Advertisements
Home

Contact Your Senators and Representative to Stop Proposed Semi-Auto Firearm Importation Ban

Leave a comment

This is from The NRA-ILA.

It is time to get in touch with our Congress Critters and make our voices heard.

We need to call and email them.

 

 

We recently reported that U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), sponsor of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” magazine “ban”  of 1994-2004, is asking President Barack Obama to direct the BATFE to reinterpret a provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 to prohibit the importation of various semi-automatic firearms and their parts.

In a letter to Obama, the text of which was included in an article published by the Daily Caller, Feinstein said that, “at a minimum,” the BATFE should: 

prohibit importation of all semiautomatic rifles that can accept, or be readily converted to accept, a large capacity ammunition magazine of more than 10 rounds . . . .  prohibit semiautomatic rifles with fixed magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, prohibit the importation of the frame or receiver of any prohibited rifle . . . . prohibit the practice of importing assault rifles in parts ….  prohibit the use of a “thumbhole” stock . . . . and prohibit the importation of assault pistols.

This request is similar to the type of failed legislation Feinstein introduced in Congress last year (which would have imposed the biggest gun ban in American history), only this time she’s trying to achieve some of her ends through soliciting the president’s use of executive authority over firearm imports.  

Joining Feinstein in the fray this week were 80-plus U.S. House members who wrote their own semi-auto firearms import ban proposal letter to President Obama.  Initiated by Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), the letter urged Obama to compel the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to expand its ban on the importation of semi-automatic firearms.  (To see if your Representative signed the letter, please click here and scroll down below the letter to see the list of signatories.)

One might think it doesn’t make sense for Feinstein and these House members to agitate for gun control in an election year, especially one in which a number of anti-gun senators and representatives are going to be facing the voters, but they are that obstinately committed to gun control.

Please take action NOW to stop these proposed restrictions on the importation of firearms.  Please contact your U.S. Senators and your U.S. Representative TODAY, and tell them to OPPOSE a ban the importation of various semi-automatic firearms and their parts.

You can contact your U.S. Senators and your U.S. Representative by using the “Write Your Lawmakers” tool atwww.NRAILA.org.  You may also contact your Senators by phone at (202) 224-3121, and your Representative by phone at (202) 225-3121.

 

Advertisements

Dianne Feinstein pushes for semi-automatic rifle import ban based on 45-year-old law

2 Comments

This is from The Daily Caller.

This evil pile of pig dung keeps trying to disarm law biding gun owners.

Will this pile of pig dung succeeded?

She will if gun owners do not stay vigilant.

 

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein is circulating a letter on Capitol Hill calling once again for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and asking for President Barack Obama to keep his State of the Union promise to make 2014 a “year of action.”

Citing the Gun Control Act of 1968, Feinstein states, “In recent years… importers of firearms have taken advantage of ATF’s interpretation of the ‘sporting purposes’ test to evade the import ban.”

The phrase contained in The Gun Control Act of 1968 Feinstein is referencing prohibits the importation of firearms that are not “generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.”  She claims that in recent years firearms importers have taken advantage of ATF’s interpretation of “sporting purposes” to circumvent the ban.

Although Feinstein recognizes that the firearms are designed for civilian use and never manufactured or used by any standing army, she maintained that “many semiautomatic firearms on the market today do not have a military origin but are modeled closely after military firearms.”

To justify the ban, Feinstein cited a study by The Center for Public Integrity and expressed concern regarding international gun-running.

“700 Romanian AK-47 variant rifles were identified in 134 federal gun trafficking prosecutions involving illegal smuggling from the United States to Mexico and other Latin American countries,” she wrote.

The ban would target attributes like “thumbhole stocks” and “semi-automatic rifles with fixed magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds” which would prohibit tube-fed .22 rimfire rifles.

Additionally, rifles and “assault pistols” capable of accommodating detachable magazines with a capacity in excess of 10 rounds would be banned “regardless of the military pedigree of the firearm or the configuration of the firearm’s magazine well.”

Feinstein’s letter does not appear on her Senate.gov page, where constituents can view her other positions.

Read the complete text of the letter, as provided to The Daily Caller:

The President

The White House

Washington, DC  20500

Dear Mr. President:

During your State of the Union address, you stated that you want to make 2014 a “year of action.”  We write to urge you to take immediate action to address the significant number of assault weapons that are being imported into the United States in contravention of federal law.  We respectfully request that you take steps to ensure that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) fully enforces the ban on the importation of these military-style firearms.     

A provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3), prohibits the importation of firearms that are not “generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.”  In recent years, however, importers of firearms have taken advantage of ATF’s interpretation of the “sporting purposes” test to evade the import ban.  In 1998, the Department of the Treasury — which then housed ATF — issued guidance that interpreted the import ban to prohibit only semiautomatic rifles that use magazines originally designed for a military rifle.  Many semiautomatic firearms on the market today do not have a military origin but are modeled closely after military firearms.  These military-style firearms are not prohibited under the current import ban, even though they are functionally equivalent to prohibited rifles with a military origin.  In addition, the Treasury Department’s 1998 guidance allows foreign-made firearms to be imported into the United States without military features, even though these firearms have the capacity to fire multiple times in quick succession without the need to reload and can easily have military features attached.

As a result of the Treasury Department’s unnecessarily restrictive interpretation of the sporting purposes test, imports of military-style weapons have increased dramatically in recent years, helping to fuel deadly gun violence along the Southwest border and in neighboring Mexico.  According to data obtained from the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission and analyzed by The Center for Public Integrity, 2.96 million rifles and handguns were imported into the United States in 2009, more than double the 1.32 million firearms imported in 2005.  In January of this year, Russia’s Kalashnikov gun maker announced that it plans to sell in the United States up to 200,000 rifles and shotguns, many of which are designed after the Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifle.  An analysis by the Violence Policy Center found that more than 700 Romanian AK-47 variant rifles were identified in 134 federal gun trafficking prosecutions involving illegal smuggling from the United States to Mexico and other Latin American countries.

For example, one imported Romanian AK firearm, the WASR-10, was carefully designed to exploit the sporting purposes test and has become a favorite of the gun traffickers that profit by arming Mexican drug trafficking organizations.  The importer of the WASR-10, Century International Arms, circumvents the import ban by taking the following steps:  First, the company imports the inexpensive weapon without any military features, to avoid contravening the ban.  Next, the weapon is disassembled, and American-made parts are added, to make the weapon “American-made,” not “foreign-made.”  The magazine well is also modified to accept higher capacity ammunition magazines.  Finally, assault features — which would be illegal if added to a foreign-made weapon — are added to the now-American-made weapon, rendering the weapon an assault rifle for all practical purposes.  The resulting firearm is then sold on the civilian market, either to be used in violent acts here at home or smuggled across the border into Mexico.

WASR-10s have repeatedly been found in the arsenals of top drug kingpins and their associates.  For example, at least one WASR-10 was used in May 2008 to kill eight police officers in Culiacan, Mexico, a city in the northwestern part of the country.  An analysis conducted by The Center for Public Integrity found that, over the last four years, WASR-10 rifles comprised more than 17% of the firearms recovered at Mexican crime scenes and successfully traced back to the United States.  In all, according to a memorandum by the Council on Foreign Relations published in July 2013, over 70% of the 99,000 weapons recovered by Mexican law enforcement since 2007 were traced to U.S. manufacturers and importers.

We urge ATF to close the loopholes that allow the importation of military-style weapons into the United States.  Such an approach should, at a minimum:

  • Prohibit importation of all semiautomatic rifles that can accept, or be readily converted to accept, a large capacity ammunition magazine of more than 10 rounds, regardless of the military pedigree of the firearm or the configuration of the firearm’s magazine well;
  • Prohibit semiautomatic rifles with fixed magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds;
  • Prohibit the importation of the frame or receiver of any prohibited rifle, regardless of whether it is incorporated into a fully manufactured firearm;
  • Prohibit the practice of importing assault rifles in parts and then constructing the rifles once they are in the United States by adding the requisite number of American-made parts;
  • Prohibit the use of a “thumbhole” stock as a means to avoid classification of a rifle as an assault rifle; and
  • Prohibit the importation of assault pistols, in addition to assault rifles.

 We urge you to review enforcement of the sporting purposes test and take the necessary regulatory steps to stop the importation of all military-style, non-sporting firearms, and the assembly of those firearms from imported parts.  We have endured too many funerals and mourned the loss of too many innocent lives to accept less than full enforcement of the import ban.  Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/20/dianne-feinstein-pushes-for-semi-automatic-rifle-import-ban-based-on-45-year-old-law/#ixzz2wYqFyDBi

FEINSTEIN: ‘WE CANNOT LET ISRAEL DETERMINE WHEN AND WHERE THE UNITED STATES GOES TO WAR’

Leave a comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Peace.

