Gun-control bills pending in Sacramento are “as bad as it gets,” a NRA activist told a meeting this week of county Republican officials.
Michael Schwartz of the National Rifle Association said: “Your Second Amendment rights are about to be taken away from you.”
Schwartz noted a package of 10 proposals in the state Assembly and Senate that would ban hollow-point bullets, expand the list of banned assault weapons and lead to “100 percent gun registration.”
“The only reason you register guns is for taxation and confiscation,” Schwartz told about 200 people attending the monthly meeting Monday of the county Republican Party Central Committee at the Rancho Bernardo Inn in San Diego.
Updating GOP members on the letter-writing campaign on behalf of the Del Mar, CA, gun shows, he said it went “fantastically well,” with several groups joining the campaign—generating about 500 letters.
It didn’t change many minds, he said, but “the value of the letter was [public relations].”
In Sacramento, 10 bills target guns, including one authored by Sen. Leland Yee, a Democrat who represents San Mateo to San Francisco.
Yee’s bill SB47 prohibits the use of the bullet button and other devices that allow for changeable magazines on all military-style assault weapons, such as AR-15s.
“While we cannot stop every senseless act of gun violence, the significant rise of mass shootings across the country demonstrates that we must take steps to close the loopholes that currently exist in California,” said Yee. “These bills will lower the likelihood of a mass shooting and limit the casualties when such an incident occurs.”
Schwartz acknowledged the likelihood of these measures being approved, given the Democratic supermajority in Sacramento. He urged Republicans to fund the groups that will take these measures to court.
And he sought more donations to the NRA.
“If you’re sitting here and not a member of the NRA, there’s no excuse,” he said. “It’s a fight against tyranny. … If you don’t own a firearm, the clock’s ticking.”
He urged the mostly white and middle-aged audience to “be a part of a well-regulated militia,” and gave advice on how to argue against gun-control efforts.
Schwartz said guns are needed to help the government in the event of an armed attack on America.
“Say you don’t have a gun,” he began. “What would you do? ‘My crazy neighbor’s got some guns. I’ll go over to his house.’
“And the neighbor would say: Look, I got two kinds of guns here. I’ll give you a revolver—it’s got six shots. … Or I’m going to give you an AR-15 with a … 30-round magazine.
“Which would you go in the militia with?
He said: “That’s what the Second Amendment is about. Try that angle.”
Do you think the 10 proposed laws in Sacramento will curb gun violence? Tell us in the comments section below.
Senator Yee has a long history of pandering to special interests and a palpable hostility towards American Constitutional principles. Prior to SB 249, his ban on so-called violent video games culminated in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, found that Yee’s legislation violated the First Amendment rights of Americans.
"A lie left unchallenged becomes the truth."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FKv2TNdDc4E#!
It's like having the Japanese bomb Pearl, but the Japanese Americans who were born here are now labeled traitors and threats to the country, therefor, they all have to lose their property and locked up in camps. This is exactly how DiFi and Yee is approaching the situation. The political theater gives them political brownie points for future elections. Why are law abiding citizens who use firearms for sport and target shooting being penalized for what crazies have done? Don't label all firearm owners as nut jobs. Many are just regular folk who use and handle their firearms responsibly, but then, it's easier to label all gun owners as kid killers and criminals, I suppose.
http://thegunwire.com/blog/video-michael-reagan-on-his-fathers-stance-on-an-assault-weapons-ban/
Judge Napolitano: Second Amendment Was Written To Protect Right To Shoot Tyrants Not Skeet Shooting http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JdxjinfEPLo
The 2nd amendment simply states, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That's all there is - that's it, in its entirety. Bear in mind, when the 2nd amendment was written into the Bill of Rights, America had no standing military. Our only form of national defense (the sole intent of the 2nd amendment - that which was necessary to secure a free State) was citizen soldier. In order to accomplish that, it was necessary to keep and bear arms.
I think everyone knows that when the 2nd was written, it was to fight the British in case they came charging in. There was no US army as we know it today, nor does anyone really believe that the British will be coming back for a second go to burn down the WH again. Having said that, it is in the constitution the right to bear arms. It also states that people who are born on US soil are US citizens. This means that lots of foreign nationals get their feet in the door by bringing their 9 month term wife to America so they have their babies here, so they can become citizens, thus making it easier to have an "Anchor Baby" so they can immigrate to the states. No where did the founding fathers imagined that foreigners will use that to get into the states. Still, it is written in. It is what it is. So yes, the founding fathers did not anticipate crazy people killing kid with guns, nor did they anticipate people coming to the US just to have a baby so they are US citizens, making it easier for them to immigrate to the states. With the issue of guns, it is written in. It is what it is. We live in a Republic where we have freedoms unimaginable to most people (say North Korea). We have the freedom and choice to do a lot of good, and the freedom and choice to do lots of bad. Sadly, the bad people ruin it for all the good people who shoot for sport, or shoot paper targets.
When Japan bombed Pearl, the reaction was to lock up all Japanese Americans because they were guilty by association. Never mind they were Americans that bled red, white and blue. They are of Japanese ancestry, therefore, they are just as guilty as the Japanese Imperial Navy that bombed Pearl. I see the same thing happening with firearms today. All gun owners are guilty by association. As for owning the most tech advance firearms, tech advances and so do firearms. I don't think many people will own a blunderbuss as a firearm and not many people own Model T's as their source of transportation. Maybe collectors will, but most people wouldn't even know how to operate one. CH (Switzerland) is a bit like the US back in the early days of the Republic. They don't have a standing army and by law, the males have to own firearms in their homes. They are citizen soldiers…yYet, they don't have the shootings like we have here because they take their mental health seriously over there. Ronald Regan cut funding back when he was president and the $ was never put back. Are guns dangerous? Of course they are. Same for a car or whatever tool used improperly. Who is driving the car? Who is pulling the trigger?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms"........ Plus,The right to keep and bear arms is not granted to Americans in the U.S. Constitution, nor in the “Bill of Rights.” The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, inextricably linked to the right to life. The Second Amendment recognizes this. It does not say that the right “shall be granted” to anyone. It assumes the right already exists and says it “shall not be infringed.”
The Second Amendment, as historical and linguistic arguments have shown, intends that it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms and that it is the right of states to keep a militia. Additionally, an armed, able bodied citizen has the duty to answer the call of his country, when he is called into service for one of the compelling reasons identified in Article I, Section 8. At the ratification Debates, the originally proposed wording of the Second Amendment read simply, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Virginia delegates, namely, Patrick Henry, adamantly opposed this wording, fearing not that the common citizen would get his hands on a gun, but fearing that the absence of a 'militia' clause would prevent the state from organizing militias. Never did he contemplate that the militia clause would be construed to deny citizens their God-given right to keep and bear arms.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution further elucidates the true nature of a militia. A militia cannot, under any circumstances, be used in an expeditionary role, because Congress has no power under the Constitution to bring the militia into active service for this reason. A militia is distinct and entirely separate from an army. Congress has the power to "make rules for the . land and naval forces," but may only "[govern] such part of [the militia] as may be employed in the service of the United States." Thus, the Constitution itself identifies a part of the militia that is not employed in the service of the United States. Upon ratification, the militia consisted of all able bodied free men. Both the part of the militia employed in the service of the United States, and that part not employed in the service of the United States, are the militia referred to in the Second Amendment. The word 'militia' simply cannot mean different things in different parts of the Constitution that were ratified at the same time. According to the Second Amendment, both 'parts' - today, the active and unorganized militias - must have the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Further, because the Fourteenth Amendment provides equal protection under the law, all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, whether constituting 'members of the militia' or not.
March 2013 survey of police officers covered proposed legislation and attitudes about arming citizens SAN FRANCISCO – PoliceOne.com, the leading online resource for law enforcement, today released findings from a national survey of police professionals that provide insight into the opinions of American law enforcement regarding gun control policies and the root causes of and potential solutions to gun crime in the United States. The survey, which was conducted in early March 2013, received 15,000 responses from law enforcement professionals. It found that the overall attitude of law enforcement is strongly anti-gun legislation and pro-gun rights, with the belief that an armed citizenry is effective in stopping crime. Response percentages varied only slightly when analyzed by rank and department size. http://www.policeone.com/corporate-profile/press-releases/6188461-PoliceOne-com-Releases-Survey-of-15-000-Law-Enforcement-Professionals-about-U-S-Gun-Control-Policies/
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/04/45724-communism-survivor-on-gun-control-you-dont-know-what-freedom-is-because-you-never-lost-it/