Connect with us

Democrats

Gun registration is gun confiscation

Published

on

Gun registration is gun confiscation

Liberty has her back up against a wall. There are no more areas of compromise.

A few on both sides of the political aisle ask why the pro-liberty community is unwilling to once again ‘compromise’ with the authoritarians of the socialist-left. The answer is simple, we have no other place to go. Liberty has her back up against a wall, at best any further ‘bipartisan solutions’ are merely stepping stones to confiscation. Not to mention that two tyrannical triumvirate of ‘universal’ background checks, ‘red flag’ gun confiscation SWATing and outright confiscation with ‘assault weapons’ bans are simply the left’s final solution to the liberty problem.

The reasons the left lies about ‘compromise’.

There is a multifaceted reason the leftist liberty grabbers insist on perpetuating the false narrative that they are only out for ‘common sense’ solutions or for gun ‘reform’. It’s not just that they would prefer to lie instead of telling the truth, they have a certain purpose in falsely portraying their motivations.

They, of course, want to sound ‘reasonable’ to the general public; this is also why they insist on perpetuating the ‘no one is coming after your guns’ lie. This was a ridiculous lie several years ago, it is well beyond that stage at this point in time. The liberty grabbers of the left have never and will never ‘compromise.’ Much like their false ‘liberal’ moniker, they merely spout words to fool the public.

The primary reason they use this method of attack on everyone’s inalienable human right of self-preservation is that we of the pro-liberty community are now at the edge of a cliff. Although we have ‘compromised’ repeatedly with the enemies of liberty – to no avail – they are once again demanding a ‘bipartisan solution’ once again. The problem is that we have no where to go from here, we have compromised ourselves up against a wall.

Leftists excel in the art of false pretense and lies, they have become very adept at wording headlines, articles and talking points to forward certain false impressions. In the case of the conservation of liberty with the inalienable human right of self-defense, they love to use certain phrasings and sentence structure to imply that background checks have yet to come into existence such as here: ABC Anchor: If Trump Sides With NRA We Won’t Get ‘Background Checks’ for Guns or here: In call with Trump, Pelosi and Schumer say any gun bill that doesn’t include background checks ‘will not get the job done’ 

A changing story is a prime indicator of a lie, in this case the deliberate omission of the word ‘universal’ when referring to background checks. It could be easily interpreted from that headline that we don’t yet have these, when in fact they have been around for almost 20 years.

Gun registration is gun confiscation: 2019

Dean Weingarten is an outspoken defender of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and an accomplished writer and reporter for AmmoLand Shooting Sports News and his blog. With his permission, we are reprinting his essay in full that he first wrote 19 years ago, in 2000.

His essay outlines the reasons why we are on the edge the edge a cliff, pointing out that two safeguards were built into the Brady bill of 1994. One was that the government was not allowed to keep any records of transactions under this law and that private sales were excluded. This was to prevent the establishment of registration lists that could be used later for gun confiscation.

These safeguards are under attack with the national socialist left’s obsession with ‘universal’ background checks. These are purposefully and unconstitutionally intended to assert government control over private property. Allowing this drastic change to the law – along with all of the other drastic changes – would in essence set up gun registration. As he states in the essay, The final step is to make possession of a gun that is *not* registered illegal.

This is why we cannot move a micron on this issue. This is also why the authoritarians obsess over a step that would do nothing to solve an issue they created. This why they are willing to outright lie about the issue a daily basis: Ted Cruz: Stopping gun violence could help Elizabeth Warren become president.

Gun Registration is Gun Confiscation: 2019

This essay was first written 19 years ago, in 2000. I have expanded, edited, and updated it.

The holy grail of those who wish us disarmed is gun registration. Once your guns are required to be registered, they are, in effect, already confiscated. A little thought will reveal to you why this is so. The Government will know who has legal possession of each firearm. They will know where the firearm is stored. When physical possession of the gun is desired, they can order you to turn it in. This has happened repeatedly. The historical examples include NAZI Germany, Soviet Russia, Red China, and Cambodia. Recent examples include Kosovo, Great Britain, Australia, New York, and California. Not having possession of the firearm registered to you can be grounds for prosecution. If you have reported the gun stolen, and it is found in your possession, you can be charged with obstruction of justice, filing a false report, or perhaps a newly created crime for “gun criminals”.

Once all guns are required to be registered, the only people who will legally possess guns will be those who have registered them, a truism, but necessary to state the case clearly.

If you choose to follow the course of civil disobedience, and not register your firearms, mere possession of an unregistered gun will put you at grave legal risk. Civil disobedience has been the most common course of action in California and Canada, in Maryland and Connecticut, where it has proven impossible to enforce the laws requiring registration.

If you choose this course of action, you would be at the mercy of any informant who discovers you possess a gun illegally. Children are being trained in public schools to inform authorities if there is a gun in the house. Doctors are urged to ask children if there are guns in their home. A warrant was issued in California for a SWAT raid based on the mere picture of people holding unidentified guns which were legal.

Social media is being used to find gun owners. If you are not on the list of those who have registered, you have become a criminal. If you are forced to use the gun for self defense, you will have committed a serious crime. It will become difficult to train your children in firearms safety or to bring friends or relatives into the gun culture. Any use of the now illegal gun will risk exposure, confiscation, arrest and other penalties. With digital recording devices in nearly every pocket, in most businesses and homes, this becomes a serious threat. This essay explains how it could work.

New Zealand passed a ban on whole classes of guns recently. There has been massive non-compliance. The proponents of the ban admit gun registration is necessary to effectively confiscate the banned guns. Those pushing disarmament are now pushing for mandatory gun registration.

The theory to produce gradual disarmament is to slowly destroy the gun culture by administratively reducing the number of people who legally own guns. The people who urge gradual or immediate gun registration are attempting cultural genocide of the gun culture.

The practice, once guns are required to be registered, is to incrementally tighten the requirements of registration to reduce the number of gun owners. When the number is low enough to limit effective political action, the remaining legal guns can be confiscated with little political cost. The purpose is not to reduce the number of guns, precisely. It is to reduce the number of legal gun owners, to make sure all those who have guns are politically reliable. All societies have some gun owners. The political elite can always obtain guns. The political elite in San Francisco consider the National Rifle Association to be a terrorist organization. 32% of Democrats agree with them.

Gun registration has proven ineffective in reducing crime. Those who wish us disarmed often cite European countries’ crime rates. But crime rates in European countries were low before gun registration was implemented. The did not change much, up or down with gun registration. Under registration systems, crime may increase because of the transfer of police resources from crime fighting to administer and police the political requirements of the gun registration scheme, and because of the number of people willing or able to use their firearms for self defense will be reduced. There is no relationship between legal gun ownership, illegal gun ownership, and violent crime.

Self defense is never acknowledged by those who wish us disarmed, because it trumps their arguments for disarming the people. In those groups, it is crimespeak to admit the utility of guns for self defense. The primary purpose of gun registration has always been to reduce the political power of the people rather than reduce the crime rate.

There have been three significant attempts to require gun registration in the United States. The first attempt was during the regime of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR). In the original bill, all handguns were to have been registered, with a $200 ($3,800 in today’s dollars) federal tax. The provision was defeated by the NRA. FDR got the booby prize of requiring registration of a few seldom used or owned firearms and accessories. The people were saddled with the ineffective National Firearms Act of 1934, which registered machine guns, short barreled shotguns and rifles, and silencers.

The second attempt at requiring gun registration started in 1968. Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) tried to pass a bill requiring all handguns to be registered. It was opposed by the NRA, and the registration requirement taken from the bill. As a compromise, Congress required gun dealers to obtain a federal license. Purchasers of guns from federally licensed dealers were required to fill out a form 4473 to take possession. Congress forbid the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms from constructing any national gun registration list from this data.

The third, ongoing, scheme was initiated in 1994. Congress passed the Brady bill, which required handgun purchasers to undergo an instant check or a five day wait to purchase a handgun. While parts of this act were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, a little known part of the bill went into effect in 1998, requiring all purchasers of firearms from licensed dealers to undergo an “instant check” before taking possession.

Two safeguards were built into the bill to insure it would not be used to develop a national registration of firearms. First, the FBI is forbidden to keep any records of instant checks that allow purchase. Second, the instant checks only applied to dealers, not to private sales. Since gun owners could sell their firearm without government permission, no registration list could effectively be developed. Effective gun confiscation was prevented.

Both of these safeguards have been under attack. The FBI refused to immediately destroy the instant check information, although required to do so by law. Their refusal was struck down in court. There is an ongoing campaign to eliminate the other safeguard, private sales. The campaign has been pushed as a requirement for “universal” background checks. Once private parties are forbidden from selling guns without government permission, universal registration comes from making those records permanent. The final step is to make possession of a gun that is *not* registered illegal.

Particularly troubling is the emphasis on guns seldom used in crime, but which are very useful in militias. Groups who promised they only wished to limit handguns, now call for limiting the ownership of semi-automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines.

Many models of guns which are almost never used in crime, are now required to be registered, or illegal for people to own, in some states. Those laws are being challenged in court.

This desire to remove power from the people is reflected in the push to place severe restrictions on the sale of .50 BMG caliber rifles. The authors of the legislation don’t claim these guns are significant in crime.

Only one homicide in the United States appears to have been committed with a .50 caliber rifle, in the case of Adam Wickizer, in Moosic, Pennsylvania. The case likely involved a muzzle loading rifle, not a .50 BMG caliber. The murderer was a convicted felon. Articles about the case do not identify the rifle.

The people who want to ban .50BMG caliber rifles wish to ban them because they have military purposes. One argument, heard frequently by those pushing for gun registration, is to ban “weapons of war”.

The most explicit reason for the Second Amendment is to insure the people retain a large measure of military power, to balance the power of the government. It is stated in the present participle of the Second Amendment, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,”. The people are to have the right to keep and bear arms, in part, so they can form militias. The Republic is in grave danger when congressmen openly state they fear military power in the hands of the people. Gun registration is advocated by people who want the power of government to be unlimited.

The only practical effect of gun registration is gun confiscation, whether it is done individually and piecemeal, as legal requirements to own a gun become more and more difficult, or en mass, when politicians feel the necessity to disarm citizens to further the politicians’ control, consolidate their, power, or prevent insurrection.

Governments that push for gun registration distrust their people, and have earned the people’s distrust.

©2019 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

[Emphasis added]

The bottom line.

Leftists are falling all over themselves trying to one up each other in the destruction of liberty. It’s not a case of pushing to the extremes as a negotiation tactic, all of the demands made by the left are at the extremes. We have compromised over and over on this subject to the point the evisceration of an inalienable human right with the national socialist left demanding even more.

The leftists are trying to entice Trump into a Rose Garden signing ceremony as an historic event. This would be a recreation of the ‘read my lips’ moment that would spell political doom for Trump. Who knows what would precipitate from that event.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

0

Conspiracy Theory

Alexandra Chalupa, the woman nobody (other than Glenn Beck) is talking about in the Russian hoax

Published

on

Alexandra Chalupa Glenn Beck Russia Investigation

Have you heard the name, “Alexandra Chalupa” or the political and communications consulting group she founded, “Chalupa and Associates”? Probably not. Well, if you’ve been paying attention to the news at all for the last three years you’ve probably heard of the DNC, Russia investigation, Clinton Foundation, Ukrainian scandal, and CrowdStrike. All of these are separate organizations or events that are loosely tied together with some being closer to others. But they all share a common thread: Alexandra Chalupa.

Of all the players in the ongoing series of strange circumstances surrounding President Trump’s 2016 election and on through his presidency, Alexandra Chalupa appears to be the one connected to just about all of them. It’s a testament to the weak, biased nature of mainstream media that she hasn’t really made the news at all despite all of these connections.

Where does she fit in? Right in the middle. But nobody has been talking about her for three years other than brief mentions here and there. That all changed this weekend when Glenn Beck and his team tied the strings together to paint the first clear picture of how this lobbyist and progressive activist has been squarely involved in efforts to take down the President since before his big election.

