This is a repost of an excellent article written by Don Fredrick (the original can be found at this excellent website address: http://colony14.net/id74.html ).
I have been following this proposed legislation since it began and it scares the hell out of me! Maybe it is B. Hussein Obama's statement that he wants to create a team of civilian mercenaries that are better trained, better funded, and better equipped than the military... why would he want to do that? Do you think he is afraid of an armed populace? Does this sound like any other tyrannical leader in the last 70 years... that rose to power in a very similar manner as BHO? As I recall they all wore brown shirts! You better start thinking about the implications of this legislation if it passes (and I have no reason to believe it will not). Many say it cannot happen here... That is what they said in Australia and Great Britain not so long ago... It is time we wake up before it is too late.
Now the article by Don Fredrik:
You have to hand it to liberals, they never seem to give up. When it comes to the United States Constitution, they generally just ignore it – particularly the Tenth Amendment (you know, that pesky one that was intended to limit the power of the federal government). But the Second Amendment causes liberals fits, because a substantial number of Americans are actually aware of it. (That may be due more to Charlton Heston having been President of the NRA than to adequate teaching of the Constitution by members of the NEA, but we’ll take what we can get.) Try as they might, liberals just can’t seem to pass federal legislation outlawing all guns nationwide. The nation’s Founding Fathers were pretty clear in their wording:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The Second Amendment does not refer to the “right of the government” to keep and bear arms, it refers to the “right of the people.” The first ten amendments to the Constitution (the “Bill of Rights”) were demanded by the individual States before they would ratify the Constitution. Their purpose with the Amendments was to limit the power of the federal government even more than was intended by the main body of the Constitution. The First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, and assembly) and the Second Amendment appeared first because they were considered the most important. Looking back, those gentlemen in their powdered wigs with their quill pens were pretty prescient. (We can’t blame them for not being a bit tougher with the wording of the Tenth Amendment. After all, how could Thomas Jefferson have anticipated that a bloated dunderhead named Al Gore would show up some 230 years later demanding that carbon dioxide be regulated by the government as a dangerous pollutant? King George may have been unwise to place a heavy tax on tea to pay debts from the Seven Years War, but even he never considered taxing air.)
So the Second Amendment lives on, despite attempts by liberals to render it meaningless. They’ve done a pretty good job of making it less powerful - making citizens less secure in the process - but it’s still hanging in there. The year 2009 may, however, be the year we see that Amendment become totally irrelevant.
In case you haven’t noticed, a new President will be sworn in on January 20. If he has his way (and he likely will), his Attorney General will be Eric Holder. Gun-owners across the nation may want to pay attention to the records of Obama and Holder with regard to guns and the Constitution.
Eric Holder was Bill Clinton’s Deputy Attorney General. Holder was instrumental in persuading Bill Clinton to pardon members of the Puerto Rican terrorist group FALN (to encourage Puerto Rican votes for Hillary Clinton’s Senate run in New York). In exchange for large donations by Denise Rich to the Clinton Presidential Library fund and Clinton’s legal defense fund, Holden worked for the pardon of her husband, Marc Rich. Rich had renounced his U.S. citizenship and fled to Switzerland to avoid prosecution for wire fraud, racketeering, tax fraud, and tax evasion. Holder’s role in securing the Clinton pardons was called “unconscionable” by a Congressional committee, partly because he kept the deliberations hidden until the last minute in order to avoid certain protests from U.S. district attorneys.
Holder also worked to grant Clinton pardons for Susan Lisa Rosenberg and Linda Evans; Rosenberg and Evans were Weather Underground associates of William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn (best buddies of the Obamas, and past baby-sitters for their two children) who had been imprisoned for bombing government facilities. As with other pardons, Holder kept prosecutors from learning about the Rosenberg and Evans pardons to prevent expected objections. Bernadine Dohrn served one year in prison for refusing to testify against Rosenberg, who was the getaway driver in a Weather Underground robbery in which one Brinks armored car driver and two police officers were killed; Rosenberg was set free by Clinton on his last day in office.
Holder is antagonistic toward the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and wrote a brief in support of the Washington, D.C. ban on all hand-guns, even for self-defense in the home. (That law was later found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller.) Holder’s brief essentially argued that Americans have no right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense. He supports federal licensing of all handguns, three-day waiting periods, one gun per month purchase limits, national gun registration, and strict limits on gun shows that would effectively shut them down. And that’s just what he’s admitting to before he takes office.
Holder may not like private citizens owning weapons, but he is happy to see them in the hands of government thugs. Holder was second-in-command to Attorney General Janet Reno when he made the decision to send in INS officers with automatic weapons to kidnap Elian Gonzalez and return the terrified child to Cuba.
In an interesting side note, Holder neglected to mention ties to Rod Blagojevich in the 47-page questionnaire he was required to submit to the Senate Judiciary Committee as nominee for Attorney General. Holder signed the document five days after Blagojevich’s arrest. In 2004, Blagojevich had named Holder “special investigator” for the Illinois Gaming Board, which controls Illinois casino licenses. Blagojevich was under scrutiny for his possible involvement in attempts to grant a casino license to the city of Rosemont (whose mayor was alleged to have mob ties). There were suspicions that Blagojevich would use Holder to “steer” any investigations away from him (and Obama’s main money man, Tony Rezko), while still allowing a casino in Rosemont. Rezko was also involved in the casino plans; he had an option to lease a hotel next to the casino site (which he would likely exercise only if the casino deal went through). A Rezko business partner, Christopher G. Kelly, was also involved in casino site negotiations. Kelly is also a close friend and fundraiser of Blagojevich. There is speculation that Holder intentionally neglected to list his association with Blagojevich on his Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire to keep association from harming his confirmation as Attorney General. (Perhaps sensing that “the fix was in,” the Gaming Board refused to hire Holder in 2004. A casino has yet to be approved for Rosemont, Illinois.)
You are unlikely to know any of this about Eric Holder if you rely on the mainstream media, which has pretty much ignored reporting anything about him that relates to issues and instead concentrates on “fluff.” “Holder will be the first African-American Attorney General,” gushed the media - after spending the entire year arguing that the election of Obama would effectively end race as an issue. I guess it’s still an issue to liberals.
Black or white or red or green, Eric Holder is no friend of gun owners. (But Fidel Castro likely holds him in high regard.) Don’t look to Holder to protect your Second Amendment rights. The same can be said of his boss, Obama.
In September of 1996, when he was first running for the Illinois State Senate, Obama completed a candidate questionnaire. In the document, Obama stated that he opposed the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns, and supported banning assault weapons.
In the Illinois Senate, Obama voted against a bill that specifically allowed homeowners the right to use a gun in self-defense during a home invasion. The Illinois Governor vetoed the bill; Obama voted to uphold the veto. (During his Illinois State Senate career, Obama voted four times against legislation that would allow a homeowner the right to use a firearm in defense of his home and family.)
In 1999, Obama proposed increasing Illinois firearm and ammunition excise taxes by 500 percent. (A $55 tax on a $500 rifle would increase to $330.) The tax would thus change from a fee to fund wildlife preservation programs into a gun-punishing penalty.
Obama voted for a bill that would ban most hunting rifles, shotguns, and target rifles; the bill would also authorize the Illinois State Police to raid homes and forcibly confiscate banned guns. Obama also voted for a bill that would shut down Illinois firearm manufacturing businesses (Springfield Armory, Armalite, Rock River Arms, and Les Baer). Obama voted for a bill prohibiting Illinois citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month.
To avoid criticism of his anti-gun agenda, Obama enlisted an organization known as the “American Hunters and Shooters Association” (AHSA) to distribute literature stating that he is “pro-Second Amendment.” The AHSA does support hunting, but it also supports strict gun controls on non-hunters. (The AHSA is alleged to be a “sham” organization set up solely to endorse leftists who need political cover for their anti-gun leanings.)
In 2003, Obama voted for a bill that classified most single-shot and double-barreled shotguns as “semi-automatic assault weapons” and bans them, along with hundreds of models of rifles and handguns. (Had the bill had passed, Illinois residents would have had 90 days to turn in their guns or face felony charges.)
While serving as director of the Joyce Foundation board, Obama gives millions of dollars to gun control organizations like the “Council Against Handguns” and the “Violence Policy Center.” (Between 1994 and 2001, the Joyce Foundation gave $18.6 million to about 80 anti-gun and anti-Second Amendment projects, including $1.5 million to the Violence Policy Center.)
In 2004, Obama stated that he was "…consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry," and would back "federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement."
In March of 2004, Obama voted to allow prosecution of citizens who use guns for self-defense in their own homes.
