Genesis CNC
New Member
- Sep 3, 2013
- 29
- 1
Rhode Island Democrat David N. Cicilline introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015 to the U.S. House on Wednesday with the immediate backing of almost a third of sitting lawmakers in the chamber, all Democrats of course.
The measure aims to prohibit the sale, transfer, production, and importation of any new semi-automatic rifles, handguns, and shotguns capable of holding more than a 10-round magazine or with a single “military-style” feature. The goal here is to obviously limit the ability of the average American to defend himself against the government or any terrorist threat, the exact reasons that the founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment.
Uphill Battle for a Gun Ban…This Time
A majority of Americans now oppose banning assault weapons for the first time in more than 20 years of ABC News/Washington Post polls, with the general public expressing a growing doubt that the government can prevent “lone wolf” terrorist attacks and the knowledge that armed citizens can help.
The same poll showed the President has a 45 percent approval rating and a 59 percent disapproval rate for of his handling of the Islamic State terrorist group (ISIS).
The measure has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, but with a 246-188 Republican majority in the body as a whole and election year politics at play, passage is unlikely. But expect this to be thrown in the Republicans faces after the next mass shooting occurs.
However, do not think this is the last time they will try a ban though, between President Obama’s executive actions (which are not laws) and the millions of dollars put into anti-gun propaganda by Michael Bloomberg, you can bet there will be multiple attempts to assault the SecondAmendment before Obama leaves office.
Assault Weapons Bans have no Impact on Crime or Terrorism
The original 1994 assault weapon ban was ineffective and the recent opinion polls found little appetite for a return of such prohibitions. There was no impact to crime rates and most Americans know that regardless of the Presidents statements, gun control will have no effect at all on terrorism.
Under its guidelines, the new measure is more prohibitive than the original ban that expired more than a decade ago. It would add 157 firearms identified by name to that list’s 660 restricted guns.
Not just singling out specific firearms, it would also ban semi-auto handguns and rifles with a detachable magazine and only one “military-style feature” such as a pistol grip, telescoping or folding stock, or bayonet mount. The previous ban allowed a single feature but kicked in at the point of two or more. Likewise, detachable magazines capable of holding 10 or more rounds would be prohibited.
Further, the bill in its current form would prohibit semi-auto rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds as well as semi-auto shotguns of any kind if they had a banned cosmetic feature. Cosmetic features seem to scare Democrats more than actual deaths which is why they allow Obamacare which kills 1,000 people per day through medical mistakes and yet go after rifles which were only responsible for 248 murders in all of 2014.
These people quickly gloss over the fact that California, site of the San Bernardino terrorist act, has the strictest gun laws in the nation, including an assault weapons ban, 10 round magazine limits, a 10-day waiting period and the requirement that ALL gun sales go through a background check, even private party transfers.
None of these laws had any impact on the terrorist who does not respect our laws in the first place. It is shocking to most sane people that our leaders would expect the same laws nationwide to have a different impact on future attackers.
Follow the Money
The San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook had $28k deposited in his account from yet undisclosed sources, this alone blows the “lone wolf” theory out of the water along with the third shooter that witnesses still insist was present at the shooting. Following this money trail will be interesting if the public is actually kept in the loop on this.
ISIS has a money trail to follow and that trail leads to the oil fields they control, remove those fields or their control of those fields and the money will dry up quickly. It will be a lot harder to fund cells worldwide without the four hundred million dollars a year from oil and gas that ISIS makes. It’s incredibly costly to fight a war, try to establish a caliphate, pay foreign fighters and govern its own territory.
Gun control advocates also have a money trail to follow, and that trail leads to the feet of Michael Bloomberg who was recently at the White House to discuss and strategize gun control with the President. I’m sure Obama and Bloomberg discussed where the money should be spent to accomplish the most damage to the Second Amendment, but I have another question about the meeting.
