Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

The above picture is from Gabby Giffords’ Facebook page. She posted it after someone posted a cropped version of the picture taken when she was running for office a few years back and thought she needed to present a tougher image in her Arizona district before an election. Today, she runs a non-profit named Americans for Responsible Solutions which advocates for banning the same types of weapons and accoutrements which she is holding in the picture. In her statement which accompanies the photo she says;

I grew up with guns, and I like owning them. So does my husband Mark. It’s an interest we’ve shared ever since we met. It’s part of my heritage as an Arizonan and it’s my right as an American.

Yeah, well, there are a bunch of Americans who also grew up with guns and like owning them – so why does she think we shouldn’t be able to now?

You might remember that a few days ago, her husband, Mark, was spotted buying the same sort of scary-looking black rifle in Tuscon. He said that he was buying it because he wanted to see how difficult the paperwork was, because he didn’t get a good sense of the paperwork when he’d bought an M1911 semi-automatic handgun a few moments before.

Giffords released the photo because someone else had already done it, not because she wanted full disclosure about her previous activities back when she needed Arizonans’ votes. According to Breitbart, she initially claimed that she didn’t recognize the photo and a spokesperson from AFRS hinted that the photo had been altered.

The Washington Post reports that the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Dianne Feinstein’s Scary Black Rifle Ban on a party-line 10-8 vote. Apparently, Ted Cruz and Feinstein had a heated debate;

Speaking directly to Feinstein, Cruz asked: “Would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing to the Second Amendment, in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment? Namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures, could properly apply only to the following specified individuals, and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the law?”

Visibly angry, Feinstein shot back.

“I’m not a sixth grader,” she said. “I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve been up close and personal with the Constitution. I have great respect for it.”

Here’s a video of the exchange;

Yeah, we can tell. Cruz later said that the debate and the conversation should be based on facts and the Constitution not on emotional knee-jerk reactions. But, he’s opposing the wrong people and in the wrong debate for that to occur. These are the people who want to prohibit grenade launchers on semi-automatic rifles, but would allow them if the grenade launchers were attached to bolt-action rifles. If there were even grenade launchers available in the marketplace.

The big money battle in Washington State played out when gun control proponents couldn’t summon the votes to expand background checks to private sales yesterday. From CBS;

Gun buyers currently must undergo a background check when they purchase a weapon from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Pedersen’s proposal, crafted in conjunction with Republican Rep. Mike Hope, would have extended such reviews to cover private gun transactions.

Hope, a Seattle police officer, had expressed concern that criminals have been bypassing the current system of background checks and acquiring guns through private transactions. He said the proposal won’t stop gun violence but would make it harder for criminals to get weapons.

Yeah, well, you don’t prevent crime by regulating the law abiding public. Criminals are buying guns from each other, so regulating sales between private citizens won’t help much.

Proponents of gun control had recently formed a coalition to lobby on behalf of the background checks plan. Christian Sinderman, a political consultant who aided the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, said it was a stark reminder of how hard it is to get votes on the issue.

Well, when the voting public punishes politicians who needlessly restrict them in their day-to-day lives, it should be hard. How about mandatory sentencing guidelines for people who commit crimes with a gun? How about stricter guidelines for reporting people who have mental problems/criminal history to restrict them from buying guns? But, it’s easier to restrict the law abiding population because they’re ones who obey the law, aren’t they?

Dianne Feinstein is the absolute, living demonstration in support of the concept of term limits for Congress. No pol has been more aggressive than Old Dame Feinstein in seizing on the recent school shooting tragedy in Connecticut to advance her über liberal, gun-grabbing agenda. This old Left Coast tool has recently advanced her silliness to the point of making herself the subject of outright ridicule. Here’s a comment from her ongoing efforts to push through illegal and unconstitutional gun control laws in the Senate:

We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.

Obviously the senator has never spent any time in a duck blind or she would know the logical fallacy of her argument. Unlike home invaders and drug-fueled criminal crazies of every description whom homeowners may need heavy firepower to contend with, ducks usually aren’t armed and even if they should be, the ones I’ve encountered have always restrained their impulses to shoot back. I’d really like to hear from any occupant of a duck blind who’s had to duck incoming rounds from their aerial adversaries. Not to say that there’s not a certain appeal to the thought that armed, aggressive ducks might help to eliminate a whole bunch of city dudes and testosterone-deficient liberal wienies from the sport.