Obama proposed legislation prohibiting gun stores from operating within five miles of a school or a park. Inasmuch as most communities have schools and parks scattered widely throughout their areas, the legislation would effectively ban gun stores. (Try finding a community that doesn’t have a school or park within five miles of any business.)
During the Presidential campaign, in April of 2008, Obama made his now infamous remark that residents of small-town America, because of lost jobs, “…get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or (become) anti-immigrant.” His comment drew severe criticism from gun-owners and church-goers.
Obama’s questionnaires for potential members of his staff and cabinet included unprecedented questions about gun ownership, prompting criticism from the National Rifle Association. Obama’s questions included, “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”
By now you get the idea that neither Obama nor his Attorney General Holder will care one whit about the rights of gun owners. And gun owners shouldn’t expect much help from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, either. (They don’t need guns, of course, because they have taxpayer-provided security.)
Still, there is that Second Amendment protecting the rights of gun owners. As mentioned above, the Supreme Court wisely labeled the Washington, D.C. ban on guns in the home unconstitutional. Creative lawmakers in D.C. are, however, busy at work crafting replacement legislation. It won’t ban guns in the home, but it will require that they be kept stored unassembled. (Home invaders in the nation’s capital are apparently expected to be patient enough to allow their victims time to assemble and load their guns before attempting to rob them.)
“We’re only trying to protect people from themselves,” say the gun control advocates, who completely ignore the statistics about the number of lives saved by armed citizens. (Dr. Susan Gratia’s testimony before Congress is particularly powerful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqgZzhI2Sfc) Yes, one can find cases of people accidentally killed by the improper use of firearms. But there is no disputing that you’re less likely to be the victim of a crime if the criminal knows you might have a gun in your home. Being prevented from protecting your property is tantamount to hanging a neon sign in your living room window that flashes, “Burglars welcome!” (It is worth remembering that Japan briefly considered an invasion of the United States during World War II but then decided against it… because they realized Americans citizens were too well-armed to allow them success.)
Astute liberals, continually looking for a way to thwart the Second Amendment, noticed that the Amendment only refers to a right to keep and bear arms. “Hey, check this out! It says nothing about ammunition!” It may have taken them over 230 years to find the loophole, but they found it. Suddenly, eighteen states are working on “ammunition accountability legislation.” Obama’s buddies are trying to cover all the bases. If they can’t get the Supreme Court to eliminate the Second Amendment, that’s no problem. “Go ahead and keep a few of your guns… but just try to get some ammunition!”
The pending legislation would require all ammunition manufacturers to maintain a database of all ammunition sold. Ammunition must be encoded. The database will keep track of who bought what ammunition and when they bought it. All ammunition sold after June 30, 2009 must be encoded.
Any ammunition purchased before the end of June (including hand-loaded ammunition) must be destroyed by July 1, 2011. Use it or lose it. (Or, in the case of criminals, buy a lot of ammunition before the deadline, and just keep it hidden until needed.) There will be a tax (possibly .05 cents) on every round of ammo. In addition to the tax, the actual cost of the ammunition will go up to cover additional manufacturer and gun shop owner expenses. (For more information on the pending legislation, visit this web site:
Needless to say, if such legislation passes in several states, there will be a concerted effort to make the law mandatory nationwide, just for the sake of consistency. The tax will be increased as often as the government can get away with it. And if someone steals your ammunition and it is used in a crime, the ammunition database will point the police in your direction. That, of course, is a good incentive to keep your guns and ammunition under lock and key to inhibit their theft. But, in turn, that makes your guns and ammunition more difficult to access in the event of a home invasion.
Over a year ago, Australia forced gun owners to surrender their personal firearms. Over 640,000 guns were collected and destroyed by the government, at a cost of more than $500 million dollars. The results shocked the lawmakers, but probably did not surprise many of the former gun-owners:
Nationwide in Australia, homicides are up 3.2 percent, assaults are up 8.6 percent, and armed robberies are up an astounding 44 percent. In Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent. Law-abiding citizens turned in their guns, but the criminals certainly kept theirs. For some reason this surprised the lawmakers.
A ban on guns in England has produced similarly disastrous results, and turned citizens into criminals for daring to protect their families - as effectively portrayed in this video clip:
If more gun control laws and ammunition bureaucracies don’t give the liberals what they want, they have one more trick up their sleeve. They will simply argue that the Second Amendment contains a spelling error, and Americans actually only have a right to bare arms.
January 12, 2009
Copyright 2009 Don Fredrick
The Coming Market Dump Starts This Week
1 year ago