DiFi is a moron and she is beyond a doubt senile.

How old is the dingbat?

She must be at least 150 years old because no one could get as ugly and stupid in just 80 years.

Waring brain and eye bleach will be needed, it is on the top shelf on the right side.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) triggered controversy with a fiery floor speech in the Senate on Tuesday night, accusing supporters of the bipartisan Kirk-Menendez bill on Iran sanctions of wanting “regime change” and declaring that “we cannot let Israel determine when and where the United States goes to war.” The bill includes a provision offering support to Israel in the event of an Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran.

Feinstein chairs the Select Committee on Intelligence and is considered pro-Israel, but her remarks, which echo those of anti-Israel critics, have provoked outrage. The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) called on her to apologize, noting that the bill includes a proviso that: “Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of force against Iran.”

Adding that the Kirk-Menendez bill’s language on Israel is the same as that in another bill that Feinstein co-sponsored, RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks blasted Feinstein: “We are deeply troubled to see Senator Feinstein making such incendiary and inaccurate remarks on the Senate floor. We call on her to retract this reckless and false charge and apologize to her colleagues and to the millions of Americans who support a comprehensive, robust strategy to prevent the Tehran regime from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability.”

In her speech, Feinstein said that “a vote for this legislation will cause negotiations to collapse,” arguing that the six-month deal reached in Geneva and finalized on Sunday represented “the best opportunity in more than 30 years to make a major change in Iranian behavior.” The deal provides some sanctions relief in return for suspending parts of Iran’s uranium enrichment program and allowing limited international inspections.

The Kirk-Menendez bill provides for tighter sanctions in the event that Iran fails to comply with the Geneva agreement. Yet the Obama administration has vowed to veto the bill regardless, believing that it sends a message of confrontation. Supporters of the legislation, including former Bush and Obama administration Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, believe that it will actually strengthen Obama’s hand in negotiations.

The legislation currently has 59 co-sponsors in the Senate, eight shy of the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto. Almost every Republican Senator supports the bill, while only a minority of Senate Democrats are co-sponsors. Some Democrats, including Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, have been caught both opposing and supporting the legislation to different audiences.

Feinstein warned that hard-liners in Iran would use the bill to “argue that the United States is not interested in nuclear diplomacy–we are interested in regime change.” That, however, is what they argue already. Scholar Kenneth Pollack, who is opposed to war in Iran and favors negotiations and “containment,” says in his new book on Iran that the Obama administration’s failure to pursue regime change in 2009 was “reprehensible.”

Democrats who wish to support the Obama administration’s line are praising Feinstein’s speech, and it will likely provide political cover to those who wish to oppose the  bill but wish to do so without appearing to oppose Israel. Her incendiary remarks about Israel are not likely to be forgotten by Republicans, either.

Sen. Feinstein apparently wants to ban 19th century revolvers

Leave a comment

This is from The Examiner.

The Wicked Bitch Witch of The West tries to strike again.

DI Fi wants only the elites like herself armed. 

That, anyway, is the only conclusion consistent with the “logic” she articulated Sunday morning on CBS’s Face the Nation (emphasis added):

Having said that, the weapon was a .223 MP15, the MP stands for military and police, clearly designed not for general consumption, but through practice now general consumption. Same gun that was used at Aurora. Would I do a bill? Sure I would do a bill. I mean I believe this down deep in my soul.

The notion of Feinstein‘s possession of a soul is a debate for another day. Let’s instead look at her contention that by naming the rifle model the M&P15, with M&P standing for “military and police,” Smith and Wesson is tacitly acknowledging that this firearm is appropriate only for the government’s hired muscle.

What a peculiar idea. Smith and Wesson, keep in mind, has put “military and police” into the names of lots of guns, including revolvers, dating all the way back to 1899, with the Model 10,once named the Smith & Wesson Military & Police.

Similarly, an iconic Colt revolver is the Detective Special, which has served both detectives and private citizens well for over 85 years.

Feinstein, of course, once carried a revolver (in San Francisco, no less–not a legal option for those of us who are not among the “elite”). Was it an S&W Military & Police, or perhaps a Colt Detective Special? Maybe, maybe not–but does it matter? Even a revolver that has not been labeled with a too-deadly-for-private-citizens name is, after all, a revolver, and presumably about as “deadly” as a revolver named for its usefulness to law enforcement and the military.

