Connecticut Representative Introduces Bill that attempts to initiate Gun Confiscation

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JANUARY 17, 2013

H.R 226, introduced by Representative Rosa DeLauro was brought to the House last Monday and counts with the support of one of her colleagues. This is the first attempt by a State government to follow up on the steps of the Federal Government to try to limit the possession of lawfully acquired firearms.

The clearly intends to bribe the public into complying with government policy recently presented by Barack Obama, who signed 23 Executive Orders that directly attack the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution contained in the Bill of Rights.

When the Government fears the people, there is peace. But when the people fear the Government, well, the United States happens. The people are no match for domestic or foreign threats once they have been disarmed and the people of the United States are rapidly walking towards that scenario.

Here is the link to the Congressional page where the bill text is hosted. Read the complete bill below.
[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.R. 226 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 226

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against
tax for surrendering to authorities certain assault weapons.

_______________________________________________________________________

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 14, 2013

Ms. DeLauro (for herself and Mr. Grijalva) introduced the following
bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against
tax for surrendering to authorities certain assault weapons.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Support Assault Firearms Elimination
and Reduction for our Streets Act”.

SEC. 2. ASSAULT WEAPON TURN-IN CREDIT.

(a) In General.–Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting before
section 26 the following new section:

“SEC. 25E. ASSAULT WEAPON TURN-IN CREDIT.

“(a) Allowance of Credit.–
“(1) In general.–In the case of an individual who
surrenders a specified assault weapon to the United States or a
State or local government (or political subdivision thereof) as
part of a Federal, State, or local public safety program to
reduce the number of privately owned weapons, on the election
of the taxpayer there shall be allowed as a credit against the
tax imposed by this chapter an amount equal to $2,000.
“(2) Year credit allowed.–The amount of the credit under
paragraph (1) shall be allowed \1/2\ for the taxable year
during which the assault weapon was so surrendered and \1/2\ in
the next taxable year.
“(b) Special Rules.–
“(1) Weapon must be lawfully possessed.–No credit shall
be allowed under subsection (a) with respect to any specified
assault weapon not lawfully possessed by the taxpayer at the
time the weapon is surrendered.
“(2) Substantiation requirement.–No credit shall be
allowed under subsection (a) for the surrender of any specified
assault weapon unless the taxpayer substantiates the surrender
by a contemporaneous written acknowledgment of the surrender by
the Federal, State, or local governmental entity to which the
weapon is surrendered.
“(3) Denial of double benefit.–The taxpayer may elect the
application of this section with respect to only 1 weapon, and
if such election is made for any taxable year, no deduction
shall be allowed under any other provision of this chapter with
respect to the surrender or contribution of the specified
assault weapon.
“(c) Assault Weapon.–For purposes of this section–
“(1) In general.–The term `specified assault weapon’
means any of the following:
“(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates
thereof:
“(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM,
MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93,
VEPR,
“(ii) AR-10,
“(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite
M15, or Olympic Arms PCR,
“(iv) AR70,
“(v) Calico Liberty,
“(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or
Dragunov SVU,
“(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR,
or FNC,
“(viii) Hi-Point Carbine,
“(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1,
“(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle,
“(xi) M1 Carbine,
“(xii) Saiga,
“(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800,
“(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine,
“(xv) SLG 95,
“(xvi) SLR 95 or 96,
“(xvii) Steyr AUG,
“(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14,
“(xix) Tavor,
“(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or
Thompson 1927 Commando, or
“(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil
Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).
“(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates
thereof:
“(i) Calico M-110,
“(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3,
“(iii) Olympic Arms OA,
“(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or
AB-10, or
“(v) Uzi.
“(C) The following shotguns or copies or
duplicates thereof:
“(i) Armscor 30 BG,
“(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
“(iii) Striker 12, or
“(iv) Streetsweeper.
“(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to
accept a detachable magazine, and that has–
“(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
“(ii) a threaded barrel,
“(iii) a pistol grip,
“(iv) a forward grip, or
“(v) a barrel shroud.
“(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a
semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the
capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
“(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached
tubular device designed to accept, and capable of
operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
“(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability
to accept a detachable magazine, and has–
“(i) a second pistol grip,
“(ii) a threaded barrel,
“(iii) a barrel shroud, or
“(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable
magazine at a location outside of the pistol
grip.
“(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine
that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
“(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has–
“(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
“(ii) a pistol grip,
“(iii) the ability to accept a detachable
magazine, or
“(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more
than 5 rounds.
“(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
“(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or
based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a
firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through
(I) or (L).
“(K) A conversion kit.
“(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally
designed for military or law enforcement use, or a
firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is
not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as
determined by the Attorney General. In making the
determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption
that a firearm procured for use by the United States
military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not
particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a
firearm shall not be determined to be particularly
suitable for sporting purposes solely because the
firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.
“(2) Related definitions.–
“(A) Barrel shroud.–The term `barrel shroud’
means a shroud that is attached to, or partially or
completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that
the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat
generated by the barrel, but does not include a slide
that encloses the barrel, and does not include an
extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel
which does not encircle or substantially encircle the
barrel.
“(B) Conversion kit.–The term `conversion kit’
means any part or combination of parts designed and
intended for use in converting a firearm into a
semiautomatic assault weapon, and any combination of
parts from which a semiautomatic assault weapon can be
assembled if the parts are in the possession or under
the control of a person.
“(C) Detachable magazine.–The term `detachable
magazine’ means an ammunition feeding device that can
readily be inserted into a firearm.
“(D) Fixed magazine.–The term `fixed magazine’
means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or
permanently attached to, a firearm.
“(E) Folding or telescoping stock.–The term
`folding or telescoping stock’ means a stock that
folds, telescopes, or otherwise operates to reduce the
length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise
enhances the concealability, of a firearm.
“(F) Forward grip.–The term `forward grip’ means
a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as
a pistol grip.
“(G) Pistol grip.–The term `pistol grip’ means a
grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic
that can function as a grip.
“(H) Threaded barrel.–The term `threaded barrel’
means a feature or characteristic that is designed in
such a manner to allow for the attachment of a firearm
as defined in section 5845(a) of the National Firearms
Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(a)).
“(d) Termination.–This section shall not apply with respect to
any weapon surrendered during a taxable year beginning more than 2
years after the date of the enactment of the Support Assault Firearms
Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act.”.
(b) Clerical Amendment.–The table of sections for subpart A of
part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by inserting before the
item relating to section 26 the following new item:

