InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.

Learn More · Sign-up Now
Welcome to The Great Deception. We hope you enjoy your visit.
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


 

 Gun-related Legis In Congress - Coming 4 Gun, UN treaty in Senate right now! STAND UP!
jofortruth
Posted: Jan 10 2009, 12:28 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?b...022&tab=related

HR 1022: (At least this Bill went no further than just being introduced)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?b...022&tab=summary

Full Text:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022


Congressman Carolyn McCarthy obviously hasn't read the 2nd Amendment and doesn't understand that to take away the guns of private law abiding citizens is who would actually be attacked if this passed. The thugs will always find a way to get guns. Passing a gun ban won't even affect the idiot thugs. You should be going after the thugs, instead of the good people of this nation.

Why is this so hard for Carolyn and others in Congress to understand? Everyone of you guys need to re-read your Constitution and Bill of Rights, that's assuming you have read it at all.


rolleyes.gif
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Apr 24 2009, 01:20 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Obama Positioning for Backdoor Gun Control
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com:80/c2009/c...e_20090424.html

QUOTE
On his recent trip to Central America, President Barack Obama did more than cozy up to Marxist dictators; he also signed onto an international treaty that could, in effect, be used as backdoor gun control. It appears that Obama wants to use international treaties to do what congressional legislation is not able to do: further restrict the right of the American people to keep and bear arms.

Obama is using the oft-disproved contention that "90% of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States" as the stated basis of his support for the international treaty he is promoting. The treaty is formally known as the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials (CIFTA) treaty. The Bill Clinton administration signed the treaty back in 1997, but the U.S. Senate has never ratified the treaty. Obama intends to change that.

To date, 33 nations in the western hemisphere have signed the treaty. The U.S. is one of four nations that have yet to ratify it. According to one senior Obama administration official, passing the treaty is a "high priority" for the President.

If ratified, the treaty would require the United States to adopt "strict licensing requirements, mark firearms when they are made and imported to make them easier to trace, and establish a process for sharing information between national law enforcement agencies investigating [gun] smuggling."

Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee promises to "work for its [the CIFTA treaty's] approval by the Senate."

Should the Senate ratify CIFTA, Americans who reload ammunition would be required to get a license from the government, and factory guns and ammunition would be priced almost out of existence due to governmental requirements to "mark" each one manufactured. Even the simple act of adding an after-market piece of equipment to a firearm, such as a scope or bipod, or reassembling a gun after cleaning it could fall into the category of "illicit manufacturing" of firearms and require government license and oversight.

In addition, CIFTA would authorize the U.S. federal government (and open the door to international entities) to supervise and regulate virtually the entire American firearms industry. Making matters worse is the fact that, as a treaty, this Act does not have to be passed by both houses of Congress, nor is it subject to judicial oversight. All Obama needs to do in order to enact this unconstitutional and egregious form of gun control is convince a Democratic-controlled Senate to pass it.

Obviously, the United Nations, from its very inception, has been one of the world's most ardent gun control proponents. As anyone who has ever driven by the U.N. building in New York City knows, a huge statue of an American-made revolver with its barrel twisted in the shape of a pretzel greets every visitor. The CIFTA treaty is one of the U.N.'s pet projects in order to achieve this long-held ambition.

Of course, Obama is a longtime liberal radical when it comes to the Second Amendment. As a senator, he voted against the Second Amendment at every opportunity. He has never seen a piece of gun control legislation that he did not support. And as I have said before in this column, gun control is high on the list of priorities for the newly elected President Barack Obama.

For Obama to intimate that 90% of the firearms used by Mexican drug cartels come from the United States reveals either a truly dishonest and deceptive mind or a totally misinformed and naïve one. Many studies have thoroughly debunked the 90% myth, including one by William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott in a recent Fox News report. According to these researchers, the real number is closer to 17%.

According to La Jeunesse and Lott, Mexican drug cartels, which control billions of dollars, obtain the overwhelming majority of their guns from the Black Market, Russian crime syndicates, South America, China, Guatemala, and even from the Mexican army.

In fact, Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar: AK-47s from China; fragmentation grenades from South Korea; shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc dealers; assault weapons from China; and explosives from Korea--just to name a few sources.

In addition, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo, more than 150,000 Mexican soldiers have deserted in just the last six years. The vast majority of them took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.

And please do not forget that corruption within the Mexican government is rampant. Many news sources have covered stories of how drug cartels bribe Mexican officials. An article in the New York Times last year reported, "One of Mexico's most notorious drug cartels made huge cash payments to officials in the Mexican attorney general's office in exchange for confidential information on anti-drug operations . . . the cartel might have had an informant inside the American embassy."

The Mexican drug cartels control a multi-billion dollar enterprise that has more than enough resources to obtain planeloads of weapons from all over the world. For Obama to assert that 90% of the Mexican drug cartels' firearms come from the United States is a bald-faced lie! Again, either Obama is stupid and naïve or he is deliberately lying to the American people in order to "sell" the CIFTA treaty to the U.S. Senate. I think we all know that Mr. Obama is anything but stupid and naïve.

Read more about the CIFTA treaty at

http://gunowners.org/a042109.htm

In addition to the CIFTA treaty, liberal Chicago Democrat Congressman Bobby Rush has introduced H.R. 45 in the House of Representatives. This bill is anything but subtle. It is an in-your-face gun control bill that would make "Mr. Gun Control," the late Senator Howard Metzenbaum, shout Hallelujah.

H.R. 45 would require a federal license for all handguns and semiautomatics, including the ones you already possess. It would require handgun and semi-auto owners to be thumbprinted at a police station and sign a certificate that the gun will not be kept in a place where it could be used for the defense of the gun owner's family.

Read more about H.R. 45 at

http://gunowners.org/hr45ana.htm

In all likelihood, H.R. 45 is probably a long shot at passing both houses of Congress, albeit gun owners should never take any proposed gun control bill for granted. The CIFTA treaty, however, is much more dangerous due to its subtlety and subterfuge, the less cumbersome process of passage, and the fact that it makes U.S. gun owners subject to international gun control laws.

All in all, freedom in America is on the Obama White House chopping block. And this much is certain: if the American people do not retain the right to keep and bear arms, every other freedom we hold dear will quickly disappear as well. Moreover, if we do retain the right to keep and bear arms, it will only be because enough of us--and our state and federal legislators--resist the tyrannical gun control machinations of Barack Obama. And that means defeating the CIFTA treaty and H.R. 45.
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Apr 24 2009, 01:27 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Top
jofortruth
Posted: May 20 2009, 08:10 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



HR 2401 - "No Fly, No Buy Act of 2009"
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...h2401ih.txt.pdf

QUOTE
H.R.2401

Title: To increase public safety and reduce the threat to domestic security by including persons who may be prevented from boarding an aircraft in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 5/13/2009)

Cosponsors (1)

Latest Major Action: 5/13/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Top
jofortruth
Posted: May 20 2009, 08:15 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



HR 2159 ‘‘Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009’’

QUOTE
H.R.2159

Title: To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.

Sponsor: Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] (introduced 4/29/2009)      Cosponsors (6)

Latest Major Action: 4/29/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.



THIS MAN'S PHONE IN CONGRESS SHOULD BE RINGING OFF THE HOOKS.

What an idiot to think it is even proper to give the ATTY GEN, the full right to tell someone they can or can't own a gun, ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT ATTY GEN HAS ALREADY TOLD US HE WANTS TO BAN GUNS?????
angry.gif

Pete King's Phone #: Please call the clueless Congressman:
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

Washington Office 202-225-7896
Top
jofortruth
  Posted: Jun 23 2009, 01:30 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



S. 1317 ‘‘Denying Firearms and
5 Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009’’.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...s1317is.txt.pdf
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.1317:


QUOTE
S.1317

Title: A bill to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists.
Sponsor: Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] (introduced 6/22/2009)      Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 6/22/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.



THE PROBLEM IS THIS: whose definition of TERRORIST will be used?

Good citizens are being called TERRORISTS in ludicrous FEMA documents like the MIAC report and many others. THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH BILLS SUCH AS THIS!




See More Here:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...topic=6754&st=0
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Jun 23 2009, 01:34 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Lautenberg’s legislation cloak’s anti-gun senator’s true intention
http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun...-true-intention

QUOTE
On Monday, anti-gun New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg announced the “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009,” a bill that would give unprecedented authority to the Attorney General to prohibit someone from exercising his or her Second Amendment rights based on nothing more than mere suspicion.

Lautenberg launched this attack on gun rights, using a report from the Government Accountability Office that laments it found 963 cases between February 2004 and February 2009 in which “a known or suspected terrorist attempted to buy a gun.”

Yet, as Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the grassroots-oriented Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, noted in a response to Lautenberg’s bill, 90 percent of those transactions were allowed to proceed after the gun buyer cleared the FBI’s National Instant Check. The remaining ten percent of the purchase attempts were unsuccessful because the would-be buyers had prior felony convictions, or were found to be in this country illegally. Were any of these people arrested or deported?

There is no indication from the GAO whether any of the successful gun buyers used their firearms in the commission of a crime.

In Lautenberg’s world view, any American citizen interested in owning a gun is a potential terrorist. Would he add all of our names to such a watch list, thus stripping us of our Second Amendment rights, without first being charged, prosecuted and convicted of some crime? Probably he would. -- Alan Gottlieb, CCRKBA

  This is the same GAO that issued a report last week on gun trafficking to Mexico that was discussed here. That’s the report that anti-gunners have been deliberately misrepresenting in order to push their claim that 90 percent of the guns being used by Mexican drug cartels in a bloody war in northern Mexico are coming from gun shops and gun shows in this country.
  The claims are so questionable that Florida Congressman Connie Mack noted Friday, “I don't know that the report itself is something that we should put a lot of value in.”
  The National Rifle Association weighed in, noting, “Mexico has a huge problem with rampant corruption that clearly cannot be blamed on the U.S.  At the same time, Mexico has extremely prohibitive gun laws, yet has far worse crime than the U.S.”

