Close X Cookies are necessary for the proper functioning of 24hGold.com. By continuing your navigation on our website, you are accepting the use of cookies.
To learn more about cookies ...
EnglishFrench
Gold & Silver Prices in

US Congress To Move Against Guns: “It Will Ban the Sale, the Transfer and the Possession”

IMG Auteur
Published : December 18th, 2012
364 words - Reading time : 0 - 1 minutes
( 6 votes, 4.3/5 ) , 3 commentaries
Print article
  Article Comments Comment this article Rating All Articles  
0
Send
3
comment
Our Newsletter...
Category : Crisis Watch

 

 

 

 

Amid heated debates about what to do in the aftermath of the Connecticut school shooting which took the lives of 20 children and six adults, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) is prepared to take action on the first day Congress meets after their current break.


Come January 1, 2013, Feinstein will introduce new legislation that would ban assault rifles similar to the bill she championed in California.


“I’m going to introduce in the Senate, and the same bill will be introduced in the House — a bill to ban assault weapons,” Feinstein said on NBC’s Meet the Press.


“It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession, not retroactively, but prospectively.”


“The purpose of this bill is to get… weapons of war off the streets.”




“Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds?” Feinstein wrote on her campaign website.


These weapons are not for hunting deer — they’re for hunting people.”




In November, less than 24 hours after the re-election of President Barack Obama, rumors swirled that Feinstein was looking to bring back an assault rifle ban even more stringent than the one passed in Congress under President Bill Clinton.


Though no specific details about the coming legislation have been released, according to earlier statements from Feinstein and individuals close to the situation, the ban would not only restrict access to certain rifles deemed as “assault rifles” but would eliminate grandfather protections altogether, meaning that ownership of such firearms would be illegal and subject to criminal prosecution.


…sources tell me California Senator and longtime gun-hater Dianne Feinstein’s legal staff held meetings on Friday with FTB/ATF legal staff to discuss a new “Assault Weapons Ban” Madame Feinstein would be looking to push through Congress if President Obama wins reelection.


This same “pretty good intelligence” says the items that would lead to a banwould ban pistol grips and “high-capacity” magazines, eliminate any grandfathering and ban sales of “weapons in possession”.


It should be clear that Congress is now moving for a complete ban on the purchase and possession (even if you currently own them) of any guns deemed ‘assault weapons’ under the new legislation.

 

 



Thanks to Mac Slavo from www.shtfplan.com
<< Previous article
Rate :Average :4.3 (6 votes)
>> Next article
Latest comment posted for this article
A ban on guns is exactly the same as a ban on drugs. It won't work and will simply create a black market. Nutters and Paranoids will be slightly inconvenienced. The SHTF crowd will have more to write about. Read more
S W. - 12/18/2012 at 7:35 PM GMT
Rating :  5  2
Top articles
World PM Newsflow
ALL
GOLD
SILVER
PGM & DIAMONDS
OIL & GAS
OTHER METALS
Comments closed
  All Favorites Best Rated  
A ban on guns is exactly the same as a ban on drugs.
It won't work and will simply create a black market.
Nutters and Paranoids will be slightly inconvenienced.
The SHTF crowd will have more to write about.
Rate :   5  2Rating :   3
EmailPermalink
Feinstein has been in the forefront of banning guns for decades. As Mayor of San Francisco in the late 80s she tried to pass a total gun ban in the city itself and failed -- the proposition being voted down. It had come to light that as Mayor she not only had personal bodyguards (as expected) but carried a handgun as well. The hypocrisy was too much even for San Francisicans.

Now, again, she will attempt to ban the sale, transfer, and ownership of 'assualt weapons.' Her question "why do you need them?" is simply answered by replying that citizens ought to be able to possess what the common governement soldier possess -- if only as a counter to possible dictatorship and infringement on individual rights. That armed resistance against the firepower of a tyrannical government would be futile is not the issue: ask the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto.

With the re-election of Obama by the now majority entittlement voting element of the nation, such gun controls measures may well come to pass -- such voters unwilling to anger the masters who scatter food stamps, EBT cards, and Obama phones thrown their way.

The Supreme Court as protector of the 2nd Amendment -- with Justice Roberts? Forget about it.
Rate :   12  0Rating :   12
EmailPermalink
Jim, your use of inverted commas around the term assault weapons was misused in that they are most certainly just that.

Should American citizens (and foreign residents) be able to call in air strikes just as common soldiers can? Common soldiers also are the ones wielding heavy artillery. A bit much perhaps? Then how about land mines or grenades?

Your reasoning as to why citizens ought to be able to possess the tools of war is more than just a bit fuzzy. In one breath you claim that said ownership would counter possible dictatorship or infringement of individual rights and with the next breath you state that having those weapons would prove futile against a tyrannical government. What you are in effect claiming is that the senseless slaughter of innocents is the price that must be paid in order to stage a futile rebellion against a tyrannical government. Have you forgotten that in America, even with its flawed voting system, the ability to peacefully depose a tyrannical government already exists?

And now for a bit of a history lesson. The inhabitants of the Warsaw ghetto faced not a government that sought to take away some of their individual liberties as is the case in America, but a government intent on their extermination. In that case it was kill or be killed. The Jews could not vote the Nazis out of power. There are many other examples from history that you chose to ignore, most of which are far more pertinent to the issue at hand. Non-violent movements have been successful in toppling corrupt regimes as happened recently in Egypt and Tunisia and bit further back in South Africa.

The real question then for you regarding America is whether you view the government as being more like the Nazis or more like the racist South Africans? If it is the former, then arm yourself to the teeth and prepare to die. If it is the latter, then you do not need assault rifles. What you would then require is the ability to organise enough like-minded people to go out and make your dissatisfaction known peacefully. i should think that in America, that would suffice.

Furthermore, in terms of tactics, i have got to believe that in America, the non-violent approach would have a far greater chance of being successful than would an armed insurrection. If you protest peacefully, you will not be up against the military. (But even if you were, do you really suppose that American soldiers would happily turn their guns on peaceful protesters?) No, you would face the police armed with pepper spray and water cannons. But if you go after the man with your assault weapons, a good part of the public will understand why the government sends in the Green Berets to wipe you out.

Just to clarify another matter for you: not everyone who voted for Obama recieves a government cheque of one type or another just as not everyone who voted for Romney does not recieve a cheque in the mail and the issue of gun control is one which will see many who voted for Obama against any new regulation and many who voted for the charlatan who never saw two sides of an issue that he would not espouse (depending only upon his audience) will favor some new form of gun control. This is an issue which blurs party lines.

As for the Supreme Court and its role in this; it will not have a role to play. Under Clinton there was a ban on assault rifles that could not be successfully challenged through the courts and so should Congress go that route again, there would not seem to be any new ground for a challenge.
Rate :   0  6Rating :   -6
EmailPermalink
Subscribe to 24hGold’s daily market briefing
  • Prices and data of precious metals in 119 currencies and world mining companies
  • Daily analysis of the economy, markets and more
  • Free, daily and indispensable
Stay informed, subscribe now !
* Your email will never be shared.