Of course, I’m unfamiliar with California ducks, which if they are as weird as their politicians, may be, and quite possibly are, armed to the very tips of their vicious, yellowed, homicidal beaks. That’s an alarming thought when you consider the reality that those malicious mallards may have brains only slightly larger than their elected representatives.
Quack, quack, boom, boom; they’re coming for you, Diane…

Crossposted at American Thinker

Ex-PH2 sends us a link to an NBC article which states that the National Rifle Association won’t oppose the Chuckie Schumer bill that’s coming out of committee in regards to background checks. here’s a screen shot in case it gets edited later;

Of course, their intention is to convince Republicans to back the bill without having to worry about backlash from voters (also known as NRA memebers);

If that requirement is met and key Republican negotiator Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma signs on, the powerful gun lobby has signaled to lawmakers that they would not actively oppose the bill — and not count votes in favor of it as part of its highly influential NRA lawmaker ratings — according to Senate aides familiar with the stalled negotiations.

The sticking point in negotiations between the parties is that Coburn wants records of the background checks between private buyers and sellers destroyed, but Democrats want the records maintained – a backdoor to registration. Why else would the records need to exist after the background checks cleared the buyer?

Well, the NRA sends us a statement denying that they won’t oppose the legislation;

The story posted on NBCNews.com alleges that NRA will not oppose expanding the background check system to include all private firearm sales, “provided the legislation does not require private gun sellers to maintain records of the checks”. This statement is completely untrue. The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.

Andy told us that he saw an article in regards to Mark Kelly, Gabby Giffords’ husband, who went out to buy a 1911 handgun, and while he was at it, he bought an AR-style rifle. From his Facebook page;

Looks like the judiciary committee will vote on background checks next week. I just had a background check a few days ago when I went to my local gun store to buy a 45. As I was leaving, I noticed a used AR-15. Bought that too. Even to buy an assault weapon, the background check only takes a matter of minutes. I don’t have possession yet but I’ll be turning it over to the Tucson PD when I do. Scary to think of people buying guns like these without a background check at a gun show or the Internet. We really need to close the gun show and private seller loop hole.

Really? Scary to think of an AR being sold at a gunshow? I bought my AR-style rifle at a gun show just last Spring – I had to go through the same background checks I had to go through at gun stores. The year before, I bought a .22 caliber target pistol at the same gun show and went through background checks, too. So what’s your point, there Mark? The gun has been in my safe and I haven’t shot any people who weren’t of the paper target variety.

So, I’m wondering why he bought the 1911? And if he’s going to turn that into the Tuscon police, too. Because the 1911 can accept larger capacity magazines, too, larger than the normal 7-round mags.

John Cornyn introduced an amendment to Feinstein’s scary black weapons ban that would exempt veterans from the ban like it does for law enforcement. Feinstein responded that PTS would preclude the possibility of that;

The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transfer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member or veteran and there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this.

[…]

I think we have to – if you’re going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally, don’t have access to this kind of weapon.

Maybe in Fenstein’s life PTS is new phenomenon, but the rest of us have been aware of it since the Civil War. Of course, Feinstein’s whole problem is that she didn’t think. I’m guessing that it’s new to her because she has never paid attention to events going on around her. And she took the opportunity to blame Bush for this “new phenomenon”.

The whole rest of the planet knows how a gun dealer would verify a veteran’s qualification for the exemption, except Feinstein. There are veterans with PTS in Afghanistan today who suffer from PTS and they’re walking around with their scary black rifles and doing their job. We could mention the fact that soldiers with PTS don’t often use those guns to harm themselves or others. Well, except in the media circus.

As Senator Cornyn points out in the video, veterans with mental problems are already excluded from gun purchases, anyway. But Feinstein doesn’t know that because it doesn’t much interest her that laws are already in effect in that regard, because she’s in too much of a hurry to “do something”. And, oh, by the way, it was the military that trained the police back in the 80s.

Thanks to Andy & Richard for the links.