Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Pelosi Resurrects Gun Registration as Part of Dem Agenda

From yesterday's The Hill blog:
Pelosi pledges compromise on assault weapons ban

The ball is in Congress's court to craft a compromise in reinstating regulations on assault weapons, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) acknowledged Tuesday.

During an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," Pelosi said that the Congress will work to find some middle ground between the previous ban, which expired in 2004, and the precedent laid by the Supreme Court in a ruling enumerating more concrete gunowners' rights last term.

"We have to find some level of compromise," Pelosi said, citing 53 victims of gun violence nationwide in less than a month. "And we have to rid the debate of the misconceptions people have about what gun safety means."

"Yes, it is," the Speaker said when asked if the ball is in Congress's court now that Democrats control the White House. "And we are just going to have to work together to come to some resolution."

Pelosi indicated that new regulations might entail registration and prohibitions on transporting some firearms across state lines.
Got that, boys and girls...registration and prohibitions on transporting some firearms across state lines? If the Dems thought a new AWB was going to be a s&%tstorm of epic proportions, wait until they wade into registration and bans on transportation of firearms.

Any doubts now as to what the leaders of the Democratic Party really want to do?  The "compromise" Pelosi is talking about would lay the groundwork for door-to-door confiscations, which has been the end game all along.


Rastus said...

Pelosi and her corp of eunichs are loose again. If you liked how she worked to set up the conversion of the U.S.A. to a socialist state working with BHO in violation of the U.S. Constitution, you're gonna love what comes next. The blue dogs better step up to the's clutch time now.

Anonymous said...

Their goal is to have the same rules as those for full autos applied to new classes(black rifle - 50 cals) of firearms.

Anonymous said...

I have always thought that the "evil brilliance" would be for the gun grabbers to make a whole new class of NFA weapons instead of a formal is so much easier for them to sell to the public...meaningless of course, but this is a potentially workable tactic on their part. The blue dogs had better stop it or be prepared to be ex-congresscritters...

Anonymous said...

The other thing that simply astounds is the outlook by these idiots that we would actually obey these laws, and actually comply.

Back in the 1920s and 30s, a whole bunch of folks all made the conscious decision to violate the Hell out of Prohibition laws, in all sorts of ways, even finding ways to do it for fun and profit.

Getting these laws would cause all sorts of things to happen which the majority of soft, squishy, blue-state urbanites cannot imagine in their wildest, double-tall-mocha-latte-fueled nightmares.

Anonymous said...

Door to door confiscation. I would love to see them try that in say Texas.

Anonymous said...

Why exactly do people need an assault weapon? It isn't for hunting. Maybe we should just all carry guns all the time. That way if there is a shooter we can easily take him out....I mean it may make the cops life more difficult, not knowing who the bad guy is in that situation or cause some friendly fire deaths but hey....we'll have our guns...I just don't get it.

Dan said...

In a word. no.

Bob G. said...

She needs to be bound, gagged and locked in her room!
(and not in the good way, either)

Robert Heinlein once said:
"An ARMED society is a POLITE society".

You don't screw with someone on the street because they might shoot you.
And in the old west, up through Victorian times, that seemed to work rather well.

But with ANY society or ANY law it can fashion, there WILL always be the exception to the rule.

Let's just try to not have AS MANY of those exceptions...shall we?


Gun Shy Tourist said...

Gun Shy Tourist says "Just say no to empty headed gun grabbers and the media that supports their folly". I very recently addressed those same babbling talking heads here:

RKL said...

They don't want to compromise. They just looked at the poll numbers and noticed that Americans are starting to see through the lie that is gun control. So they'll try to sneak some seemingly inconsequential item through, and add more later. We know better.


Roberta X said...

Anonynous write, "Maybe we should just all carry guns all the time."

Outside work, I do. You mean you don't?

csfreestyle said...

"Why exactly do people need an assault weapon? It isn't for hunting."

Googly moogly - the one thing that antigun folks tend to ask (as Anonymous did) is "why do you need that?"

In the spirit of what it means to have/exercise a freedom; that's a bogus question. Freedoms, when exercised, should not/do not require justification. You're confusing "privileges" with "rights."

Anonymous, you have a right to speak freely; while I disagree with your approach, you'll notice I'm not asking you to justify the importance of what you say, as though it were a fickle privilege. You simply have a right to say it.

...more to the point: Anyone with an "assault weapon" should be, in turn, asking you "why shouldn't I be able to own this mechanism?" A recent spree of public shootings, while undeniably tragic, has no causal relation to whether or not I am a responsible, level-headed, law-abiding firearm owner.

Statistically, there are more bad apples in society that drink, drive, and, subsequently, kill than there are active shooters, yet noone is asking you to justify your continued possession of a drivers license.

...I'm also going to put aside the inherent assumption (in your original question) that hunting is the only plausible justification for owning a rifle. I'll leave that for another day.

Anonymous said...

To "Anonymous at 8:11 A. M.: The Bill of Rights and our Constitution ensure that YOU have the right to be UN-armed at all times. It also ensures that you don't have to OWN a gun, or other weapon. You also are guaranteed the right NOT to protect yourself. You also have the right to NOT associate with anyone that does any, or all of the afore mentioned things.
What the Bill of Rights and the Constitution DO NOT guarantee is that you will be protected during any emergency, nor are you protected from any other infringement, if someone chooses to so infringe upon you! You do have legal recourse AFTER THE FACT, but when confronted by evil, you're on your own. If all of this suits you, then exercise your rights.
Remember, an "assault weapon" is defined by the eyes of the definer.
Life Member