Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=85507


A perfect storm is developing for Second Amendment opponents that could allow President-elect Barack Obama's choice for attorney general � Eric Holder � to "ban guns at will" despite the 2008 affirmation from the U.S. Supreme Court that U.S. citizens have a right to bear arms.

The situation was described with alarm by Alan Korwin, author of Gun Laws of America, in a recent commentary.

He cited Holder's known support for gun bans � the former Clinton administration official endorsed the District of Columbia's complete ban on functional guns in residents' homes before it was overturned by the Supreme Court.

And Korwin pointed to overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress as well as Obama's known support for gun restrictions and his presence in the Oval Office.

Thirdly, Korwin, one of many Second Amendment advocates raising concerns, cited a proposal already submitted to Congress at a time when its backers could not reasonably expect it to succeed.

The submission is H.R. 1022 by New York Democrat Carolyn McCarthy and 67 co-sponsors. It was introduced in February 2007 and the next month referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, where it has stayed.

But that could change in the 111th Congress, sworn in today. And Korwin said the plan would allow the U.S. Attorney General � possibly Holder � to add to the list of guns banned to the public any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."

"Note that � Holder � wrote a brief in the (District of Columbia) Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home," Korwin said.

In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."

"In plain English," Korwin said, "This means that any firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public. That presumption can be challenged only by suing the federal government over each firearm it decides to ban, in a court it runs with a judge it pays. This virtually dismisses the principles of the Second Amendment.

"The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose � is that devious or what? And of course, 'sporting purpose' is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent," he said.

Korwin told WND a new proposal to replace H.R. 1022 is not expected to be less draconian.

"Remember � these bans were proposed when the congressional anti-rights crowd had no chance of success. Now they are ready to run wild, or according to Sarah (Brady) herself, 'I have never been so confident,'" Korwin wrote, referring to the champion of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, which requires background checks on purchasers of handguns.

Korwin said the Democrats listed in H.R. 1022 a framework for guns to be banned that includes originals, copies or duplicates of a wide-ranging list of shotguns, pistols and rifles.

One of the red flags for semiautomatic rifles would be "anything" that can serve as a grip, and as set up now, the Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee "are all sworn enemies to the Second Amendment and are unlikely to be swayed at all by any firearms related arguments," he said.

The Republicans all "need to be pressed hard to do everything they can to block the appointment."

Further, with the expectation that Obama will appoint at least one or two Supreme Court justices, further damage could be just a vote or two away, he said.

"If he can get a 5-4 or 6-3 majority who dislike gun rights, you could find that your [Second Amendment] rights aren't what they've been for 200 years," Korwin said.

John Snyder assembled a list of prominent critics of the Holder nomination.for the Firearms Coalition.

"A former Ohio secretary of state, (Ken) Blackwell notes that, 'despite Obama's new lip service to the Second Amendment, Holder signed onto a brief earlier this year (2008) reaffirming his long-held position that the Second Amendment confers no rights whatsoever to private citizens, and that the Supreme Court should have upheld D.C.'s absolute ban on handguns, even in homes."

Snyder also cited comments from Brian Darling, director of U.S. Senate Relations at the Heritage Foundation, that Holder's position "strongly suggests that Holder is hostile to private gun ownership and will work to restrict gun rights."

Shotgun News columnist Jeff Knox wrote, "The gun rights community should make every effort to see to it that Holder's nomination is withdrawn or rejected."

According to Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb, Holder has supported handgun licensing and mandatory trigger locks. He also lobbied for limits on gun shows.

"This is not the record of a man who will come to office as the nation's top law enforcement officer with the rights and concerns of gun owners in mind," Gottlieb wrote.

"America's 85 million gun owners have ample reason to be pessimistic about how their civil rights will fare under the Obama administration," Gottlieb said. "Mr. Obama will have a Congress with an anti-gun Democrat majority leadership to push his gun control agenda. Gun owners have not forgotten Mr. Obama's acknowledged opposition to concealed carry rights, nor his support for a ban on handgun ownership when he was running for the Illinois state senate."

The issue of gun rights is more important than many believe, wrote Joseph Farah, WND's founder and editor, in a recent column. He cited a study from the University of Maryland and University of Michigan that uncovered a beneficial link between gun shows and crime.

"We find a sharp decline in the number of gun homicides in the weeks immediately following a gun show," the study concluded. Furthermore, in Texas they found "gun shows reduce the number of gun homicides by 16 in the average year."

"Holder�s appointment to be AG must be approved by the Senate," wrote David Codrea in the Examiner. "While it is highly unlikely that opponents could muster the 51 votes needed to reject Holder's appointment, a single senator can place a 'hold' on the confirmation and effectively lock up the system just as Democrats did with a number of President Bush's judicial appointments and the appointment of John Bolton to be Ambassador to the U.N."

The Supreme Court decided in the D.C. vs. Heller case that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to own firearms, not just the right for states to form armed militias.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Justice Antonin Scalia said in the majority opinion.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in dissent, said the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

Scalia said the ruling should not "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Joining Stevens in dissent were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

The amendment, ratified in 1791, says: "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."

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

...I think reading that line actually killed some of my brain cells...

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

yup - there you go.


they just redefined Sporting to mean:

engaging in, disposed to, or interested in open-air or athletic sports - EXCLUDING FIREARMS RELATED ACTIVITIES


fvkin
NYU loowyis...

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

Dammit.......this shyt makes me wanna form my own MILITIA !

:rant: :banghead: :rant: :banghead: :rant: :banghead: :rant:

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

where do i sign up?

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

You're IN !!! :ok: .....just send me a PM with name, location, and skill level. :biggrin:

Maybe we can call it GIMUM : GIM Underground Militia


:s15:



Disclaimer - these comments in no way reflect any real group or forming of a private paramilitary organization outside of cyberspace.

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

If you are an American man and have a weapon then you are already in the militia.

People just need to be informed of their duties....



.

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

You are no longer "Underground" you spoke of it on the internet.

Leaderless Resistance, google it.

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

Well AD, NOW YOU GET IT, huh?

All we got to do is get VICTOR to read this and my words will finally come 'home to roost' as it were.

http://www.goldismoney.info/forums/s...d.php?t=336773

This Congressional plan doesn't actually spell out the other things I mentioned about ammo restrictions, but trust me, it's coming...

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtnman (Post 1500381) You are no longer "Underground" you spoke of it on the internet. Leaderless Resistance, google it.

LEADERLESS RESISTANCE




The concept of Leaderless Resistance was proposed by Col. Ulius Louis Amoss, who was the founder of International Service of Information Incorporated, located in Baltimore, Maryland. Col. Amoss died more than fifteen years ago, but during his life was a tireless opponent of communism, as well as a skilled Intelligence Officer. Col. Amoss first wrote of Leaderless Resistance on April 17, 1962. His theories of organization were primarily directed against the threat of eventual Communist take-over in the United States. The present writer, with the benefit of having lived many years beyond Col. Amoss, has taken his theories and expounded upon them. Col. Amoss feared the Communists. This author fears the federal government. Communism now represents a threat to no one in the United States, while federal tyranny represents a threat to everyone . The writer has joyfully lived long enough to see the dying breaths of communism, but may, unhappily, remain long enough to see the last grasps of freedom in America.

In the hope that, somehow, America can still produce the brave sons and daughters necessary to fight off ever increasing persecution and oppression, this essay is offered. Frankly, it is too close to call at this point. Those who love liberty, and believe in freedom enough to fight for it are rare today, but within the bosom of every once great nation, there remains secreted, the pearls of former greatness. They are there. I have looked into their sparking eyes; sharing a brief moment in time with them as I passed through this life. Relished their friendship, endured their pain, and they mine. We are a band of brothers, native to the soil gaining strength one from another as we have rushed head long into a battle that all the weaker, timid men, say we can not win. Perhaps...but then again, perhaps we can. It's not over till the last freedom fighter is buried or imprisoned, or the same happens to those who would destroy their freedom.

Barring any cataclysmic events, the struggle will yet go on for years. The passage of time will make it clear to even the more slow among us that the government is the foremost threat to the life, and liberty of the folk. The government will no doubt make today's oppressiveness look like grade school work compared to what they have planned in the future. Meanwhile, there are those of us who continue to hope that somehow the few can do what the many have not. We are cognizant that before things get better they will certainly get worse as government shows a willingness to use ever more severe police state measures against dissidents. This changing situation makes it clear that those who oppose state repression must be prepared to alter, adapt, and modify their behavior, strategy, and tactics as circumstances warrant. Failure to consider new methods and implement them as necessary will make the government's efforts at suppression uncomplicated. It is the duty of every patriot to make the tyrant's life miserable. When one fails to do so he not only fails himself, but his people.

With this in mind, current methods of resistance to tyranny employed by those who love our race, culture, and heritage must pass a litmus test of soundness. Methods must be objectively measured as to their effectiveness, as well as to whether they make the government's intention of repression more possible or more difficult. Those not working to aid our objectives must be discarded or the government benefits from our failure to do so.

As honest men who have banded together into groups or associations of a political or religious nature are falsely labeled "domestic terrorists" or "cultists" and suppressed, it will become necessary to consider other methods of organization--or as the case may very well call for: non-organization. One should keep in mind that it is not in the government's interest to eliminate all groups. Some few must remain in order to perpetuate the smoke and mirrors vision for the masses that America is a "free democratic country" where dissent is allowed. Most organizations, however, that possess the potential for effective resistance will not be allowed to continue. Anyone who is so naive as to believe the most powerful government on earth will not crush any who pose a real threat to that power, should not be active, but rather, at home studying political history.

The question as to who is to be left alone and who is not, will be answered by how groups and individuals deal with several factors such as: avoidance of conspiracy plots, rejection of feeble minded malcontents, insistence upon quality of the participants, avoidance of all contact with the front men for the federals--the news media--and, finally, camouflage (which can be defined as the ability to blend in the public's eye the more committed groups of resistance with mainstream "kosher" associations that are generally seen as harmless.) Primarily though, whether any organization is allowed to continue in the future will be a matter of how big a threat a group represents. Not a threat in terms of armed might or political ability, for there is none of either for the present, but rather, threat in terms of potentiality. It is potential the federals fear most. Whether that potential exists in an individual or group is incidental. The federals measure potential threat in terms of what might happen given a situation conducive to action on the part of a restive organization or individual. Accurate intelligence gathering allows them to assess the potential. Showing one's hand before the bets are made, is a sure way to loose.

The movement for freedom is rapidly approaching the point where for many people, the option of belonging to a group will be nonexistent. For others, group membership will be a viable option for only the immediate future. Eventually, and perhaps much sooner than most believe possible, the price paid for membership will exceed any perceived benefit. But for now, some of the groups that do exist often serve a useful purpose either for the newcomer who can be indoctrinated into the ideology of the struggle, or for generating positive propaganda to reach potential freedom fighters. It is sure that, for the most part, this struggle is rapidly becoming a matter of individual action, each of its participants making a private decision in the quietness of his heart to resist: to resist by any means necessary. It is hard to know what others will do, for no man truly knows another man's heart. It is enough to know what one himself will do. A great teacher once said "know thyself." Few men really do, but let each of us, promise ourselves, not to go quietly to the fate our would-be masters have planned.

The concept of Leaderless Resistance is nothing less than a fundamental departure in theories of organization. The orthodox scheme of organization is diagrammatically represented by the pyramid, with the mass at the bottom and the leader at the top. This fundamental of organization is to be seen not only in armies, which are of course, the best illustration of the pyramid structure, with the mass of soldiery, the privates, at the bottom responsible to corporals who are in turn responsible to sergeants, and so on up the entire chain of command to the generals at the top. But the same structure is seen in corporations, ladies' garden clubs and in our political system itself. This orthodox "pyramid" scheme of organization is to be seen basically in all existing political, social and religious structures in the world today from the Federal government to the Roman Catholic Church. The Constitution of the United States, in the wisdom of the Founders, tried to sublimate the essential dictatorial nature of pyramidal organization by dividing authority into three: executive, legislative and judicial. But the pyramid remains essentially untouched.

This scheme of organization, the pyramid, is however, not only useless, but extremely dangerous for the participants when it is utilized in a resistance movement against state tyranny. Especially is this so in technologically advanced societies where electronic surveillance can often penetrate the structure revealing its chain of command. Experience has revealed over and over again that anti-state, political organizations utilizing this method of command and control are easy prey for government infiltration, entrapment, and destruction of the personnel involved. This has been seen repeatedly in the United States where pro-government infiltrators or agent provocateurs weasel their way into patriotic groups and destroy them from within.

In the pyramid type of organization, an infiltrator can destroy anything which is beneath his level of infiltration and often those above him as well. If the traitor has infiltrated at the top, then the entire organization from the top down is compromised and may be traduced at will.

An alternative to the pyramid type of organization is the cell system. In the past, many political groups (both right and left) have used the cell system to further their objectives. Two examples will suffice. During the American Revolution "committees of correspondence" were formed throughout the Thirteen colonies.

Their purpose was to subvert the government and thereby aid the cause of independence. The "Sons of Liberty", who made a name for themselves dumping government taxed tea into the harbor at Boston, were the action arm of the committees of correspondence. Each committee was a secret cell that operated totally independently of the other cells. Information on the government was passed from committee to committee, from colony to colony, and then acted upon on a local basis. Yet even in these bygone days of poor communication, of weeks to months for a letter to be delivered, the committees without any central direction whatsoever, were remarkable similar in tactics employed to resist government tyranny. It was, as the first American patriots knew, totally unnecessary for anyone to give an order for anything. Information was made available to each committee, and each committee acted as it saw fit. A recent example of the cell system taken from the left wing of politics are the Communists. The Communist, in order to get around the obvious problems involved in pyramidal organization, developed to an art the cell system. They had numerous independent cells which operated completely isolated from one another and particularly with no knowledge of each other, but were orchestrated together by a central headquarters. For instance, during World War II, in Washington, it is known that there were at least six secret Communist cells operating at high levels in the United States government (plus all the open Communists who were protected and promoted by President Roosevelt), however, only one of the cells was rooted out and destroyed. How many more actually were operating no one can say for sure.

The Communist cells which operated in the U.S until late 1991 under Soviet control could have at their command a leader, who held a social position which appeared to be very lowly. He could be, for example, a busboy in a restaurant, but in reality a colonel or a general in the Soviet Secret Service, the KGB. Under him could be a number of cells and a person active in one cell would almost never have knowledge of individuals who are active in another cell. The value of this is that while any one cell can be infiltrated, exposed or destroyed, such action will have no effect on the other cells; in fact, the members of the other cells will be supporting that cell which is under attack and ordinarily would lend very strong support to it in many ways. This is at least part of the reason, no doubt, that whenever in the past Communists were attacked in this country, support for them sprang up in many unexpected places.

The efficient and effective operation of a cell system after the Communist model, is of course, dependent upon central direction, which means impressive organization, funding from the top, and outside support, all of which the Communists had. Obviously, American patriots have none of these things at the top or anywhere else, and so an effective cell organization based upon the Soviet system of operation is impossible.

Two things become clear from the above discussion. First, that the pyramid type of organization can be penetrated quite easily and it thus is not a sound method of organization in situations where the government has the resources and desire to penetrate the structure; which is the situation in this country. Secondly, that the normal qualifications for the cell structure based upon the Red model does not exist in the U.S. for patriots. This understood, the question arises "What method is left for those resisting state tyranny?" The answer comes from Col. Amoss who proposed the "Phantom Cell" mode of organization. Which he described as Leaderless Resistance. A system of organization that is based upon the cell organization, but does not have any central control or direction, that is in fact almost identical to the methods used by the Committees of Correspondence during the American Revolution. Utilizing the Leaderless Resistance concept, all individuals and groups operate independently of each other, and never report to a central headquarters or single leader for direction or instruction, as would those who belong to a typical pyramid organization.

At first glance, such a type of organization seems unrealistic, primarily because there appears to be no organization. The natural question thus arises as to how are the "Phantom cells" and individuals to cooperate with each other when there is no intercommunication or central direction? The answer to this question is that participants in a program of Leaderless Resistance through phantom cell or individual action must know exactly what they are doing, and how to do it. It becomes the responsibility of the individual to acquire the necessary skills and information as to what is to be done. This is by no means as impractical as it appears, because it is certainly true that in any movement, all persons involved have the same general outlook, are acquainted with the same philosophy, and generally react to given situations in similar ways. The pervious history of the committees of correspondence during the American Revolution show this to be true.

Since the entire purpose of Leaderless Resistance is to defeat state tyranny (at least insofar as this essay is concerned), all members of phantom cells or individuals will tend to react to objective events in the same way through usual tactics of resistance. Organs of information distribution such as newspapers, leaflets, computers, etc., which are widely available to all, keep each person informed of events, allowing for a planned response that will take many variations. No one need issue an order to anyone. Those idealist truly committed to the cause of freedom will act when they feel the time is ripe, or will take their cue from others who precede them. While it is true that much could be said against this type of structure as a method of resistance, it must be kept in mind that Leaderless Resistance is a child of necessity. The alternatives to it have been show to be unworkable or impractical. Leaderless Resistance has worked before in the American Revolution, and if the truly committed put it to use for themselves, it will work now.

It goes almost without saying that Leaderless Resistance leads to very small or even one man cells of resistance. Those who join organizations to play "let's pretend" or who are "groupies" will quickly be weeded out. While for those who are serious about their opposition to federal despotism, this is exactly what is desired.

From the point of view of tyrants and would be potentates in the federal bureaucracy and police agencies, nothing is more desirable than that those who oppose them be UNIFIED in their command structure, and that every person who opposes them belong to a pyramid type group. Such groups and organizations are an easy kill. Especially in light of the fact that the Justice (sic) Department promised in 1987 that there would never be another group that opposed them that they did not have at least one informer in. These federal "friends of government" are intelligence agents. They gather information that can be used at the whim of a federal D.A. to prosecute. The line of battle has been drawn. Patriots are required therefore, to make a conscious decision to either aid the government in its illegal spying, by continuing with old methods of organization and resistance, or to make the enemie's job more difficult by implementing effective countermeasures.

Now there will, no doubt, be mentally handicapped people out there who, while standing at a podium with an American flag draped in the background, and a lone eagle soaring in the sky above, will state emphatically in their best sounding red, white, and blue voice, "So what if the government is spying? We are not violating any laws." Such crippled thinking by any serious person is the best example that there is a need for special education classes. The person making such a statement is totally out of contact with political reality in this country, and unfit for leadership of any thing more than a dog sleigh in the Alaskan wilderness. The old "Born on the fourth of July" mentality that has influenced so much of the American patriot's thinking in the past will not save him from the government in the future. "Reeducation" for non-thinkers of this type will take place in the federal prison system where there are no flags or eagles, but abundance of men who were "not violating any law."

Most groups who "unify" their disparate associates into a single structure have short political lives. Therefore, those movement leaders constantly calling for unity of organization rather than the desirable unity of purpose, usually fall into one of three categories.

They may not be sound political tacticians, but rather, just committed men who feel unity would help their cause, while not realizing that the government would greatly benefit from such efforts. The Federal objective, to imprison or destroy all who oppose them, is made easier in pyramid organizations. Or perhaps, they do not fully understand the struggle they are involved in and that the government they oppose has declared a state of war against those fighting for faith, folk, freedom and constitutional liberty. Those in power will use any means to rid themselves of opposition. The third class calling for unity and let us hope this is the minority of the three, are men more desirous of the supposed power that a large organization would bestow, than of actually achieving their stated purpose.

Conversely, the last thing Federal snoops would have, if they had any choice in the matter, is a thousand different small phantom cells opposing them. It is easy to see why. Such a situation is an intelligence nightmare for a government intent upon knowing everything they possibly can about those who oppose them. The Federals, able to amass overwhelming strength of numbers, manpower, resources, intelligence gathering, and capability at any given time, need only a focal point to direct their anger. A single penetration of a pyramid type of organization can lead to the destruction of the whole. Whereas, Leaderless Resistance presents no single opportunity for the Federals to destroy a significant portion of the Resistance.

With the announcement by the Department of Justice (sic) that 300 FBI agents formerly assigned to watching Soviet spies in the US (domestic counter intelligence) are now to be used to "combat crime", the federal government is preparing the way for a major assault upon those persons opposed to their policies. Many anti-government groups dedicated to the preservation of the America of our forefathers can expect shortly to feel the brunt of a new federal assault upon liberty.

It is clear, therefore, that it is time to rethink traditional strategy and tactics when it comes to opposing a modern police state. America is quickly moving into a long dark night of police state tyranny, where the rights now accepted by most as being inalienable will disappear. Let the coming night be filled with a thousand points of resistance. Like the fog which forms when conditions are right and disappears when they are not, so must the resistance to tyranny be.

http://www.louisbeam.com/leaderless.htm

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

I know.......hence my disclaimer :biggrin:


Thanks :wink:

"If every person has the right to defend--even by force--his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly." ---The Law. Frederick Bastiat Paris, 1850.

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

What part of "..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." do they not understand?

Infringe means to Break in or encroach on something. They are already in violation of the constitution and should be treated as the traitors they are.

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

Keep spreadin that Gospel Mtn...:ok:

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

Any government that takes action that flies directly in the face of the constitution is an illegitimate government.

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

If you have NOT read Unintended Consequences by John Ross, DO SO.

He covers this IN DETAIL.

Re: Congress' plan would let AG (anti gun) 'ban guns at will'
 

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

But there is a newer assault weapons ban bill proposal (H.R. 6257) that was sponsored solely by five republican, last year

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6257

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

Very sad, indeed, but more than likely RinOs...

Lets look at the numbers, about 33% of Dems sponsored verses 3% of Repubs...

Re: Congress' plan would let AG (anti gun) 'ban guns at will'
 

Blue...

There is indeed a difference between the two "parties"...

One party accepts the responsibility to screw you one way.

The other party accepts the responsibility to screw you another.

Together they get all the bases covered, all the while fooling you into thinking you have a choice... It's brilliant!!

Bottom line: NEITHER PARTY REPRESENTS YOUR BEST INTEREST.

Together they will take everything from you if you let them. Stop falling for their tricks, PLEASE!!!

Re: Congress' plan would let AG (anti gun) 'ban guns at will'
 

DD, very interesting thoughts and in part I accept them, but not completely...

I did, however, vote for Bob Barr, as the other two where not acceptable in the slightest fashion.

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

well, i already have my guns. and they are not leaving my side unless i die shooting. i would rather die than live like a slave. i am not scared of death at all.

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

My fear is that it will occur to them that they could expand the Crime Act of 1984 (I think that's the one I'm thinking of) that was instituted back in the War on Terror? Then they wouldn't have to prove you own guns or give you a day in court, they just take everything you own, your home, your bank account, your assets, your guns, the buttons on your shirt. The local police department gets a share of the assets and they don't have to actually prove the allegations against you and you're not owed a day in court to defend yourself. You have no recourse for ever getting your property returned. This is already in placed and has been used for drug dealers, suspected drug dealers, and sometimes just people suspected of possessing drugs.

How many people would back down and surrender their guns at the fear of losing everything? Then again, how many would have nothing left to lose and ... (well, we've all read Unintended Consequences)?

Re: Congress' plan would let AG (anti gun) 'ban guns at will'
 

........................

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

There's no recourse for getting it back in court. Drug dealers were often able to cover their footsteps so well legally that getting a case built against them was extremely difficult and time- and resource-consuming. The Act was designed to allow the State to simply confiscate all their assets without having to prove a case against the alledged in court, and the Court has rejected hearing the cases of at least some of the people who lost property through this Act.

I suspect there will be a lot of boating accidents immediately following anything of this sort. The GIM Armada will probably set sail immediately! :biggrin:

I hope you're right about there being enough bad-ass Patriots to try to turn the country around, but I don't see it turning around. The majority of the population no longer even understands the Constitution, nor do they particularly care about it. Patriots will be viewed as terrorists by the majority of their countrymen, and will be rejected. Gun rights mean almost nothing to many people, and if it's explained to them why the Second Ammendment is important, they laugh. They don't believe we're threatened by tyranny, don't recognize that we're already moving in that direction. When they see a true Patriot, they won't recognize him or her. They'll see a terrorist or a mentally disturbed person or a bitter redneck or someone compensating for some inadequacy, but they won't see a Patriot. We can only hope that someday, somewhere, history looks back on those Patriots and sees them for the heroes they were. And yes, I know which group I want to be in. I'm not surrendering my firearms.

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

Dang Maddie...such truth so early in the morning.

I haven't had my Wheaties yet!

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

Hmmmm........are you saying maybe I shouldn't be storing my firearms on my boat ???

:biggrin:

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

Exactly! You can put them in the back of my truck for safe keeping. :biggrin:

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

Oh ok.......so this is like a large private safety deposit box ? :confused_ma:

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

Are we actually going to stand back and let this guy take away our right given to us by the founding fathers?

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Blotter/..._080620_mn.jpg

I know I'm not.

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

Here's some background on Traitor Holder for newbies :

As Deputy Attorney General, Holder was a strong supporter of restrictive gun control. He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners, a three day waiting period on handgun sales, rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month, banning possession of handguns and so-called �assault weapons� (cosmetically incorrect guns) by anyone under age of 21, a gun show restriction bill that would have given the federal government the power to shut down all gun shows, national gun registration, and mandatory prison sentences for trivial offenses (e.g., giving your son an heirloom handgun for Christmas, if he were two weeks shy of his 21st birthday). He also promoted the factoid that �Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence��a statistic is true only if one counts 18-year-old gangsters who shoot each other as �children.�(Sources: Holder testimony before House Judiciary Committee, Subcommitee on Crime, May 27,1999; Holder Weekly Briefing, May 20, 2000. One of the bills that Holder endorsed is detailed in my 1999 Issue Paper �Unfair and Unconstitutional.�)

After 9/11, he penned a Washington Post op-ed, �Keeping Guns Away From Terrorists� arguing that a new law should give �the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale.� He also stated that prospective gun buyers should be checked against the secret �watch lists� compiled by various government entities. (In an Issue Paper on the watch list proposal, I quote a FBI spokesman stating that there is no cause to deny gun ownership to someone simply because she is on the FBI list.)
After the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the D.C. handgun ban and self-defense ban were unconstitutional in 2007, Holder complained that the decision �opens the door to more people having more access to guns and putting guns on the streets.�
Holder played a key role in the gunpoint, night-time kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez. The pretext for the paramilitary invasion of the six-year-old�s home was that someone in his family might have been licensed to carry a handgun under Florida law. Although a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo showed a federal agent dressed like a soldier and pointing a machine gun at the man who was holding the terrified child, Holder claimed that Gonzalez �was not taken at the point of a gun� and that the federal agents whom Holder had sent to capture Gonzalez had acted �very sensitively.� If Mr. Holder believes that breaking down a door with a battering ram, pointing guns at children (not just Elian), and yelling �Get down, get down, we�ll shoot� is example of acting �very sensitively,� his judgment about the responsible use of firearms is not as acute as would be desirable for a cabinet officer who would be in charge of thousands and thousands of armed federal agents, many of them paramilitary agents with machine guns.

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
 

Robert Mugabe in training.

Re: Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'