Friday, March 8, 2013

Fundamental Transformation of the Republic

The Contra Costa Times out in the Peoples Republic of Calley-Fornia does us the favor of posting a short summary of all the gun legislation floating around in DC, and then in their own state (H/T the Girls Just Wanna Have Guns newsletter).  It makes good on Obama's pledge of "fundamentally transforming the United States of America".  The second amendment will become meaningless.  You'll need approval and paperwork to buy or sell anything. 

I'm just going to post a few of them here because I'm short of blood pressure pills. First, one man wrecking crew Frank Lautenburg,
S. 22, the Gun Show Background Check Act of 2013, by U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. --S.22 would require background checks for all firearms sales at gun shows, with "gun show" defined to include any place where more than 50 guns are on sale/display.

S.33, the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device of 2013, by U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. -- S.33 would prohibit the sale, transfer, importation or possession of any magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, unless it was made before the law's effective date.

S.35, the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2013, by U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. -- S.35 would require face to face purchases of ammunition, require licensing of ammunition dealers, and require reporting regarding bulk purchases of ammunition.
Not to be outdone, this act of insanity requires a background check for every purchase of ammo:
S.174, the Ammunition Background Check Act of 2013, by U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. -- S.174 would require an instant background check for the purchase of ammunition, and would restore pre-1986 requirements that sellers track their inventory and keep records of their customers; purchases of 1,000 rounds or more, or thefts of large amounts of ammunition, would have to be reported to law enforcement.
Now I'm always suspicious of these glowingly named laws they keep coming up with, since the laws never do what they're intended to do, but Chuckie Schumer sponsoring something called "The Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act"? Does anyone on Earth with an IQ above the freezing point think Chuckie actually wants to protect anyone with any gun business?  What horrors live in this one?  Do we have to pass it to see what's in it?  No effin' thanks.
S.374, the Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013, by U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. -- S.374 would make congressional findings that Congress supports and respects Second Amendment rights and the existing prohibition on a national firearms registry, but also that the Justice Department should make a priority of closing holes in its firearm background check system and that citizens should be more vigilant about keeping firearms from dangerously mentally ill people.
Isn't amazing they want to add thousands of background checks every day, vastly multiply the paperwork to buy or sell anything, and yet they'll tell you to your face they don't enforce the laws they have today because they don't have the manpower?? 

The House is a mixed bag of mostly bullcrap, too, with some scattered hints of sanity in there.  For example, how about a national registry of all handguns?
HR 117, the Handgun Licensing and Registration Act of 2013, by Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J. -- HR 117 would require that each state provide for the mandatory licensing and registration of every handgun sold in the future. The bill is based upon New Jersey's mandatory handgun registration law.
No?  Don't want a handgun registry?   How about no guns whatsoever without a Federal license?
HR 34, Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2013, by Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill. -- HR 34 would bar anyone from buying or owning a firearm without a background check and government-issued license; the U.S. Attorney General would establish a federal record-of-sale system, and any firearm thefts or losses would have to be reported to the government within three days.
The winner on false and deceptive naming here is probably this one:
HR 21, the NRA Members' Gun Safety Act of 2013, by Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va. -- HR 21 would require a background check for every firearm sale or transfer, with the only exceptions being gifts between immediate family members; probate or executor transfers after the owner's death; a loan to someone who believes they need the firearm in their home to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm; and certain loans while target shooting, hunting, fishing or trapping. It also would require owners to report a firearm's theft or loss within 48 hours, and would require any state that allows concealed carry to establish a permit process if it doesn't already have one.
There's a ton of laws in the sausage mills.  Every permutation of taking away virtually everything, all the way to removing gun free zones around schools, revoking presidential executive orders, but no mention of revoking the 1968 Gun Control Act or the NFA.

Hope you're up for running a marathon because this fight is going to be on for a long time.  Your senators' and your representative's office staffs should be looking at caller ID or email address and saying, "oh, crap; not him again".  Unless you know for sure they're on the right side of this.
I can hear you saying what I've been saying, that we need to work our state governments just as hard or harder.  That's true.  If necessary, split it up.  Get a group together and trade off responsibilities.  "I'll call state, you call Federal - next week, we swap". 

And start looking at ways to defeat the ones who vote for this crap.

In your spare time.


  1. Vote, petition and plead all you want.

    The confiscatory state is incompatible with firearms' ownership. "They" will never quit ... you'll get tired, first.

    1. I don't know if you ever listen to Michael Bane's podcast or even know who he is, but he lives in Colorado and is currently producing several gun shows for Outdoor Channel.

      Because of this, he has been in the legislature almsot daily since the battles started. In the first few minutes (here) he says they're not only not listening to their constituents, they're accusing their constituents of being mean to them and don't understand why we're not just delivering truckloads of gifts to them for taking our rights away.

      The Bloomberg fedayeen are saying "don't listen to these voters, listen to our polls". They don't care what we think.

      It's nothing less than a coup.

  2. Want to start a pair of betting pools on what date the revolution starts, and in which state it begins?

    1. Sounds like it could be interesting. I think I posted something like that once, but I'm not sure. All of those are hard to predict. When, where, how?

      How do we keep people betting it starts at certain time from starting it themselves? Of course, I don't think we'd ever get enough money in a pile to make it worthwhile.

  3. This is precisly the same approach taken with TARP & the obama health care seizure.

    "representative" gummint? well, lets just say that we're not the represented.

    time for another plan.


  4. I think that an American Civil War would have a unique and distinctly lethal nature … quite unlike any of the conflicts that we’ve seen these past 70 years.

    The Obama’ administration is politically-aligned with the administrations of every Western country. Canada and the whole of Europe espouse the same essential politics … hierarchical, command-and-control economies.

    Thus, it seems to me that any “war” against the Obama’ administration would be interpreted as a “war” against the whole of the Western world. It would be in the interests of Europe, that an insurrection is “put down with expedience”… if for no other reason than that we are all tied to the petro-dollar. We could expect that other Western Liberal nations would contribute men and equipment to support the incumbent administration.

    American rebels would face the might of NATO.

    But, who would support the rebels? Who would dare? You can see that there is the potential for a global escalation of any such conflict.

    Consider the fight in Syria. The rebels are supported by the Western Liberal economies, which are providing money, arms and certain material goods. But, if those Syrian rebels lose their fight against Assad, they will become refugees. They’ll be unable to stay in Syria. If they are lucky, they’ll be able to flee into Europe, via Turkey. And, they’ll be welcomed by European governments. However, those Syrian rebels DO have an avenue of escape.

    There would be no such escape-route for American rebels. Any country which opened its arms to them, would do so in defiance of NATO and the UN. The backs of American rebels, would be “against the wall”, because there would be no place to run.

    America is literally “the last bastion”.

    So, American rebels would have to prevail or else suffer the “justice” that is handed out by the victors. They could expect to lose their property and face internment… maybe worse.

    I’m not saying that you can’t win. I am saying that you dare not lose.

  5. The might of NATO? Are you serious? Americans ARE the might of NATO! Without US money, personnel, equipment and American arm twisting there wouldn't be a NATO. Do you really think that the EU would send troops over here? Those chickenshit bastards won't even resolve the problems on their own continent. Remember the unpleasantness in the former Yugoslavia? Who did the heavy lifting there? Without the US NATO is a hollow, bickering, impotent shell.

    1. That's pretty much what I thought about the "might of NATO", but I let it slide because I liked the "America is the last bastion" theme and the idea that failure is just not acceptable.

  6. Americans ARE the backbone of NATO ... and you would be fighting the American Army, Navy and Air Force, supplemented by men/equipment of many other nations.

    IMO, there is a vanishingly-small chance of mass-defections from the military. They will do what the soldiers of all tyrants do; obey orders.