Pelosi: We want registration (GUNS)

It's truly amazing....The Dems are lying to our faces each and every day (That wasn't a bow...he was bending down to shake his hand) and yet this stuff gets worse and worse. All of you that voted for these lying scumbags should be the first to go along with them. Congrats on pushing the demise of our country ahead by 20 years.


http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=291

NEWS RELEASE
PELOSI: 'WE WANT REGISTRATION'; HOLDER: 2A WON'T 'STAND IN THE WAY';
SAF: 'GLOVES ARE OFF'
BELLEVUE, WA - Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on April 7
acknowledged that gun registration is on her agenda, days after
Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters in Mexico that the Second
Amendment would not "stand in the way" of administration plans to crack
down on alleged gun trafficking to Mexico.

"These are alarming remarks from Speaker Pelosi and Attorney General
Holder," said Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb. "It
appears that the Obama administration and Capitol Hill anti-gunners
have dropped all pretences about their plans for gun owners' rights,
and it looks like the gloves are coming off."

Pelosi's revelation came during an interview on ABC's Good Morning,
America. While insisting that Congress "never denied" the gun rights of
American Citizens, Pelosi told Roberts, "We want them registered. We
don't want them crossing state linesÂ..." Gottlieb noted that citizens'
rights do not stop at state lines.

"But that doesn't really matter," he observed. "History has shown that
around the world, registration has always led to confiscation."

In Mexico, according to the Wall Street Journal, Holder was asked if
the administration might encounter constitutional issues as it tries to crack down on alleged gun trafficking. His response: "I don't think our
Second Amendment will stand in the way of efforts we have begun and
will expand upon."

"These comments belie administration promises and Democrat rhetoric
that party leaders respect the rights of law-abiding Americans to own
the firearm of their choice," Gottlieb said. "They imposed registration
of semi-autos in Pelosi's California and it led to a ban, but it
certainly didn't disarm criminals, like the convicted felon who killed
four Oakland police officers last month. We know from Holder that the
Obama administration wants to renew the nationwide ban on such
firearms, but that won't prevent crime, either.

"The administration and Congressional anti-gunners have declared war on gun rights," Gottlieb said. "The press seems deliberately blind to the
statements from Pelosi and Holder, who blame our gun rights for their
incompetence in dealing with crime. More than 90 million gun owners
haven't hurt anybody, and they are tired of being treated like
criminals."



These Dogs Don't Hunt: The Democrats' War on Guns

This book is a must read for every gun owner concerned about the
election results.
Buy now at a discount
from http://www.amazon.com

Lock and load.

Go to your local Walmart and gaze at the empty ammo shelves.

I don't have too, my brother has enough supplies to make enough ammunition to arm a small army. He was doing it as a hobby for a long time. It's quite easy to make bullets if you have the equipment and supplies. The two of us used pump out a few thousand rounds of nines in a few hours.

The second amendment refers to militia, and as such, then military style weapons are clearly protected.

I would not say the same for hand guns.

Richard

It also says arms, it makes no other mention to any types of them.

they just want the squirrel's light sabers maybe??

franco b wrote:The second amendment refers to militia, and as such, then military style weapons are clearly protected.

I would not say the same for hand guns.

Richard

That's a serious stretch.

The spirit of the document is clear. Ignore it at your folly.

What is a side arm considered ............................................................A hand gun see that was easy wasn't it.

Bill s.

av8r wrote:In Mexico, according to the Wall Street Journal, Holder was asked if the administration might encounter constitutional issues as it tries to crack down on alleged gun trafficking. His response: "I don't think our Second Amendment will stand in the way of efforts we have begun and will expand upon."

Regardless of how you feel about gun ownership for U.S. citizens, the constitution doesn't authorize you to smuggle weapons out of the country and into Mexico to arm their drug gangs. And that's what Holder is talking about here. To stretch that into an elaborate liberal plot to deny gun ownership in this country, is quite a stretch.

Though I suppose, since the Second Amendment Foundation's rant speaks of gun rights for "Americans", that rightly would include Mexicans, Canadians, Brazilians, Peruvians, and so on -- all citizens of the Americas. Or is that just sloppy rhetoric to match the sloppy thinking?

What proof do you present that it is actually happening? I think it is a stretch to think we are smuggling anything south. And since you cannot buy full auto assualt weapons without a lot of cash and hard to get permits, it seems to be a bigger stretch. Close the border, end of problem.

Kevin

rberq wrote:

av8r wrote:In Mexico, according to the Wall Street Journal, Holder was asked if the administration might encounter constitutional issues as it tries to crack down on alleged gun trafficking. His response: "I don't think our Second Amendment will stand in the way of efforts we have begun and will expand upon."

Regardless of how you feel about gun ownership for U.S. citizens, the constitution doesn't authorize you to smuggle weapons out of the country and into Mexico to arm their drug gangs. And that's what Holder is talking about here. To stretch that into an elaborate liberal plot to deny gun ownership in this country, is quite a stretch.

Though I suppose, since the Second Amendment Foundation's rant speaks of gun rights for "Americans", that rightly would include Mexicans, Canadians, Brazilians, Peruvians, and so on -- all citizens of the Americas. Or is that just sloppy rhetoric to match the sloppy thinking?

Firstly....Someone needs to show proof that guns are being smuggled from the US to Mexico. Why would someone choose to bring guns in through the US to Mexico when there are so many other, much easier paths to that end? Mexico has a coast line, airports, many thousands of acres of barren landscape. Would seem to me the path of least resistance is to bring them in directly, but what do I know?

Secondly, this single action on it's own doesn't really lend a lot of credibility to the thought that the government want's its serfs unarmed, but when added to the collection of other things they have done and said it clearly shows intent. Shut off your bias and use the brain that God gave you. Common sense is slapping you in the face. Ignore it at your folly.

av8r wrote:the government want's its serfs unarmed

You could be right. Let's grant that you are -- that there's a monolithic coordinated desire and plan, within the legislative and executive branches of the federal government and its corporate owners, to disarm all citizens. What is the PURPOSE behind the desire? Is this simply disarmament for its own sake? Or, more likely, is disarmament just phase one of a larger plan? What is the follow-on plan? What is the set of objectives the planners have in mind, which they can't do while we have guns, but will begin to implement once the disarmament is accomplished? What's the middle game and the end game?

rberq wrote:

av8r wrote:In Mexico, according to the Wall Street Journal, Holder was asked if the administration might encounter constitutional issues as it tries to crack down on alleged gun trafficking. His response: "I don't think our Second Amendment will stand in the way of efforts we have begun and will expand upon."

Regardless of how you feel about gun ownership for U.S. citizens, the constitution doesn't authorize you to smuggle weapons out of the country and into Mexico to arm their drug gangs. And that's what Holder is talking about here. To stretch that into an elaborate liberal plot to deny gun ownership in this country, is quite a stretch.

Though I suppose, since the Second Amendment Foundation's rant speaks of gun rights for "Americans", that rightly would include Mexicans, Canadians, Brazilians, Peruvians, and so on -- all citizens of the Americas. Or is that just sloppy rhetoric to match the sloppy thinking?

I love this argument. Show me a Canadian that would respond "America" when asked where he came from. More liberal subversion. Weak.

And I don't care what the 2A Foundation says, the 2A itself says,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And by "people" they mean the people who are under the jurisdiction of the Constitution. Kind of leaves the Peruvians out. Sorry. Please play again.

And I don't much care about Mexicans or where they get their guns from. If France hadn't smuggled guns here, you wouldn't have a country to tear down. Let Mexico take care of Mexico's problems. In the mean time, "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed"

rberq wrote:

av8r wrote:the government want's its serfs unarmed

You could be right. Let's grant that you are -- that there's a monolithic coordinated desire and plan, within the legislative and executive branches of the federal government and its corporate owners, to disarm all citizens. What is the PURPOSE behind the desire? Is this simply disarmament for its own sake? Or, more likely, is disarmament just phase one of a larger plan? What is the follow-on plan? What is the set of objectives the planners have in mind, which they can't do while we have guns, but will begin to implement once the disarmament is accomplished? What's the middle game and the end game?

oh please, what government wants a rival in its people?

It was clear to our forefathers, why not you?