This column recently noted that a California bill, passed by the legislature, but vetoed by even anti-gun Governor Jerry Brown, proves gun rights advocates’ long-held contention that the hysterical calls to ban “assault weapons” have nothing to do with so-called “military features” that we were once told distinguish “assault weapons” from “acceptable” semi-automatic rifles.

Feinstein, though, has now taken the insanity to a perhaps unprecedented level. Now it’s not just ergonomic refinements and cosmetic features that render some guns “unsuitable” for private ownership. Now, the name of the gun is enough to justify a ban.

She would probably really object to this correspondent’s idea for an AR-15 platform rifle marketed as the “Regime Changer” (“Recall Ballot From the Rooftops Launcher” is an awkwardly long name for a gun). That, of course, just adds to the idea’s appeal.

Update: On second thought, let’s try to talk S&W into telling Feinstein that the “M&P” stands for “Militia and Patriots”–that should scare her as much as anything.

No Ma’am

Leave a comment

Hat tip to The Outrider.

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.

 

 

.

 

Breaking Federal Gun Laws is OK as Long as Your Heart’s in the Right Place

1 Comment

This is from The Truth About Guns.

With Liberals it is “Do as We say,Not As we Do.

With laws passed by Liberals they say You must obey them but We are exempt

from these laws passed by us.

You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. In the same vein, sometimes you have to break a few laws make a political point. Fortunately for California Senator Diane Feinstein, the doyenne of civilian disarmament, you don’t have to worry about breaking laws – even if they’re felonies – when you’re a member of the ruling class. If you want to put on a dog and pony show for the press – parading the scariest of black guns before the cameras in a never-ending campaign to abrogate Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms – all you need to do in D.C. is enlist the help of the Chief of Police. As Emily Miller reports atwashingtontimes.com . . .

A week after a lobbyist emailed D.C. top cop Cathy Lanier asking for, “examples of assault weapons used in the worst incidents over the past few years,” DiFi’s press flack hit up the head of the D.C. Metro’s “Crime Scene Investigation Division, Keith Williams, for 10 specific firearm models used in high-profile mass shootings, including a Bushmaster XM-15, Tec-9 handgun, Smith & Wesson M&P15 and a Glock 19 with a ‘high-capacity magazine.’”

Since Cmdr. Williams did not have all the firearms the senator sought, (lobbyist Chuck) DeWitt asked Philadelphia police to provide the missing ones, which meant bringing “the P15 and the Glock extended magazine” to Washington.

All of these firearms are illegal in the city — even on federal property — owing to the District’s law banning rifles with a detachable magazine and such features as a pistol grip or folding stock and all firearms with a magazines capacity of more than 10 rounds.

And don’t think they didn’t know they were breaking the law, either. Feinstein’s spox, Tom Mentzer was very much aware:

Cmdr. Williams emailed Mr. Mentzer to put a “bug” in his ear that the police would “prefer that no mention of the fact that the weapons came from D.C. or were recovered by MPDC in the official language or speeches.” Mr. Mentzer replied, “By not mentioning where the weapons came from, we open ourselves up to the same charge against David Gregory.

Wouldn’t want that, would we? Wait, why would that have given him pause? Gregory, the NBCMeet the Press host who waived a D.C.-illegal 30-round magazine in Wayne LaPierre’s face,wasn’t prosecuted. Why would a sitting United States senator face a worse fate? Hell, she even got plenty help getting the guns onto Capitol Hill and into the Senate for her post-Newtown bloody shirt waving event.

The office of Senate Sergeant at Arms Terrance W. Gainer coordinated bringing the illegal weapons onto Capitol Hill for Mrs. Feinstein’s dramatic Jan. 24 news conference introducing her new “assault weapons” ban.

Funny thing, though. The same kind of access was later denied Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham when they wanted to bring rifles to a judiciary committee hearing to demonstrate how arbitrary DiFi’s gun grab was. Probably just an unfortunate bureaucratic snafu.

Despite Chief Lanier’s best efforts, though, intrepid reporter Miller, through a Freedom of Information Act request, uncovered the uncomfortable provenance of the illegal firearms. Not to mention the help the Senior California Senator got in breaking the law from the District’s chief law enforcement officer, enabling DiFi’s ostentatious gun display for the unveiling of her doomed assault weapons ban.

The police stonewalling and cover-up are so that the public doesn’t find out that Chief Lanier enforces laws differently in the District, depending on whether you are a powerful liberal who opposes Second Amendment rights, like Mr. Gregory and Mrs. Feinstein, or an average American.

Equal justice under law” is engraved on the frieze of the Supreme Court building in D.C. There probably wasn’t room up there to include the footnote excepting members of the ruling class and their friendly enablers in the media.

AP ‘real reporters’ spread disinformation to support gun ban agenda

Leave a comment

This is from The Examiner.

The media knows there are sheeple that will believe everything they report.

The media will never be fact  checked by the sheeple.

 

Those behind a late-night attack … used an assault-style weapon to spray the crowd with bullets, making it ‘a miracle’ no one was killed,”an Associated Press “report” by “Authorized Journalists” Carla K. Johnson and Herbert G. McCann breathlessly declared. “Ballistics evidence shows that those behind Thursday night’s attack used a 7.62 mm rifle fed by a high-capacity magazine, police Superintendent Garry McCarthy told reporters.”

That’s as opposed to “personal defense capacity” magazines when “patrol rifles” are in the hands of government-sanctioned “Only Ones” like Chi-Town’s finest.

That “type of weapon,” McCarthy said, “belongs on a ‘battlefield, not on the street or a corner or a park…’”

If one didn’t know better, one would think he and his media chroniclers were talking about a select fire-capable rifle, the kind that actually are found on battlefields. Or one would think that’s what they want us to think.

Does anyone think Associated Press “reporters” don’t know better, or don’t know that McCarthy’s well-publicized objective is a nationwide semi-auto and magazine ban? Does anyone think Johnson and McCann are unaware of just whose talking point they’re all parroting?

“I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” Barack Obama proclaimed, himself parroting a ubiquitous gungrabber meme, “that they belong on the battlefields of war and not on the streets of our cities.”

Does anyone truly think professional reporters are unaware of the well-known and longstanding deception promulgated by the Violence Policy Center — which laid out the strategy back in 1988– by declaring that “The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons”?

Does anyone think that seasoned newshounds, with research skills and all the resources of the mighty AP at their disposal, could possibly be unaware of The Journalist’s Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and Second Amendment Scholars, providing access to any number of recognized experts, listed by specialty, location and name, whom they could consult on any issue imaginable pertaining to guns? If they wanted to…?

Does anyone wonder why “straight news” correspondents didn’t even try to solicit an opinion from someone who might have inputs on why banning semi-automatic rifles will not reduce violent crime? Or someone who might point out that McCarthy is exploiting them as a megaphone toscore political points with? Does anyone think they really believe his opinion is objective, or that they don’t know they’re being used — and approve of it?

Does anyone think the Associated Press — which didn’t even regard Fast and Furious government-facilitated “gunwalking,” where estimated hundreds have been killed, as a big enough story to rate inclusion in their “Top Ten” news stories for 2011 — has any interest in doing anything that doesn’t promote more government control, while ignoring, spinning and suppressing stories that don’t?

Does anyone think Carla and Herbert are lazy, incompetent, agenda-driven, dishonest, or some combination of these (perhaps all), or is there an alternative explanation that could account for the crap quality of their thinly-disguised propaganda piece presented to an unsuspecting public as “news”?

Does anyone have any questions about why Joe Biden refers to such as these using the term “legitimate news media,” and why Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin are so eager to legislate just who the government will recognize as a “real reporter”?

 

Pres. Obama “Fired Up” and Ready to Repeal Second Amendment

2 Comments

This is from The New American.

I can hear the voices of our founding fathers saying “Get off your backside and put a stop

to Obama Destroying the Constitution.”

I can also hear them say “We started a revolution for a whole lot less than is happening now!”.

Wake my fellow Patriots and Americans before it is too late.

“Sic Semper Tryannis.”

 

On behalf of your children, President Obama plans to take the guns you own and make it harder for you to buy them.

During a speech September 21 at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s Phoenix Awards dinner, the president promised he was turning his attention back to his gun control agenda.

Referring to his failed efforts to irreparably infringe on the right to keep and bear arms begun after the massacre of 20 children and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, President Obama declared:

We fought a good fight earlier this year, but we came up short. And that means we’ve got to get back up and go back at it. Because as long as there are those who fight to make it as easy as possible for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun, then we’ve got to work as hard as possible for the sake of our children. We’ve got to be ones who are willing to do more work to make it harder.

