Feinstein's Gun Control Bill Is The Worst Threat Ever On Our 2nd Amendment Rights

[Mozart]

Jeeez,


(I hope that I'm not duplicating a thread on this issue -- I checked back three pages of threads and did not find a title of a thread related to this issue.)


Senator Feinstein, long-hated as a senator who "represents" the legal fiction "me" in the district, corporate state of California, is now pushing for the passing of a massively-restrictive gun control bill that would effectively END our 2nd Amendment Rights and auger in a massive growth spurt of a police state in America, like what happened in Hitler's Germany that once was a Republic with its decline and fall that's closely parallel with what's happening in America.


Here's the link:

http://www.naturalnews.com/038483_Se...#ixzz2GHd7yYIb


Here's a link to the latest poll...

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

... that shows a significant jump in the public's opinions about gun control, post-Sandy Hook and here's a small part from the table of poll results:


"In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?"


...................More strict .... Less strict .... Kept as now .... Unsure

12/19-22/12.........58%................6%................34%...............2%


10/6-9/11............43%................11%...............44%...............2%


I've seen many attempts at gun control, but they've all failed, thank God, but this one now stands to have the best chance of passing, now that the goddamn false-flag event of Sandy Hook has had the desired effect (massive shock upon the population, triggering a shift against guns), so we are at a very serious risk of this goddamn bill passing.


The "representatives" and "senators" DO NOT REPRESENT US!


They represent their masters, the money masters, and do their bidding, which includes gun control.


Writing to those goddamn "representatives" is rather futile, but each hand-written letter represents 1,000 people out there who feel the same way, but did not bother to write. Better yet, make phone calls to those bastard "representatives" and raise hell about this issue.


Here's a link to use to do the useless, futile acts of contacting "representatives":

http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml


But the alternative is silence and for you to do nothing -- which the goddamn PTBs would construe as acceptance of their efforts to foist gun control upon us -- so, really, other than taking the drastic actions of shooting all the "representatives" first, we have to raise hell by doing phone calls and writing letters to ...


OPPOSE Feinstein's attempt to foist gun control upon us.


*sigh* What stupid world that we live in! It just gets worse and worse ... when will real change and hope arrive?


Jeez...


~Mozart

[RampartRanger]

Thank God I'll be grandfathered in...presumably. Or if they want to come and take them, that'd be great, too, since it'd start a Civil War 2.0...

"They'll never come and take them" say many of my friends. So I show them a view videos on YT from Hurricane Katrina, where the National Guard did JUST THAT VERY THING. And that was "just" a natural disaster that's really but a page in the history of our nation and civilization (not to offend anyone involved in the tragedy, my condolescences).

Gun control reminds me most of Icke's "totalitarian tip-toe". Nothing definitive seems to happen in the way of gun control after any one event...but the Sandy Hook massacre may very well be the tipping point. As Icke has said, TPTB have all the time in the world and will wait patiently for centuries until the perfect moment. Sandy Hook is very unique for two simple reasons. 20 CHILDREN were murdered in cold blood...add on top of that 7 WOMEN. Nothing even close to that has happened before...literally, "women and children", the worst case imaginable To me, this means that the time is ripe for TPTB to act on their intentions to disarm us...I bet some gun-owning moderate and liberal leaning (but otherwise weak-minded) husbands can't even look at their wife and kids straight without questioning the prevelance of guns ownership in our society...I imagine some saying, "Maybe I should give up my guns so women and children won't be killed en masse anymore." 27 WOMEN AND CHILDREN couldn't have been a better sacrifice and reason for TPTB to final get what they want, a vastly disarmed US populace.

What many people don't seem to understand is that banning assault weapons is essentially banning firearms in regards to defending one's self against tyranny, foreign invasion, and criminals. The government, foreign invaders, and criminals are all still going to have assault weapons...and if assault weapons are banned thoroughly (few to no loopholes), we will basically be like the Native Americans against the Pilgrims should we have to defend ourselves. They will have technology vastly superior to ours: we will be shooting single-shot weapons developed during the 19th century, they will be shooting the latest and greatest killing weapons.

The reality is that it takes an assault weapon to defend against an assault weapon...just like you fight fire with fire. And since we all know the government, foreign invaders, and criminals aren't going to give up their assault weapons, we have no excuse to give up ours if we want to defend ourselves and our loved ones. Either way, it's not like civilians have access to heavy weapons such as tanks, artillery, warplanes, etc and other technology that can be easily obtained by any foreign or domestic gov and criminals such as thermal vision, etc. Letting us keep our assault weapons is simply allowing us to provide minimal resistance to martial law, for example, but the gov could still steamroll us citizenry in no time given their multitudes of tactical and technological advantages. They just want absolutely zero resistance, hence the assault weapons ban.

[Hip Hipnotist]

How's this for a 'gun control' headline...

"Chicago Reaches 500 homicides With Fatal Shooting"

http://news.yahoo.com/chicago-reache...145951769.html

Now there's control for ya. Works really well, heh?

Won't see that headline read on the nightly amuse -- I mean news.

And Chicago of all places. Obama's stomping ground. And I do mean stomping.

Get ready Amerika. Things didn't end in 2012 -- but they just might in 2013.

;-) or ;-(

You be the judge.

and you will be.

[RampartRanger]

This is not to disenfranchise or disempower anyone, but I think gun control really is THE issue...at least right now. I don't see why TPTB would be concerned with people who have no means of defending themselves and resisting tyranny. Sure you can be an information agent/an agent of change, someone who can rally the people...and they definitely won't/don't like that. But that leader can be imprisoned, shot, tortured, "erased"...the only means of resistance they can put up without a firearm or weapons otherwise is simply social resistance (i.e. leader of a movement gets bailed out of jail by his followers, critical mass of people changes public opinion [as if that matters] etc.). That, too, can easily be subverted (frame the leader as a "terrorist", kill them, end of story). But if you have a means of running away from an initial threat (martial law begins in the city, for example), re-grouping, and then going on the offensively potentially...that's a real threat to TPTB especially if enough like-minded and similarly-armed people join you. Resistance provides morale for the conquered and demoralizes the oppressive forces, in addition to potentially providing true resistance and offensive fronts to combat tyranny and free the people. Think "Red Dawn" (the original one, not the crappy "Twilight"-esque remake)

This ^ train of thought may explain why it seems like so many diverse people could be in the crosshairs (literally and figuratively) post-Sandy Hook conspiracy. Plain-jane gun owners, gun enthusiasts, "preppers" (or essentially, any one with an alternative world-view and/or willing to accept the potential that our society is not a permanent structure, something the masses just cannot wrap their heads around), and anyone with mental health issues (with people from the "prepper"/alternative world-view group getting pigeon-holed into this group as well since we're all "crazy", and pretty much everyone else fitting into this group too given our pharmacuetically addicted nation). That's a lot of people on the chopping block potentially...but those are the only people that are potentially willing and more importantly CAPABLE of resisting tyranny, martial law, slavery, genocide, or whatever else might threaten to truly destroy the freedoms our nation has had for over the last two centuries.

My main point is...even if you hate guns, you're gonna want one in pretty much any SHTF scenario. There's no way around it...the only things more important are food, shelter, and water. But without a means to protect those assets, you are defenseless and probably won't hold onto them for long. For example, I could have none of those assets but have a gun and ammo...if I kill you, now I have your food, shelter and water. Sorry for the negative picture, but this is reality. If the SHTF, we're all gonna at least attempt to do what we MUST in order to survive (dog eat dog). So in a way, a means of defending yourself goes hand-in-hand with maintaining your survival supplies and therefore is just as important as the most basic survival essentials. In a SHTF-scenario, someone with vast survival supplies but no means of defense is a sitting duck waiting for someone to "reclaim" those supplies for themselves. A firearm is a tool, and without it you stand to lose everything. With it, you have the potential to save the lives of yourself and your family. There's no way around that. You have to fight fire with fire.

[Tesseract]

We need to go the other way. We need to legalize shoulder launched RPGs and anti-tank weapons, as these are the only things capable of destroying government armor and UN APCs when they arrive, and the ludicrous restrictions on class 3 should also be done away with so we don't have to rely on piss weak semi auto.

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

Thank you and /agree with RPG missile comment.

Not to sound like a terrorist -- but enough is enough!

i mean, i don't (currently) own a firearm (at my house).
But i would not want the militias and the men disarmed!
to say the least

p.s. tesseract, your avvie (cubist portait?) has the 4 colors of alchemy in it and is majorly cool besides @.@

[sigma6]

Posted by RampartRanger (here)
...
My main point is...even if you hate guns, you're gonna want one in pretty much any SHTF scenario. There's no way around it...the only things more important are food, shelter, and water. But without a means to protect those assets, you are defenseless and probably won't hold onto them for long. For example, I could have none of those assets but have a gun and ammo...if I kill you, now I have your food, shelter and water. Sorry for the negative picture, but this is reality. If the SHTF, we're all gonna at least attempt to do what we MUST in order to survive (dog eat dog). So in a way, a means of defending yourself goes hand-in-hand with maintaining your survival supplies and therefore is just as important as the most basic survival essentials. In a SHTF-scenario, someone with vast survival supplies but no means of defense is a sitting duck waiting for someone to "reclaim" those supplies for themselves. A firearm is a tool, and without it you stand to lose everything. With it, you have the potential to save the lives of yourself and your family. There's no way around that. You have to fight fire with fire.

The mad max, dog eat dog, Darwinian survival of the fittest scenario is a complete misinterpretation, a necessary plot in movies. In the real world those people wouldn't survive long. If you really analyze those movies it wasn't realistic, great entertainment, but just not realistic. Did your family survive by gunning each other down? Do you know any family that used the survival of the fittest model according to overly interpreted Darwinian model? And if so were they an example of success and stability?

If people want to survive they are going to have to learn the ancient long lost art of how to work together. That means developing a character of trust, compassion, sacrifice. If a gun has any place in that, it would be to maintain such principles in the first place.

Posted by Tesseract (here)
We need to go the other way. We need to legalize shoulder launched RPGs and anti-tank weapons, as these are the only things capable of destroying government armor and UN APCs when they arrive, and the ludicrous restrictions on class 3 should also be done away with so we don't have to rely on piss weak semi auto.

if there's a real civil war, you won't need a license just availability to use one...



But let's cut to the chase, if you have a 2nd amendment right, how is it that they can create a gun law that prohibits the use of guns? That is the real concern, whether they 'tip toe' it in (I agree) or come out tomorrow with flat out prohibition?

Doesn't it sound like there are two different things going on...?

You got these rights, a constitution, and then you got this corporation super-imposing an entirely different set of "laws", but there not really laws so they call them "statutes" and "codes" and "regulations" where you are treated like a McDonald's employee in the worst McDonalds from hell... (no offense to any McD employees...)

Two different worlds, and only lawyers seem to know the difference between the two, and they're not tellin' are they?

Luke 11:52 “Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.”

sounds like they are some kind of gatekeeper
- inalienable rights vs. corporate privileges and benefits... do we have a choice?

[modwiz]

I don't believe a thing that people report from the MSM. Opinion polls are just more propaganda. The populace is armed. As long as find common cause and stick together what can happen? Coming to get your guns? There is a solution to that problem.

Of course the liberal, socialist, tea bagger, conservative crap has to end or they will take weapons while people call each other names. It will not matter that father stank of elderberries.

[RampartRanger]

Posted by sigma6 (here)

Posted by RampartRanger (here)
...
My main point is...even if you hate guns, you're gonna want one in pretty much any SHTF scenario. There's no way around it...the only things more important are food, shelter, and water. But without a means to protect those assets, you are defenseless and probably won't hold onto them for long. For example, I could have none of those assets but have a gun and ammo...if I kill you, now I have your food, shelter and water. Sorry for the negative picture, but this is reality. If the SHTF, we're all gonna at least attempt to do what we MUST in order to survive (dog eat dog). So in a way, a means of defending yourself goes hand-in-hand with maintaining your survival supplies and therefore is just as important as the most basic survival essentials. In a SHTF-scenario, someone with vast survival supplies but no means of defense is a sitting duck waiting for someone to "reclaim" those supplies for themselves. A firearm is a tool, and without it you stand to lose everything. With it, you have the potential to save the lives of yourself and your family. There's no way around that. You have to fight fire with fire.

The mad max, dog eat dog, Darwinian survival of the fittest scenario is a complete misinterpretation, a necessary plot in movies. In the real world those people wouldn't survive long. If you really analyze those movies it wasn't realistic, great entertainment, but just not realistic. Did your family survive by gunning each other down? Do you know any family that used the survival of the fittest model according to overly interpreted Darwinian model? And if so were they an example of success and stability?

If people want to survive they going to learn the ancient long lost art of how to work together. That means developing a character of trust, compassion, sacrifice. If a gun has any place in that it would so that such ideals be maintained.

I understand, appreciate, and concur with your ideals...but the buck stops with the bullet until the entire world is disarmed. Of course, that is barring some massive, pervasive change like an awakening to a unified collective conscience where suddenly a majority of humanity has a goal to cooperate instead of compete with one another. The world completely disarming itself is something that will never happen given the proliferation of firearms out there right now. Anyone can bury a gun in a hole in the ground and dig it up later while almost everyone else gave up there guns. Maybe aliens would have a better chance at exterminate the worldly weapons of our Earth. Imagine a Holocaust of firearms...that's a genocide I could get behind But until that happens or some pervasive compassionate change in humanity, people are going to kill one another with guns and many of things for a variety of reasons.

I'm not sure what exactly you portend that the "dog eat dog" school of thought is misinterpreting, please enlighten me...? I'm not interested in movies when it comes to actual survival skills (despite having referenced Red Dawn, that's just to get those completely unfamiliar with guns [likely many on this site I presume] on board with what I'm talking about...some people have no concept of military-type activities beyond "guns go boom, point them at bad people"...in this case Red Dawn does show a semi-plausible plot with some good realistic facets and many unrealistic ones, but the general message is armed resistance which is the same as mine in this thread hence my reference). Of course most movies are just elaborate, well-funded fantasies with the occasional semi-realistic exception such as The Road. You say dog-eat-dog survival movies aren't realistic, then ask what the survivalist(s) in survival movies had to do to be successful, pointing out that the dog-eat-dog characters aren't successful...If the movies are unrealistic, why should we analyze anything about them much less what one fictional character had to do to be successful in some fictional scenario versus another fictional character had to do to be successful in another fictional scenario? If it's unrealistic as you admit, any and all analysis is pointless unless the goal of your analysis is to come to similarly unrealistic conclusions.

I'd love to get TPTB to sit down, have a chat with them, and come to some mutual agreement about ANYTHING. But I just don't see it happening. They aren't compromising on their totalitarian tip-toe'ing, I'm not compromising on my freedom, end of story. History has proven time and time again that societies do in fact crumble (be it from genocide and war, economic collapse, some natural disaster, etc.), people have panicked, and sometimes many if not most people in that society/civilization have perished from this Earth in the ensuing struggle for survival. There are notable exceptions, societies that should have perished but did not, but I'm not planning on any future struggle being one of those exceptions...I want to outlive my society should it falter or crumble. I want to be the Polish rebel of my WWII, I want to be the Patriot of my Revolutionary War.. I want to be the rebel leader of the free world in an increasingly totalitarian world. Until TPTB put down their guns, the only way to survive if they try to kill us all is to RESIST!

Needless to say I don't like my chances in the above scenario and am hoping for some massive social awakening to prevent this dire reality.

[The Lawnman]

Do some research on the The Dick Act 1902 (Actually passed in 1903) Also called The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775)

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

Rod Class w/ The AIB Network has done a lot of research in this area. http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web...d=48361&cmd=tc

Here is a (37) min. audio he did recently explaining the Dick Act of 1902 12.26.12 http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-48361/TS-700520.mp3

Contact the National Archives in Washington DC and order a certified copy of this legislation and keep it with you as evidence of your inherent equitable right to bear arms.

[Mozart]

http://hardnoxandfriends.wordpress.c...ater-shooting/

On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!

Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...ers.htm?p=full

Hypocrisy among those supporting more gun control is nothing knew — from the liberal elites who live in gated communities to Hollywood and music industry stars who travel with armed entourages. Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California is readying legislation to reintroduce the ineffective 1994 ban on assault weapons that expired in 2004 with no impact on the crime rate.

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...#ixzz2GPUlFpl1

And…

What Gregory and the Journal News don't tell us is that over the last 20 years, the firearm crime rate has dropped, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 6 victims per 1,000 residents in 1994 to 1.4 victims per 1,000 residents in 2009. This has happened as more and more citizens arm themselves.

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...#ixzz2GPUxADAm

**************************


http://www.hyscience.com/archives/20...p_record_n.php

A new 'post-Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting' Gallup poll shows 74 percent of Americans now support the right to possess a handgun, while just 24 percent would support a ban.

And a majority of Americans remain opposed to an assault weapons ban -- something Americans supported a decade ago.

***************************


http://www.activistpost.com/2012/12/...n-control.html

Feinstein is clearly trying to expand the definition of assault weapons to just about every firearm by claiming if they have "high-capacity ammunition feeding devices" then they are "military-style assault weapons".

The following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
• 120 specifically-named firearms;
• Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
• Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

[Carmody]

Posted by Mozart (here)



http://www.activistpost.com/2012/12/...n-control.html

Feinstein is clearly trying to expand the definition of assault weapons to just about every firearm by claiming if they have "high-capacity ammunition feeding devices" then they are "military-style assault weapons".

The following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
• 120 specifically-named firearms;
• Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
• Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

This is more strict than that of Canada's gun controls, IIRC.

No problems in Canada.

However. One must remember the CORE reason for Canada existing. The reason behind and at the core of Canada's very existence.

That Canadians... are specifically NOT Americans. Most Americans are not aware of that aspect.

[white wizard]

cut all the b.s. aside there are two major problems to gun control any type of
real gun control from being succesfull.

The house of represenatives is controlled by Republicans so passing anything
too strict would be impossible unless Democrats, which support gun control
retake the house.

Taking away the 300 million guns in circulation is not gonna happen and if you
think cops will come to take away your guns your crazy, because it would be
suicide and there not that stupid.

Something will happen most likely magizines restrictions, but that does not
really matter, because there are plenty in circulation.

[sigma6]

Agreed, if you make a product illegal in a market where there is a inelastic demand, you will simply create a black market. This is economics 101.

Then again maybe that is what they are really after since they can now take yet one more thing that is legal, make it illegal, and now make a whole new cash flow from jailing people and running them through the court system. Plus build a huge black market that will fund them with millions in profit from the sale of illegal guns and ammo. And provide plenty of fodder by arresting any competition trying to sell guns, and arrest any undesirables with illegal guns, further adding to the prison rolls they have invested in.

If you wanna make the big bucks you gotta think like a Rockefeller. And there is no problem either because the public is so dumb they will even pay you to do it. Just feed them the right cause, make it "politically correct" jam the airwaves with the message "save innocent lives, do it for the little children, hand in your guns" and run that messages millions of times for several months and you will have people starting campaigns raising money for 'political awareness' everywhere... repeating the same mantra.

When marijuana becomes legal, they will lose millions of dollars overnight, from running smokers through the courts and jails. Plus the cops would lose their free supply of marijuana that they simply steal from the people who's lives they destroy in the first place. That's why the police are the staunchest supporters or criminalizing it (as well as "criminalizing" everything)

I heard that the day they lifted the prohibition, they made marijuana illegal.

The court and the prison system is run by a crime syndicate. 80% of the people who go to jail are either innocent or their competition.

[TWINCANS]

Posted by Carmody (here)

However. One must remember the CORE reason for Canada existing. The reason behind and at the core of Canada's very existence.

That Canadians... are specifically NOT Americans. Most Americans are not aware of that aspect.

Most Canadians are not aware of it either. But it is what defines Canada nonetheless. For example the biggest complaint Canadians have about Harper is he's with US, not with us.

[Mozart]

Here's a link of photos showing the huge lines and crowds:

http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.co...-crowds/29492/


Here's an MSM report of frenzied gun buying:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/f...3#.UOCCWfKz5Rx

The phones at gun shops across the country are ringing off the hook. Demand for firearms, ammunition and bulletproof gear has surged since the Dec. 14 massacre in Newtown, Conn., that took the lives of 20 schoolchildren and six teachers and administrators. The shooting sparked calls for tighter gun control measures, especially for military-style assault weapons like the ones used in Newtown and in the Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooting earlier this year. The prospect of a possible weapons ban has sent gun enthusiasts into a panic and sparked a frenzy of buying at stores and gun dealers nationwide.

[Earth Angel]

Default A WOMAN WITH A GUN stopped a would-be-killer cold

http://hardnoxandfriends.wordpress.c...ater-shooting/

Quote On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!

Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.

Another very intriguing part of this shooting is it was at the Mayan 14 Theater....what are they trying to tell us now.....its like David Icke says " You couldn't make this stuff up".......

[Mozart]

Effing congress is wasting no time at all in their attempt to ram down gun control down our throats.


Go to the site below and scroll down a bit to find the article quoted:


http://survivalandprosperity.com/

‘High-Capacity’ Ammunition Magazine Ban Bill To Be Introduced Thursday In U.S. House

Gun “control” looks to be a priority for some on the first day of the new Congress. On December 17, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) announced she would introduce legislation for a new “assault weapons” ban on the day the 113th Congress first meets. And right before this weekend, Democrats in the House of Representatives announced they would be introducing legislation that very same day that would ban Americans from buying or transferring “high-capacity” ammunition magazines. Sam Stein reported on the Huffington Post website on Friday:

House Democrats will introduce legislation to ban the production of high-capacity magazines on the first day of the next congressional session, the office of Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), one of the lawmakers sponsoring the bill, told The Huffington Post.

The Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act will mirror a failed bill introduced during the 112th Congress…

The bill Democrats will introduce would limit magazines, belts, drums, feed strips and “similar device[s]” to 10 rounds of ammunition. It would allow people to hold on to the “large capacity ammunition feeding device[s]” that they currently own, but prohibit them from buying others or transferring the ones they have.

Call me crazy, but something tells me the bad guys won’t be hindered by either of these proposed bans. In fact, in the event the criminals are ever short “hi-cap” mags, don’t be surprised to hear tales of them mastering super-fast magazine changes on the “low-capacity” ones they brought along in more numbers.

By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (http://www.survivalandprosperity.com)

[Mozart]

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/sheriffs-...uqtB0Gbx856.99

A high-profile former sheriff who once sued the U.S. government over its gun regulations – and won – says it’s the local sheriff who will have to defend Americans when and if the feds start banning and confiscating guns.

Richard Mack, a former sheriff in Graham County, Ariz., joined with then-Ravalli County Sheriff Jay Printz in a lawsuit against Washington when Bill Clinton demanded sheriffs enforce provisions of the Brady Bill gun-control law.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/sheriffs-...KOQQDCJKwlO.99

[gripreaper]

Excerpt from the 2nd Amendment:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do Pierce Morgan and that Biatch Feinstein not understand?????