Our investigation into Chalupa starts now, but it’s through the efforts of Glenn Beck and his team that we get a head start on it all. What role has Alexandra Chalupa played in the Russian and Ukrainian scandals? We’ll soon find out.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

Stench of impeachment must stick to Democrats in 2020

Published

on

Stench of impeachment must stick to Democrats in 2020

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has one goal. Contrary to popular belief, it’s not impeachment of the President. She’s supporting it now because she has to for various reasons ranging from a revolting left within her own caucus to acting as a smokescreen to protect Joe Biden and other Democrats (possibly including herself) who have engaged with the previous corrupt government of Ukraine. But it’s not what she wants because she knows it will fail in the end.

Her actual goal is to clear the stink of impeachment off the Democrats before the 2020 election. Yes, it’s going to stink. Thanks to the antics of Adam Schiff and others, it’s already stinking pretty badly and it hasn’t even had very much time to rot in front of American voters. She wants to get in, check off the impeachment box on her list of “accomplishments” as Speaker, and move onto the next component of obstruction that she’ll hope to ride into the 2020 election.

We cannot allow that to happen. This stink must remain firmly attached to the Democrats who support impeachment all the way through to election day next year. They need to wear impeachment like an albatross of shame around the necks, and they must not be allowed to shed it until they’re ousted from office.

This is important. The press is going to help them “move on” after it’s done. But conservatives must keep pressing it. We cannot allow it to fall off the radar as we’ve done so many times in recent elections. Benghazi should have sunk President Obama, but he was let off the hook. The Brett Kavanaugh confirmation debacle should have helped Republicans expand their control of the Senate, but it was old news a month after his confirmation just in time for the 2018 midterm elections. Time and time again, Democrats hand Republicans something that stinks, and Republicans fail to capitalize on it during elections.

If former FBI Director James Comey had let Hillary Clinton off the hook for her email scandal a month earlier than he did, she might have won the 2016 election. That’s how bad Republicans are at capitalizing on Democratic mistakes. Impeachment is such a mistake, a huge one. And if Republicans don’t handle it right, they’ll let it slip into the history books instead of letting it carry them to big gains in the House and Senate.

President Trump will be fine. He’ll capitalize on it without even trying and will use it to win his reelection. Down-ballot races must do the same. Any Republican running against a Democrat who supports impeachment should use that as the anchor that sinks the incumbent into a dark electoral pit. They should hammer this debacle until their opponents’ names are synonymous with “impeachment” among their constituents.

We must help them.

If your representative supports impeachment, make certain everyone you influence knows just how bad that really is. Today, it is allegedly popular with many. But it’s going to end up stinking very badly, and that odor must stick to Democrats like glue.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

Andrew Wilkow: Elizabeth Warren’s lack of real-world experience is why progressives love her

Published

on

Andrew Wilkow Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren is the current frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for president. I’ll admit, I never expected that to be the case until recently. I truly believed she would be in the middle of the pack before bowing out in favor of Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, or one of the other radical progressives who would take on Joe Biden. But I was wrong. She has surged into the lead and at this point, it’s her race to lose.

BlazeTV’s Andrew Wilkow explained her popularity among the progressives, and in doing so showed by I was unable to see her appeal. According to Wilkow, the difference between her and Hillary Clinton is that she’s a member of the elite academia, which progressives love. Her lack of real-world experience isn’t seen as the clear detraction that it should be. Instead, having lived in a theoretical bubble of feel-good progressive policy proposals gives her an advantage in the eyes of hyper-leftists.

In other words, she hasn’t had any real-world experience to burst her bubble, so she’s able to enact hypothetical ideas that are demonstrably bad without reality clouding her judgment. To the far-left, this makes her an ideal candidate.

How in the world is Elizabeth Warren leading in the Democratic polls? Andrew Wilkow breaks it all down for us in this eye-opening analysis for BlazeTV. She’s as detached from reality as her policy proposals, which is why the radicals adore her.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending