jump to navigation

Coming National Gun Ban? – And How States Can Resist October 14, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, error, family, firearms, General Catholic, horror, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society.

Time to stock up?  I must admit, I was totally unaware of HR 4269 prior to reading this article.  I’m not totally surprised to learn this, but I am disconcerted that there is already extant legislation that would make many of my favorite (and the best, in many respects) guns to buy illegal.

Coupled with the fact that several states and federal agencies are also moving to declare high-level body armor illegal, it is obvious the democrats and their Repubnik allies are highly desirous to see the populace more or less disarmed, or at least start down that path.

The law of averages predicts that at some time in the future, perhaps as soon as 2017, the Democratic Party will once again control the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress. When that happens, the next Democratic president — be it Hillary Clinton or someone else — will sign into law a sweeping, foreign-style gun ban.

The legislation has already been written. H.R. 4269 would enact a national, permanent ban on the manufacture and sale of so-called “assault weapons” and all firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The bill, introduced last December, already has149 Democratic co-sponsors (218 are needed to pass the House). [How similar is this to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban?  That, at least, came with a 10 year expiration date, and was thankfully allowed to die]

H.R. 4269 would ban all AR-15 and AK-type rifles and all civilian versions of military rifles produced anywhere in the world within the past 60 years or so. The bill would also ban all parts kits, stripped receivers, “bump-fire” stocks, thumbhole stocks, trigger cranks, so-called “compliant” rifles, and “any… characteristic that can function as a [pistol] grip.” Law enforcement is exempt from the bill’s provisions. [So this is perhaps more comprehensive than the 1994 ban]

H.R. 4269 is not a “kick down the door and confiscate ‘em” bill. Existing rifles and magazines are “grandfathered” (but the transfer of existing magazines is permanently prohibited). Gun banners know that it is literally impossible to perform a door-to-door gun confiscation in a nation of 300 million people, and that any attempt to do so would certainly be met with violence. Consequently, they have pre-empted the “Come and take it” crowd by employing a long-term strategy. Once the manufacture and sale of certain weapons is prohibited, it is only a matter of time before the legislation would be amended to outlaw the transfer of “grandfathered” rifles as well as magazines, thus enacting a de facto confiscation within a generation.

Although banning “assault weapons” is a Democratic proposal and a plank that Hillary Clinton has campaigned upon (she called the National Rifle Association an “enemy” along with Iran) it should not be assumed that all Republicans would oppose it. Republican presidential hopefuls Chris Christie, John Kasich, and Rudy Giuliani have all supported gun control in the past.

The impetus to push such legislation through Congress would likely come from a high-profile shooting or terrorist act that, like the Reichstag fire, would receive extensive media attention and provide the propaganda necessary for gun controllers like Chuck Schumer, the next Democratic Senate Majority Leader, to enact their pre-existing agenda……..[Having said that, dems had control of the House, Senate, and White House from 2008-10 and did not, or were not able, to enact any severe firearms legislation.  But the movement within the party to do so has grown enormously since then, thanks to a media campaign oriented towards stoking fear and near-panic every time a large-scale shooting occurs (unless perpetrated by a muslim or BLM type, then it is swept under the rug to the greatest extent possible)]

…….If banning “assault weapons” has nothing to do with crime or terrorism, why are the Democrats so eagerly in favor of it? The answer is that they have a Hobbesian worldview, in which an all-powerful “Leviathan” government has a complete monopoly on the exercise of power. The Founders recognized that military-quality arms, not sporting arms, are an indispensable tool for challenging government oppression. Contemporary Democrats, who reject the Founders’ teaching, believe that such arms must be banned precisely because they can be used to challenge Leviathan’s authority. [That pretty well sums it up.  I would expand on that by noting that every leftist government that has come to power has invariably banned civilian firearms ownership as one of its first acts.  Once the population is disarmed, the repression and murder can “finally” get started]

If H.R. 4269 or a similar bill becomes law, do not expect the Supreme Court to come to the rescue and strike it down. [If Hillary elected, this is a certainty]

Now, what can states with large populations that still believe in the 2nd Amendment do about this potentiality?  Here’s a fairly novel suggestion:

………pro-gun state legislatures could turn the “militias only” argument against the gun-banners by passing legislation expanding the membership of their state militias to all adult residents of the state, and specifically empowering all adults to purchase military-style semi-automatic rifles and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.

Were such a scenario to occur, the Federal government might try to suppress the arming of the newly-redefined state militias by banning arms and ammunition sales to them through the Interstate Commerce Clause. Such action would precipitate a constitutional crisis between the states and the Federal government.

So what do you think of that solution?  Seems kind of direct and obvious to me, I’m sure the libs would lose their minds and get a court to say a militia requires basically active military service.  And since the “militia” – or Guard – has become totally bound to the active duty military through the total force concept, that would probably provide about all the rationale a court would need.

Stock up on as much as  you can afford now.  If Hillary wins in 3 weeks, prices will surely skyrocket and ammo will become super-scarce.  It’ll be late 2012-3 all over again, but probably a lot worse.



1. NickD - October 14, 2016

Thanks for the reminder. I need a few more boxes of ammo. I need to buy before I’m priced out of the market

2. guy Mcclung - October 15, 2016

My guess is Hillary will never ban assault penises. Registration-perhaps; outright ban-no, or only GOP ones.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: