New fed bill todestroy 2nd amend for home security

ledfanfromjuno

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 18, 2002
Messages
211
Location
california
I got this story from www.newsmax.com today on their front headline page. It's a conservative political internet newspaper.

Democrats Link Gun Rights to Terrorism
Jeff Johnson, CNSNews.com
Thursday, May 1, 2003
WASHINGTON – Leading Democrat senators are tying their long-standing gun control agenda to homeland security and terrorism fears. Advocates of the Second Amendment compared the proposal to the actions of Adolf Hitler's regime in Nazi Germany.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., announced his plans Wednesday to introduce legislation he calls the "Homeland Security Gun Safety Act," along with fellow New Jersey Democrat Jon Corzine, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I.

Lautenberg claimed the proposal would close "loopholes" in gun laws "that allow terrorists to access weapons and explosives inside our borders."

"As our government confiscates toenail scissors at airports, secures power plants, and increases domestic surveillance," Lautenberg said, "we're ignoring the most obvious threat that's out there, and that is the ease in [sic] which terrorists can access weapons in virtually any town across the country."

Under Lautenberg's proposal, any time the Homeland Security Threat Level rises to "elevated" or higher, law enforcement authorities would not be required to complete mandatory background checks on firearms purchasers within the current limit of three business days. Unlike current law, which mandates near-immediate destruction of records of background checks if the sale is approved, Lautenberg's proposal would allow authorities to maintain the registry of new gun owners "indefinitely."

The Homeland Security Threat Level has been at the "elevated" level - or higher - since it was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Supporters of Second Amendment protections for armed citizens warn that the proposal would allow law enforcement agencies to block all gun sales in their jurisdictions by simply refusing to complete background checks. They note that Lautenberg's plan to maintain a registry of gun owners sounds very familiar.

'Horrible'

"These are the very laws that were used by the Nazis to register everybody's guns, to confiscate the Jews' guns and then to commit genocide," said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. "Why the senator would want to do something as horrible as that, I can't understand."

Germany's "Law on Firearms and Ammunition" required all firearms to be registered with the federal government. Although the law was passed in 1928, prior to the Nazis coming to power, Hitler's regime used the registration lists to confiscate firearms belonging to Jews and suspected "sympathizers."

The bill would also impose nearly a dozen new restrictions on federally licensed firearms dealers, already the most heavily regulated industry in the U.S. The legislation would:



Allow unlimited, unannounced inspections of gun dealers by federal agents. Because of past abuses, federal authorities are currently limited to one unannounced inspection a year. Inspections by local authorities are not currently limited.

Create a federal felony charge against a gun dealer if a lost or stolen gun is recovered by authorities before the loss or theft is discovered and reported.

Revoke a gun dealer's license immediately upon conviction for any felony - even if the conviction is under review by a higher court or being appealed.

Suspend a gun dealer's license if, before the dealer files a report, authorities discover a gun that has allegedly been "missing" from inventory.

Suspend a gun dealer's license immediately upon being charged with any crime. Under current law, gun dealers are allowed to keep their licenses until and unless the government can prove its charges against them in court.
Lautenberg claims the changes will also reduce criminal violence.

"This bill will not affect the vast majority of honest, law-abiding Americans who want to purchase guns," he said. "The bill focuses on preventing weapons from getting into the hands of terrorists and criminals."

But Pratt noted that regulating legal purchases of firearms by law-abiding citizens has no positive impact on crime.

"And we know that there's no way it ever will because the English have a gun ban on an island, and all they got for their trouble is more crime with guns," Pratt noted. "The senator is absolutely wrong. He's lost the argument."

Didn't Work in D.C.

Closer to home, Pratt's organization notes that the District of Columbia enacted one of the strictest gun control laws in the nation in 1976. Since that time, the murder rate has dropped by 2 percent nationwide, while D.C.'s murder rate has increased by 134 percent.

Supporters of gun control blame easy access to firearms in Virginia for the crime in the nation's capital. But Pratt pointed out that Arlington County, just across the Potomac River from Washington, had a murder rate of 2.1 per 100,000 in 1999, compared to a murder rate of 46.1 per 100,000 in the District of Columbia.

Even including all of the Virginia suburbs outside Washington brings the Virginia murder rate up to only 6.1 per 100,000.

'Gun Availability Changed This Person Into a Criminal'

Nonetheless, Lautenberg still believes that the source of the problem is the availability of guns, not the violent intentions of those who use them criminally.

"We've had so many experiences where a criminal act suddenly erupted in a moment of outrage with a perfectly well-behaving citizen," Lautenberg charged. "The fact is that the gun availability changed this person into a criminal."

Pratt wondered aloud if Lautenberg were not voicing subconscious concerns about himself.

"He may be the kind of person that would go nuts with a gun," Pratt charged, "but most sane people have control of themselves, unlike the senator, who apparently has no self-control.

"Normal people have no problem carrying a gun, bearing insults, suffering someone cutting them off in traffic and going on," Pratt added, "never pulling their gun."

Research Disputes Lautenberg's Claim

According to research published in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports between 1972 and 1995, firearms ownership increased by more than 100 percent, while the overall rate of murders and murders committed with guns remained fairly constant.

In a 1996 study, researchers at the University of Chicago discovered that, contrary to Lautenberg's claim, the possession of guns by law-abiding citizens actually reduced violent crime.

John Lott and David Mustard found that states with laws allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms reduced murders by nearly 9 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent and robbery by 3 percent.

If states without concealed-carry laws had adopted them in 1992, the pair estimated that approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and more than 11,000 robberies would have been avoided annually.

Pratt pointed to those statistics and again questioned the motives behind Lautenberg's latest gun control bill.

"He and everybody else who supports that kind of legislation are just absolutely wrong," Pratt concluded. "There is no empirical basis for gun control, and the only reason you could be advocating it is because you must have the same objectives that the Nazis had."

Copyright CNSNews.com



Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
DNC
Guns/Gun Control
Homeland/Civil Defense
Editor's note:
Have an Opinion About This? Click Here to Send an URGENT PriorityGram Today
 

tkl

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
2,332
Location
Tx
more gun-grabbing bs from the democrats. absolutely unbelievable and shameless. attatching the name "homeland defense" to a bill that puts us at more risk and using the 9/11 tradgedy to further their agenda.

their anti-gun stance cost them the last election so they renamed it. anybody with two brain cells to bumb together can see through this scheme. the dems have tried to latch onto an issue while slamming bush and it keeps blowing up in their faces. hopefully they'll keep up the good work.
 

FalconFX

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 1, 2002
Messages
3,297
Location
Davis, CA
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon23.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon6.gif
The right ideals with the wrong approach...
 

ledfanfromjuno

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 18, 2002
Messages
211
Location
california
By the way, since I'm on the email alert from http://www.fcspi.org/ I found out that we lost on April 29 in California. The 50ban passed. Now it only has to go through one more place to become law and the guy at fcspi sounded dim like the battle is over and we've lost. By the way, Dianne Feinstein and the others involved in California have repeatedly spoken and written in papers necessary for the government proceedings which you can find yourself on the web, that they are going to go after precision bolt action 308 caliber and 5.56 rifles as rifles that are too precise for hunting needs next after their 50 caliber ban passes. They also want to pass these bans Federally. And many Californians that I talk to on the street to and from work, these are good looking blonde women that look like Hollywood actresses and partygoer types and even good looking housewives etc., these Californians all say that it is a national battle. They all feel they need to ban ALL FIREARMS from ALL STATES like NEVADA because they don't want anyone from California being able to drive to nevada and circumvent the law in California etc. Usually an evil smirk appears on their face as they're telling me this like they're trying to say to me silently that they're going to screw me and what am I going to do about it.

THis is what we just lost

"California's 50 ban to be heard in Committee April 29th!

The California Assembly Committee on Public Safety will hold a hearing
on Tuesday, April 29th on AB-50 the 50cal ban introduced by Hollywood
Democrat, Paul Koretz." /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif

I know it is a horrible sounding thing but I read a testimonial from a Jewish holocaust survivor who lived the entire wartime in a concentration camp. He told of how it became so bad that he and others turned on their own friends for FOOD!!! And I'm not talking about their rations. When he remembers how Hitler disarmed all of the German citizenry, he hates the people who passed those gun control laws. He remarks that the Jewish holocaust survivors in America who have gone on to government jobs and who are now passing gun control laws in the US that mimic Hitler's gun control laws, he remarks that he wishes that they would have died at the hands of the Nazis. I concur.....

This is the site containing the testimonial somewhere on it.
http://www.jpfo.org/index.htm
http://www.jpfo.org/Survive.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just had to paste the story here. There are others on this site.

"Holocaust Survivor Denounces Anti-Gun Movement
Unlike many interviews with Holocaust survivors, this one conducted by Aaron Zelman, founder, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (P.O. Box 270143, Hartford, WI 53027; 262-673-9745; membership $20) with Theodore Haas, a JPFO member and a former prisoner of the infamous Dachau concentration camp, is a clear warning to all freedom loving peoples to keep our guard up against arrogant politicians who are hell bent to create governments that control our lives. In pre-Nazi Germany, the good, law-abiding citizens dozed while government passed laws (all purported to be for the public good) that paved the way for tyranny to flourish. Haas, who survived years of Nazi persecutors, is speaking out to Americans who are now dozing while our government, at the strong urging of leftists in the media and others in society they influence, passes laws (again supposedly for the public good) to ban and severely restrict firearms ownership. Theodore Haas believes gun control is a prelude to totalitarian rule -- The editors.

Go to the JPFO Main Page

Legacy of Gun Control ... a Flash Macromedia video movie.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q.) How did you end up at Dachau? How old were you?



A.) November 9th, 1938 was Kristalnacht -- The Night of Broken Glass -- The night Synagogues were ransacked and burned, Jewish owned shops destroyed; I guess you could call it the night the fires of hell engulfed the soul of humanity. I was arrested November 10th, "for my own personal security." I was 21 years old. My parents were arrested and ultimately died in a concentration camp in France. I was released from Dachau in 1941, under the condition that I leave Germany immediately. This was common procedure before the "Final Solution."



Q.) What did you think when you were sent to Dachau? What did you know about Dachau beforehand?



A.) My first thoughts were those many others: "The world has gone mad." I knew that the life expectancy at Dachau was relatively short. I knew beforehand that inmates were abused. The horror of Dachau was known throughout Germany. People (Germans) use to frighten their children, "If you do not behave, you will surely end up at Dachau." A famous German comedian, Weiss Ferdl, said "Regardless how many machine gun towers they have around K.Z. Dachau, if I want to get in, I shall get in." The Nazis obliged him; he died at Dachau.



Q.) How did you accept the fears of Dachau?



A.) Due to the constant hunger and extreme cold weather, one becomes too numb to even think of fear. A prisoner under these conditions becomes obsessed with survival; nothing else matters.



Q.) What were the living conditions like in Dachau?



A.) We were issued one quarter of a loaf of bread. That was to last three days. In the morning, we picked up, at the kitchen, a cup of roasted barley drink. There was no lunch. At dinnertime, sometimes we got a watery soup with bits of tripe or some salt herring and a boiled potato. Our prison clothes were a heavy, coarse denim. They would freeze when they got wet. We were not issued hats, gloves or underwear.

The first night, about 500 prisoners were stuffed into a room designed to hold 50 (Believe me, it is possible). Later on, we were forced to sleep on straw. As time went on, the straw disintegrated and we became louse infested. The guards delighted in making weak and ill clothed prisoners march or stand at attention in rain, snow, and ice for hours. As you can imagine, death came often due to the conditions.



Q.) Do you have residual fears? How do you feel about German re-unification?



A.) I have nightmares constantly. I recently dreamed that a guard grabbed me. My wife's arm touched my face, and I unfortunately bit her severely. German re-unification, in my opinion, will be the basis for another war. The Germans, regardless of what their present leadership says, will want their lost territories back, East Prussia, Silesia, and Danzic (Gdansk). My family history goes back over 700 years in Germany. I understand all too well what the politicians do not want the people to be thinking about.



Q.) You mentioned you were shot and stabbed several times. Were these experiments, punishment or torture?



A.) They were punishment. I very often, in a fit of temper, acted "while the brain was not in gear." The sorry results were two 9 mm bullets in my knees. Fortunately, one of the prisoners had a fingernail file and was able to dig the slugs out. In another situation, I was stabbed in the washroom of room #1, Block 16. Twice in a struggle where I nearly lost my right thumb. A German prisoner Hans Wissing, who after the war became mayor of his home town, Leinsweiler, witnessed the whole situation. We stayed in touch until a few months ago, when he died.



Q.) Do you remember some of the steps taken by the Nazis to de-humanize people and to make them feel hopeless? How were people robbed of their dignity?



A.) If you had treated an animal in Germany the way we were treated, you would have been jailed. For example, a guard or a group of them would single out a prisoner and beat him with canes or a club. Sometimes to further terrorize a prisoner, the guards would form a circle around a prisoner and beat him unconscious. There were cases of a prisoner being told to report to the Revier ("Hospital") and being forced to drink a quart of castor oil. Believe me, this is a lousy, painful, wretched way to die. You develop extreme diarrhea, vomiting, nausea, and severe dehydration. If the Nazis wanted you to live and suffer more, they would take measures to rehydrate to victim.



Q.) What was the routine like at Dachau?



A.) Three times a day, we were counted. We had to carry the dead to the square. Each time, we had to stand at attention in all kinds of weather. We stood wearing next to nothing, had weak bladders, while our tormentors had sheepskin coats and felt boots. The *******s really enjoyed watching us suffer. I remember how the guards had a good laugh when one of them "accidentally" let loose with a machine gun, killing about 30 prisoners.



Q.) What did people do to try to adjust to Dachau? Keep up their spirits up?



A.) There were some actors, comedians, and musicians among us. Sometimes they would clandestinely perform. One of the musicians got hold of a violin and played for us. To this day, it remains a mystery how he got his hands on a violin. I still keep in touch with other prisoners. I am a member of the Dachau Prisoners Association. Each year I go back to Germany to visit.



Q.) Did people ever successfully escape? Do you remember acts of bravery?



A.) Nobody escaped, only in the movies does the "hero" escape. Guards received extra leave time for killing prisoners that got too close to the fence. I do, however, think all prisoners were heroes in their own way. Especially the German prisoners, for they would not acquiesce to the Nazis. They suffered greatly too.





Q.) Did the camp inmates ever bring up the topic, "If only we were armed before, we would not be here now"?



A.) Many, many times. Before Adolph Hitler came to power, there was a black market in firearms, but the German people had been so conditioned to be law abiding, that they would never consider buying an unregistered gun. The German people really believed that only hoodlums own such guns. What fools we were. It truly frightens me to see how the government, media, and some police groups in America are pushing for the same mindset. In my opinion, the people of America had better start asking and demanding answers to some hard questions about firearms ownership, especially if the government does not trust me to own firearms, why or how can the people be expected to trust the government?

There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people were not "brainwashed" about gun ownership and had been well armed. Hitler's thugs and goons were not very brave when confronted by a gun. Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag, half starved group of Jews took up 10 handguns and made asses out of the Nazis.



Q.) Did you have any contacts with the White Rose Society (mostly German students against Hitler)? Did anyone try to hide you from the Nazis?



A.) I did not, but my local friend, Richard Scholl, had two cousins or nephews who were members. Both were executed in Munich (I believe) for standing up for decency and freedom. Not enough people knew about the White Rose Society. There were many non Jews who were not anti Semitic and were very much opposed to Hitler. It was impossible to hide people from the Nazis in Germany -- it is so densely populated and food was rationed. Another point that many people fail to understand is that in Germany, you had a situation where the children were reporting to their teachers if their parents listened to the BBC on the short wave radio, or what they were talking about at home. If a German was friendly to a Jew, he was warned once. If he failed to heed the warning, he would disappear and never be heard from again. This was known as "Operation Night and Fog."



Q.) Do you think American society has enough stability that Jews and other minorities are safe from severe persecution?



A.) No. I think there is more anti-Semitism in America (some of it caused by leftist Jewish politicians and organizations who promote gun control schemes) than there was in Germany. This may stun some people, but not all Germans hated Jews. My best and devoted friends in Germany were Christians. I perceive America as a very unstable society, due to social tinkering of the Kennedy/Metzenbaum-type politicians. When I first came to this wonderful country after World War II, America was vibrant, dynamic and promising society. There really was an American dream, attainable by those who wanted to work. Now, due to the curse of Liberalism, America is in a period of moral decline. Even worse, corrupt criminals hold high political office, and you have police officials who don't give a damn about the Bill of Rights. They just want to control people, not protect and serve. When you study history, you see that when a country becomes an immoral manure heap, as America is rapidly becoming, all minorities suffer, and ultimately, all the citizens.



Q.) What words of warning would you like to give to young people who will soon be eligible to vote?



A.) Vote only for politicians who trust the people to own all types of firearms, and who have a strong pro-Second Amendment voting record. Anti-gunownership politicians are very dangerous to a free society. Liberty and freedom can only be preserved by an armed citizenry. I see creeping fascism in America, just as in Germany, a drip at a time; a law here, a law there, all supposedly passed to protect the public. Soon you have total enslavement. Too many Americans have forgotten that tyranny often masquerades as doing good. This is the technique the Liberal politicians/Liberal media alliance are using to enslave America.



Q.) What message do you have for ultra-Liberal organizations and individuals who want America disarmed?



A.) Their ignorance is pitiful -- their lives have been too easy. Had they experienced Dachau, they would have a better idea of how precious freedom is. These leftist should leave America. These Sarah Brady types must be educated to under-stand that because we have an armed citizenry, that a dictatorship has not yet happened in America. These anti-gun fools are more dangerous to Liberty than street criminals or foreign spies.



Q.) Some concentration camp survivors are opposed to gun ownership. What message would you like to share with them?



A.) I would like to say, "You cowards; you gun haters, you don't deserve to live in America. Go live in the Soviet Union, if you love gun control so d--- much." It was the stupidity of these naive fools that aided and abetted Hitler's goons and thugs. Anti-gunownership Holocaust survivors insult the memories of all those that needlessly perished for lack of being able to adequately defend themselves.



Q.) It appears the Liberal left in America is tolerating, and sometimes espousing anti-Semitism. Why do you think so many Jews still support the leftist form of Liberalism?



A.) It is for this very reason that I firmly believe that we harbor more stupid and naive people in our midst, than any other group of people. It amazes me how Liberal Jews have such short memories that today, they would be so supportive and involved in setting up the mechanics of gun control, so that a Holocaust can happen again. All they're doing is playing into the hands of the very clever communists who are masters at conning Americans.



Q.) Why did you join JPFO?



A.) I feel every Jew should be armed to the teeth, as should every American. I joined JPFO because as a group, we can stand up up Liberal Jewish gun haters and also to Gestapo minded anti-gun police who want total control of the people. I wish JPFO was in existence years ago. I believe the Jewish involvement in gun control would not be anywhere close to what it is today, but better now than never. "
 

tsg68

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
1,248
Location
Breukelen, NY established 1646
Re: New fed bill todestroy 2nd amend for home secu

I honestly just cannot believe that people are so niave that they allow the media and the leftist contingent in this country to convince them that the abuse of our right to legal firearms ownership by common criminals and terrorists is an excuse to take away their only well planned insurance policy AGAINST the tyranny of totalitarianism, Monarchy, Imperialists or religious dictatorships. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ohgeez.gif

Our founding fathers were truly more brilliant than any of these idiots could ever convince themselves of being. The drafting of our original constitution was quite literally a once in a millenium occurance in the favor of absolute freedom in human history, and these morons who are some of the most contradictory and unethical characters of our period, who flock to the promise of a taxpayer drafted paycheck and the kickback they'll get from their nepotistic creation of "more and faster" beaurocracy, and only seek to prey upon the fears of those, who don't see that their true defense lies in their own hands, in their quest for absolute control over the masses, want to **** it all away. It is honestly shocking and extremely nauseating. I cannot for the life of me (which Ironically it may very well cost) figure out how these people can call themselves free or American. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Later,
TSG /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Just to let you know how upset I am this is THE first time I have ever used the "mad" face and I've used it twice in one posting.
 

Charles Bradshaw

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Messages
2,495
Location
Mansfield, OH
Re: New fed bill todestroy 2nd amend for home secu

If you actually read what Benjamin franklin wrote about the Actual purpose of the Second Amendment, you would see that it is The Final Check and Balance, against Would be Despots.

In order to impose Despotic rule, the wannabes have to Disarm the Citizens, first! This is why the Second Amendment was placed as an Individual Right, instead of a Collective Right.

BTW, The Second uses the word "Arms," not "Firearms." This includes bladed, blunt, flexible, other projectile, and other Arms.

Real Criminals don't give a rat's patoot about weapons laws, as they will get theirs on the black market or steal them from law abiding citizens (or gunshops).

For hunting at longer ranges, you NEED a accurate rifle, and one powerful enough to inflict the shock damage to the animal's internal organs, to effect an immediate kill.

Note: I have a collection of lethal weapons (arms), none are firearms. In fact, I don't have any projectile weapons at this time.
 

snakebite

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 17, 2001
Messages
2,721
Location
dayton oh
i once heard that the common baseball bat is the murder weapon of choice in dc now.


[ QUOTE ]
ledfanfromjuno said:
I got this story from www.newsmax.com today on their front headline page. It's a conservative political internet newspaper.

Democrats Link Gun Rights to Terrorism
Jeff Johnson, CNSNews.com
Thursday, May 1, 2003
WASHINGTON – Leading Democrat senators are tying their long-standing gun control agenda to homeland security and terrorism fears. Advocates of the Second Amendment compared the proposal to the actions of Adolf Hitler's regime in Nazi Germany.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., announced his plans Wednesday to introduce legislation he calls the "Homeland Security Gun Safety Act," along with fellow New Jersey Democrat Jon Corzine, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I.

Lautenberg claimed the proposal would close "loopholes" in gun laws "that allow terrorists to access weapons and explosives inside our borders."

"As our government confiscates toenail scissors at airports, secures power plants, and increases domestic surveillance," Lautenberg said, "we're ignoring the most obvious threat that's out there, and that is the ease in [sic] which terrorists can access weapons in virtually any town across the country."

Under Lautenberg's proposal, any time the Homeland Security Threat Level rises to "elevated" or higher, law enforcement authorities would not be required to complete mandatory background checks on firearms purchasers within the current limit of three business days. Unlike current law, which mandates near-immediate destruction of records of background checks if the sale is approved, Lautenberg's proposal would allow authorities to maintain the registry of new gun owners "indefinitely."

The Homeland Security Threat Level has been at the "elevated" level - or higher - since it was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Supporters of Second Amendment protections for armed citizens warn that the proposal would allow law enforcement agencies to block all gun sales in their jurisdictions by simply refusing to complete background checks. They note that Lautenberg's plan to maintain a registry of gun owners sounds very familiar.

'Horrible'

"These are the very laws that were used by the Nazis to register everybody's guns, to confiscate the Jews' guns and then to commit genocide," said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. "Why the senator would want to do something as horrible as that, I can't understand."

Germany's "Law on Firearms and Ammunition" required all firearms to be registered with the federal government. Although the law was passed in 1928, prior to the Nazis coming to power, Hitler's regime used the registration lists to confiscate firearms belonging to Jews and suspected "sympathizers."

The bill would also impose nearly a dozen new restrictions on federally licensed firearms dealers, already the most heavily regulated industry in the U.S. The legislation would:



Allow unlimited, unannounced inspections of gun dealers by federal agents. Because of past abuses, federal authorities are currently limited to one unannounced inspection a year. Inspections by local authorities are not currently limited.

Create a federal felony charge against a gun dealer if a lost or stolen gun is recovered by authorities before the loss or theft is discovered and reported.

Revoke a gun dealer's license immediately upon conviction for any felony - even if the conviction is under review by a higher court or being appealed.

Suspend a gun dealer's license if, before the dealer files a report, authorities discover a gun that has allegedly been "missing" from inventory.

Suspend a gun dealer's license immediately upon being charged with any crime. Under current law, gun dealers are allowed to keep their licenses until and unless the government can prove its charges against them in court.
Lautenberg claims the changes will also reduce criminal violence.

"This bill will not affect the vast majority of honest, law-abiding Americans who want to purchase guns," he said. "The bill focuses on preventing weapons from getting into the hands of terrorists and criminals."

But Pratt noted that regulating legal purchases of firearms by law-abiding citizens has no positive impact on crime.

"And we know that there's no way it ever will because the English have a gun ban on an island, and all they got for their trouble is more crime with guns," Pratt noted. "The senator is absolutely wrong. He's lost the argument."

Didn't Work in D.C.

Closer to home, Pratt's organization notes that the District of Columbia enacted one of the strictest gun control laws in the nation in 1976. Since that time, the murder rate has dropped by 2 percent nationwide, while D.C.'s murder rate has increased by 134 percent.

Supporters of gun control blame easy access to firearms in Virginia for the crime in the nation's capital. But Pratt pointed out that Arlington County, just across the Potomac River from Washington, had a murder rate of 2.1 per 100,000 in 1999, compared to a murder rate of 46.1 per 100,000 in the District of Columbia.

Even including all of the Virginia suburbs outside Washington brings the Virginia murder rate up to only 6.1 per 100,000.

'Gun Availability Changed This Person Into a Criminal'

Nonetheless, Lautenberg still believes that the source of the problem is the availability of guns, not the violent intentions of those who use them criminally.

"We've had so many experiences where a criminal act suddenly erupted in a moment of outrage with a perfectly well-behaving citizen," Lautenberg charged. "The fact is that the gun availability changed this person into a criminal."

Pratt wondered aloud if Lautenberg were not voicing subconscious concerns about himself.

"He may be the kind of person that would go nuts with a gun," Pratt charged, "but most sane people have control of themselves, unlike the senator, who apparently has no self-control.

"Normal people have no problem carrying a gun, bearing insults, suffering someone cutting them off in traffic and going on," Pratt added, "never pulling their gun."

Research Disputes Lautenberg's Claim

According to research published in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports between 1972 and 1995, firearms ownership increased by more than 100 percent, while the overall rate of murders and murders committed with guns remained fairly constant.

In a 1996 study, researchers at the University of Chicago discovered that, contrary to Lautenberg's claim, the possession of guns by law-abiding citizens actually reduced violent crime.

John Lott and David Mustard found that states with laws allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms reduced murders by nearly 9 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent and robbery by 3 percent.

If states without concealed-carry laws had adopted them in 1992, the pair estimated that approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and more than 11,000 robberies would have been avoided annually.

Pratt pointed to those statistics and again questioned the motives behind Lautenberg's latest gun control bill.

"He and everybody else who supports that kind of legislation are just absolutely wrong," Pratt concluded. "There is no empirical basis for gun control, and the only reason you could be advocating it is because you must have the same objectives that the Nazis had."

Copyright CNSNews.com



Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
DNC
Guns/Gun Control
Homeland/Civil Defense
Editor's note:
Have an Opinion About This? Click Here to Send an URGENT PriorityGram Today




[/ QUOTE ]
 

ewick

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
252
Location
Kentucky
Re: New fed bill todestroy 2nd amend for home secu

ANYTHING can be used to kill someone. Let's name a few: firearms, knives, baseball bats, rat poison, water, pillows, screwdrivers, dogs, vehicles, prescription medication, ...

Let's ban them all! And when we're done banning things, we'll be able to relax in the comfort of our dirt floor caves, snack on the raw meat of dead animals we find, and endure diseases that we could have treated had we not banned the treatments.
 

FalconFX

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 1, 2002
Messages
3,297
Location
Davis, CA
Re: New fed bill todestroy 2nd amend for home secu

To me, there should be a fine line between having a hunting rifle or a semiautomatic handgun versus an M-16, an Oozie or an otherwise fully automatic weapon.

No matter what your stance is on the 2nd Amendment, if our government EVER got to the point where your Joe across the street needs to be a dripping, blood covered Rambo to fix his government, no one at that point would give a rat's arse about the Constitution...
 

ewick

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
252
Location
Kentucky
Re: New fed bill todestroy 2nd amend for home secu

So what if someone wants to buy a Class III weapon legally? There's the cost of the weapon itself, plus the cost of the tax stamp, plus the extended federal background check. People who don't deserve one legally, don't get one legally.

Firearms enthusiasts who like fully automatic weapons like them for the same reason gearheads like fast cars. Should we get rid of fast cars too, simply because they allow their operator to break the law?

It all boils down to responsibility. If a guy at a pawn shop sells an illegal weapon, punish him. If a guy with an automatic weapon uses it during the commission of a crime, punish him. It's not the fault of Browning, Colt, Heckler-Koch, or Remington if their products are used inappropriately. So don't punish them. And it's not my fault if some pathetic loser uses a firearm inappropriately. So don't punish me either.
 

Wingerr

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 24, 2001
Messages
1,336
Location
N 40.711561 W 74.011753
Re: New fed bill todestroy 2nd amend for home secu

The intent of a lot of this regulation and enforcement seems aimed primarily at showing the general public that SOMETHING is being done to prevent recurrence of terrorist actions, effective or not.
If a terrorist were to board a plane with a handgun today, much less a nail file or a sharp butter knife, I doubt he'd succeed in an attempt to take over. The difference today is in the mindset of the people, which is different now; previously, cooperation was encouraged to allow themselves to be herded along in hopes of a peaceful ending. Most likely wouldn't be much cooperation today, given what happened.
The recent acts against gun ownership may be just misguided attempts to do the same, rather than an attempt to institute tyrannical rule- Probably would need a more cohesive government for that to happen, and there just seems to be too many groups rowing in different directions to do that.
 

tsg68

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
1,248
Location
Breukelen, NY established 1646
Re: New fed bill todestroy 2nd amend for home secu

Taking legal ownership rights of firearms of any type away from naturalized or immigrant, law abiding citizens of the United States in no way makes America safe from international terrorists or domestic criminals, they have no rules. Law is for the civilized only.

The media and leftist govt. factions utilize crime and accident statistics as a tool to convince ignorant citizens that limiting legal possession of guns, not enforcement of laws already in place that are there to punish the individual for criminal usage of a firearm (murder, robbery, home invasion etc.) are the answer and this is wrong. You don't ban automobiles because drunk drivers kill with them, do you?

As far as most firearms advocates are concerned it really should be none of the govts. business what type of firearms they choose for hunting, recreation, or self defense because the 2nd ammendment secures the individuals right to keep them without recourse.

Most anti-gun people are so completely ignorant about firearms in the first place that their opinions are moot due to the fact that they are not even informed enough to espouse an accurate and educated opinion. The first thing I ask any Anti is "what do you know about firearms?" if there answer is "That they kill" or "that I don't see why anyone would want or need them" well that is ignorance talking and I don't put much credence in an opinion that's based in ignorance, I have been trained in the safety, care and proper usage of firearms since I was five years old and I still practice every last thing I ever learned because it was instilled properly and was actually the very first instance of my development of assumed responsibility and is directly linked to the development of good character that I show my fellow man today. Maybe those who never had this opportunity missed out on something important in their early development because the way I see it, the same people that want to take these rights away are the ones lacking in ethics, moral character, strength, resiliency and responsibilty to their constituency and they want to assume control over us because they only believe in their own FALSE sense of superiority.

This type of politic is meant to belittle the publics view of their own sense of responsibility and ability to govern themselves (make us feel like victims that need their parenting) Well I don't buy it, not for one minute. They need us to support their careers and I for one am pulling my support for every last one that stands in the way of my and your personal freedoms. If you are against the Second Ammendment you will not recieve my vote, ever! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

As a side note, I reside in NYC the toughest anti-gun laws in the country are here (if you don't believe me check out the NRA's data base concerning current laws and pending legislation in NYC) and people still die daily at the hands of criminals in possession of illegal firearms, these laws have succeeded in nothing more than keeping myself and others of decent moral standing from possessing arms.

I haven't tried to obtain the right to bring my firearms to NYC simply because I fear their theft and usage by criminals (we have already been broken into once and God forbid any of those miscreants had made off with one.) My arms are stored with responsible relatives in other states.

Later,
TSG /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 

Silviron

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 24, 2001
Messages
2,477
Location
New Mexico, USA
Re: New fed bill todestroy 2nd amend for home secu

Since some previous posters in this thread have eloquently defended the Rights and reasons for good citizens to bear arms, there is no point in me re-hashing what has been discussed here several times in the past, even though this is a new threat against "God given" rights which are re-affirmed by the Constitution.

Here is my stand on the issue:

MOLON LABE*

* The immortal words of Spartan General/King Leonidas to Xerxes, the Persian Emperor when Persia invaded Greece, and offered to spare their lives if they would lay down their arms and allow him to rule Greece unopposed. Very simply, it means "Come and get them".
 

FalconFX

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 1, 2002
Messages
3,297
Location
Davis, CA
Re: New fed bill todestroy 2nd amend for home secu

If an argument was made for owning any type of weapon because I'm legally entitled to it, then there would be no doubt that I would be allowed to own a nuclear weapon. But because terrorists use it, does it mean the nuke is now illegal for me to own? Personal protection with a grenade or a nuke or an M16 is just that, protection. But then why should I not be allowed to own a nuke tipped warhead, or for that matter, currently banned weapons for my own protection? If I had a high-powered laser that can burn through steel and kill someone from miles away, then why would it be illegal for me to own it in my own home? This is where you draw the line. Question is, where do you start. If you handed out one gun per person in the US and we have 280million guns in use, not just in storage, do you really think we're going to feel any safer?

Ask yourself why the NRA has never lobbied Congress to allow rocket launchers to be bought at gun stores or why grenades aren't readily available for me to purchase at my brick-mortar... If you can draw the line between not selling Stingers and C4 sticks directly to the public, then where does the line stop? Does the right to bear arms mean I can have an armed and readied Abrams in my back yard?

I don't need to identify myself as a liberal or conservative to know that common sense tells me I don't need an M16 to feel safe in my home or walking in the park. I don't need to be an elitist to show anyone that because non-law abiding criminals could care less about gun laws, I need to have better guns than them to make me feel safer.
 

ewick

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
252
Location
Kentucky
Re: New fed bill todestroy 2nd amend for home secu

Comparing a nuclear warhead to an M-16. Wow. No wonder the uninformed are scared of firearms.

The general population has no desire to own weapons like grenades, automatic weapons, and so on. But for people who want them and are responsible enough to handle them, they are available through the proper legal channels.

Would you be afraid of a responsible adult just because they owned a legally-obtained automatic weapon? Are you afraid of the mechanic down the street with the '69 Camaro? Or the farmer who has both diesel fuel and fertilizer in his machine shed?

By the way, check out the crime statistics in Louisiana before and after the carjacking law was enacted. Not only did the increased presence of registered firearms make their owners FEEL safer, they MADE them safer.
 

FalconFX

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 1, 2002
Messages
3,297
Location
Davis, CA
Re: New fed bill todestroy 2nd amend for home secu

Are you then suggesting that people can be scared into being law-abiding by having guns everywhere?

A criminal who's bent enough on comitting a crime will do it regardless of whether or not their victims have guns. I've lived in Fresno for most of my life, arguably the murder capital of the US in recent years, and vigilantism by carrying handguns has done squat to lower the murder rate, robbery or gang drive-bys in the city. Does that mean banning handguns will solve the problem? No. Does that mean we should arm everybody in the city?

If I have to fear the farmer down the field or the bus driver or the teacher or the doctor or the gardener or EVERY single person I see walking by me, then we're truely in a sad state of affairs when it comes to personal security and the right to own a gun...

I'm scared of firearms if they're in the wrong hands. Is that an unreasonable fear?

BTW, since when is an M16 considered a "firearm"? Or for that matter, a high powered hunting rifle? The 2nd Amendment never said "firearms", just "arms", meaning anything, including nuclear warheads or even RPGs, can be a legitimate weapon that can be used for personal protection...
 

flownosaj

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
1,235
Location
Fayetteville, NC
Re: New fed bill todestroy 2nd amend for home secu

It'll be the same with every banned anything. Good, law abiding people will not have the banned item, but the criminals, or terrorist, will continue to have them.

It's a good thing the government banned hard-core drugs, otherwise I think we'd have a drug problem. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Pretty soon the govt will be asking me to voluntarily turn in my photon cannon as it can be used as a dangerous weapon. Then they'll come for all my buckets as I could possibly fill them with water and drown people...

-Jason
 

ewick

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
252
Location
Kentucky
Re: New fed bill todestroy 2nd amend for home secu

I see your point about dedicated crimimals, but I only agree if the crime to be committed is personal. If person A has a vendetta against person B, then yes, person B's posession of a firearm probably won't deter person A from attacking him. But if person A is a junkie looking for drug money, and he knows person B is armed, person A will probably move onto the next guy.

Check local laws to see whether carrying a firearm falls under vigilantiism. As far as a fear of handguns in the wrong hands, is it a fear of the handgun or the wrong hands?

Here's the online definition of the word "firearm" from Webster's:

"One entry found for firearm.
Main Entry: fire·arm
Pronunciation: 'fIr-"ärm
Function: noun
Date: 1646
: a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder -- usually used of small arms"

Sounds to me like an M-16 fits that description.
 

FalconFX

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 1, 2002
Messages
3,297
Location
Davis, CA
Re: New fed bill todestroy 2nd amend for home secu

An RPG like a Stinger (or an M16 or Oozies, etc) fits the definition of a firearm, but a lawful person will never be able to buy or carry it for the reason that it's unreasonable. My main point throughout this whole thread about 2nd Amendment rights is when do you draw the line between reasonable weapons (a small handgun) and the unreasonable ones (nuclear weapons). An M16 is no more effective than a perfectly placed bullet from a Glock; so how reasonable is it to have a machine gun as opposed to a handgun... Are you going to open fire with an M-16 when a dispute gets out of hand to protect yourself?

I don't see anything wrong with legislature to punish gun dealers who skid background checks or give law enforcement more time to evaluate gun sales to suspected criminals or otherwise unscrupulous individuals. Nor do I see anything wrong with legislation to ban weapons that more often than not are used by criminals in a crime than it is by law abiding citizens to protect themselves (like fully automatic weapons). The right-wing notion that if the government bans one, they'll ban all is nothing more than the exact same political scare tactics the left-wing uses to portray guns as the only culprit in murders.

The activists' portrayal of Lautenberg's proposal as leading to another scenario similar to the German's genocide of the Jews is just plain idiotic. I'd certainly like to find out which ethnicity Lautenberg's trying to commit genocide against here in the US...

And last I checked, vigilantism is for communities or persons to take matters of law into their own hands. If it had to boil down to where every citizen is an armed vigilant to prevent crime in a city, then someone should've declared Marshall Law a long time ago...
 

ledfanfromjuno

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 18, 2002
Messages
211
Location
california
Re: New fed bill todestroy 2nd amend for home secu

Crime and killing is the food upon which gun control feeds. It is the excuse that liberals and Democrats point to in excusing gun control in the name of the good for society. Helping their own gun control cause, these liberals and Democrats are creating the crime and killing by:

1. Liberalising societies tolerance of crime. Creating acceptance by Americans of murderers going free by high priced lawyers. By punishing parents for spanking their children while pretending to be champions of the civil good pointing to molested children as examples they claim they are trying to prevent from happenning again. The list goes on endlessly.

2. Liberal America is lying about Islam. It tells us it is a religion of peace. It is not. It tells us Allah Akbar means god is great. It does not. It means the moon god or the god of darkness (Allah was the moon god to the ancient people of mohammed) IS GREATER THAN. It is a chant of defiance against the God of the Christians and Jews. Islam considers America and Israel as enemies who need to be destroyed. Liberal America is telling us that we should accept the presence of Islamic mosques in AMerica, and there are a lot in America today; just look in the phone book. Liberal America is also importing foreign muslims into America to become American citizens. These Islamic American citizens WILL in time conduct more hit and run killings like the black american convert sniper killed many people last year in the east coast and like the american black muslime tossed grenades into the american army barracks in iraq. No doubt liberal Hollywood who was out protesting the war against their beloved Sudam Hussein will lie on their CONTROLLED news casts and hide the fact that the future killings in America were comitted as martyr suicide attacks in the name of Islam by AMERICAN muslim citizens. This creates the perfect excuse to kill the second amendment claiming that American citizens are killing each other while they hide the fact that the killings are being done by Islamic Americans.

3. The liberal Americans adopt a form of debate from Communist Russia. It is not designed to argue fairly. It is designed to brainwash you. THey seek to present logical arguments to persuade you to their side with no intention to judge fairly themselves. Instead they look for your reasons for resisting their side and repetitively bombard you with new ideas until you buy something they say and slowly they turn you into one of theirs like the borg in star trek assimilating you.

4. Debate is meaningless when you are living in a concentration camp. You then realize you were screwed into a shitty life by a sweet talking piece of crap. To late people realize the value of being able to hunt your own food and to protect yourself. Buy the way liberal America has also taken away our rights to hunt and to fish in AMerica. Hell, they'll throw you into jail for not taking a trash bag with you when you go camping. Notice how this part of American freedom has eroded from the 1900's to the present.

5. To prevent violence by firearms, Democrats, hollywood, liberal, and the trial lawyers who work for their cause need to be put to death. Then the American children and adults need to be reintroduced to the paddle for bad behavior and to the gallows for criminal behavior.

6. Who needs guns? Will Hitler come back? Well, I believe in the bible. It states that a man worse than Hitler will come to power soon. He will torture Christians and later on after initially being kind to them, he will torture the jews especially the jews in Israel as well. To be honest with you he wont attack the other people. He'll treat the other people the same as Hitler treated the nazi germans.

However, the bible warns that anyone who works for him will be tortured by God by many plagues in this life, hail, earthquakes, disease, darkness, loss of water. And God says that He'll torture them day and night forever in the next life. By the way the bible describes death not as cessation of life. It is the removal from a person of the ability to enjoy the creation of God. Hence, your body decomposes without which you cant breathe or enjoy marrital sex, or wine or the beach or the stars at night etc. But you continue to live, in a new body that your soul is cast into which exists in a horrible place made by God to torture.

The bible says that the reason why this man won't torture those who follow him is because his ultimate goal is to seal as many peoples fates to the destruction in the next life I have described.The bible swears on its honesty that this man and the devil are evil and the ones wrong or at fault in the whole conflict with God and that they lie trying to make themselves look like the good guys. The jews and the Christians are just people who are escaping from his horrible destruction. That's why he attacks them.

7.Many of the founding fathers of this nation were Christians. Like it or not they read the same bible. It is a large part of the reason for which they drafted the second amendment. I'd wager they might have been afraid to make it as plain as I've set forth above and colored it with a more general flavor saying that it was to protect America from despots and dictators etc.

8. I also believe that the turning away from the teaching of the bible in America is leading to its destruction. The bible says that any nation who turns away from Jesus Christ and his Bible that God turns away from. THen GOd brings about their destruction after the nation becomes abundantly evil and spills much blood so that God is justified in executing it on His gallows. In case your wonderring, while he does harrass with His people, Jesus CHrist usually brings about the destruction of the nation by His enemies like the muslims. The exception is Israel who in the past killed God's enemy nations themselves. In fact, the bible mentions America as the Great city who rules over all the kings of the earth. America is to be burned by fire utterly by the kings of the world who will emerge in a new world order and by the supreme leader over these kings, the man I talked about above, the antichrist or in the literal translation in the bible, the pseudo chist, the alternate saviour to CHrist, or the other option people look to for salvation to their destruction.

So, the bible says that he and his kings will burn AMerica by fire after conspiring behind closed doors in private on how to do this deed. I find it fitting that the environmentalists and new agers are going to get nuked by their own coming leader.

9. The bible says he will be militarily unconquerrable. The only thing guns are good for is living in the wilderness for food and protection, for running away. Unfortunately the governments have begun tagging vast numbers of animals so they can detect when someone kills one so they can arrest you. They don't want Christians living in the wilderness. These Christians just want to run away. WHy doesn't the government deal with the factions who want to kill Americans and spread violence like the Muslims and stop trying to kill peaceful factions who just want to run away and live off the land.
 
Top