I don't know that the report itself is something that we should put a lot of value in. -- U.S. Rep. Connie Mack (R-FL)

  Lautenberg isn’t nearly as interested in protecting this country from terrorists as he is in disarming its citizens. He just wants to hand Eric Holder the authority to deny as many people as possible their rights under the Second Amendment. As Gottlieb observed, Lautenberg has devoted his political career to “stripping as many citizens as possible of their firearm civil rights.” In Lautenberg’s perfect world, Gottlieb asserts, any American citizen who exercises his or her Second Amendment rights would be considered a potential terrorist.

There are problems aplenty with Lautenberg’s demagoguery. For example, in May of this year, the inspector general for the Department of Justice reportedly found that the FBI kept a list that included the names of 24,000 people based, as explained by the New York Times, on “outdated or sometimes irrelevant information.”

In the vast majority of cases reviewed so far, it has turned out that the petitioners were not actually on the list, with most having been misidentified at airports because their names resembled others on it.

Perhaps the greatest problem with such legislation is that nobody has ever explained just how someone gets his or her name on this terrorist watch list.

Likewise, it’s not clear how anyone gets their name off this list, though one apparently can file a “redress” request with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Over the past two years, according to USA Today, some 51,000 people have filed those requests. A review of those complaints, the newspaper reported in March, found that these people had been “misidentified at airports because their names resembled others” on the list.

If an airport check by DHS can make that kind of mistake, what guarantees are there that firearms retailers won’t? Who can say that the Attorney General will not even screw that up, or deliberately deny someone their Second Amendment rights only because their name resembles that of someone else? It takes time to sort out such a denial, and as the late Rev. Martin Luther King noted, “A right delayed is a right denied.”
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Jun 23 2009, 01:37 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Lautenberg Legislation Cloaks Gun Ban Agenda as Anti-Terror Tool
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/lautenber...nti-terror-tool

QUOTE
BELLEVUE, Wash., June 22, 2009 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Legislation introduced today by veteran anti-gun New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg is designed to expand his gun prohibition agenda under the cloak of national security, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said.

Sen. Lautenberg's new "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009" would place unprecedented authority in the hands of the Attorney General to deny someone their Second Amendment rights without having been convicted, or even charged, with any crime. Instead, under this legislation, someone whose name is added -- for whatever reason -- to a terrorist watch list can suddenly find himself or herself prohibited from exercising their constitutionally-protected rights based on nothing more than suspicion.

"Frank Lautenberg has devoted his entire political career to stripping as many citizens as possible of their firearm civil rights," noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "His motivation appears to be a Government Accountability Office report that asserts 963 cases of known or suspected terrorists trying to buy firearms over a five-year period from 2004 through February of this year. However, in 90 percent of those cases, the purchases were allowed after the buyer cleared an FBI instant background check.

"Lautenberg calls this the 'terror loophole,'" he added, "yet neither he, nor anyone else, can adequately explain how someone gets their name on a so-called 'terrorist watch list,' and there appears to be no way to get one's name off such a list once it is there.

"In Lautenberg's world view," Gottlieb observed, "any American citizen interested in owning a gun is a potential terrorist. Would he add all of our names to such a watch list, thus stripping us of our Second Amendment rights, without first being charged, prosecuted and convicted of some crime? Probably he would.

"In 2007," Gottlieb recalled, "Lautenberg lamented that a similar bill went nowhere. He claimed it was blocked because too many of his colleagues 'knuckled under to the gun lobby.' Better that Congress protect gun owners' civil rights than be browbeaten by a knucklehead."

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

SOURCE Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms


Top
jofortruth
Posted: Jun 30 2009, 02:11 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Remember the DC Gun Case and Atty Gen Holder's Views on the Case?
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...?showtopic=3046


Obama and Eric Holder don't have a clue what gun rights are about. Neither has views that respect our 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms, nor do they care that the reason for gun rights is to fend off a rogue government LIKE WE HAVE PRESENTLY AND THAT BOTH OF THESE GUYS ARE AIDING AND ABETTING.

YOU GUYS BOTH ARE TRAINED IN LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION, BUT YOU DON'T ABIDE BY EITHER! DISGUSTING! DID YOU BOTH JUST GET HONORARY DEGREES OR SOMETHING????????
rolleyes.gif
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Jul 16 2009, 07:05 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Gun Owners of America Analysis of Current Gun Bills:
http://gunowners.org/111anatb.htm
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Jul 18 2009, 01:28 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Dealership is giving away free AK-47s with the purchase of any truck ! ! ! (VIDEO)
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/20....truck.ak47.cnn

This guy knows what's happening in America, and is taking action!

This is not condoning people using guns for illicit acts, it is to PROTECT YOUR 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO OWN A GUN, AND FOR YOUR PROTECTION.

SADLY, THE OBAMA ADMIN IS LISTENING TO THE NWO ELITES, WHO THEY SERVE AS PUPPETS (JUST LIKE BUSH AND CLINTON AND OTHERS HAVE DONE). RATHER THAN ABIDING BY THEIR OATH OF OFFICE, THEY ARE TRYING TO DESTROY NOT ONLY OUR 2ND AMENDMENT, BUT OUR CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS SO THAT THEY CAN USHER IN THEIR LONG PLANNED NWO AND GLOBAL GOVERNMENT.

THIS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, AND THIS GUY AND MANY ARE TELLING THEM SO! AMERICANS, YOU NEED TO STAND UP, AND RIGHT NOW OR LOSE YOUR FREEDOM! THE TIME IS LATE!

NOW THEY'RE THREATENING A MANDATORY FLU VACCINE IN THE FALL. THIS IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED, BECAUSE WE KNOW THE NWO HAS PLANS TO KILL MOST OF US WITH THEIR INSANE EUGENICS PLANS, AND THIS JUST MAY BE THEIR NEXT "911 ATTACK" USING BIO-WEAPONS. (IF YOU HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT YET THAT 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, YOU ARE WAY IGNORANT AND TIME TO GET INFORMED!)

FUNNY HOW THIS IS COMING RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL THE OTHER CHAOS THESE FOOLS HAVE CREATED. IF YOU TAKE THIS VACCINE YOU ARE CRAZY!
nonono.gif

btw THE CNN MEDIA PERSON IS CLUELESS! rolleyes.gif

HOW CAN YOU KNOW THESE THINGS AND NOT STAND UP AND TAKE ACTION. THERE ARE SICK PEOPLE IN CONTROL RIGHT NOW WHO ARE DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY. READ THIS:

"BAXTER FLU VACCINE & SWINE FLU INSANITY"
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...?showtopic=6816
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...hp?showforum=80

"GEORGIA GUIDESTONES" (Look at the number at top of the list on stone)
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...?showtopic=2975

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, believes we need Sterilization, and population control: (Didn't Obama say he was a "Christian"? Then how is it he could promote a man with these sick beliefs?)
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...6830&st=0&#last

Vaccine info you need to know
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...?showtopic=5255


IF YOU READ ALL OF THIS INFORMATION AND DO FURTHER RESEARCH, AND YOU STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS MAN IS OFFERING GUNS WITH TRUCKS, THEN THERE IS NO HOPE FOR YOU. I WILL MOVE ON TO SOMEONE WHO IS SMARTER AND WHO GETS IT THAT OUR COUNTRY IS UNDER ATTACK FROM WITHIN AND WHO IS A REAL PATRIOT! teach.gif
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Aug 24 2009, 01:24 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Gun Propaganda and the Health Care Reform Illusion
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/115191


QUOTE
Szandor Blestman
August 20, 2009

I'm getting very upset by what I've been seeing since this health care issue has come to the fore. I'm becoming really angry by how much my intelligence has been insulted. I'm beginning to feel like the man who has to explain to his friends that Criss Angel is not really defying the laws of physics. He's in the business of creating illusions. He does not really float above buildings, pull ladies in half, climb through closed, solid windows without breaking the glass, walk on water, or do any of the things one might see him do. These are illusions. They are parlor tricks. They are elaborate, complicated, well designed, well executed, likely expensive illusions, but they are nothing but illusions nonetheless.

The power elite are also in the business of creating illusions. They use their politicians and the mass media to try to create a perception of reality they would like us to see. The illusions they create are elaborate, complicated, well designed, well executed and likely expensive, but they are illusions nonetheless. The difference between the illusions the power elite create and those of Criss Angel is that Mr. Angel creates his illusions strictly for entertainment purposes, the power elite are creating theirs so that they can control mass consciousness and hence make it easier to control the population in general. The problem for them is that many people are beginning to realize exactly what's been happening.

One of the ways to create a good illusion is to get the audience to look over there while something is happening over here. Another is to keep things hidden and produce them when you want them seen. Still another way is to make the audience believe something isn't what it appears to be, or that something is what it doesn't appear to be. Or any combination of these things can help produce a good illusion. Of course, if the audience looks where the action is and detects the slight of hand, or if they see the hidden element before it is produced, or if they are not convinced that something is or is not something else, then the illusion is ruined.

There was a man in New Hampshire recently who came to a protest against the proposed health care legislation open carrying a gun. His name was Mr. William Kostric. He was also carrying a sign that read "It is time to water the tree of liberty." This protest was near where Mr. Barack Obama was having a town hall meeting. What's wrong with that? We have a God given right of self defense, don't we? The second amendment of our nation's constitution still applies, right? Holding a sign at a protest is legal, so no big deal, right? Open carrying in New Hampshire is legal, so no big deal, right? Wrong. The media jumped all over it. They made it a big deal.

Many of the news organizations immediately freaked out at the sight of a citizen open carrying a gun to such an event. When I first heard the news I got the impression that someone had brought a gun into the venue where Mr. Obama was speaking and was waving it around in a threatening manner, at least that's what it seemed judging by how big of a deal they were making of it. As the reports came in I began to wonder what kind of nut would do such a thing. Then I began to get the details of the situation, that it was in New Hampshire, that it was on private property, that the man wasn't in the venue with Mr. Obama, and I began to realize that, as usual, the media was making a bigger deal out of a situation than they should. Finally, I got to watch the interview Mr. Kostric did with Chris Matthews on Hardball.

