Fake progressives and liberals wage open war on second amendment in the United States

Others call for murdering gun owners and taking all guns from the hands of the people.

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | DECEMBER 17, 2012

Coinciding with the visit of Barack Obama to Newtown to join the vigil for the 27 victims of the massacre of Sandy Hook, several Democratic Party leaders on Sunday announced an immediate legislative initiative to ban some guns and impose greater controls the sales of others, a proposal that will surely be met with strong resistance at the Capitol, despite the outrage caused by the bloody episode of the Connecticut school.

Although Saturday in his usual radio message, Obama insisted one the needed for “significant action” to prevent an incident like the one that happened last week in Connecticut, no concrete measures announcement was made in Newtown, where his presence was primarily intended to show support for the relatives of those whose children were killed at the Sandy Hook School. A total of 20 children and 6 adults, all of them teachers who died while trying to protect the students.

Senior members of the Democratic party, have now called for significant bans on gun possession, with which they intend to debilitate even more the constitutional rights of the American people, while criminals continue to have full access to all kinds of armaments. Some of the first steps to limit and then ban gun ownership are the imposition of legal limitations on arms sales as well as ammunition sales, a larger and more detailed registration process for gun owners and a ban on people who the government determines to be a danger to society, for example, people who the government has included on no-fly and presidential kill-lists.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, who in 1994 introduced the law to ban assault rifles, said yesterday that on the first day of the next Congress a proposal in the Senate will attempt to prohibit the legal possession of semi automatic weapons as well as those that might be modified to be turned into automatic ones. Meanwhile, the dying US corporate media is also waging an open war on gun owners, calling for the complete disarmament of all people in order to avoid more shootings.

A semi-automatic assault rifle was precisely the weapon used by Adam Lanza, the man who shot 26 people in Sandy Hook, all with several shots to the body. The corporate media is blaming guns, not the people who use them, for the mass shootings that have happened in the United States in the last few months in an attempt to echo the government’s call for banning gun ownership.

Suddenly, the same corporate media forgot that it is precisely the U.S. government the one who shipped thousands of weapons to the drug cartels in Mexico, which caused the death of thousands of people over the last 5 or 6 years. No one in the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal has been held accountable for those deaths, but both the media and the government acted quickly to call for gun bans after the Sandy Hook shooting.

Feinstein’s proposal has been supported by another influential Democratic Senator. New York’s Charles Schumer said that “Maybe this dreadful tragedy helps us to unite to prevent the recurrence of such an atrocity”. Another New Yorker who has expressed his desire to ban gun ownership is New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, who had been waiting for this kind of tragic events to reinforce his policy of disarmament.

A Democratic congressman from the state where the killing occurred, John Larson, along with a group of colleagues in the House of Representatives, are promoting a ban on assault rifles accompanied by other measures, such as requiring background checks on each buyer of weapons anywhere in the country.

On other fronts, the group of mayors against guns, captained by Michael Bloomberg, has mobilized to press Congress and the White House to crack down on gun owners. Bloomberg asked the president to submit a proposal to the Capitol Hill which congressmen can vote on. The mayor of Philadelphia, one of the hardest hit by gun violence, urged immediate action. “We do not need more speeches, we need action,” he said.

But the optimism reigning in the heads of the fake progressives may have just come too soon. With at least 5 percent of Americans fully armed, the disarmament process may be all but easy. A massive campaign to confiscate weapons from the hands of the people, will certainly cause another civil war, because most gun owners will not be subdued without a fight. After the shooting of 2011 in Tucson (Arizona) that seriously injured Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the Department of Justice prepared a series of measures to control firearms, but those proposals were put in the drawer given the massive opposition from conservative congressmen and the American public.

But now that Obama may does not need to be accountable to anyone — because he doesn’t have the possibility to seek reelection — he has been more outspoken about going further on gun control. But still, the obstacles he had a year ago still exist today or have grown. One day before the killing of Newtown, the state of Michigan passed a law allowing guns in schools. Similar actions to strengthen gun ownership have happened all over the country.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), which promotes most of these measures to extend the use of weapons, hasn’t officially issued a statement about the shooting or whether it will support gun bans or gun ownership limitations. Meanwhile, sales of firearms have skyrocketed since Barack Obama was elected back in 2008, and even more after he was reelected last November.  Firearm fairs have been booming with hundreds of people buying guns and ammunition. With every shooting and with every proposal to ban gun ownerships more and more Americans pile up on firearms and ammo to ensure they will be able to defend themselves from average criminals and from the entity that seems to want to keep its monopoly of force intact: their own government.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Dems’ immigration proposal creates national ID card, ‘fingerprints’ database

Raw Story

Democrat: Public more comfortable with idea of national ID cardbiometric ID

Civil liberties groups and even some die-hard supporters of the Democratic Party are raising the alarm over the Democrats’ proposed immigration overhaul, which would see the creation of a national biometric ID card.

“If the biometric national ID card provision of the draft bill becomes law, every worker in America would have to be fingerprinted and a new federal bureaucracy – one that could cost hundreds of billions of dollars – would have to be created to issue cards,” the ACLU said in a statement Thursday, following the release of Senate Democrat’s 28-page proposal (PDF) for comprehensive immigration reform.

“Creating a biometric national ID will not only be astronomically expensive, it will usher government into the very center of our lives. Every worker in America will need a government permission slip in order to work. And all of this will come with a new federal bureaucracy – one that combines the worst elements of the DMV and the TSA,” said Christopher Calabrese, ACLU Legislative Counsel.

As Ezra Klein notes at the Washington Post, no fewer than 10 pages of the proposal are devoted to the “Believe System,” which sets up an ID card for everyone in the work force. “Believe” is an acronym for Biometric Enrollment, Locally-stored Information and Electronic Verification of Employment. The Social Security Administration would be responsible for running the ID card system.

The Democrats’ proposal, whose main backers include Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, makes it clear that the ID cards are intended solely for the purpose of eliminating undocumented immigrants from the work force. It would be illegal for any corporation, level of government or law enforcement officer “to require or even ask an individual cardholder to produce their social security card for any purpose other than electronic verification of employment eligibility and verification of identity for Social Security Administration purposes.”

But that does not satisfy many activist groups, including some pro-Democrat groups supporting immigration reform. An unnamed representative of one such group told The Hill that the ID card proposal sounds “Orwellian.”

The ID card proposal “will give people some pause,” said Angela Kelley, immigration policy chief at the liberal Center for American Progress, as quoted at The Hill.

Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, defended the proposal in the face of early criticism, telling The Hill that he believes the public has become more comfortable with the idea of a national identification card.

“The biometric identification card is a critical element here,” Durbin said. “For a long time it was resisted by many groups, but now we live in a world where we take off our shoes at the airport and pull out our identification. … People understand that in this vulnerable world, we have to be able to present identification.”

Among the other elements of the immigration proposal is an eight-year waiting list for amnesty for undocumented migrants. Provided an undocumented migrant currently in the US pays his or her taxes, does not commit a crime and learns English in an eight-year period, they will be eligible for legal status.

The proposal comes just one day after both President Barack Obama and the top Republican House representative suggested that immigration reform is unlikely to happen this year. There “may not be an appetite” for immigration reform this year, Obama said, while House Minority Leader John Boehner said, “There is not a chance that immigration is going to move through the Congress.”

The proposal is taking heat in many corners of the media that tend to be supportive of Democratic initiatives.

The plan “outdoes Arizona in bigotry,” asserts Anis Shivani at the Huffington Post.

More….