Posts Tagged ‘gun control 2009’

The Big lie is back…

July 9, 2009

It just never goes away, at least for the hopolophobes. The “ninety percent” lie that is. These people like to make it appear that you can just go down to your local Walmart and load up on grenades, machine guns, and RPG’s.

Mexican Standoff On Second Amendment

By DAN GIFFORD AND MICHAEL I. KRAUSSPosted 07/07/2009 05:41 PM ET

Big lies die slowly.

After a claim by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that 90% of Mexican drug dealers’ military weapons (machine guns, hand grenades and missiles) come from American gun stores was exposed as a lie several months ago, it’s back — this time with the imprimatur of the Government Accountability Office.

A June 21 CBS “60 Minutes” report by Anderson Cooper was clearly coordinated to coincide with release of the GAO report and a similar one by “activist” Josh Sugarmann.

You are likely to soon hear and read that the GAO report commissioned by Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., confirms what Mexico’s attorney general, Eduardo Medina-Mora, told Cooper: “Two thousand two hundred grenades, missile and rocket launchers!”

Cue Cooper as a video of machine guns, hand grenades and other weaponry fill the screen: “It turns out 90% of them are purchased in the U.S.”

That’s not all. You will hear from Sugarmann that Mexican drug dealers are buying FN Herstal Five-seven pistols from licensed U.S. gun merchants because those pistols fire bullets that penetrate protective body armor.

What you are unlikely to hear and read is that all such military weapons are illegal in the U.S., that Mexican criminals are supplied through an international black market and that this black market prominently features weapons the U.S. sold to the Mexican military and that are resold to drug cartels by corrupt Mexican officials.

Neither are you likely to hear or read that the vest-penetrating ammunition made for the FN Herstal Five-seven is available only to military and special police units.

The facts don’t matter. Reinstatement of the federal “assault weapon” ban that lapsed in 2004 matters, and is nothing short of a fetish among powerful supporters who will tell almost any untruth to achieve it.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she would pick the time and place to ram the ban through. The foundation work for her plan includes TV face time for renewal activists, and politicians and law enforcement organizations that will get larger budgets and more power if the ban is reinstated.

Journalists don’t always repeat these lies in bad faith. Often they publish untruths as a combination of journalistic ignorance of firearm features and laws, and anti-gun loathing common to the “metrosexual” class.

Canadian-born Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer admitted as much before the first “assault weapon” ban went into effect in 1994:

“The ‘assault weapons ban’ will have no effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. … Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of (all) weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”

Well, we told you so…

April 3, 2009
Health Plan Threatens to Feed Your Gun-related Data Into a National
Database
--- And charge you $10,000 a year for the privilege

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Thursday, April 2, 2009

In a year when trillion dollar bailouts have become routine, many
Americans have become almost numb to our acceleration towards socialism.

But gun rights activists aren't in that crowd, and so GOA has to inform
you of yet ANOTHER threat to your privacy, the Second Amendment, and
even your wallet.

It is called an "individual mandate" or, alternatively, the
"Massachusetts plan."  And over the weekend, both the 
Washington Post
and the New York Times worked hard to build momentum for it.

First, a little history.

We alerted you a few weeks ago to the gun control provisions in the
stimulus bill that President Obama signed in February.  Our government
will now spend between $12 and $20 BILLION to require the medical
community to retroactively put our most confidential medical records
into a government database -- a database that could easily be used to
deny veterans (and other law-abiding Americans) who have sought
psychiatric treatment for things such as PTSD.

Currently, gun owners can avoid getting caught in this database by
refusing to purchase health insurance or by purchasing insurance with a
carrier that has not signed an agreement with the government to place
your records in a national database.

But that's all about to change.  A budget resolution -- to be voted on
this Friday in the Senate -- will be the first domino in a process that
could FORCE you to buy government-approved insurance, thus making it
impossible to avoid the medical database.

Put another way:  If you do not have health insurance -- or,
potentially, if you do not have the TYPE of health insurance the
government wants you to have -- the government will force you to
purchase what it regards as "acceptable" health insurance.  
And, in most
cases, you will have to pay for it out of your own pocket.

What would all this cost?  Based on comparable insurance currently on
the market, it could cost $10,000 a year -- or more.

If you were jobless, the socialists would probably spot you the ten
grand.  But if you are middle class and can't pay $10,000 because of
your mortgage payments, your small business, or your kids' college
education, you would be fined (over $1,000 a year currently in
Massachusetts).  And, if you couldn't pay the confiscatory fine, you
could ultimately be imprisoned.

Scary, you say.  But why is this a Second Amendment issue?  Under the
Massachusetts plan, your MANDATED insurance carrier has to feed your
medical data into a centralized database -- freely accessible by the
government under federal privacy laws.

So... remember when your pediatrician asked your kid if you have a
firearm in the home?  Or when your dad was given a prescription for
Zoloft because of his Alzheimer's?  Or when your wife mentioned to her
gynecologist that she had regularly smoked marijuana ten years ago?

All of this would be in a centralized database.  And all of it could
potentially be used to vastly expand the "prohibited persons" list
maintained by the FBI in West Virginia.

How serious a threat is this?

If it gets into the budget resolution the Senate will consider on
Friday, it will be almost impossible to strip out later. It will be as
much of a done-deal as the stimulus package was.

We have asked senators to introduce language to prohibit such an
individual mandate for socialized medicine that would violate the
privacy of gun owners. In the absence of such an amendment, we are
asking senators to vote against the budget resolution.

ACTION:  Write your U.S. Senators.  Urge them to vote against the budget
resolution if it does not contain language prohibiting a mandate that
Americans buy government-approved health insurance against their will.

Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the
pre-written e-mail message below.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

A budget resolution that could end up requiring Americans to purchase
expensive health insurance policies against their will is truly
frightening.

And equally alarming is the fact that such mandated health care coverage
could easily become a shill for gun control.

Potentially, anyone who does not have health insurance-- or does not
have the TYPE of health insurance the government wants them to have --
will be forced to purchase "acceptable" health insurance and 
pay for it
out of our own pockets.

Based on the cost of comparable insurance currently on the market, that
could cost $10,000 a year -- or more.

That's bad enough. But far worse, such a "Massachusetts Plan" would
MANDATE that an insurance carrier feed medical data into a centralized
database -- freely accessible by the government under federal privacy
laws.

Hence, a kid's statement to his pediatrician about his parents'
firearms... or a dad's prescription for Zoloft because of his
Alzheimer's... or a wife's statement to her gynecologist about her
regular use of marijuana ten years ago... could all turn up in a federal
database and unconstitutionally expand the list of "prohibited 
persons."
Individuals would have no ability to opt out.

For all of these reasons, if the budget resolution does not contain
language prohibiting an "individual mandate" regarding health 
care, I
would ask that you oppose the budget resolution.

Sincerely,