|

Missouri Democrats propose assault weapon confiscation bill

For all the gun control advocates who continually try to reassure gun owners that gun laws will not involve confiscation, take a look at the bill Democrats introduced in the Missouri legislature.

Excerpt:

The bill  would give owners of certain types of “assault” weapons 90 days to either turn them in to authorities, disable them or ship them out of the state.

According to House Bill 545, “assault” rifles are defined as any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine that has one or more of the following characteristics:

a.  A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;

b.  Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;

c.  A folding or telescoping stock; or

d.  A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.

Excerpt:

The law also applies to certain semi-automatic pistols and semi-automatic shotguns with similar characteristics.

Democrats in the state also want to confiscate pistols or rifles with fixed magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.

The law also prohibits anyone, including gun makers, from manufacturing, importing, possessing, purchasing, selling, or transferring any “assault weapon” or large capacity magazines.

The law does not apply to law enforcement officers, members of the military and federal agents and employees.

Those already in possession of these weapons or magazines will have 90 days to:

  1. Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
  2. Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
  3. Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

If the proposal becomes law, those who violate it will be charged with a Class C felony, punishable by up to seven years in prison.

The proposal has very little chance of becoming law since Republicans hold a super-majority in the state legislature, like the Democrats do in the Illinois legislature. Minnesota is also considering similar legislation.

The point is that there are many  elected officials ready to effectively eliminate the second amendment from the constitution.

All Americans have to figure out is why our government is so adamant about instituting new gun control laws, when the current gun laws have been so ineffective.

 

Share:

42 Comments

  1. On a related note…

    Why are the feds loading up on so much ammo?

    Several other agencies of the federal government also began buying large quantities of bullets last year. The Social Security Administration, for instance, not normally considered on the frontlines of anything but dealing with seniors, explained that its purchase of millions of rounds was for special agents’ required quarterly weapons qualifications. They must be pretty poor shots.

    But DHS has been silent about its need for numerous orders of bullets in the multiple millions. Indeed, Examiner writer Ryan Keller points out Janet Napolitano’s agency illegally redacted information from some ammunition solicitation forms following media inquiries.

    According to one estimate, just since last spring DHS has stockpiled more than 1.6 billion bullets, mainly .40 caliber and 9mm. That’s sufficient firepower to shoot every American about five times. Including illegal immigrants.

    To provide some perspective, experts estimate that at the peak of the Iraq war American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, DHS is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war.

    Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/020813-643707-obama-homeland-security-vast-ammunition-purchases.htm#ixzz2L2Ivme6f
    Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

  2. They want to remove semi-automatic weapons not a well regulated militia under the Second Amendment.

    • Ted Biondo

      Steverino, in my Jan 31 post on Gun control, “The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller (554 U.S.570) that individual American citizens have the right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment, “unconnected to service in a militia” – a popular argument used by those on the left.”

      You on the left have lost your well regulated militia argument in the debate, sir.

  3. We always hear lots of bold proposals when they know they don’t have the votes. (Obama and Biden are doing the same). It’s just a commercial to sooth the paranoid progressives. Missouri should do something useful like go into St. Louis and “sweep the trash”. There can’t be more than 20,000 illegal guns there!

  4. Gun manufacturers fight back…

    Olympic Arms to New York State – Take Your Business Elsewhere

    Olympia, WA –(Ammoland.com)- Olympic Arms is a staunch believer in and defender of the Constitution of the United States, and with special attention paid to the Bill of Rights that succinctly enumerates the security of our Divinely given Rights.

    One of those Rights is that to Keep and Bear Arms.

    Legislation recently passed in the State of New York outlaws the AR15 and many other firearms, and will make it illegal for the good and free citizens of New York to own a large selection of legal and safe firearms and magazines.

    We feel as though the passage of this legislation exceeds the authority granted to the government of New York by its citizens, and violates the Constitution of the United States, ignoring such SCOTUS rulings as District of Columbia v. Heller – 554, U.S. 570 of 2008, McDonald v. Chicago – 561 U.S. 3025 of 2010, and specifically the case of United States v. Miller – 307 U.S. 174 of 1939.

    Due the passing of this legislation, Olympic Arms would like to announce that the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee of such an entity – will no longer be served as customers.

    In short, Olympic Arms will no longer be doing business with the State of New York or any governmental entity or employee of such governmental entity within the State of New York – henceforth and until such legislation is repealed, and an apology made to the good people of the State of New York and the American people.

