New NRA limousine.
(A Big Tip of the Sipsey Street boonie hat to Art.)
You'd better go rob a bank for the "capital" necessary for this one. Oh, yeah, and how's that Heller decision working out? You stupid putzes.
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
The Ban Expired in 2004 During the Bush Administration.
By JASON RYAN
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25, 2009
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.
Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.
"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.
Mexican government officials have complained that the availability of sophisticated guns from the United States have emboldened drug traffickers to fight over access routes into the U.S.
A State Department travel warning issued Feb. 20, 2009, reflected government concerns about the violence.
"Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," the warning said. "Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez."
At the news conference today, Holder described his discussions with his Mexican counterpart about the recent spike in violence.
"I met yesterday with Attorney General Medina Mora of Mexico, and we discussed the unprecedented levels of violence his country is facing because of their enforcement efforts," he said.
Holder declined to offer any time frame for the reimplementation of the assault weapons ban, however.
"It's something, as I said, that the president talked about during the campaign," he said. "There are obviously a number of things that are -- that have been taking up a substantial amount of his time, and so, I'm not sure exactly what the sequencing will be."
In a brief interview with ABC News, Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Association, said, "I think there are a lot of Democrats on Capitol Hill cringing at Eric Holder's comments right now."
During his confirmation hearing, Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee about other gun control measures the Obama administration may consider.
"I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent, would be something that would be permitted under Heller," Holder said, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Washington, D.C. v. Heller, which asserted the Second Amendment as an individual's right to own a weapon.
"Oh," squealed the NRA wussies in falsetto alarm, "but Heller will protect us! Protect us, O Heller, from the big bad collectivist wolf!" To which Antonin Scalia has already responded:
"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Pre-register for the NRA Blogger's Convention and get your ID badge here.
Three Percenter Note: OK, OK, quit bitching. I'm going back to Absolved now. This was, however, too important a milestone not to comment upon. -- MBV III
34 comments:
Good post Mike. Just up checking the permiter when I saw this and had to comment. Thanks for the heads up.
The storm that we have seen on the horizon is drawing closer as it is blown in on the prevailing winds. Look now for bolts of DOJ lightning to strike prior to the storm front hitting us.
Seeking cover with the NRA is like seeking shelter from lightning under a tree...a good way to get zapped!
The nanny state fears an armed populace as they tend to question being told what's good for them, and might even resist the latest directive from their masters.
How can you expect BHO and his minions to get us to do what they decide is in our best interest if we have the ability to resist? And if they're wrong and our once great society comes crashing down? Well, they had good intentions, they meant well, it was for the children after all.
And such as this is how they rationalize stealing from us our lives our fortunes and our sacred honor. Damn their black souls to hell.
Don't sweat the book Mike. Some stuff needs to be said. But do hurry, get the thing out while you still can. Once the Second goes the First can't be far behind.
Exactly. The NRA and many elected Republicans supported, or didn't oppose, Holder and now we get to reap the rewards. We must not roll over and accept this like the Clinton AWB.
nramobile here ... http://www.flickr.com/photos/7190271@N03/3311821508/
I like that you're assuming (incorrectly) that whomever Obama would have appointed instead of Mr. Holder would have magically been pro-gun. This was coming whether it was Holder or not.
I suppose that encouraging people to contact their elected representatives now to get them to strongly oppose any upcoming legislation would be too pragmatic?
Ya know, we knew it was a commin'. I am just a little surprised that they are going public so soon.
Also the State Dept. is looking into banning importation of "military" caliber ammunition.
Before, it was, "Lock and Load".
Today, it is, "Ready on the right, Ready on the left".......
Bob
III
This is a lot like watching two trains approaching one another at high speed on the same track. We all know what's going to happen but we can't stop watching either. All we need now to complete the disaster is an NRA "compromise" to convince the membership to send more money.
Cue Wayne LaPierre, 5, 4, 3, 2, ....
Now the lying worthless bastards at nra can scream for more money to "protect your rights". Could that have been the plan all along, create the bogeyman?
Caleb sez: "I like that you're assuming (incorrectly) that whomever Obama would have appointed instead of Mr. Holder would have magically been pro-gun."
MBV: No, I'm not. I am merely assuming that Holder, having hardly been inconvenienced by the NRA's refusal to make his confirmation a "graded vote," is not deterred by declared weakness. Who, indeed, would be?
Caleb: "This was coming whether it was Holder or not. I suppose that encouraging people to contact their elected representatives now to get them to strongly oppose any upcoming legislation would be too pragmatic?"
MBV: Why don't you get your rifles ready to hand over right now if this is so inevitable? No one says politics is impossible or counter-productive. What we are saying is that politics AS PRACTICED BY THE NRA LAIRDS OF FAIRFAX is impossible and counter-productive. Do you think that the NRA can win against determined collectivists like Holder and Emanuel with such limp dick decisions? They look at the last election as proof that the NRA electoral hoodoo is finished. They look at the next election with anticipation that, with millions of newly enfranchised and grateful illegals, the stake will be driven through their enemies' hearts permanently. That is, you will wait for a repeat of 1994 in vain. They have accomplished an electoral coup d'etat, using existing forms to seize power. Even their senior Democratic Senator warned the other day of the dangers of the unconstitutional collection of power into the executive branch.
The point is, if you will not fight all out on something like Holder, they've already measured you for your political coffin.
So, then, what will YOU do when they pass the law and move the line behind you? Time is running out, Caleb.
WHAT WILL YOU DO?
You seem misapprehend my purpose - I am not by any means accepting a new AWB as fait accompli. It can, and should be fought at the political level, because it can be stopped at the political level.
I will tell you this - I will not comply with a registration or confiscation scheme, but I'm not going to call for murdering people either.
I intend to call, write, and e-mail every one of my elected representatives and let them know politely that if they support a renewed AWB, ammo restrictions, or any other draconian gn control legislation that I will pledge my vote and all campaign contributions in the next election to their opponent. This is what they fear, not threats of personal harm, those they can write off as kook ranting. But votes and cash they understand.
Will it be enough, don't know. But it is something every one of us can do, and if it comes to the firing line we can always claim that we tried the game their way far past common sense while watching them lie, cheat, and change the rules at will.
To paraphrase Teddy R. speak softly but keep your battle kit ready to rock and roll.
III
MV: "Even their senior Democratic Senator warned the other day of the dangers of the unconstitutional collection of power into the executive branch."
Mike, can you give details?
By not fighting Holder all out, they gave the enemy a beachhead, a position to marshal his forces, regroup, and reenergize and launch the next phase of his advance.
The enemy was not only not bloodied, his hair didn't even get mussed.
No breathing hard, no second thoughts about proceeding.
The generalship I see from Fairfax and its political solutions apologist/appeasers leaves no doubt why we're in the mess we're in.
Hell, some are still trying to make excuses for Kirsten Gillibrand--although I notice she's now been categorized as "uncertain" for AWB2--because she'll be up for election, don't you know.
But I still don't see any of those who would excuse this as a pragmatic political judgment calling for her NRA A rating to be downgraded.
That wouldn't be politically very smart, you see.
Now here's the thing--there are some dems who will no doubt vote against an AW ban--if it is apparent they have the votes to pass it without them. Why break their cover and outrage a constituency unless absolutely necessary? Besides, there are always Republican Mary McFates to count on.
Just don't be fooled if that happens to think it was done out of anything other than playing the marks.
How much better if they can get this obscenity to pass and still retain the fiction that Max Baucus gives a damn about anything besides his continued power--just look at who he and every other damn one of them endorsed for president--"the most anti-gun president in American history."
Yeah, you can do that and still be A-rated.
Good grief.
I refer you to my previous comments - surely it's way past, "I told you so."
Caleb, however, is still content to paddle in that well-known river in Egypt, I see.
Revolution now !
This MAY not be going anywhere right now:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-tosses-cold-water-on-reviving-assault-weapon-ban-2009-02-26.html
Pelosi seems to be against it - maybe she's pissed that no one asked her first, maybe she wants to include it in some "must pass" legislation in the future to get difficult votes for it, an maybe she is afraid that she won't be Speaker in 2011 if this gets voted on.
I don't trust that bitch for anything, but at least the heat appears to be off for a little bit. That does NOT, NOT, NOT mean that we shouldn't burn up the phone lines to DC anyway, and do whatever else we think will help us in the short, medium & long term.
Caleb sez: "I will tell you this - I will not comply with a registration or confiscation scheme, but I'm not going to call for murdering people either."
Self-defense is not murder, Caleb. You're old enough to know the difference.
At this point, and I'm sure I sound jaded, all the phone calls in the world aren't going to change what is, or is not, already decided. Don't think so? When TARP I was initially voted on, it was defeated because over 70% of all Americans saying "Not just NO, but HELL NO!" What happened? Congress was briefed that "martial law" would be implemented and "blood would run in the streets" if they didn't vote for it. They brought it back up and voted on it again, and TARP I passed with no problem. This will happen with AWBII. Not an "if"....it's a "WILL".
My point? They can pass all the unconstitutional laws they want. They can make huge stage plays by wringing their hands about having to make "hard decisions" so "the children" will be safe. Hell, they can talk about my Leatherman being an "assault weapon". Who gives two turds?
The only weapon they are leaving us to use is our refusal to obey (paraphrasing M. Collins).
The bottom line is this: The line WILL be moved behind us this year. You will either comply or you won't, and if you won't, you must choose to stand, and if you stand, you will have to fight.
Hesitation kills just as quickly as complaceny. It's time to make your determination, gentlemen.
No Fort Sumters - we currently hold and should keep the high moral ground. Once engaged however, we better not kid ourselves on what we're doing.
'Nuff said.
BTW, I got letters from my Senators today, after thanking them for opposing Holder. Bunning stated "I am 100% committed to protecting our Second Amendment rights."
"I will tell you this - I will not comply with a registration or confiscation scheme, but I'm not going to call for murdering people either."
Caleb, you are wise to not "call for" murdering people or any other kind of violence. Do that in a public forum, and some agency viewing this site could charge you with making terroristic threats.
However, there is still freedom to indicate that you would defend yourself, your family and your home, as well as your liberty, against criminal threats or acts against them. Note that DEFENDING what one rightfully possesses (life, liberty, property) is NOT a crime either legally or morally. Note also, that if someone presents a mortal threat to you, and you terminate their life in an act of self defense, that is NOT murder. Get that? Killing someone is not necessarily an act of murder.
Commandment #6 of the 10 that Moses received does NOT, NOT, NOT say "Thou shalt not kill." It DOES say "Thou shalt not murder."
I saw nothing here from any of the other posters which would indicate that they intend to, or are advocating for others to, murder anyone.
Not everyone is suited to be a front line soldier - Hell, maybe I'm not (never been in the military, so I don't honestly know). Every side in every war has lots of people doing things besides picking up a rifle or some other deadly weapon and using it to kill the enemy.
I do indeed know the difference, Mike. And shooting lawful authorities without just cause is murder, especially if said lawful authority wasn't shooting at you.
In the interim, I'm going to fight this one legally, within the system - I figure if I can beat it there, I won't have to worry about any of my friends on either side of the badge getting shot up.
Beat me to it Mike. Caleb should know better.
Caleb, if you sit at home and wait for the SWAT team to do a dynamic entry, it's probably too late, especially if those raids have already been occurring following the passage of whatever piece of legislation they're acting on.
I am as ready as I can be. Letters have been sent to my elected leaders, reminding them of their Oaths and my determination to honor my own. I don't expect those letters to have much effect, though. It was mostly done from a sense of moral duty and professional courtesy. It is now their move.
"Lawful Authorities"
What an oxymoron.
What these people are doing and have been doing is anything but lawful.
Remember what James Madison said, "ANYTHING that is repugnant to the Constitution is un-Constitutional.
And calling them "authorities". What made these power hunger gangsters authorities over me? Did they have to take a class to be an "authority"? Who and what certified them to be an "authority"?
Hell, Al Gore claims to be an "authority" on global warming.
And believe me, Caleb, there will be just cause to defend ourselves, 'cause the "authorities" will be a commin' in with guns a blazin'.
Their goal is not to take away the ability to protect yourself and yours, but to KILL you. To remove you from the face of the earth. For you to assume room temperature.
So, if it is your goal to meekly do as you are told, to kowtow to these communists, and to lick their boots, well bucko, you just have at it.
I will die a free man standing tall, not as a slave on my knees.
Bob
III
I'm going to make a purely pragmatic (har har, pun) suggestion. I will not discuss the morality, as it strikes even me as questionable, however it might be a good idea, practically speaking.
Ambush an NRA convention/meeting/etc. I mean, you're never more likely to find a group of people so well-armed AND willing to give up without a fight! Talk about a logistical boon.
Their words are full of nonsense and double speak.
We must ban assault weapons because they cross the border to Mexico....
Then a statement about conflict with cartels and automatic weapons.
Perhaps they should look in their own backyard at the number of MS-13 and other Latino gangs now flocking to the military. How may have made their way into the supply chain?
How many of those weapons in Mexico are converted DPMS, Rock River, or Bushmaster firearms? How many say Colt on the side and disappeared from military supply chains?
Double talk and lies. This usurper is a socialist at best and much more likely a raving facist.
He and his ilk fear the American people. They intend servitude for us. It's that simple.
If you're a Christian, I'd suggest a reading of this Op-Ed by Chuck Baldwin (an ordained Minister) on Romans 13, which discusses "higher powers" and "lawful authority" and resistance to those two entities in righteous fervor.
Now I don't mean to preach to anyone, but the understanding of what lawful authority is and is not is essential to drawing one's 'line in the sand'.
Get the whole thing here: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin494.htm
Emphasis is mine.
In part: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."
Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose any political leader really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt that they truly believe that.
For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law? I wouldn't.
So, there are limits to [lawful] authority . A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.
By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that [lawful] authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection.
Civil government is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no [lawful] authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.
Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's law to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities that demanded he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.
From CetmeModeloC:
Hi Mike,
If you would not mind posting this for me.
Caleb wrote:
"I do indeed know the difference, Mike. And shooting lawful authorities without just cause is murder, especially if said lawful authority wasn't shooting at you."
So please, o sir, enlighten us? What would "just cause" for you be? If your liberty is taken what do you have left? Remember that liberty just means that you have nothing left to lose. If they take that then what? How do you propose to "defend" yourself when they come for your tools of liberty?
Defending ones life is not murder. If he who would attack you hesitates but the malicious intent is shown that he will kill you given the chance if you attack first to defend yourself you have not committed murder. You do not have the requisite mens rea.
This little part is naive in the extreme.
"especially if said lawful authority wasn't shooting at you."
What if they just come to your door and ask you politely to turn in any guns you may have, (and which they have evidence of you owning due to the 4437 you filled out to comply with their "lawful authority"), without brandishing or even raising their voice. Will you comply? (For we all know that resistance is futile in the face of "lawful authority").
What if you say "no" and they say they will be back "and teach you a lesson"? Will you be breaking out the crayons and cookies and preparing more kool-aid in preparation for your "lesson"?
How long will you wait? What will it take? Will you wait for the first shot to pierce the heart of yourself or one of your loved ones to finally take a stand and say "No more!"?
I agree with Mike. There should be no Fort Sumters. But I am sorry to say Caleb that you have shown your true colors. You can no longer be trusted. So I just remit to you a slightly longer version of what I am sure you have seen before and that so eloquently states my disdain for you and your kind.
“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
QUOTE "Self-defense is not murder, Caleb. You're old enough to know the difference. QUOTE
AYE!!! I think Anne Frank would say the same. (shudders angrily)
Ever since I watched the Anne Frank documentary for the first time on PBS, I KNEW I would be a Three Percenter, for always, forever.
III
MOLON LABE
Only two obervations:
one - I assume that the weinermobile picture was used only because MV could not find a dildo-mobile, sans cojones, of course, to represent the Nancyboy Rumpranger Association, aka the NRA.
two - I also assume 'Caleb' to have neve3r actually encountered and RKBA people before this week, hence his assumption that no one besides himself has ever thought - over the last 40 years or so - to call, visit, fax, write and email politicians... admittedly, a newbie would think of this as a stunningly novel approach, not realizing that others have thought of these same measures and been using them for a couple of generations now.
No, people who talk like Caleb have been around in every war. They are the collaborators, happy to point out any local resisters to whatever regime is claiming power, as long as they get a pat on the head.
But don't waste time looking for them in battle. They're always back behind the women & kids... pondering peaceful solutions.
Sheesh, I can't believe this tempest in a teacup over Holder's remarks.
Caleb's right. If there are 3% of gun owners who would take it all the way to armed conflict, then I bet we can get 5% who would go for civil disobedience. With 80 million gun owners, we ought to be able to turn out 4 million who would be willing to walk into their police station and say "I refuse to turn in my guns. Arrest me".
The criminal justice system would grind to a halt. We'd have a line around the block, and tie up so many police typing up the paperwork they couldn't send anyone on patrol.
I simply don't get the point of bitching about the NRA. Face it - if you have extremely strong views on the 2nd amendment - say, in the top 3%, you just aren't going to get much of a political voice. It's a fact of life, so bitching about it is pointless and a waste of energy. Your best bet is to find the party that most closely represents your views, support them and do your best to get your voice heard.
I'm a staunch libertarian. You think I waste my vote for a libertarian party candidate? Hah! The republican candidate may be a financial moron, but we might be able to pay off a deficit. We can't ever get rid of entitlement programs.
For the 2nd amendment the NRA is the only game in town. If you don't agree with everything they do, get active, vote for Directors who best represent you (Barrett!) and buy memberships for everyone you can think of.
Inflicting a weapons ban on Americans based on violence in Mexico is assinine. WHO CARES! Maybe if Mexico did not have such draconian gun control laws the average citizen there would be better equipped to protect themselves from not only the drug cartel thugs & goons, but from the corrupt Mexican Military and Federal Police as well. This is a lame and transparent excuse for legislation that is intended to further weaken the citizens right to self defense.
Ask this question of any politician, "What is it about law-abiding American Citizens owning a gun that frightens you so much"?
Post a Comment