“Sec. 25E. Assault weapon turn-in credit.”.
(c) Effective Date.–The amendments made by this Act shall apply to
taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.

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.

Advertisement

When Firearms are Confiscated, Innocents are Betrayed

JPFO | DECEMBER 27, 2012

In the history of the 20th Century, there were zero wars between what we would term “democratic” countries. The wars that killed so many millions involved either (1) non-democratic vs. democratic countries, or (2) non-democratic vs. nondemocratic countries.

Governments mass murdered their own citizens, or civilians under their control (as with occupation), in numbers exceeding 170,000,000 in the 20th Century alone. Over 95% of those killed were murdered by nondemocratic governments.

The mass murder of at least 70,000,000 (perhaps many millions more) civilians (men, women and children) by governments in the 20th Century occurred in nations where “gun control” ideas and laws had taken a strong hold.

Three Elements For Human Suffering Hold the above facts in mind, and consider this three-element formula for horrific human suffering:

(1) Evil exists in the world. This concept sounds obvious, but actually there are legions of people, many of them highly-educated and highly-placed, who believe that “bad things happen because there is too much inequality of wealth and not enough education.” Many of these people cannot accept the idea that Evil exists and that people are capable of doing Evil. They prefer the “poverty, disease, and ignorance” explanation
for bad behavior.

If the concept of Evil needs proof, then consider just a few examples of terrible things done by people who are not poor and not ignorant: (a) when government leaders develop written plans to persecute and exterminate a disfavored group, and then carry them out; (b) when a parent methodically goes from room to room strangling or drowning or stabbing several children; (c) when a young adult straps on a bomb and boards a city bus carrying people to work or school, detonates the bomb, and kills dozens of the people
and seriously maims dozens more.

(2) Imbalance of Power Creates Opportunities for Evil. This point should be obvious, too. On the micro level, consider the Carlie Bruscia case. Remember how a security video camera caught the act of the predator contacting Carlie, then grabbing her by the wrist and taking her away. This is just one example, but it makes the point. Carlie was 12. The predator was 35 or so and a strong male. The predator was probably three times a strong as Carlie, plus he had a plan and a motivation. Carlie had much less strength and no plan for defense. It was nearly a sure thing that the predator would win.

Carlie was brutally raped and murdered.

Consider the recent case where Iraqi terrorists shot down in cold blood a whole bus load of women and children. The victims were powerless compared to the terrorists. All it took then was an Evil idea, and the victims being selected. The power advantage of the aggressors made the rest easy.

