Tuesday, April 7, 2009

The Gun Ban List Is Out

Here it is folks, and it is bad news. The framework for legislation is already laid and the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they want to impose upon us. They really do not believe you need anything more than a brick to defend your home and family. Look at the list and see how many of these you own. Remember, it is registration, then confiscation. It has happened in the UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that for some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know that you did. Please send this to everyone you can. It will come up for a vote, and it might even be a secret vote if Madame Pelosi has her way, and then it will be a done deal.

Concerning your right to own a gun, remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the citizens.

Subject: Gun Law Update by Alan Korwin, author of Gun Laws of America. Jan 5, 2008.

Under the Bush administration, even when they knew it had no chance of passage, Democrats crafted HR 1022, 110th Congress that now serves as a framework for the new list the Brady's plan to introduce shortly. It's horrific. They're going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They've made little mention of criminals. Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states' rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment.

Here is the Democrat's current gun-ban-list proposal (the final list will be worse):

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):

  1. M1 Carbine
  2. Sturm Ruger Mini-14
  3. AR-15
  4. Bushmaster XM15
  5. Armalite M15
  6. AR-10
  7. Thompson 1927
  8. Thompson M1
  9. AK
  10. AKM
  11. AKS
  12. AK-47
  13. AK-74
  14. ARM
  15. MAK90
  16. NHM 90
  17. NHM 91
  18. SA 85
  19. SA 93
  20. VEPR
  21. Olympic Arms PCR
  22. AR70
  23. Calico Liberty
  24. Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU
  25. Fabrique National FN/FAL
  26. FN/LAR, or FNC
  27. Hi-Point20 Carbine
  28. HK-91
  29. HK-93
  30. HK-94
  31. HK-PSG-1
  32. Thompson 1927 Commando
  33. Kel-Tec Sub Rifle
  34. Saiga
  35. SAR-8
  36. SAR-4800
  37. SKS with detachable magazine
  38. SLG 95
  39. SLR 95 or 96
  40. Steyr AU
  41. Tavor
  42. Uzi
  43. Galil and Uzi Sporter
  44. Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz)
Pistols (or copies or duplicates):

  1. Calico M-110
  2. MAC-10
  3. MAC-11, or MPA3
  4. Olympic Arms OA
  5. TEC-9
  6. TEC-DC9
  7. TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10
  8. Uzi
Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):

  1. Armscor 30 BG
  2. SPAS 12 or LAW 12
  3. Striker 12
  4. Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
Any semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:

  1. a folding or telescoping stock
  2. a threaded barrel
  3. a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below)
  4. a forward grip or a barrel shroud
Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles)

Any semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has:
  1. a second pistol grip
  2. a threaded barrel
  3. a barrel shroud or can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip
  4. a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
Any semiautomatic shotgun with:
  1. a folding or telescoping stock
  2. a pistol grip (see definition below)
  3. the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds
  4. a revolving cylinder. ames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.
Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will:

Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General." Note that Obama's pick for this office (Eric Holder, confirmation hearing set for Jan.15) wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home.

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

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

Respectfully submitted, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America http://www.gunlaws/.com/gloa.htm

So, are you feeling a lot safer now?

The Second Amendment is pretty clear. It is short and to the point. It says what it says and it means what it means. It doesn’t need to be interpreted or reinvented. The Second Amendment is NOT about sport shooting, target practice, or hunting; it’s about your safety. It is our first freedom and it is necessary to secure all our freedoms and protect us from the tyranny of an out-of-control government.
Get your own copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and READ it.

The lefties will never get this and conservatives had better wake up and start thinking right about this. If you think our government can (or even wants to) protect us from the bad guys, you are delusional. This current administration wants to disarm and defund our military at a time when there are real threats to our national security. When some sawed-off little Korean runt with elevator shoes and a super-sized ego starts rattling his nuclear sabers, Obama’s response is that "the United States has a moral responsibility" to lead disarmament efforts because America is "the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon."

So it should come as no surprise to anyone with an I.Q. higher than an idiot, that they also want to disarm you and leave you personally vulnerable and unprotected. Gun control advocates in this country have an insatiable desire to outlaw every kind of gun (including your child’s Red Ryder BB gun) and when those are gone, they’ll come after your slingshots, bows and arrows and pitchforks.


The following video clip is one of the best explanations of the second amendment I have ever heard. I don’t care for the gross vulgarity of Penn and Teller but, on this subject, they get it right. Caution, at very end of this clip (at 57 seconds), Penn drops the F bomb so beware if you are prone to being more outraged by vulgarity than you are by tyranny and please, spare me the critical comments; you have been forewarned.


Daisy said...

This is such total bull crap. Sorry, that wasn't very lady-like, but I'm sick of this!

It is completely unconstitutional to limit us to pee shooters.

Ralph M. Petersen-Always Right; Sometimes Wrong! said...


What possible reason do have to think that you will be allowed to have a pea shooter?

Ron Livesay said...

They will have to get past the Supreme Court decison from a few months back that the Second Amendment right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms is an individual right. Well, duh, that was profound.

Can you imagine how the liberals would squawk if anyone were to proclaim that ANY other part of the Bill of Rights is a collective right rather than an individual right.

The hypocrisy of liberals in this area is likely unexcelled in any other... but then again, hypocrisy is their specialty in almost any area.

Ron Livesay said...

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED." It does not say "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be DENIED." It says it shall not even be "INFRINGED."

Webster defines the word "infringe" as follows: "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another." "Encroach upon" falls far short of "deny," and the government is prohibited even to do that.

Liberals not only do not understand economics, they also do not understand plain English.

Anonymous said...

"...the right of (Stan) to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED (without a serious gunfight)."