Sen. Feinstein's Proposed New Gun Ban Bill

Politically oriented information, blasts, kudo's for politician’s (probably won't be many of those)

Moderators: russau, Leonard

Re: Sen. Feinstein's Proposed New Gun Ban Bill

Postby Hoser John » Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:02 am

:? Sounds like Redding Mexafornia as we won the title of the highest crime rate hike in the USA for the period extending from 2008-2012---YAAAAAAAAAA :shock: John
Hoser John
 
Posts: 3000
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:42 am
Location: Redding Kalif

Re: Sen. Feinstein's Proposed New Gun Ban Bill

Postby tcfifer » Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:59 pm

Feinstein and her ilk can kiss my a$$. :x

TC
User avatar
tcfifer
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:40 pm

Re: Sen. Feinstein's Proposed New Gun Ban Bill

Postby russau » Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:01 pm

AGREED 100%!
russau
 
Posts: 5924
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:17 am
Location: St. Louis Missouri

Re: Sen. Feinstein's Proposed New Gun Ban Bill

Postby eightymesh » Tue Jan 01, 2013 5:59 am

42 U.S.C. 5207

SEC. 706. FIREARMS POLICIES.

(a) PROHIBITION ON CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS.‹

No officer or employee of the United States (including any member of the uniformed services), or person operating pursuant to or under color of Federal law, or receiving Federal funds, or under control of any Federal official, or providing services to such an officer, employee, or other person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, may
(1) temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure of, any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under Federal, State, or local law, other than for forfeiture in compliance with Federal law or as evidence in a criminal investigation;
(2) require registration of any firearm for which registration is not required by Federal, State, or local law;
(3) prohibit possession of any firearm, or promulgate any rule, regulation, or order prohibiting possession of any firearm, in any place or by any person where such possession is not otherwise prohibited by Federal, State, or local law; or
(4) prohibit the carrying of firearms by any person otherwise authorized to carry firearms under Federal, State, or local law, solely because such person is operating under the direction, control, or supervision of a Federal agency in support of relief from the major disaster or emergency.
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control point this out to them.

and this too
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall – 1803
“The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.” Thus, the Constitution is either The Supreme Law of the Land, superceding all other laws, or the Constitution is a worthless piece of paper. If the latter, government can do as it pleases. If the former, tyrants have seized sovereignty illegally, it is the duty of the people to put them in their proper place in history. – Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall – 1803

Article VI.

2 This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

THEREFORE, THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT “SUSPEND THE CONSTITUTION DUE TO NATIONAL EMERGENCY”! IT IS ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO DO SO!
"As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject." – Elijah Parish Lovejoy (1802-1837)
User avatar
eightymesh
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:17 am
Location: orygonistan

Re: Sen. Feinstein's Proposed New Gun Ban Bill

Postby russau » Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:01 am

if o can get his BC modified and get away with it, then theyll probly try it anyway! what do they have to lose??? they already gave it all away in his first term! them worthless so-n-sos, i guess everyone has heard by now the phiscal cliff joke was put off but not untill them worthless so-n-sos added in a $900. rasie for themselves!their raises ought to be voted on by the people and NOT themselves!
russau
 
Posts: 5924
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:17 am
Location: St. Louis Missouri

Re: Sen. Feinstein's Proposed New Gun Ban Bill

Postby tommyknocker » Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:44 pm

Here is a fantastic story from Breitbart (I first saw it on Pat Dollard.com)...C-17A is absolutely correct, we ALL need to let this arrogant non-representative Dike-stein know how we feel. Write a hard-copy letter so they cannot block out your e-mail message. They do that if you are not a constituent. I challenge everyone reading this post to write a letter and support Cpl Boston. C'mon, I know most of us here are gun owners, every other citizen should write in 'cause it's our rights they are taking away!


Joshua Boston, a retired Corporal in the U.S. Marine Corps, has a message for Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) concerning her newest gun banning bill. Corporal Boston says, "No Ma'Am."
Boston posted an open letter to Senator Feinstein at CNN's ireport site on December 27 to let DiFi know that he, at least, would not submit to the government denuding him of his Second Amendment rights.
Boston informed Sen. Feinstein that he will not register his weapons nor does he believe the Senator or anyone else in government has the right to require him to do so. Boston also scoffed at someone proclaiming "the evil of an inanimate object" even as she bestows upon herself
the ability to carry a gun in contravention to her own proclamations.

"I am not your subject," Boston insists. "I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America."
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
Mr. Boston's message intrigues and he has even more to say than his open letter reveals. I took the occasion of his open letter to reach out to this brave member of our military. Here is our conversation:

Warner Todd Huston: What drove you to post this reply to Senator Feinstein?

Joshua Boston: I've been seeing this nonsense about gun control in the news since forever. Senator Feinstein regularly touts the effectiveness of the first Assault Weapons Ban while pointing out the "loopholes." So she proposes this new ban legislation. Given the tragedy that happened recently it has considerably more traction with folks, most who rely in some major way on emotions and what they're being told by the media about these "Weapons of Mass Destruction." My Windham Weaponry SRC sits in my home loaded and ready to be used should the need ever arise. It does not make me a criminal.

I'm sick of being told by people in Washington D.C. what is okay for me to own for my own personal defense while they enjoy the safety of many armed guards with better firearms than I have access to. It's hypocritical.

WTH: In your opinion, what do you think the Second Amendment is for?

JB: Looking at the founder's times and what they had just gone through, it was something they put in there for us should we ever find ourselves in their shoes and have to reassert, because of whatever manifestation of tyranny, our inherent right to freedom and liberty.

WTH: Do you support concealed carry laws?

JB: I hold a CHL with the state of Texas. I would prefer there not be a bureaucratic apparatus whose hoops I have to jump through so that I may defend myself should the need ever arise outside of my home. Who are these legislators to tell me that I may not defend myself outside of my home because they don't have my fingerprints on file?

WTH: Do you believe in any sort of gun restrictions?

JB: The only gun restriction I would favor is one in which only VIOLENT felons are prevented from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Other than that, why does the government or the police need them if I am not allowed to have one?

WTH: Some liberals say regular Americans shouldn't be allowed to have guns because they aren't trained. As a trained member of the military yourself, do you think average citizens have the ability to use guns correctly?

JB: Despite the training I received while in the Marines, I am a regular American. I am not exceptional. I am not superior. I am an American just like any other citizen. I've seen "average citizens" use guns extraordinarily efficiently when I go to the range. This is because they are responsible people who seek knowledge when they don't know something. So yes they have the ability, and they should be able to purchase whatever weapons they deem sufficient for their needs.

WTH: Some people fear that government will use the military to forcibly disarm the public if gun banning laws get passed. What is your sense of your fellows in the armed forces. Do you think they'd follow orders to forcibly disarm the public?

JB: In my 8 years of service I could probably count on one hand the number of people that I met who would forcibly disarm the American public. The vast majority of American service members that I know and that I served with recognize that the Constitution is what we pledge to obey.

WTH: Do you feel that there will be any retaliation by the Marines for having posted your reply?

JB: I was honorably discharged on July 31st of this year. I'd certainly hope they wouldn't "retaliate" in any way because I am doing my civic duty and keeping myself informed. I think that would go against our motto: "Honor Courage and Commitment"

WTH: Any other thoughts?

JB: I just hope that our elected representatives do not vote for this heinous attempt to make me and my fellow Americans defenseless against predators and criminals.

We at Breitbart salute Joshua Boston and hope that he is not uncommon among the members of our illustrious armed forces.

Below is the full text of Corporal Boston's original open letter:

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012
User avatar
tommyknocker
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:01 am

Re: Sen. Feinstein's Proposed New Gun Ban Bill

Postby russau » Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:53 am

very good replies!!
russau
 
Posts: 5924
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:17 am
Location: St. Louis Missouri

Re: Sen. Feinstein's Proposed New Gun Ban Bill

Postby bobber_2 » Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:38 am

Guys, I don't believe that they will get a "ban" passed. Too many "Good'ol Boys" in the union states that hunt and the politicians (both D and R) will not jeopardize their political future. What I do see happening is the "loophole" being closed. By "loophole" I mean the legal transfer of a firearm from one citizen to another. The government will force any firearm transfer to be done by an FFL holder. There are millions of firearms that the government can't find because of transfers between private citizens. After the "loophole" is plugged all firearms will eventually be "registered". At that point the government will go for full confiscation.
User avatar
bobber_2
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:21 pm
Location: Canton, GA

Re: Sen. Feinstein's Proposed New Gun Ban Bill

Postby russau » Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:06 pm

trouble is, the bad guys dont give one sqwat about ANY laws! most of their weapons are stolen anyway! if they get caught shoting someone, they end up in jail with their other buddies! ask the M-13 guys in the n. California mtns if they give a sqwat! ask ANY gang member in ANY city in America what they think of the laws! and to think that ANY socalled "representative" of ours is thinking this through?? come on now! they have their agenda and they dont give a sqwat about what any American thinks as long as they get "their" way! by hook or crook!
russau
 
Posts: 5924
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:17 am
Location: St. Louis Missouri

Re: Sen. Feinstein's Proposed New Gun Ban Bill

Postby tommyknocker » Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:38 pm

Russ, I pressed the imaginary "Like" button.
User avatar
tommyknocker
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:01 am

PreviousNext

Return to Political

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests