chicago Firearms Permit and/or registrations and will they be revoked by the city?

If not, where are they stored? Elsewhere in Il or at his out of state residence while attending the Hill?

Since he has called for bans on handguns and semi-auto firearms, does he own any of the firearms he wants to deny others?

6

Didn’t he lose the FOID card when he checked into the Looney Bin?

And doesn’t Dianne Bitchstein have a California CCW?

7

Most recent release of the DNC party platform.

Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements – like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole – so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

http://assets.dstatic.org/dnc-platform/2012-National-Platform.pdf[/quote]

8

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.”

           -Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif,
9

This is beyond ridiculous.

10

11

In fact the moonbat hypocrit bitch does & for more SUGAR she is a SWORN US Marshall.

12

Let me translate that for you:

“While we recognize that we can’t be openly anti-gun because too many gun owners are still naive enough to vote Democrat, our ultimate goal is to completely disarm the American public through any means at our disposal because we know that if our draconian policies are ever completely implemented the American people will be hunting us with dogs.”

13

My concern would be for Obama to issue an executive order banning most weapons, then having the ATF and other Law Enforcement organizations quickly carry out and destroy seized weapons.

14

You seem like a smart guy. So here is a little math lesson.

Population of the USA= 314,000,000 +

Number of firearms in the USA= over 300,000,000

Number of households with firearms= 45-52,000,000 (approx.)

Number of total law enforcement personnel in the USA= 2,000,000 )approx.)

So… 45,000,000 homes+ 300,000,000 firearms= 2,000,000 LE personnel with a snowballs chance in hell of confiscating anything from anyone on a wide scale basis.

The President cannot issue an executive order that nullifies the 2nd Amendment which is also known as the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has now twice upheld the right to bear arms is an individual right.

How long do you think Barry or anyone else for that matter would stay in power should he ATTEMPT to do what would be considered the stupidest act in the history of the United States.

15

And there are the “real” checks and balances.

I’m not fool enough to believe every gun owners is a “freedom fighter” but if the UK thought they had trouble in Northern Ireland, that would be nothing compared to trying to disarm the US population at this point.

Hell they can’t even lawfully disarm gangs, drug dealers and other criminal elements successfully.

16

Not only that but over 95% of all Law Enforement are State, not Federal and have no jurisdiction that would allow the Federal Government to direct them to engage in weapons confiscation of any type. There are around 100,000 Federal LE and most of those would not be available to participate in such a scheme. To actively try and confiscate with numbers like that would be tantamount to a suicide wish. What good is a job and a pension if you never live to spend any of it?

I am NOT in his chain of command, I answer to my Governor who answers to the people of WV. Obama has no more authority to order the State Police, Department of Natural Resources or local Sheriff’s Department to be his flying monkeys than he does me which is none!

17

True,

But you have to understand the conspiracy theorists believe that all LE and MIL will automatically fall into “lockstep” and put on the brown shirts.

And even if you added every single branch of the military (again assuming there are no defections) then you still cannot make a dent.

I think the Civil War taught us a very good and nasty lesson. That should be a wake up call.

18

Which (unfortunately), makes it easier for them to take from the individuals that actually obey laws.

19

If he did try an EO, the very next day more than a few judges of every level would place an injunction on its enforcement. Legal procrastination could easily last until inauguration day, when the damned thing would disappear. The nice thing about giant bureaucracies is things take a needlessly long amount of time to get done. Barring some emergency occurring, where the bureaucratic red tape could be sliced through . . .

Point being: it’s very very very unlikely. But nothing wrong with being suspicious; we’ve never had an international man-of-mystery Marxist for POTUS before.

20

Yeap, it will never happen here . . . :lazy2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Qx0cTze0M&feature=related