Feinstein, if she knew anything about guns, would be dangerous. :: 03/17/2013

GUN BAN COVER-UP: If the semi-auto firearm has anything to grip it by, it is banned... by Alan Korwin

January 30, 2013

The lamestream media told you:

[Composite summary: Sen. Diane Feinstein, a long-time crusader for justice and peace, motivated by unspeakable tragedy, has introduced her wonderful brand new bill designed to make children safe and take those awful killing machines off the street to stop crime and make everyone safer. The powerful gun lobby will fight her because they are evil.]

I've just finished reading the 122 pages of Diane Feinstein's latest "gun-control" bill, Senate Bill S.150, and was surprised to find some important things missing. it invalidates her entire list of guns, and I've written ten books on this topic , I know what I'm saying! -- but first, here's what's missing:

1. Criminals.

"malum in se"(legalese for intent to do wrong) or criminal intention. It is all "malum prohibitum"(wrong because we say so), the worst kind of bureaucratic and government abuse -- crime by decree. The critics appear to be right. This is not about gun control, it is purely about control. The bill simply removes the right to own property Americans currently own.

(That's not completely accurate about criminals; there is one small requirement for anyone carrying a "grandfathered semi-auto 'assault' weapon" or having one in 'such close proximity' to yourself that you could retrieve it and use it as if you carried it, if a "prohibited possessor" came near, so that the prohibited individual has no ability to access the weapon, or else keep it protected with 'a secure gun storage or safety device'. Yes, it's complicated. It seems to mean you can machine gun (or otherwise shoot) criminals without being charged with having a gun near bad people. And of course, prohibited possessors are prohibited.) Licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers are exempt.

2. Crazy people.

Please forgive my use of common English -- nothing addresses people who are nuts, borderline nuts, formerly nuts or no longer nuts and still perpetually banned from their rights. The entire problem of psychology -- screamed about in the media and by politicians -- is nowhere to be found in Feinstein's bill, despite claims and mountains of evidence that this is a root cause of the problem.

3. Drugs issued by Big Pharma.

Despite labels that warn psychotropic drugs may cause psychotic episodes, suicidal tendencies, manic behavior, sudden death and various social and psychological disturbances, this is unaddressed in the democrat's proposed solution to mass murder by people hopped up on psychologically prescribed medications. Reports indicate that virtually all the mass murders were "deaths under the influence" (DUI) it is missing in the bill, an omission of Feinsteinian proportions. (The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International has a researched list of perps and their drugs here...

4. Make-believe gun-free zones.

Overwhelming evidence repeatedly and clearly demonstrates that the massacres driving the frenzy toward civil-rights infringement occur in these make-believe gun-free zones, yet no inkling of an effort to reduce or mitigate this problem is addressed in Mrs. Feinstein's proposed hardware solution. "If we don't address the problem, how can we hope for a solution," one expert democrat asked, who requested anonymity to avoid retribution from her fellow party members.

5. Revolvers.

Mrs. Feinstein appears to have completely overlooked normal capacity, fast-shooting revolvers, that can release a powerful volley of dangerous hollowpoint cop-killer bullets. We don't want her to expand her list of course, but her plan is deliberately "allowing" criminals to murder people everywhere using her approved list of guns -- the ones she hasn't banned yet. The ones, like six-guns, cowboys used in every bloody Western you've ever watched. Why would she do such a reckless thing? She could not be reached for comment before press time.

For that matter, why is Mrs. Feinstein and her supporters in the press and elsewhere so intent on arming everyone with ten-shooters (the bill calls for a free market in sales of ten-round magazines)? Why isn't anyone questioning that? That makes no sense at all. If the goal is to protect innocent defenseless little doe-eyed children, which everyone agrees is a really good idea, forcing psychopaths to use ten-shooters is a really bad idea. Steps should be taken to disarm criminals completely. Fortunately, current law covers that completely. This bill does absolutely nothing in that regard.

6. Gun safety.

Nothing in her 122-page bill deals with gun safety. No training, no marksmanship, nothing for teachers, no self-defense awareness, no public education, nothing for schools, everything the president has asked for to increase child safety is missing in her long list of guns she would remove from the hands of the innocent. Even the slightest measure of increased gun safety is missing in her plans. Maybe it's just an oversight and will come in floor negotiations and the inevitable amendments. The chilling suggestion that her bill is just cover so that less extreme bills will seem moderate could not be confirmed as we went to press.

7. Constitutional validity.

Every aspect of this bill appears to be an infringement on the Bill Of Rights, with no legitimate justification. Congress cannot pass infringements by majority vote. That is forbidden, although the word "infringement" itself is universally missing in "news" reports, in case you haven't noticed.

Congress can't just enact whatever they want by majority rule. If they could, we would not have government of limited delegated powers, the hallmark of freedom and The American Way . It must just be a typo, on page two, continuing for 121 pages. If it's not a typo, it is grounds for removal from office for violation of her oath of office. Boy, would that be an embarrassment.

The problem on page 13: All semi-autos are outlawed, not just some.

Here's the problem none of the "news" reports have spotted:

The list of guns doesn't matter.
Magazine size doesn't matter.
If the semi-auto firearm has anything to grip it by, it is banned.
It's very clever actually.

According to the bill, any semiautomatic firearm that uses a magazine -- handgun, rifle or shotgun -- equipped with a "pistol grip," would be banned. That sounds like a limitation, but it is not.

A pistol grip (on page 2) is defined (on page 13) as "a grip, a thumb-hole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." In other words, the gun list does not matter. It is a smokescreen designed to distract people from the true meaning of the bill. And it has done a magnificent job. It worked!

Any semi-automatic firearm that exists, with anything on it you can grip, is banned. (There is a grandfather clause for old stuff.)

The list is meaningless tripe. It is camouflage for the real purpose of the bill. When the president said he is not going to take away your guns, well, Feinstein's bill puts the lie to that.

Magazine size does not matter. Brand name does not matter. It doesn't matter if it's black. If you can grip it, it's banned under this bill.

Have a nice day.

The law (if this passes):

"(36) The term 'semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:"

"(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:"

"(i) A pistol grip."

"(46) The term 'pistol grip' means a grip, a thumb-hole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip."

[The same language is repeated for handguns and shotguns; magazine includes belt fed; also included: "Any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraphs (A) through (K) can be assembled;"]

"(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon."

[All government agencies of every kind, including school officers, are excluded from all of this. In other words, they can have all the firearms you now own that Feinstein's bill would outlaw for you. This means that rights you now have to own property would be stripped from you. That is rights denial, not crime prevention.]

The proper role of government is to protect people's rights. It says so right there in the Declaration of Independence, the document and principles that got this country going and launched individual freedom across the entire surface of the Earth. When government gets to the business of taking away rights we already have -- no matter what justification or reasoning it uses, as Mrs. Feinstein is now doing -- it is doing exactly opposite of what its legitimate role is, and that has a very dangerous and ugly name. As a refresher on basic principles: