Gun confiscation.

[DanISSELisdaman]

http://www.examiner.com/article/doj-internal-memo-confirms-obama-plan-for-gun-confiscation

[CitizenBBN]

I've seen info on it.

Basically what it says is the truth: universal background checks won't prevent another Newtown, neither will registration. The only way to achieve the stated goals of the anti-gun agenda is to confiscate weapons.

there are nearly 300 million guns in the US. Even if you restricted or banned "assault rifles" from here on out there are so many you're closing the barn door after the horse left, went over the hill, met a nice philly, got married and settled down and died of old age.

Of course what it gets into, along with other things that are out there, is this is NOT about Newtown at all. If it were the legislation being blocked by anti-gunners in the Senate that would reform mental health reporting for background checks would be at the top of their list to get passed. Almost 100% of these shootings are done by people with some kind of mental health history that would at least make them questionable for purchasing a firearm, and clarifying the law and requiring states to do their job and report things like involuntary commitments and when people are ruled mentally incompetent by a judge would be a HUGE step forward in preventing these kinds of shootings.

It is the single biggest step we could take and is supported by the NRA and others. It would sail through the Congress and be the only law proposed since Sandy Hook to make a meaningful improvement. It's being held up in Senate Judiciary by Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, Lehey, et al.

Why would people so concerned with "gun violence" block a bill that would precisely target exactly the kinds of mass shootings they are using to justify a broader gun ban and even confiscation (Feinstein has also publicly called for confiscation)???

There can only be one reason: they dont' want to prevent future Sandy Hooks or Aurora shootings, they want them to continue b/c their agenda isn't to stop lunatics from using guns in mass shootings, their goal is to get rid of the guns period. If you passed this law and such shootings became even more rare then you have even less chance of a broader ban.

That is proof positive the goal here isn't to stop mass shootings by crazy people. It's to ban guns, and if the goal is to prevent future ownership that's still the goal of preventing ownership, and the line between that and confiscation and preventing existing ownership is microscopic. The goal is to deny law abiding people guns, period, b/c they are BLOCKING, actively stopping, laws that would actually help stop non law abiding people.

So of course this is about confiscation. The steps are simple:

1) Universal background checks.
2) Registration - i.e. retaining those records so we know who has guns
3) Rounding up guns "people don't need" b/c they aren't "for hunting".

It gets us to Britain or Australia really fast, and there is more than enough evidence, tons of it, that the Obama/Feinstein group thinks at MOST people only need guns for basic hunting, which is why they constantly try to frame the 2nd Amendment as being about "sporting purpose" and hunting when there is no such language in it or in the writings of the period about it.

The only way you get those steps is if these mass shootings continue to happen, each one helping increase pressure to take that next step. If you eliminate or drastically reduce the number of national outrages like Newtown you are eliminating your chance of moving the anti-gun agenda forward.

So what do you do? You STOP laws that target the people who need to be targeted, those ruled mentally incompetent by a court, and clamor for laws that impact everyone whether they have ever done anything wrong or not. Keep that as the only option for "doing something", make that "common sense gun control" when in fact the real common sense solutions are being repressed by your anti gun groups b/c you need the kids to keep being killed in order to push your agenda.

Now, why is the anti-gun movement so bent on banning these guns versus just saving lives, which is clearly not their core goal? B/c 50 million armed Americans are going to be very hard to persuade to become a tyrannical state. If people can defend themselves and provide for their own defense they aren't dependent on government, and can even stand against the government if necessary. They want docile citizens who need state protection at every level: economically, personally, psychologically. People who stand up for themselves, defend themselves, that will never do.

(That's why Obama voted in Illinois to criminalize the act of defending yourself IN YOUR OWN HOME with a gun that wasn't properly registered, which in Chicago at the time was illegal. So he voted to make it a crime in Chicago to defend yourself in your own home with a handgun, period. You scare off the burglar or rapist and you go to jail. Not making it up folks, he voted for that law. One example of MANY, including the current Senate bill.)

An armed citizenry is the last impediment to a completely government run state, to tyranny. This is of course why the Founders put the right to bear arms so high on the list of the Bill of Rights, and why the anti-gun leadership is so focused on eliminating gun ownership and not on simply eliminating the ill effects of gun ownership. They want docile government dependent sheep, not individuals endowed with human liberty and a sense of rugged individualism. Guns are a key part of that ability to be independent and they know it.

[CitizenBBN]

I should add the Left doesn't see this as "tyranny", they see it as a more just model of the world. This world has government involved in everything, making sure everyone is equal and gets equal amounts of everything. this is social justice, fairness, equity of outcome. They aren't going to take away any "rights" other than your "right" to exploit people and be greedy and unfair. They don't see themselves as tyrants b/c their definition of tyranny isn't about limiting individual choice and liberty, b/c those things aren't as important as social justice and equity of outcome. They're bringing justice to a broken American system, one that is deeply flawed and unfair.

This is done in our best interest at heart, out of benevolence, not malice. Just ask them.

Those who disagree with this goal, and think individual liberty is more important than social justice, are selfish, greedy, racist or stupid or some combination of those. Unfortunately they also tend to be ARMED, and disturbing for them more are getting armed every day and those who are are becoming better armed.

They need to be stripped of their ability to stop social justice. This means taking away their guns as part of the broader stripping of their power. It's just part of the overall move to replace individual liberty with social justice as the core value of this nation.

[DanISSELisdaman]

I agree 100%. And the sheep keep following along in a calm docile manner.

[badrose]

I agree with everything you said, Chuck, except I don't think for a second the liberal agenda is benevolence driven. It's power and greed. Period.

[CitizenBBN]

I agree with everything you said, Chuck, except I don't think for a second the liberal agenda is benevolence driven. It's power and greed. Period.

They think in their own minds they are doing that accumulating of power and wealth for benevolent reasons. Like any dangerous zealot they think the ends justify the means, and their accumulation of wealth and power is just a burden they must bear for doing good.

They can handle that power and their wealth is justified b/c of the good they do. THe wealth accumulated by capitalists is tainted, "they didn't build that" but got it off the backs of the poor and repressed. Since they fight for the poor and repressed their wealth isn't bad and evil.

Of course I really agree with you. They are motivated by power and greed but like any tyrant they convince themselves they are doing it for some higher reason. They rationalize it away. If Obama really, in his soul cared how the poor of Chicago were doing every day, how could he go vacation in the Hamptons and spend tens of millions to do it? No he'd be all Mother Theresa and say "take this money and feed people and I'll stay in the White House", but b/c he is doing good and working hard for the poor he has earned that vacation.

I do also agree that not all are deluding themselves. Some know very well they are trying to make as many dependent on the government as possible so they can stay in power. I think most have lied to themselves so long they believe the lies, that it's for the good of the people, but some are too smart for that. I also think there is a gray are there where Obama knows free phones wins votes, but also thinks he's doing good by providing them so it's all OK that it also happens to benefit them. That's just a win/win for social justice b/c they advanced the cause AND advanced themselves who can now advance the cause more.

Few things are as dangerous on the Right or Left as a True Believer. They think that which benefits them is what benefits the cause and vise versa. It's a common trait of cult leaders and tyrants.

People can justify about anything and rationalize it in their minds. I'd love to know what Feinstein uses to sleep at night knowing she's blocking the mental health reform bill. Hard to imagine the level of rationalization required to do something like that.

[suncat05]

Oh CBBN, you know she sleeps well at night, because she doesn't give a damn about anything but her own agenda. To her, the ends justifies the means, which strangely enough, is the unspoken mantra of the Left in all its glory.

It is unfortunate that we have to have government at all, because in our case, it started out one way and has continued to evolve into something else that we really don't want........or actually need. We will soon reach a tipping point, just don't know where it will be or when it will happen, but I am sure we'll know it when we see it happen. And I think it is not that far off.

[KeithKSR]

Who among those involved in the mass shootings has been adjudicated as being mentally incompetent before the shootings? I cannot name one off the top of my head.

If we make the jump to having MDs declare people mentally incompetent to own a firearm who will establish the criteria? If someone sees a doctor over stress or depression, but is not a danger to anyone, how do we prevent it from being claimed they are a danger just to justify taking firearms?

While the Newtown's get the press and sympathy they produce a fraction of the deaths that will occur in Chicago's genocide killings. An armed SRO or other armed adults would have saved lives in many of these incidents. Gun free zones are seen by these shooters as places where large kill numbers can be racked up before they are shot or kill themselves.

In the case of Newtown one has to place a large blame on the school district that did not fit its classrooms with doors that locked from within the room. That is inexcusable, and cost many lives at Newtown.

[CitizenBBN]

NO doubt security is the key issue, but this bill is an obvious step forward.

The bill has nothing to do with who we declare incompetent. That is a state decision and to my knowledge no laws on that front have been proposed. This is about what records get reported to NICS. As of right now some states report, some don't, some don't know what to report. The problem is the Brady Bill was very unspecific about what mental health records should be reported, and there is no law to force states to do the job and report any records.

This clarifies what records should be reported, specifically what meets the definition in the GCA of 68 as to being mentally incompetent. The states would have a criteria to follow. You report if the person was involuntarily committed, ruled incompetent, etc.

It does nothing to change how people would be ruled incompetent now, does nothing to extend to doctors the ability to just wave a pen and deny anyone a gun right. Would the NRA be OK with it if it did? There is no such wording in the GCA and this doesn't create any.

Actually AFAIK the Newtown shooter was ruled incompetent, of course he obtained his weapons without buying them. The point though is to have NICS have good records. The law has specified people who are ruled incompetent can't own a gun since 1968, but the records have never been managed properly. This is what that does. It may not catch the next lunatic shooter, but why would we have a law against those adjudicated mentally ill from having a firearm and then effectively ignore it?

It's a way to help make sure the NICS system doesn't miss people. Not a revolutionary change but one that should and does have broad bipartisan support, except for the hard core anti-gunners.

BUT there is no doubt in the broader issue almost all of these people had obvious signs of issues and were largely untreated. It's not clear they should all just have their right to own a firearm revoked, but it is clear we have people running around who really need help who aren't getting it. The obvious problem is they aren't looking for it, but it would be nice if we could provide better mental health access in the US without attaching the stigma to it, including just revoking the right to own guns.

If we start taking people's rights b/c they go to someone for depression you're right it will be very bad, and have the opposite effect on mental health. So we agree, but this bill is to only work on procedures for cases that have been long decided.

[dan_bgblue]

The ATF has a better idea. Just buy them (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/09/atf-reportedly-used-rogue-tactics-in-half-dozen-cities/)

[CitizenBBN]

Dan, here's the link to the full article/investigation. Long read, but it's shocking what ATF agents are doing out there.

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/atf-uses-rogue-tactics-in-storefront-stings-across-the-nation-b99146765z1-234916641.html

Paying for mentally disabled people to get tattoos, setting up these operations next to schools so they can up the charges, hiring felons so they can charge people who don't own guns illegally with selling to a felon, basically creating a crime wave by breaking every law on buying or pawning firearms and anything else.

What do they have to show for it? They busted a bunch of small time street guys, many of whom had no records, and fully 1/3rd of them weren't even charged it was such a petty deal.

They even tore up the buildings they rented then disappeared and never reimbursed the landlords. they clearly think they are above the law in every way. They never reported the stolen goods as they were bought, violating most state's pawn laws and preventing recovery, knowingly let felons walk out with firearms even in one case when the guy said he needed to for retribution on a guy. They taught one guy how to saw off the barrel on a shotgun and make a NFA weapon so they could bust him with the charge. They refused to buy it when he brought it, sent him home to convert it, told him how to do it, and then bought it as a SBS. The guy NEVER would have had a NFA violation if not for them. A lot of these guys were mentally disabled, may not have even understood they were crimes.

The best part is that judges and ATF have sealed up as may records as they can to hide what they are doing. Even Congress can't get the report on one of these places that the paper exposed. That's how they cover themselves, how the feds are doing it across the board, by hiding the truth despite the FOIA.

The truth is ATF is spending tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of taxpayer money to basically create crimes where none existed before they showed up. Apparently crime rates are so low they have to go create it or they'd have no one to arrest.