Now on the macro level. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution worked to ensure that there was no great imbalance of power among the branches of government. In each branch of our Constitutional government there are checks and balances. Where government systems have checks and balances, and where these operate with open discussion and competition for votes, you have the sort of “democratic” society that rarely makes war on another “democratic” society. As Professor Rummel pointed out, unbalanced political power within nations is a major factor in the outbreak of wars between nations.

(3) Betrayal of Trust Multiplies the Results of Evil. This point is much more subtle because most of us do not want to think about it. It’s too painful. On the micro level, consider the doctor or nurse or medic who starts killing the patients. One doctor in Britain was believed to have murdered some 35 patients (he killed himself in jail). A male nurse in the Pacific Northwest also terminated dozens of patients. How could this happen?

Notice: in addition to the Evil idea and the imbalance of power, these victims had put themselves into a position of dependence. The patients submitted themselves willingly to the potential killer. They trusted the doctor or nurse – they willingly gave up their self defense – they created the imbalance of power – and placed their lives at the mercy of the supposed caregiver and protector. When an Evil idea formed in the minds of the caregivers and protectors, then the killing was next.

This terrible result is worse than just murder because it involves the evil of taking advantage of someone who has placed his or her trust in the killer. Many of the Jews who boarded trains bound for death camps in Nazi Germany could not allow themselves to believe that their own countrymen, their own police and army, would betray them so fatally. Children and teens often fail to even try to resist a child molester or kidnapper, because the children cannot grasp that a trusted adult could turn against them.

The Effects of Civilian Disarmament Ideas

Now you have the basic groundwork. Next, consider “gun control” ideas and laws. To the extent that “gun control” causes any results, those results are:

(1) The non-evil, peaceful, law-abiding people will be discouraged from owning, carrying, using, and even learning more about or practicing with firearms. “Gun control” laws act to discourage firearms ownership and use by making it more expensive, embarrassing, difficult, or legally risky to have and use guns.

(2) “Gun control” laws do not decrease the incidence of Evil – not one bit. Gun control laws discourage people, or impose costs on people – but they do not affect evil minds and evil intentions.

(3) “Gun control” laws encourage people to render themselves less powerful. Turn in guns, not own guns, avoid guns, learn little or nothing about guns. “Gun control” laws work only in the direction of causing law-abiding people to reduce their personal defense power.

(4) “Gun control” laws thus make it necessary for people to rely upon their government or private defense providers. For most people, hiring a private body guard or other security service that would come anywhere close to the effectiveness of being personally armed, is too expensive. So most people depend upon their government police and upon dialing Emergency 911.

(5) The more Draconian the “gun control” laws and policies, the more it is likely the civilians are unarmed.

(6) When a government takes power with evil intentions, and extensive “gun control” laws are in place, then you have the set-up for destruction. Most of the people have obeyed the laws and placed their self-defense trust in their governments. The people are relatively we ak. Meanwhile, the aggressors are mostly undeterred by gun control laws. The aggressors would include street criminals, organized crime, and government agencies (e.g. the Nazi SS, the Soviet KGB, various death squads). In fact, the government agencies are usually specifically exempted from the “gun control” laws.

So, there are deliberate programs of persecution by government, as in Nazi Germany or in Soviet Russia / Ukraine or in Cambodia. There are cultures of civilian powerlessness as in China during the Japanese invasion and rape of Nanking in 1937. There is the malign neglect that allows armed parties to raid and attack defenseless people, as in El Salvador and Uganda. In all cases, the imbalance of power, coupled with the people’s helpless dependence upon the same entity that doesn’t mind if they get killed or enslaved, produces the worst human suffering imaginable.

How Can An Armed Society Help?

Now, you may ask: “Yes, but what difference would it make if the people were armed?” The answer is pretty simple: even evil people calculate the costs. Bad guys rob convenience stores and pizza delivery guys whom they know are unarmed. Bad guys do not rob gun stores nor do they burgle police stations, because the criminal’s personal risk of getting caught and killed is too high.1

It is known that Nazi Germany did not invade Switzerland largely because the Nazis did not want to invest a lot of machinery and manpower to subjugate a nation that was civilian-armed to the teeth.2 Similarly, historians tell us that the Imperial Japanese military leaders did not want to invade the United States during World War II because they knew they would encounter fierce resistance from armed citizens.3

Remember that human beings are the ones who carry out orders. People calculate risks. Even though there is a lot of crime and lots of criminals infesting certain parts of Los Angeles, New York and Washington, D.C. (for example), the police will not go to those parts of town without backup. And in some areas, they will not go at all –certainly not at night.

We learn from all of these examples that armed civilians can deter even armed government functionaries.
Likewise, in the Iraq War, the American military chooses to deploy its forces in a manner less likely to result in American casualties. Thus, the American military does not blindly attempt to move into some towns and regions where they know the civilian resisters (“insurgents”) are armed and dangerous.

We therefore learn from modern military history that even powerful armies steer clear of armed and motivated civilian populations. All of these facts and observations suggest the following conclusion:
When a civilian population widely possesses firearms such as rifles, shotguns and handguns, along with ammunition for them, and the population has the training with the weapons along with the ethic of self defense, then the population is very unlikely to be conquered and persecuted either by their own government or by an invading force.

This conclusion means that lives are saved and human suffering is avoided when the population generally undertakes to prepare for its own armed defense. Stated simply: an armed population saves lives.
The data from the 20th Century suggest that millions of non-combatant lives were lost to genocide and persecution, because (a) the afflicted populations were tremendously underpowered compared to the killers, (b) the population relied solely upon their government to protect them, and (c) the government protectors either failed or actively turned against the populations.

Can All Evil Be Prevented?

Is an armed population absolutely safe from all invasion and persecution? No. But we have to consider the incentives of the aggressors. The better question is: will an invader or persecutor be more likely or less likely to attack an armed civilian population? Or, given a choice, would an invader or persecutor more often choose to afflict an armed population or an unarmed population?

It is possible to imagine scenarios where an armed population cannot do anything to protect itself against nuclear attack, for example. Such scenarios suggest only that no defense strategy is perfect, and that Evil can find a way to hurt and kill people. Overall, however, an armed population stands a much better chance of freedom from attack, persecution and slaughter than does an unarmed population.

History shows that Evil forces look for populations to enslave and annihilate. Evil selects those populations where it can operate with the least cost to itself. It is thus both a moral and practical imperative for populations to possess and learn to effectively use firearms for defense of self, family, community, and nation.

We hope this answers your question about the need and effectiveness of widespread private ownership of firearms.

Watch the film Innocents Betrayed below:

Resources

(1) Innocents Betrayed – the video documentary – makes a strong case because it presents the pictures and the flesh and blood reality of how the powerful can so easily destroy the powerless. It shows also how “gun control” laws are instrumental in paving the way for destruction.

(2) Death by Gun Control: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament is our book upon which Innocents Betrayed is based. The book does not talk about the Second Amendment – it talks about the problem of disarmed citizens vs. powerful forces, and it develops further how the rhetoric of “gun control” leads to a deadly physical and moral paralysis.

(3) Death by Government, by Professor R.J. Rummel, takes a different tack from our book. While our book focuses on the civilian disarmament issues, Prof. Rummel looks at the political systems that create the situations that make genocides and mass persecutions possible … even inevitable.

Barack Obama at the head of anti-Second Amendment movement in the United States

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | DECEMBER 18, 2012

Barack Obama has pledged to lead a new national crackdown on firearms, with some prohibitions, greater legal controls and a new approach to personal safety that requires a profound transformation of the dominant culture in the United States. For the first time in decades, the tragedy of Newtown, different from previous ones in several circumstances, is being used to launch a massive attack on the second amendment, which clearly states that every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms and that the government cannot legislate against that constitutional right in any way, shape or form.

The issue of gun ownership is one that is little understood by most Americans. After the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, people all over the United States showed up at police departments to hand in their guns and according to recently taken polls, upwards of 50 percent of the population now believes that the idea of limiting gun rights is a positive thing. Perhaps they have been overwhelmed by the fear instigated by the main stream media, which have used the shooting at the Sandy Hook school to call for massive gun restrictions. People cannot see that if there is one thing that should be understood after the shooting is that the government cannot protect them, and that their protection is their responsibility.

Not only have many congressmen shown opposition to firearm ownership, but a large number of them have been quietly working on legislation to limit them, some of the most loyal supporters of the National Rifle Association (NRA), such as Sen. Joe Machin, a member of the powerful lobby for years, yesterday joined the supporters of imposing tighter controls. “It is time to move beyond the rhetoric, we need to sit down and do something,” he said.

Indeed, it is a new time. The country lives under a shock like never before. Millions of parents that Monday morning left their children at school have yet to experience the dreadful outcome of the crime perpetrated at the Sandy Hook school last Friday. The shooting did not make them understand that it is their responsibility to protect their own children. Children, teachers and families are always talking about it, how something so horrible could happen, what needs to be done so that does not happen again, but they seem unable to rationalize and come up with the right answer.

