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.

Obama to shield himself with children as he wages war on Second Amendment

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JANUARY 15, 2013

U.S. President Barack Obama will present on Wednesday his list of proposals that will supposedly end gun violence in the United States.

During the announcement Barack Obama will be joined by Vice-president Joe Biden, the man he chose to hold talks with different social groups, before he handed Obama his review of the gun control issue. The U.S. President will shamelessly have by his side a group of children when he announces specific gun control measures which he believes will help end violence in schools, among other places.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney informed the media that Obama will continue to use children as instruments of policy, standing on the bodies of those murdered in the last shootings that occurred in Newtown, Connecticut, Colorado and Oregon.

“They will be joined by children around the country expressing their concerns about gun violence and school safety, along with their parents,” said Carney.

“My understanding is the vice president’s going to provide a range of steps that we can take to reduce gun violence,” Obama said Monday. “Some of them will require legislation, some of them I can accomplish through executive action.

Among Joe Biden’s recommendations are to establishment of universal background checks, psychological test on all current and new gun owners, a prohibition on the same of high-capacity magazines and a ban on semi automatic weapons. Today, it has been revealed that Obama will also propose to do away with large purchases of bullets, although the Federal Government itself has bought over 1.2 billion bullets since 2012.

The U.S. puppet presidency ironically believes that by taking firearms off the hands of those who lawfully own them will help end violence in schools and other public places, while criminals continue to have full access to powerful firearms.

Politicians allied with the Obama administration as well as anti-Second Amendment groups call the proposals a “comprehensive approach”, but have not detailed much else beyond the leaked details about Biden’s recommendations and Obama’s public statements about how he will use his Executive Powers to limit the possession of firearms in the United States.

Neither Obama nor the U.S. Congress can legally impose bans on the Second Amendment or any other existing law. However, Obama has said repeatedly that in situations where Congress does not act, he will do so unilaterally. “The issue is: Are there some sensible steps that we can take to make sure that somebody like the individual in Newtown can’t walk into a school and gun down a bunch of children in a — in a shockingly rapid fashion?” Obama said Monday. “And surely we can do something about that.”

What Obama means with this statement is that a massive ban on the Second Amendment, which would punish lawful gun owners and the rest of the disarmed population, somehow is the solution to restrain criminals, who do not abide by any law.

Several Sheriffs  and Congressmen in the United States have warned Obama that an open attack on the Second Amendment will result in the initiation of impeachment proceedings and the nullification of unconstitutional Executive orders issued by Obama or any other branch of the Federal 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.

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.