    If the leaders of the State of New York are willing to limit the right of the free and law abiding citizens of New York to arm themselves as they see fit under the Rights enumerate to all citizens of the United State through the Second Amendment, we feel as though the legislators and government entities within the State of New York should have to abide by the same restrictions.

    Read more at Ammoland.com: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/02/olympic-arms-to-new-york-state-take-your-business-elsewhere/#ixzz2L6SjacDo

  5. That’s an interesting angle. Don’t do business with anyone opposed to Second Amendment rights, including law enforcement. There was a fishing place on Riverside that had the “Vote Obama” signs out, so i don’t give them business either, nor do my friends. Same with Dick’s Sporting Goods. People can make a big difference if they stand together ……..and let these managers and owners know why!

  6. JRM_CommonSense

    It seems to me that if anyone with an ounce of common sense wanted to take away 2nd amendment rights they would know that the only way to do that would be to get the 2nd amendment repealed or changed. And yet, there is no effort going on that would make that happen. And we all know that it would never pass.

    Sounds like another of those “boogie” men designed to scare people into thinking that one thing being attempted means something it does not mean. But why should we expect anything different from these people………

  7. JRM, If the “sale or transfer” of certain guns in enacted, what happens when the owner dies? Does the “boogie man” come to take it? Does the gun instantly become illegal for anyone to even handle it? Or do we just find about how that works later, like Obamacare.

  8. So jrm, what if this is just a step-by-step process? First, the “personal defense weapons”, the high-capacity magazines, then ALL semi-automatic guns, and so on, until the law-abiding citizen is left with nothing more than single-shot muzzle-loaders for defense against well-armed criminals. That is, IF, they can get them out of the then-mandatory gun safe, in time.

    You don’t believe that?

    “I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.” — Nelson T. “Pete” Shields III, Chairman and founder, Handgun Control Inc., “A Reporter At Large: Handguns,” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58

    “We must get rid of all the guns.” — HCI Spokesperson Sarah Brady, on the Phil Donahue Show, September 1994

    “…I don’t believe gun owners have rights.” — Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report, “Handguns in America” October 1997

    The Left’s agenda is clear.

  9. JRM_CommonSense

    Juice, Read Ted’s post. It clearly defines the “turn in policy”. Only those people who fail to follow the “turn in policy” will fall under your “owner dies” scenario. Here is your answer! The “owner dies” scoff law’s weapons that he failed to follow the “turn in policy” would become the property of his/her heirs. If those heir decide to follow the “turn in policy, then all is well. If the chose to follow the “owner dies” scoff law’s approach, the saga will continue. The “owner dies” scoff law saga that you proposed is nothing more than your attempt to propose another “boogie” man; nothing more.

    I wonder if you will now address the issue defined in my post? I doubt it. But rest assured, that making one kind of gun or one kind of high volume magazine illegal for the general public does not constitute a repeal of the 2nd amendment. As Ted so elegantly define in another post a few weeks ago, there are set procedures that must be followed to amend the Constitution, and the 2nd amendment would never be repealed by following these procedures.

    So do you want to address this issue or are you going to propose another “boogie” man situation to avoid doing that. I expect you to come up with something like “if a community decides to not allow a White Castle hamburger joint to open up in their juridiction, they would be effectively banning you from eating fast food”, one that our eloquent friend SNussy tried to sell us months ago.

  10. JRM, you are correct, they won’t try to abolish the second amendment, but who draws the line as to the restrcitions? If someone went to court to ban something that was “defective” a dozen times over 5 years with 4,000,000 units being sold, they would laugh them out of there and congratulate the manufacturer on having a safe product with very rare deficiencies. Sad how they can push a law without any better eveidence than that, only fear of what MAY happen. The guilty until proven innocent plan.

  11. JRM_CommonSense

    SNuss and Juice. Do you really believe that the Democrats can take the “let’s restrict one kind of gun at a time” approach and successfully ban all guns over some period of time without getting severe push back from many members of congress and/or facing significant challenges in the court system? To accomplish this approach they would still have to reach a point where they have to prove that restricting all guns would not be a violation of the 2nd amendment.

    To prove my point, I will bet both of you that the current attempt to ban so called “semi-automatic” guns and “hugh capacity” magazines will not get passed by Congress. Obama is right that they “deserve a vote”, but that does not mean that they deserve to be passed or that they will be passed. But it gives you guys a funny “boogie” man to play with.

    And SNuss, the extreme positions of the leftist names you mentioned have about as much chance of being passed as laws as the extreme positions of the rightist names you always mention have of getting their positions passed as laws. Whenever these kinds of positions go against each other rather than work together, all you get is a Mexican standoff with no progress of any kind – well maybe you get a few more new names being call, but certainly no progress of any value.

  12. The “hidden” agenda is to do it all at the state levels. I do believe some of the really liberal states will go for substantial bans/confiscation. It is already starting in NY, CO and MO. Illinois’ will be really crazy too with the supermajority. I do believe a reasonable background check bill would pass in DC and it should. I think it is reasonable to record every sale thru a dealer for say $25, as with the FOID card. Hopefully the Heller ruling will flush the Illinois radical proposal. The responsible gun owners really only wish for one thing: Tougher penalties for the truly dangerous, stop the revolving door, but they won’t propose that because of the whole race and profiling issue. The mag ban may pass in DC but that does nothing to stop any shootings. 3 x 10 = 30 last time i checked and pockets are big.

    • Ted Biondo

      JRM – Legislation being introduced in three states legislatures by gun control advocates, regardless of the bills chances of passing, is more than a “boogie” man.

  13. JRM_CommonSense

    Ted, The fact that such bills get introduced at the federal or state level doesn’t guarantee passage. But, the fact that such bills get introduced at the federal or state level does guarantee that somebody or other will use them as “boogie” men in order to try to scare people about what they want them to think will happen. This has happen for as long as I can remember, and I possess a very long memory!

  14. Re: ” Do you really believe that the Democrats can take the “let’s restrict one kind of gun at a time” approach and successfully ban all guns over some period of time without getting severe push back from many members of congress and/or facing significant challenges in the court system?”

    I understand that if we don’t fight, tooth and nail, to defend our rights, we will probably lose them, due to the effects of Leftist propaganda on the “low-information voter”. History (including Obama’s re-election) is proof of that.

    “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”-Marcus Tullius Cicero

  15. BTW, can you explain this?

    DHS has stockpiled more than 1.6 billion bullets, mainly .40 caliber and 9mm. That’s sufficient firepower to shoot every American about five times.
    Read more at: http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/020813-643707-obama-homeland-security-vast-ammunition-purchases.htm

    DHS doesn’t go on “overseas contingency operations”. This is enough ammo to fight the Iraq war for TWENTY-FOUR YEARS! For what war, against whom, are they preparing?

  16. JRM_CommonSense

    Yada,Yada, Yada. Repeating the same suff over and over again, does not make it any more believable. It only shows that the “boogie” man you want us to believe isn’t being believed.

    I also understand that if we don’t fight, tooth and nail, to defend our rights, we will probably lose them, due to the effects of extreme Rightist propaganda seeking to legislate their morality onto all citizens and their constant attempts to force teir religion beliefs into the political process.

  17. Of course, the fact that Leftist government is the group that seeks to regulate us, cradle to grave, somehow slipped jrm’s tiny mind.

    Conservatives basically want LESS government interference in the lives of the citizenry, with the exception of killing the innocent unborn.

  18. JRM_CommonSense

    It doesn’t take a very big mind to NOT understand that trying to legislate abortion, birth control, and procreation takes the government into the homes, bedrooms, lives, and right to control one’s body and the size of one’s family and balance those with a family’s ability to manage their lives and finances. Seems like the ultimate interference into “the lives of the citizenry”.

    But then again, it is the extreme Rightist elements in the government or the citizenry that thinks they have a constitutional right to disagree with everything their “opponents” believe, and that they have a God-given right to dictate morality in the law. How’s that working for you guys, and when have the voters agreed with y’all? Oh that’s right, those voters that disagree with you are “low-information voters”, bought and paid for by the Democratic party. If that allows you guys who continue to lose with your approach to sleep at night then you may be the ones with the “tiny minds”. Someday you may learn that it is more productive to work with your “enemies” rather than continually being unable to accomplish anything. But I am not holding my breath that you “low-information obstructionists” are thoughtful enough to figure this out.

  19. Of course, if you don’t consider a fetus as “human”, then it is an easy choice to make, to discard it as if it were used toilet tissue.

    Just remember, you were once at such a position in your development.

    Perhaps, if we could distinguish the difference, we should only abort Leftist Liberals, since they would agree with that choice. Or, how about self-inflicted post-partum abortions by you Leftist Liberals? At least that action would involve a WILLING participant.

  20. JRM_CommonSense

    You get funnier and funnier. Unfortunately you also get further and further from reality the funnier you get. Good luck with that.

  21. “One of the major gun-control efforts in Olympia this session calls for the sheriff to inspect the homes of assault-weapon owners. ”

    http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html

  22. Curiouser and curiouser….

    The Department of Homeland Security is set to purchase a further 21.6 million rounds of ammunition to add to the 1.6 billion bullets it has already obtained over the course of the last 10 months alone, figures which have stoked concerns that the federal agency is preparing for civil unrest.

    A solicitation posted yesterday on the Fed Bid website details how the bullets are required for the DHS Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico.

    The solicitation asks for 10 million pistol cartridge .40 caliber 165 Grain, jacketed Hollow point bullets (100 quantities of 100,000 rounds) and 10 million 9mm 115 grain jacketed hollow point bullets (100 quantities of 100,000 rounds).

    The document also lists a requirement for 1.6 million pistol cartridge 9mm ball bullets (40 quantities of 40,000 rounds).

    An approximation of how many rounds of ammunition the DHS has now secured over the last 10 months stands at around 1.625 billion. In March 2012, ATK announced that they had agreed to provide the DHS with a maximum of 450 million bullets over four years, a story that prompted questions about why the feds were buying ammunition in such large quantities. In September last year, the federal agency purchased a further 200 million bullets.

    To put that in perspective, during the height of active battle operations in Iraq, US soldiers used 5.5 million rounds of ammunition a month. Extrapolating the figures, the DHS has purchased enough bullets over the last 10 months to wage a full scale war for almost 30 years.

    Read more at: http://www.infowars.com/dhs-purchases-21-6-million-more-rounds-of-ammunition/

    Sounds like DHS is planning to shoot a LOT of people.

  23. JRM_CommonSense

    Obviously someone does not know what the DHS Federal Law Enforcement Training Center is or does. Just to fill you in, “The mission of the FLETC is “We train those who protect our homeland. FLETC serves as an interagency law enforcement training organization for 89 Federal agencies (aka Partner Organizations). The FLETC also provides training to state, local, campus, tribal, and international law enforcement agencies. Through the Rural Policing Institute (RPI) and the Office of State and Local Training, the FLETC provides tuition-free and low-cost training to state, local, campus and tribal law enforcement agencies.”

    This agency was created in the 1960′s, and encompasses 10 different sites in the U.S. and around the world.

    “On March 1, 2003, FLETC formally transferred from the Treasury Department to the newly created Department of Homeland Security (DHS), along with some 22 other federal agencies and entities. The move reflected the centrality of the FLETC’s mission in support of the unified homeland security effort, which was expanded following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.”

    Since it is a massive training organization, why does Mr. SNuss fail to mention how many millions of rounds of ammunition are used on a monthly basis to support the training that is provided by this agency, and compare it to the number of rounds it purchases on a monthy basis.

    Oh, I know – It makes the “boogie” man bigger if you only show one side of the equation. It makes it sound so ominous and dangerous if you get people to believe that all this ammunition is being stockpiled to support supression of the citizenry, rather than used to support the training efforts.

    It would be equivalent to identifying how much ammunition the U.S Army buys on a monthly basis, but fail to mention how much ammunition is used on a monthly basis to train its troops and run its battlefield operations. AND then claim that the army is stockpiling ammunition to support a military takeover of the government and create a dictatorship. OR pointing out how much ammunition the Rockford Police Deparment buys on a monthly basis but fail to show how many rounds are expended on a monthly basis to support required weapons training by the officers.

    This is a prime example of the SNussification of the “boogie” man process. Like Chicken Little, Mr. Snuss has become just another exceptionally funny, completely irrational, Conspiracy Theorist who keeps telling us the sky is falling. But how can we blame him for being inaccurate and dishonest. All he does is repeat what he reads from the professional Conspiracy Theorists without even applying one ounce of common sense to evaluate it. BUT IT IS REALLY FUNNY TO WATCH! However, I will bet that there are very few people that join him under the bridge or in his personal fallout shelter in his backyard.

  24. If it took the U.S. military 5.5 million rounds per month to fight an all-out war in Iraq, what does DHS need with THIRTY TIMES that amount, for “training”?

  25. JRM_CommonSense

    You seem to know the army use numbers (without saying where you got it) for Iraq only. What about the other “wars” and the training rounds needed to support the rest of the army, the navy, the air force, the national guard, an all opther service needs. Once again, you give only partial numbers in attempting to prop up your “boogie” man.

    Maybe you need to read sources other than the ones you agree with and merely regurgitate. Try this one which contains cold hard facts, not some lame-brained speculation.

    http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20130215-dhs-to-buy-1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammunition

    I am sure you will find some more lame-brained reasons to try to inflate your “boogie” man to make him seem bigger than he is. I look forward to that since it gets me laughing.

  26. There are questions as to why the government is buying up large amounts of ammo. I refer you to this UNBELIEVABLE T.V. broadcast on youtube. I am enclosing the link. There is more there my friends of a Sheriff contacted by the Government. Watch it!!! You will not believe it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kzT6X3_Bg9o

  27. On a related note (governmental fascism)….

    Is Your Local Police Department Using Pictures of Pregnant Women and Children for Target Practice?

    http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/19/is-your-local-police-department-using-pi

    DHS is probably using them, too.

  28. A few facts for jrm:

    Training requires the use of approximately 15 million rounds of ammunition annually.
    Source: http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/firearms-division/interesting-facts-about-the-firearms-division.html

    DHS Purchases 200 Million More Rounds of Ammunition
    The number of bullets purchased by the DHS now adds up to a staggering 1.4 billion over the last six months alone. Although all those bullets won’t be delivered at once, the DHS’ commitment to purchasing such an arsenal of ammo is both worrying and ironic given that Americans are being harassed and treated with suspicion for buying a couple of boxes of ammo at their local gun store.

    Following a barrage of questions about why the federal agency has purchased so many bullets, the DHS has refused to respond and even gone to the lengths of censoring information relating to solicitations for ammunition.

    Read more at: The number of bullets purchased by the DHS now adds up to a staggering 1.4 billion over the last six months alone. Although all those bullets won’t be delivered at once, the DHS’ commitment to purchasing such an arsenal of ammo is both worrying and ironic given that Americans are being harassed and treated with suspicion for buying a couple of boxes of ammo at their local gun store.

    Following a barrage of questions about why the federal agency has purchased so many bullets, the DHS has refused to respond and even gone to the lengths of censoring information relating to solicitations for ammunition.

    So, if my math is right, that comes to 93 years’ supply, for “training”. So, since DHS doesn’t go on “overseas contingency operations”, for what war, against whom, are they preparing?

    You might find this interesting.. http://www.naturalnews.com/035649_DHS_ammunition_domestic_war.html

  29. JRM_CommonSense

    So SNussy, your article says that DHS “has refused to respond” to “a barage of quetions about why a federsal agency has purchased so many bullets”, and yet the article I directed you to identifies exactly where those bullets were going and who would be using them. To bad you did not read the article before you went and found another “lame-brained” inaccurate diatribe that you could regurgitate. Stop wasting people’s time and start being honest. Oh never mind, that won’t happen!

  30. You ignore the facts. What does the DHS need with a 93-year supply of ammunition? It only takes 15 million rounds a year for training purposes (per the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center). What are all the rest being “targeted” for?
    BTW, hollow-point ammo is illegal to use in warfare, per the Geneva Convention. So, why is DHS buying millions of .40 cal. hollow-point rounds?

  31. JRM_CommonSense

    You are abslutely right SNussy. You better get to Blain’s and get that 93 years supply of dry pack food for your underground bunker. You can probably charge most of it to your Link card. Done with you on this topic. You just are incapable of understanding, pure, simple facts when they do not fit into your world view. But the, that is nothing new.

  32. I don’t have a Link card. I WORK for a living.

  33. BTW, see what one of the Colombine survivors has to say on gun control, in a letter to “The Messiah”:

    Mr. President,

    As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives:

    Universal Background Checks

    First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.

    Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it.

    Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time.

    It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted.

    Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons

    The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.

    Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed.

    10-Round Limit for Magazines

    Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-Hui Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all.
    Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I’ve heard you ask, “why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?”

    Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?

    Lastly, when did they government get into the business of regulating “needs?” This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose.

    Selling to Criminals

    Mr. President, these are your words: “And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.”

    Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program?

    Furthermore, the vast majority of these mass murderers bought their weapons legally and jumped through all the hoops — because they were determined to murder. Adding more hoops and red tape will not stop these types of people. It doesn’t now — so what makes you think it will in the future? Criminals who cannot buy guns legally just resort to the black market.

    Criminals and murderers will always find a way.

    Critical Examination

    Mr. President, in theory, your initiatives and proposals sound warm and fuzzy — but in reality they are far from what we need. Your initiatives seem to punish law-abiding American citizens and enable the murderers, thugs, and other lowlifes who wish to do harm to others.

    Let me be clear: These ideas are the worst possible initiatives if you seriously care about saving lives and also upholding your oath of office. There is no dictate, law, or regulation that will stop bad things from happening — and you know that. Yet you continue to push the rhetoric. Why?

    You said, “If we can save just one person it is worth it.” Well here are a few ideas that will save more that one individual:

    First, forget all of your current initiatives and 23 purposed executive orders. They will do nothing more than impede law-abiding citizens and breach the intent of the Constitution. Each initiative steals freedom, grants more power to an already-overreaching government, and empowers and enables criminals to run amok.

    Second, press Congress to repeal the “Gun Free Zone Act.” Don’t allow America’s teachers and students to be endangered one-day more. These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals. There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line.

    This is your chance to correct history and restore liberty. This simple act of restoring freedom will deter would-be murderers and for those who try, they will be met with resistance.

    Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals.

    Respectfully,

    Severely Concerned Citizen, Evan M. Todd

    Source: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/20/columbine-survivor-pens-bold-open-letter-to-obama-rejecting-gun-control-whose-side-are-you-on/

    He sounds so reasonable, especially when compared to the Leftist-gun-grabbers.

  34. A little related humor…..

    Obama Fails to Register ‘OrganizingForAction.net’; Site Points to NRA Home Page

    At the beginning of the year, President Barack Obama’s new 501(c)4 political nonprofit, Organizing For Action, was launched with all the usual bells and whistles. But the tech wizards at OFA forgot one important rule in today’s Internet world: Register all the iterations of your website address before someone else does.

    Now Obama’s team is filing complaints against the folks smart enough to get the addresses before he did.

    As Obama’s OFA made its debut, no one in his purportedly Internet-savvy campaign had obtained the corresponding .com, .net, .org or .us sites, nor did OFA register other names that are close to its official one, as is the sensible practice. In the case of the .net address, a fellow named Derek Bovard had already registered the .net address by the time Obama’s team took notice.

    Bovard has routed his new site to the homepage of the National Rifle Association.

    So, whenever anyone goes to http://www.organizingforaction.net they end up seeing the homepage of the NRA.

    Naturally, Obama and his fellow community organizers were furious. So furious, in fact, that they have replied by filing complaints against Bovard–and, apparently, a variety of other people who had registered domain names that OFA now wants.

    Obama’s group filed the complaints with the authority that governs website domain addresses, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The complaints were filed under Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) rules. Obama’s case number is 1483257 and was filed on Feb 6. UDRP cases are usually decided within one to two months after first filing.

    Read more at: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/25/Obama-s-Organizing-For-Action-Files-Complaints-Against-Website-Owners

    Those Obamunists aren’t as smart as they think they are! ;-)

    • Ted Biondo

      Snuss – the name should be Organizing for Accesss OFA to the president. And this was going to e the most transparent and goody-Two-Shoes organization in the history of the U.S. Instead it’s the biggest hypocracy in the history of the U.S.

  35. The gaffe-meister (“Plugs” Biden) strikes again:

    Well, the way in which we measure it is—I think most scholars would say—is that as long as you have a weapon sufficient to be able to provide your self-defense,” Biden said. “I did one of these town-hall meetings on the Internet and one guy said, “Well, what happens when the end days come? What happens when there’s the earthquake? I live in California, and I have to protect myself.”

    I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semiautomatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming. We can argue whether that’s true or not, but it is no argument that, for example, a shotgun could do the same job of protecting you. Now, granted, you can come back and say, “Well, a machine gun could do a better job of protecting me.” No one’s arguing we should make machine guns legal.

    Somewhere, a village is missing its idiot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>