Well the truth about gun registration has finally been unveiled. Gun supporters have long claimed that the left wants to ban all guns, and that letting the government know where the guns are is the first step in confiscation of guns.
If we look back in history to terror that the NAZI's brought on Germany and the world we see that they didn't directly go after guns, to start with. In fact in Germany in the late 30's when Hitler came into power he changed the gun laws so that Germany citizens could be self responsible. The laws were changed to loosen the registration and purchase requirements of guns for German citizens. The problem is Jews were not considered citizens. The National Socialists defined citizenship in ethnic terms, and under Hitler Jews were not accorded full rights of citizenship.
As we lead up to WWII The Night of the Broken Glass (Kristallnacht)--the infamous Nazi rampage against Germany's Jews--took place in November 1938. It was preceded by the confiscation of firearms from the Jewish victims. On Nov. 8, the New York Times reported from Berlin, "Berlin Police Head Announces 'Disarming' of Jews," explaining:
The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been "disarmed" with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment.
A few days later as things heated up Himmler issued an order that forbid all Jews to posses any weapon whatever and imposed a 20 year confinement in a concentration camp for every Jew found in possession of a weapon. The Jews had to be disarmed before the Final Solution could begin.
It wasn't hard to figure out who had the weapons. The liberal Weimar Republic passed firearm laws that required police records on gun owners. Other European countries such as Britain, Czechoslovakia, and Poland had similar laws that made identifying those who had arm easy. If they had them at all.
Britain had gun control for about two decades prior to the start of the war. They are now facing attacks on their homeland. Please went out for American sportsmen to send a gun to defend a British home. British citizens now desperately need arms for the defense of their homes. The New York Times was one of the publications that carried the solicitation. Switzerland was the only country in the world that required every man had a military rifle in his home.
What does all this have to do with anything today? The Journal News on Sunday published an interactive map of hundreds of residents in New York's Westchester and Rockland counties that handgun permits. By clicking on any of the dots on the map you could see the names and addresses of the gun owners.
While the paper got the information through FOI requests hundreds of readers posted comments wanting to know why? Why would you publish information about law abiding citizens and not do the same thing for sex offenders. The paper replied with a statement that was, IMHO, truly BS. It replied that with the debate over gun control people wanted to know who in their neighborhood had guns.
Lots of the comments had to do with what the publishing of their names and address did. The comments were that now people know which house to rob and which one to stay away from. Other comments included statements such as you can get into my house easy enough, getting out is the problem.
While the paper may have been within it's legal rights to publish the names and address, that doesn't mean that they should. They accomplished nothing but stirring up crap. Some of their readers claim it's the end of their relationship with the paper. Others decided that turn about is fair play and published the name, address and phone number of the editor and their reporter on the internet. Since I can't verify that information I won't repeat it here but maybe the NRA should do like the OWS bunch did and show up at their house at all hours and demonstrate. Turn about is fair play, right?
Just because things are decades later that doesn't mean that we don't, or won't, elect someone who thinks they are king and want to go down the same path as Germany. Could that person be Senator Diane Feinstein?
According to the Senator on December 17, talking about her new assualt weapon ban, “I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation”. Was she just waiting on something to happen so she would have a reason to introduce it and scare everyone? Never let a crisis go to waste, right?
The Senator makes claims while introducing her bill that just don't add up. Her biggest claim, and failure, is that the DOJ is saying that the 1994 ban reduced the number of murders from assault weapons by 6.7%. That is just a lie. The DOJ said:
“At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995. . . . However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously.”
But again why let the facts get in the way of using a crisis. Then again why not seed the bill with such items that nobody is going to object to just to give you some talking points to make everybody who doesn't agree with you look extreme. While the 1994 bill bans “grenade launcher” not to be out done, even by herself, the new bill now wants to ban the ever so popular “rocket launcher”.
So what does the good Senator want? Her bill requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government. Sound familiar? The National Firearms Act (NFA) imposes a $200 per firearm tax. Requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the BATFE. Have local law enforcement state the weapon doesn't break any local laws. It requires you to inform the BATFE of the address where the weapon will be kept and obtain PERMISSION to transport the firearm across state lines. Does anyone see the bureaucratic nightmare that this will create? How long did we have a Marine in prison, chained to a bed in Mexico, for doing what a border protection agent told him to do?
So how does this lead to a government confiscation of guns? It does. Not all at once. As of yet the BATFE, local law enforcement nor the military will be asked to go get them. The government, under this bill, will require you at some point to just give them over to the government. Yup, read above again. Senator Feinstein's bill will prohibit the transfer of “assault weapons”. Currently you are permitted to sell them and pass them to heirs. Under the new bill they would remain with their current owners until their death, at which point they would be forfeited to the government and destroyed. They are not in a rush to get them just like the lead up to WWII.
Are you likely to get killed by one the weapons that she wants to ban? Not according to the FBI. Feinstein considers an AR-15 and assault weapon. According to the BATFE's own manufacture reports from 1995 – 2011 there were over 2.5 million of these “assault weapons” made. During the same period the murder rate fell by 48% to a 48 year low. According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people were murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles OF ANY TYPE.
Senator Feinstein also is setting a new low in do as I say, not as I do. While the bill names about 1000 weapons to be excluded from the her ban, not one of them is a handgun. As we all know Senator Feinstein has long wanted a ban on handguns. If fact her bill may be in violation of SCOTUS's Heller ruling, not that she cares.
The Senator, through her spokesman, said that the Senator had a CWP but has given it up. The problem is when she though she needed protection she didn't worry about getting a gun and a permit. During a 1995 hearing Feinstein stated: “later the same group (talking about the New World Liberation Front) shot out all the windows of my home and I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself, because that's what I did.” She went on to say: “When I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick, I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out I was going to take them with me.”
It's okay for her, but not me? I sleep in strange parking lots, rest area and on the side of the road all over this country. How am I to protect myself? I'm not so sure that my 3 pound toy size terrier is going to do much damage to people who want what is in the back of my truck and wishes to take it. While my loads vary from the current load of potato chips to last weeks load with a declared value of over $1 million dollars. There are people who steal trucks and kidnap drivers. Should my only defense be my belief that you are stupid enough to stand in front of an 80,000 pound semi? People who hijack semi's are not that stupid. Maybe, just maybe, if someone wants to steal my truck and kidnap me and my co-driver we should have the same rights and Senator Feinstein took to protect herself.
BTW, if the Senator turned in her CWP does that mean that the bodyguards for her multimillion dollar husband and family don't carry guns? She may not have her's, but is there one being carried to protect them?
And it's not just Senator Feinstein. Michael Moore preaches gun confiscation but is reported to have five hired armed guards. Obama has armed guards in school for his children. I think that's a good idea, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander, right? How about Homeland Security. They say they need 2700 mobile tanks. For what? Directing traffic?
Mayor Bloomberg has aggressively pushed to disarm people while employing armed bodyguards at all times. President Obama on ABC's Nightline, before the Sandy Hook shooting, said one of the benefits of his re-election was the ability “to have men with guns around at all times,” to protect his daughters. Excuse me I have 6 of them.
You have to love the hypocrisy of some people.