Obama picked up the popular sentiment in a speech on Sunday night in Newtown, which promised to use “all power” in his hands to carry out significant change. It is very likely that this is the great cause of his second term and certainly an ambitious one, since at least 80 million people in the United States are gun owners. We can expect two outcomes, if the Obama White House really attempts to enact a massive gun ban: The first would result in the mass enslavement of the population, should the majority of those 80 million decide to hand in their weapons. This is all the government wants. The second, if those 80 million stand their ground and refuse to hand the firearms, but the government imposes some kind of gun confiscation policy the country may be on the way to experience another civil war.

A civil war would not be new. In fact, a minority of Americans fought a war against British imperialism to keep their right to own firearms, after the English crown called for the citizens to hand in their guns. The outcome was the defeat of the British and the Americans kept their right to keep and bear arms. If the U.S. government decides to impose a ban on the possession of firearms and law enforcement decides to comply with such task, we are in the works for one of the bloodiest battles in the history of the United States.

The Media and the Propaganda

“We can not accept events like this as routine. Are we willing to accept that we are powerless over a slaughter of this nature? What policy does not allow us to act? Are we willing to say that violence attacking our children year after year is just the price we pay for our freedom,” asked Barack Obama. “No law can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent acts of senseless violence in our society. But that can not be an excuse for doing nothing. ”

“We have to change,” Obama said. The problem for Obama is that for him to weaken or completely eliminate the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms, he will have to fight with half of the country and more precisely with a growing minority that understands now more than ever that owning guns has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with protecting themselves from mentally ill people. Many pro second amendment people are asking what would have happened if the principal of the Sandy Hook school had been a gun owner, or if the teachers had been trained to use guns and had one of their own. Other states and cities around the United States have asked that same question and have voted to give teachers the legal right to own firearms.

Besides the need to defend themselves, pro second amendment Americans will offer firm opposition to Obama, Congress and the main stream corporate media by supporting the concept of freedom as inalienable patrimony of the individual in the U.S., which is  subjected to the constant threat of collectivist state authority. This collectivism is reflected in Obama’s last speech when he called for all Americans to support his gun ban project. “If we want to educate and protect our children, we are going to have to do together,” said the president.

Those words are a challenge to the idea that a child’s safety is the responsibility of the family and not the government. Millions of Americans share the principle that the protection of a child is the sole and exclusive obligation of the parents or close relatives. In that same idea of ​​individual responsibility, which has many positive applications, children are educated and raised to become the best in their communities. Children who are homeschooled, and who are taught real family and social values are more successful as members of a community.

Challenging the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as suggested by Obama will obviously hit a very sensitive fiber; one of the most sensitive at the core of American existence. This country was founded on individual freedom, and this explains why the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. Those who seek to challenge the second amendment say that limits must be imposed for the safety of the collective, clearly missing the core principles upon which their country was founded. Most of these people are domesticated Americans who actually believe that the government knows better how to protect them, even though the federal government has failed time after time, after time. Fear has taken its toll.

Translating political rhetoric into concrete action will not be easy. Any legislative process to impose greater controls on firearm ownership will be costly all around. The forces opposed to the regulation of weapons — the citizenry — will not go away overnight. Even after controlled opposition such as the National Rifle Association and the Republican Party failed to come out in defense of the second amendment, other organization like Gun Owners of America and the average folk himself will not let the latest tragedy run away with his right to hold on to their guns to protect himself and his family.

In the U.S. Congress, it is expected that most Republican congressmen will bend over and allow the fake liberal, progressive movement, to which the U.S. president belong, to impose some kind of limitation to the second amendment. Plans have already been drawn by people like Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein to attack the second amendment.

New gun laws will not fix anything. The problem in the United States is not one of a ‘gun culture’ but one of a mentally ill population, that is drugged up to their eyeballs while suffering the worst crisis of identity in the history of the country. The fake multiculturalism, the racial division, the lack of accountability of both government and corporate American and the hatred campaigns secretly being supported by government grants or tax-exempted NGO’s have devastated the core of the of the greatest nations in history.

Prohibiting or greatly limiting gun ownership will not only not solve the problem of violence in the American society. In fact, it will make it worse. If today gun-free zones such as schools, churches, malls and sporting events are sweet targets mentally ill people to pull out a gun and kill anyone they want, imagine what will happen in the United States if the country as a whole becomes a gun-free zone.

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.

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.