There could hardly be a more receptive crowd, and the president’s remarks were met with cheers and applause.

Admitting that although there was so much to be done and the repeal of the Second Amendment would be a tall order, President Obama promised supporters that he was “still fired up.”

Given his penchant not only for ignoring the Constitution, but for zealously pursuing the permanent, piecemeal destruction of the roster of fundamental rights it protects, there is little doubt that this will be one promise that President Obama keeps.

Gun owners — the “dangerous people” being targeted by the president — have legitimate reasons to fear the federal government’s assault on the Second Amendment.

After the recent murders at the Navy Yard in D.C., White House spokesman Jay Carney reported that the president is committed to redoubling his efforts to enforce the score of executive orders he signed in the wake of the Newtown tragedy. “The president supports, as do an overwhelming majority of Americans, common-sense measures to reduce gun violence,” Carney said.

Prior to the shootings at the Navy Yard, Vice President Joe Biden announced that through “executive authority,” the president was closing two so-called loopholes in federal gun restrictions. First, corporations purchasing guns will be subject to a background check. Second, the re-importation of almost all surplus military weapons to private individuals will be banned.

His water carriers in Congress were no less anxious to use tragedy as a pretext for tyranny.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) lamented the “litany of massacres,” asking, “When will enough be enough? Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.”

Ironically, that is the same question Americans are asking themselves about the federal government and its daily demolition of the Bill of Rights.

While many Republicans have so far successfully resisted wholesale gun grabs, the compromises by conservatives are stacking up and that which was once a right is become little more than a privilege.

It is undeniable that the requirement that one recur to the government for permission to do something that the Constitution protects as an inherent right of all men is an outright obliteration of the bedrock liberties upon which this Republic was founded.

Remarkably, there are many Republicans and other self-described “pro Second Amendment” politicians who accede to the notion that the government should be permitted to impose “reasonable restrictions” on the owning, buying, selling, and trading of weapons.

True constitutionalists recognize such unconstitutional concessions for what they are: reductions of rights protected by the Constitution. Furthermore, they understand that if we are to remain a free people, we must enforce every provision of the Constitution on every issue without exception; that includes those rights that may be politically unpopular or misunderstood en masse.

The hour is late, but there is still time to ride to the defense of the Constitution and the Second Amendment. Constitutionalists can let the president and their elected representatives in Washington know that they will hold them accountable for each and every attempt to curtail rights that are not theirs to dispose of.

Also, state lawmakers must be aware that voters will likewise hold their feet to the fire and demand that they unqualifiedly reject any effort by the federal government to enforce any act — be it congressional bill, executive order, or regulation — that exceeds the constitutional limits on its power.

As the applause faded at the banquet Saturday night, President Obama undoubtedly rode back to the White House determined to get rid of the guns and increase the surveillance of the “dangerous people” who currently own them.

Were he honest, however, President Obama would admit that the elimination of guns from the world is not the goal of the gun grabbers. Their hidden agenda, the one shared by the president and his fellow internationalists at the United Nations, is the consolidation of monopolistic control over firearms by the plutocrats on the Potomac and Turtle Bay.

Constitutionalists should now be on the lookout for the imminent announcement by Secretary of State John Kerry or by President Obama himself that the United States has signed the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty. That act will be a bellwether of the coming acceleration of the disarmament of the civilian population of the United States.

 

 

 

 

 

Washington DC Navy Yard Shooting: False Flag Operation or Another Example of the Breakdown of American Society?

1 Comment

Hat Tip To Solidarity In Truth.

 

Is yesterday’s Washington DC Navy Yard shooting some sort of false flag operation or was it just a lone lunatic gunman killing over a dozen people?  Either way, it’s bad.  It’s either a representation of how untrustworthy, manipulative and corrupt our government is — or it’s a representation of how untrustworthy, violent and corrupt our society is.  Whether you are an “official story” believer, or see a different angle from the official story given to us by the mainstream media and the US government, the bottom-line is that every single one of us knows that there is something fundamentally wrong within our country.

The question, however, is whether the problem exists within the fabric of our society, or if the problem exists with our media and government.

Over the last decade America has changed.  A constant flow of misinformation is now transmitted to us through social media, mainstream news, pop culture, and the US government.  The cultivation of changes that occurred in the 1980′s in the economic and financial sectors have amounted to an unstable economy.  And the American people have become more skeptical of the political and monetary systems, have become suspicious of the government’s control of them through surveillance, and are starting to loose trust in the fundamental systems that govern the United States.

This lack of trust has created an entirely new era of social ideology within the American people.  Every time a tragedy occurs on American soil (and even tragedy in foreign places now as well, as we have seen in Syria) our society seems to be torn down the middle, with two sides instinctively being drawn; those that believe and agree with the official story as reported by the government and mainstream media, and those that do not believe in the official story and believe these tragedies to be either false flag operations by the US government or other groups acting on behalf of Washington’s interest.  Both sides have their reasons.  Both sides have credible reasons.  But even so, if absolute truth were to be given to us, only one side can be correct in their assumptions.

Yesterday’s Washington DC Navy Yard shooting is another example of this divide.  I have to admit, it is easy to understand the side of the “official story” believers.  Non-withstanding what specific generation you are of, as Americans we all grew up with very clear ideals and assumptions of our media, our government, and authority in general — that they would tell us the truth, and that the information we received from the news or from government was correct.  It was ingrained into us at the very core.  And it is a comforting concept, to be able to have one hundred percent certain faith in these longstanding American institutions.   To even remotely consider that what we are being told, especially during time of tragedy such as these DC shootings, are facts that are completely false is a terrifying notion.  And so, I understand this side.  And believe me, I want to be one of you.

But one day, fifteen years ago when I was a freshman in college, something happened that no longer allowed me to be an “official story” believer anymore.  Like Pandora’s Box, once you let one little thing out, there’s no stopping the rest of it — and there’s no putting it back in.  I had learned that the United States did not “win” the Vietnam War.  After being told over and over throughout all of my schooling that we had.  I was in shock.  And then I discovered the Gulf of Tonkin false flag operation.  And everything changed.

The official story of yesterday’s Washington DC shootings is that Aaron Alexis, a civilian contractor and military veteran from Forth Worth, entered the Naval Yard base with a valid pass and proceeded to have killed at least 12 people before being shot dead himself.   There was speculation by the DC police that there was three shooters, given the evidence they initially had.  However, by midday yesterday, the official story changed to only one shooter (Aaron Alexis). They do not know of a motive for the shooting.  They do know, however, that he purchased at least some of the weapons legally.

The mainstream news media has reported on the shooting as dictated by what the Naval military police, DC police and Naval personnel has provided them.  After hours of listening to, watching and reading mainstream media reports of the incident, I have not heard one question of the report given, I have not heard one mention as to any independent investigations done from within private media sectors, and I have not heard one person bring up the coincidences of when and where this tragedy took place.

Now, on the other side of this event we have those who are questioning whether or not the event took place as we are told it did.  And if it didn’t actually occur the way we are told — or if it didn’t actually occur at all, but rather was a staged event – why would it be done, and who would have done it?

If you have ever worked in any kind of criminal justice or private investigation, you know that the basis to developing theories for things like crimes is based on the same foundation that authors use when writing stories: Who?  What?  When?  Where? How? and most importantly … Why?  It is the last question that is most important; finding a motive to substantiate why someone would do something is the cornerstone of uncovering — or creating — a truthful narrative.

This shooting comes at a very specific and strategic time for the US government, less than a week after Washington lost its immediate plans to strike Syria and instead follow UN diplomatic efforts to resolve the chemical weapons issue of the Assad government.  Additionally, less than 6 hours after the shooting a flood of public officials — including Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, most recently under criticism for lying to the American people about unconstitutional surveillance conducted by the NSA — were on the news, giving public speeches condemning gun ownership laws and advocating bans on personal weapons.

The media and government spokespeople have reiterated over and over that many of the guns used in this shooting were guns that were legally purchased.  This point of contention is very important in the overall analysis of the event;why would the fact of these guns being legal be of importance immediately following a shooting?

Unless there was a specific motive over this fact, wouldn’t the bigger issue be:why are people in this country committing mass shootings to begin with, regardless of if any of the weapons used were legal or not?  

The reality is, if someone wants a gun it is very easy to obtain one illegally.  Living in Chicago, I could literally drive down any south-side neighborhood and buy a gun on the street.  If there was truly a concern over shootings such as theses, why wouldn’t the discussion be focused around social issues?  Things like questioning the failures of our society that it is producing people committing terrible violence for no reason, funding programs for the mentally ill, etc?

And most importantly, if civilian violence/shootings is truly that important in our country that an event like the DC shootings is actually pressing elected officials to change gun laws that could eventually eliminate the 2nd Amendment, then why isn’t this fervor seen every single day when in neighborhoods in places like Chicago and LA there are literally dozens of people being shot to death — many of them children?  On St. Patrick’s Day 2012, Chicago had 49 shootings in ONE SINGLE DAY.   

So, we can see that there could potentially be motive in either staging, exaggerating, or misrepresenting the event; taking focus away from other issues going on in Washington and our government (i.e. Syria, the information released that our government is providing Israel with raw intelligence that includes information on American citizens, etc.), creating a platform to further change federal gun laws, or politicizing social unrest in our society in order to scare the public and make people to psychologically look to the government to protect them from the violent society in which we live.

But what about the actual facts of the story?

When the shooting first occurred there were several official statements by the Washington DC police and fire department that they suspected there were three shooters involved, given the time frame in which the shootings occurred, where they occurred and how they were done.  Now, it is important to remember that when operations are carried out within the military or intelligence agencies, the first rule is creating strict levels of compartmentalization.  In other words, you only provide information to each person or organization on a need-to-know basis.   And many areas of law enforcement would be left, also, to believing in the official story.  So, it is interesting to see that other facets of law enforcement — the DC police and fire department, who may not have been involved on any operational level — had initially concluded that there were three shooters involved, based on the information they drew from the evidence.

And then there’s a very interesting news article in a British of Columbia newspaper http://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/world-news/police-fbi-shooter-reported-in-military-building-at-washington-navy-yard-multiple-victims.html.  The article was published on September 15th at 11:31pm, nearly 12 hours before the event took place.  While it is possible this will be explained away by some sort of publishing/date error, it is important to note that all of their other articles contain the correct date and time stamp — and that there were people who accessed this article online within minutes of the shootings, before any other major media website had the information to publish about the shooting.

And then there is the issue of where the shooting took place.  It is very questionable that of all places, the shooting took place on a gated Naval Yard at our nation’s capital.  If we were to assume the shooting was in fact a false flag operation, the most obvious and easily accessible choice would be to create an event on a military post.  The reasons are obvious; there is greater control of what outside non-military law enforcement can have access to, there is greater control over the actual execution of the event and control all variables, and there is the ability for military to control the victim’s families in the aftermath.

The question of whether or not this was a false flag operation is indeed an important one — like other questionable or suspicious events that have happened, both on US soil and in foreign countries, it raises concerns of what our government is really doing, who is really controlling our government, what their true agenda is, and how much we can even trust our government.  However, whether you believe the shooting to be a false flag operation or you believe the official story, they both carry with it the fundamental issue that there is something innately wrong in our country and that something has dramatically changed within our country over the last 12 years.

And the question is not if there is a problem.  The question is — what is the problem?  Is it truly society that is the problem, meaning that we the American people are the problem?  Or is it our government that is the problem?

 

RIGHT ON CUE: Feinstein calls for new gun control laws after Navy Yard Shooting

Leave a comment

This is from Clash Daily.

The brain-dead wicked bitch of the west sounds off.

We need more nut control not gun control.

So Please STFU Diane Feinstein and go away.

 

Just hours after the deadly shooting rampage at the Washington Navy Yard, gun  control advocates tried to reignite the national debate over gun laws that had  only just subsided.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat and a longtime  gun control advocate, denounced “the litany of massacres” over the past few  years and asked rhetorically, “When will enough be enough?”

Mrs. Feinstein, who was first thrust into the national  spotlight as president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors announcing the shooting  deaths of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk, said, “Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a  thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this  endless loss of life.”

President Obama was one of the first to link Monday’s incident to the larger  issue of gun violence and the legislative effort to curb it, though he did so  without explicitly calling, as he has done repeatedly, for gun control  measures.

“So we are confronting yet another mass shooting, and today it happened on a  military installation in our nation’s capital,” Mr. Obama said as he opened an  economic speech at the White House.

“Obviously, we’re going to be investigating thoroughly what happened, as we  do so many of these shootings, sadly, that have happened, and do everything that  we can to prevent them,” the president said.

Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2013/09/right-cue-feinstein-calls-new-gun-control-laws-navy-yard-shooting/#DfD9ObDg4FoTmqdd.99

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: