“It’s for the children” Obama proclaimed after signing the twenty-three gun-grabbing executive orders after the Sandy Hook tragedy.
“Never let a crisis go to waste,” one of Obama’s cronies once quipped. And Obama hasn’t.
We can now complete the circle with this tragedy with the events that brought about the National Firearms Act known as the NFA of 1934. It came to fruition in a similar fashion in an ill-conceived legislative effort and media frenzy (so-called “public outcry”) due to the St. Valentines Day Massacre of 1929, or so the story goes. However, it was done in slow motion and took them five years versus the speed of light Obama and his cohorts are acting out today.
It has only been two to three weeks since Obama announced his intention to ban so-called assault weapons before the legislative and executive assault began.
This latest foray into gun control is simply a national gun-registration scheme, which plays out as I first reported in a previous article. A synopsis of S.150, on Senator Feinstein’s legislation, is as follows:
“To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.”
The synopsis is simply the title of the legislation; we now know what she and her cohorts have in mind the short title is:
‘‘Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.’’
The language is troubling: “To ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited.” If we look closer, the key phrase is “not unlimited.” Our constitutional rights now come with apparent expiration dates pre-ban versus after, since it will codify specific limits to our Second Amendment right to bear arms. This legislation is not a constitutional amendment either. It is simply a bill to re-designate conventional arms, as equivalent to automatic weapons, with their large capacity magazines, which will now fall under the NFA registration requirements, and its $200.00 fee for each weapon and magazine registered.
This obviously infringes on our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
The most troubling language in the bill is “and for other purposes” which is not defined at all within the pages of the bill where we find our rights are limited and they are being curtailed for other purposes, which are undefined.
When you factor in ninety-five pages of this legislation, it lists one weapon after another, which are exempt under the act. After you include the seven pages that are specifically “banned,” the 123-page bill has 102 pages of specific weapons by name, manufacturer and model number.
Why would they need to list specific weapons?
Why are they not using descriptive legal designations that discuss their functionality: i.e., falling block, lever action, pump, single shot, bolt action, tip-up, rolling block, muzzle loading, semi-automatic, automatic etc. The only reasonable guess is to list the banned/exempt firearms in this way is to tack it on as an infamous “rider bill” that are one or two sentences long on another piece of legislation that references this legislation to implement confiscation without raising much interest sometime in the future.
After all, no one reads legislation anymore, ObamaCare was proof of that.
The specific weapons named in this bill were military type weapons at one time or another or their civilian version, specifically semi-automatic weapons and other long arms. The Supreme Court in United States v. Miller categorically affirmed the right of citizens to own, use and possess military type weapons, or in the language of the government’s prosecutor, weapons for war. Nothing has changed since then, except of course “never let a crisis go to waste” to quote Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s previous Chief of Staff.
There are reasons to own and use such weapons as proven by the Battle of Athens, which occurred in Tennessee in 1946 and affirmed the citizen’s ability and right to rise up against their corrupt county government and restore the rule of law. Tyranny is not immune to a place or time, and is ever-present wherever corruption in government exists.
So much for it cannot happen here…!
Senate Bill S.150 targets military type infantry weapons used at battlefield ranges that are used in an offensive tactical manner. The only logical conclusion to draw is our politicians wish to deny our citizens the right to raise any meaningful resistance if they decide to act against our rights and thwart our ability to respond offensively against tyranny.
The original article is at the following link, found here.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.