Mr. William Kostric, a man I met at this year's Liberty Forum who struck me as about as average a guy as there is, held up very well under the heavy handed questioning of Chris Matthews. I don't know that anyone else could have done a better job and I doubt I would have held up so well. He remained very calm and thoughtful even as Chris Matthews did his best to inject anger and emotion into the debate. As my brother observed about Mr. Kostric's appearance on the show, he made Chris Matthews look reactionary and bizarre. In his attempt to get Mr. Kostric to lose control, Chris Matthews was unable to maintain control of his own emotions.

Judging from his questions, it seems to me Chris Matthews was trying to maintain the illusions that had already been set up. The illusion is that people who carry guns are crazy, emotionally unstable, fringe, violent or anything other than mainstream. There's also an illusion as to the dangers of guns. While I wouldn't say that Mr. Kostric shattered those illusions with his interview, I would suggest that perhaps he opened the eyes of some more thoughtful people who may have seen him. Perhaps some of the viewers may have caught a glimpse of something hidden under the cloth of the mainstream media propaganda and perhaps for them the illusion is not quite as spellbinding anymore. Perhaps now some people may understand that the talking heads on television can and should ask more pertinent questions of newsworthy people in these situations rather than trying to demonize them.

It seems to me that perhaps the wrong questions are being asked as these situations arise. As Mr. Kostric wisely pointed out on the Chris Matthews' television program, the question shouldn't be why would he wear a gun to the rally, the question should be why weren't more people wearing their guns to the rally. Indeed, if people don't exercise their rights then those rights will likely atrophy and perhaps die. Chris Matthews pointed out the history of presidents, guns and violence in an effort to shame Mr. Kostric for exercising his God given right, but he neglected to mention that this was a history of men who would conceal weapons and did not want attention drawn to themselves for fear their intent would be discovered. Mr. Kostric made the observation that a gun is a defensive tool. It is not a show of force as Chris Matthews would have you believe, but a warning that one is willing to defend himself should trouble arise. Indeed, if Mr. Obama feels so threatened when he goes out in public to address the American people, perhaps he should take some personal responsibility for his own safety and self defense and start wearing a gun himself. After all, he has the God given right to self defense as does any other human being.

The media wishes to maintain the illusion that it is covering news in a fair and objective manner when in fact it is trying to manipulate opinions the establishment wants you to hold. They have to walk a fine line to keep the trust of their audiences, maintain or improve ratings, and keep the power elite that finance them happy and their agenda hidden. The Internet and sites like Youtube have more or less corralled mainstream media's attempt to completely control the information we receive. This could be the reason we are hearing stories of ACORN and SEIU activists showing up in busloads at these town hall meetings. The Democrats are without a doubt and with verifiable evidence doing exactly what they were accusing the Republicans of doing at the recent tea parties. Even worse, these people have been caught on video threatening and actually beating some of those who are against the proposed health care legislation backed by the Obama administration, something the tea partiers were never even accused of. They've admitted that they were paid.

Do these people think we're stupid? Do they think we'd actually listen to hired thugs? Do they believe we'd pay more attention to masses of mindlessly chanting, similarly dressed people that have obviously been paid over average men and women who have taken time off work to try to get their voices heard? I don't know the answers to the above questions. It certainly would seem that the political elite do, in fact, believe these things and were hoping they could get away with creating an illusion that there was more support for the proposed health care legislation than there was opposition to it. I have to wonder, however. Even though I don't seem to have a lot of respect for politicians and their media cronies in my writings, I never thought they'd be so blatantly open about their corruption. At least, not without a reason.

There is another illusion in this country that many, many people believe. Quite a percentage of the inhabitants of this land called America believe there is actually a difference between a Republican politician and a Democrat politician. They still think that there are partisan battles taking place. It is therefore easy for some to believe that Republicans (conservatives) are against free health care for those who can't afford it and Democrats (liberals) are for providing free health care for everyone and making the rich pay for it. This situation certainly does help keep that illusion alive.

Perhaps this health care debate is academic. Perhaps most politicians holding federal office couldn't care less about whether or not this particular bit of health care legislation is passed. After all, many of the common folk that are protesting this proposed legislation likely identify with neither party, while some identify with Republicans and others with Democrats. I'm certain you could find people of all political stripes standing against the health care legislation just as I'm sure you could find people of all political stripes standing for it. I think numerically the majority is against this particular proposed legislation. I believe that perhaps most people have come to realize that such a program would be too costly, would likely bankrupt the nation (as if it isn't already), and that it puts too much control of our personal health care into the hands of bureaucrats. Many people are angry at insurance companies and don't trust them, myself included, and yet they trust the government even less. In fact, I would venture a guess that most people want government completely out of their lives, and so they certainly don't want them nosing around in their personal health care business.

I really don't believe that any of this theater is about health care. It seems to me that it's about control. It's about power. It's about making everyone dependent upon government and so ensnaring them in a trap that makes the common class slavish to the power elite political class. As long as the illusions that politicians care are maintained, than they can manipulate the masses, divert attention away from their previous follies and create conflict amongst different groups that they define. People are beginning to see through their illusions, however. They are catching glimpses of the hidden. The old tricks that were at one time so effective at mesmerizing aren't working as well as they once did. People are beginning to walk away from the shell game the politicians and the power elite are playing. They are spotting the slight of hand. The masses want their independence, their power, and their money back. No illusion, no matter how well thought out, elaborate or expensive, will change that.
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Jan 4 2010, 03:00 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Top
jofortruth
Posted: Jan 18 2010, 04:21 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



HR 45: Blair Holt Gun Bill (Obama's Gun Control pkg. He wants to register your guns)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDUnEm0fQlg

Top
jofortruth
Posted: Jan 18 2010, 04:40 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Senate Bill 6396 in the State of Washington - Assault Weapon Ban Impacts All Firearm Owners - IS YOUR STATE DOING THIS?
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?to...cseen#msg926973
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/...0Bills/6396.pdf

SEE thread on Cass Sunstein and listen to video:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...7892&st=0&#last

(He states that something could change in 2010. The sleepers are already in the Supreme Court and this jerk will be the next to join them this year, if Obama has his pathetic way! And now the States are proposing this nonsense legislation?)


Imo, they are going to try to use the 1939 US v. Miller to justify their gun control saying that it's not a 2nd Amendment Individual Right to Bear Arms and that it is precedent just because this 1939 case exists.

That's like saying just because the Federal Reserve came into existence in 1913, they are GOD and can do as they please (which is what they've done every since the legislation was railroaded through our Congress illegally).

These people are pathetic fraudsters and they are at it again and on many fronts!


angry.gif
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Jan 18 2010, 09:30 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



HR 2324: The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_2324.html

Obama Administration Shuts Down Oldest Gun Show in Central Texas
http://www.infowars.com/obama-administrati...-central-texas/
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Sep 26 2011, 09:39 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



If your Senator's name is not on this list, and doesn't intend to be on this list, THEY ARE A DISGRACE AND NEED TO BE RUN OUT OF THE SENATE! THERE SHOULD BE 100 NAMES ON THIS LIST! NO EXCEPTIONS!

You must call them and remind them they took an oath to defend the Constitution. A REAL AMERICAN SENATOR KNOWS THERE IS ONLY ONE VOTE ON THIS ISSUE, AND THAT IS TO PROTECT THE 2nd AMENDMENT, AND SAY NO TO THE UN.

THE UN HAS NO BUSINESS DICTATING ANYTHING, ESPECIALLY RELATING TO THE US CONSTITUTION WHICH THEY DESPISE (as well as the globalist) AND ARE ATTEMPTING TO ERADICATE!

http://gunowners.org/a071911.htm
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_info...enators_cfm.cfm

QUOTE

So far, the following Senators have joined Sen. Moran in publicly opposing any anti-gun treaty:

Ayotte (NH)
Blunt (MO)
Boozman (AR)
Burr (NC)
Coburn (OK)
Cochran (MS)
Corker (TN)
Cornyn (TX)
Chambliss (GA)
Crapo (ID)
DeMint (SC)
Enzi (WY)
Graham (SC)
Hatch (UT)
Heller (NV)
Hoeven (ND)
Hutchison (TX)
Inhofe (OK)
Isakson (GA)
Johanns (NE)
Kyl (AZ)
Paul (KY)
Roberts (KS)
Rubio (FL)
Sessions (AL)
Shelby (AL)
Thune (SD)
Vitter (LA)
Wicker (MS)

But 30 Senators is not enough.  We need at least 34 to come out publicly in opposition to the ATT – and a few extra as “insurance.” 
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Jul 15 2012, 06:23 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Top
jofortruth
Posted: Jan 5 2013, 10:32 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Senator Dianne Feinstein (Numero uno Gun Grabber) is introducing Legislation to take your guns right now in the new Congress. She has been working on this bill for over a year, which means this is not about Sandy Hook, that is just being used as the justification! You best we reading this bill once its public. For now, here is the summary:
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/ind...assault-weapons
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/ind...72-ac8ca4359119

Senator Feinstein on assault weapons legislation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48DPJYA8et4...R0ff2aOP8THpuEw




MORE ON FEINSTEIN AND HER LONG TIME DESIRE TO GRAB YOUR GUNS:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...?showtopic=6599
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Jan 5 2013, 12:19 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Gun Legis proposed in the House on Jan 3, 2013 - Source: THE HILL - "Ten gun bills on Congress's first day"
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/hous...ay-of-the-house

QUOTE
Members of the 113th Congress introduced 10 bills on Thursday relating to gun violence, most of which came from Democrats seeking new restrictions on gun ownership.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) - H.R. 137 and 138 from McCarthy would require people prohibited from buying firearms to be listed in a national database, and would prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition clips.

McCarthy's H.R. 141 would require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions at gun shows, which would close the so-called gun-show loophole. Her H.R. 142 would require face-to-face purchases of ammunition, the licensing of ammunition dealers, and the reporting of bulk ammo purchases.

Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) and Rush Holt (D-N.J.) each proposed their own bills tightening firearms licensing requirements — H.R. 34 and H.R. 117, respectively. And Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) proposed H.R. 65, which would raise the eligibility age to carry a handgun from 18 to 21.

Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) reintroduced his bill, H.R. 21, to require background checks for all gun sales, and to require gun owners to report when their guns have been stolen. Moran argued in December that while the National Rifle Association objects to these changes, members of the powerful group support them.

Two freshman Republicans introduced contrary bills that would end federal law requiring that areas around schools be designated as "gun free zones." These bills, H.R. 35 from Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) and H.R. 133 from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), are a response to findings that violence in and around schools has increased since the gun free zone law took effect in 1990.

"By disarming qualified citizens and officials in schools we have created a dangerous situation for our children," Stockman said. "In the 22 years before enactment of 'gun free school zones' there were two mass school shootings. In the 22 years since enactment of 'gun free schools' there have been 10 mass school shootings."

"Not only has the bill utterly failed to protect our children, it appears to have placed them in danger," he said.

Companion bills could be introduced on the Senate side, but Senate leaders have reserved January 22 as the first day on which new Senate legislation can be proposed.
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Jan 5 2013, 01:29 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



QUOTE
THE FIRST 8 BILLS WERE INTRODUCED BY ANTI-GUN CONGESSMEN WHO ARE MINDLESS OBAMA FOLLOWERS WHO CAN’T THINK FOR THEMSELVES OR EVEN UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WERE GIVEN A 2ND AMENDMENT (These people are the equivalent of a Dianne Feinstein in the Senate who will be introducing her pre-planned bill in the Senate on Jan 22, 2013 TO TAKE YOUR GUNS INCREMENTALLY:

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY):

H.R.137
Latest Title: To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale.
Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013)  

H.R.138 : To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013)

H.R.141 : To require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at gun shows.
Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013)

H.R.142 : To require face to face purchases of ammunition, to require licensing of ammunition dealers, and to require reporting regarding bulk purchases of ammunition.
Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013)  


Rep Bobby Rush (D-IL):

H.R.34
Latest Title: To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] (introduced 1/3/2013)  


Rep Rush Holt (D-NJ):

H.R.117
Latest Title: To provide for the mandatory licensing and registration of handguns.
Sponsor: Rep Holt, Rush [NJ-12] (introduced 1/3/2013)


Rep Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX):

H.R.65
Latest Title: To prevent children's access to firearms.
Sponsor: Rep Jackson Lee, Sheila [TX-18] (introduced 1/3/2013)


Rep Jim Moran (D-VA):

H.R.21
Latest Title: To provide for greater safety in the use of firearms.
Sponsor: Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] (introduced 1/3/2013)      

PRO-GUN LEGISLATION INTRODUCED BY THINKING AMERICANS WHO VALUE AND UNDERSTAND THE 2ND AMENDMENT. THESE TWO GUYS ARE ABLE TO STILL THINK FOR THEMSELVES BECAUSE THEY ARE NEW CONGRESSMEN:

Rep Steve Stockman (R-TX):

H.R.35
Latest Title: To restore safety to America's schools.
Sponsor: Rep Stockman, Steve [TX-36] (introduced 1/3/2013)


Rep Thomas Massie (R-KY):


H.R.133
Latest Title: To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act.
Sponsor: Rep Massie, Thomas [KY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013)
[/size]
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Jan 6 2013, 11:25 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Top
jofortruth
Posted: Jan 17 2013, 03:33 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



QUOTE
H.R.226

Latest Title: Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act
Sponsor: Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] (introduced 1/14/2013)      Cosponsors (1)

Latest Major Action: 1/14/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

H.R.226 -- Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act (Introduced in House - IH)

HR 226 IH

113th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 226
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against tax for surrendering to authorities certain assault weapons.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 14, 2013

Ms. DELAURO (for herself and Mr. GRIJALVA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means


A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against tax for surrendering to authorities certain assault weapons.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act'.
SEC. 2. ASSAULT WEAPON TURN-IN CREDIT.

(a) In General- Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting before section 26 the following new section:
`SEC. 25E. ASSAULT WEAPON TURN-IN CREDIT.

`(a) Allowance of Credit-
`(1) IN GENERAL- In the case of an individual who surrenders a specified assault weapon to the United States or a State or local government (or political subdivision thereof) as part of a Federal, State, or local public safety program to reduce the number of privately owned weapons, on the election of the taxpayer there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter an amount equal to $2,000.
`(2) YEAR CREDIT ALLOWED- The amount of the credit under paragraph (1) shall be allowed 1/2 for the taxable year during which the assault weapon was so surrendered and 1/2 in the next taxable year.
`(b) Special Rules-
`(1) WEAPON MUST BE LAWFULLY POSSESSED- No credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) with respect to any specified assault weapon not lawfully possessed by the taxpayer at the time the weapon is surrendered.
`(2) SUBSTANTIATION REQUIREMENT- No credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) for the surrender of any specified assault weapon unless the taxpayer substantiates the surrender by a contemporaneous written acknowledgment of the surrender by the Federal, State, or local governmental entity to which the weapon is surrendered.
`(3) DENIAL OF DOUBLE BENEFIT- The taxpayer may elect the application of this section with respect to only 1 weapon, and if such election is made for any taxable year, no deduction shall be allowed under any other provision of this chapter with respect to the surrender or contribution of the specified assault weapon.
`© Assault Weapon- For purposes of this section--
`(1) IN GENERAL- The term `specified assault weapon' means any of the following:
`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:
`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR,
`(ii) AR-10,
`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR,
`(iv) AR70,
`(v) Calico Liberty,
`(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,
`(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC,
`(viii) Hi-Point Carbine,
`(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1,
`(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle,
`(xi) M1 Carbine,
`(xii) Saiga,
`(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800,
`(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine,
`(xv) SLG 95,
`(xvi) SLR 95 or 96,
`(xvii) Steyr AUG,
`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14,
`(xix) Tavor,
`(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando, or
`(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).
`(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:
`(i) Calico M-110,
`(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3,
`(iii) Olympic Arms OA,
`(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10, or
`(v) Uzi.
`© The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:
`(i) Armscor 30 BG,
`(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
`(iii) Striker 12, or
`(iv) Streetsweeper.
`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
`(ii) a threaded barrel,
`(iii) a pistol grip,
`(iv) a forward grip, or
`(v) a barrel shroud.
`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
`(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--
`(i) a second pistol grip,
`(ii) a threaded barrel,
`(iii) a barrel shroud, or
`(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.
`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
`(ii) a pistol grip,
`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine, or
`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.
`(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
`(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).
`(K) A conversion kit.
`(L) A 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. In making the determination, 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.
`(2) RELATED DEFINITIONS-
`(A) BARREL SHROUD- The term `barrel shroud' means a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel, but does not include a slide that encloses the barrel, and does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel.
`(B) CONVERSION KIT- The term `conversion kit' means any part or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into a semiautomatic assault weapon, and any combination of parts from which a semiautomatic assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
`© DETACHABLE MAGAZINE- The term `detachable magazine' means an ammunition feeding device that can readily be inserted into a firearm.
`(D) FIXED MAGAZINE- The term `fixed magazine' means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm.
`(E) FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK- The term `folding or telescoping stock' means a stock that folds, telescopes, or otherwise operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of a firearm.
`(F) FORWARD GRIP- The term `forward grip' means a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.
`(G) PISTOL GRIP- The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.
`(H) THREADED BARREL- The term `threaded barrel' means a feature or characteristic that is designed in such a manner to allow for the attachment of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(a)).
`(d) Termination- This section shall not apply with respect to any weapon surrendered during a taxable year beginning more than 2 years after the date of the enactment of the Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by inserting before the item relating to section 26 the following new item:
`Sec. 25E. Assault weapon turn-in credit.'.
© Effective Date- The amendments made by this Act shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Feb 5 2013, 10:12 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Top
jofortruth
Posted: Mar 2 2013, 11:20 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 33,759
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



So, per the article below, the Democrats strategy is to break their attack on the 2nd Amendment into 4 gun control bills, so that will make it more likely they could incrementally get what they want. This calls for diligence of every person to make sure you focus on ALL OF THESE BILLS, not just the one MAIN BILL S. 150 that snake Feinstein introduced. You can be sure she has sleepers trying to get this attached to other bills by amendment, like she did in 1995, or some other such sneaky tactic! (I'm not sure I have found all of the BIG 4, but this is a start!
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9...130226?irpc=932

QUOTE
The proposed ban on assault weapons makes up one of the four gun-control bills, all of which are likely to be approved by the Democrat-led Judiciary Committee and be considered by the full Senate, congressional aides said Tuesday.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, will decide how to package the measures for a vote on the Senate floor.

By breaking Obama's gun-control agenda into pieces, supporters hope to avoid having a less popular proposal such as the assault weapons ban contribute to the rejection of other proposals, aides said.


IMO, some of the Main Gun Control Bills & House Equivalent as derived from the house.gov website: (I may change my mind on a few of these, because focused on the ones with the most co-sponsors as well as certain individuals you know are behind what is going on EX: Feinstein, Schumer, Lautenberg, McCarthy, etc.)

QUOTE
S.150
Latest Title: Assault Weapons Ban of 2013
Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] (introduced 1/24/2013)      Cosponsors (21)
Related Bills: H.R.437

H.R.437
Latest Title: Assault Weapons Ban of 2013
Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/29/2013) Cosponsors (58)
Related Bills: S.150

S.147
Latest Title: Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act of 2013
Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] (introduced 1/24/2013)      Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.R.21

H.R.21
Latest Title: NRA Members' Gun Safety Act of 2013
Sponsor: Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] (introduced 1/3/2013)      Cosponsors (2)
Related Bills: H.R.137, H.R.720, S.147

S.179
Latest Title: Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2013
Sponsor: Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY] (introduced 1/30/2013)      Cosponsors (1)
Related Bills: H.R.452

H.R.452
Latest Title: Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2013
Sponsor: Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-12] (introduced 2/4/2013)      Cosponsors (32)
Related Bills: S.179

S.33
Latest Title: Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2013
Sponsor: Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] (introduced 1/22/2013)      Cosponsors (19)
Related Bills: H.R.138

H.R.138
Latest Title: Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act
Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013)      Cosponsors (79)
Related Bills: S.33

S.374
Latest Title: A bill to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale.
Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] (introduced 2/25/2013) 

No House equivalent I can find yet!

Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | Legislation Pending & Passed by Congress / and Hearings | Next Newest »
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic Options



Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.6941 seconds | Archive