Do the armed Secret Service personnel protecting the President allow Bloomberg’s armed private security near the President? Just always wonder about the protocols on things like that since they are both rich, important people who always have guns close by to protect them as they attempt to disarm the rest of us.
Terrorist Cells Are in the United States
Even if the San Bernardino was actually a “lone wolf” attack; which is highly doubtful considering the bank deposit, multiple middle eastern men seen coming and going from the Farook home prior to the attacks and of course the wife / handler who conveniently had the same views as Syed and was willing to die on American soil for their jihad; there are still many who say these cells have long been in place.
Former CIA officer Bob Baer told CNN that ISIS is already on this side of the Atlantic. “I have been told with no uncertainty there are ISIS sleeper cells in this country,” he said. About 100 Americans are being tracked by the FBI because of their travels to Syria, some possibly to join ISIS. And ISIS is actively recruiting Westerners and European Muslims who could easily enter the US.
Aarafat “Ralph” Succar of Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, home of the city’s largest enclave of Syrian immigrants said, “I believe the terrorists from Syria have been coming into the United States, not only in the past few years, but way before that, I think they’re already at work.”
Succar, a member of the Bay Ridge Community Council, said corruption in his homeland is so rampant that anyone could easily pay bribes and obtain official identification papers bearing a fake name to disguise their real identity.
“You can go to the Syrian government today and say to them, ‘I need a piece of paper that says I’m Tony Caterpillar.’ And they give it to you,” he said. “These are not forged documents. These are written out by a government employee who needs money, whose family has no food.”
Shouldn’t Our Government Vet Newcomers at Least as Well as a Fast Food Restaurant?
As the President continues to allow refugees into the United States with extremely poor background checks (the social media accounts of these people are not even looked at to see if they support ISIS, even fast food businesses check applicants Facebook pages), it is extra comforting to find out that the people coordinating these efforts actually have no idea what they are doing.
Michele Thoren Bond, assistant secretary for the Bureau of Consular Affairs, told the House oversight hearing that was investigating immigrant vetting processes so as to prevent terror attacks, that the US had revoked over 122,000 visas since 2001, including 9,500 over terrorism concerns and that the administration is not sure where thousands of foreigners in the US who had their visas pulled over terror suspicions are currently located.
When the Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) asked Bond to clarify about the present location of those who had their visas pulled, she admitted, “I don’t know.” “You don’t have a clue do you?” said Chaffetz.
This is the same administration that wants to allow tens of thousands and maybe even hundreds of thousands Syrian refugees into the country with the same vetting that allowed Tashfeen Malik to enter the country and go on a killing spree at her husband’s office party.
If this doesn’t make you feel safer than a Benghazi email on Hillary Clinton’s personal server, I don’t know what will.
Bill Kendall
The measure aims to prohibit the sale, transfer, production, and importation of any new semi-automatic rifles, handguns, and shotguns capable of holding more than a 10-round magazine or with a single “military-style” feature. The goal here is to obviously limit the ability of the average American to defend himself against the government or any terrorist threat, the exact reasons that the founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment.
Uphill Battle for a Gun Ban…This Time
A majority of Americans now oppose banning assault weapons for the first time in more than 20 years of ABC News/Washington Post polls, with the general public expressing a growing doubt that the government can prevent “lone wolf” terrorist attacks and the knowledge that armed citizens can help.
The same poll showed the President has a 45 percent approval rating and a 59 percent disapproval rate for of his handling of the Islamic State terrorist group (ISIS).
The measure has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, but with a 246-188 Republican majority in the body as a whole and election year politics at play, passage is unlikely. But expect this to be thrown in the Republicans faces after the next mass shooting occurs.
However, do not think this is the last time they will try a ban though, between President Obama’s executive actions (which are not laws) and the millions of dollars put into anti-gun propaganda by Michael Bloomberg, you can bet there will be multiple attempts to assault the SecondAmendment before Obama leaves office.
Assault Weapons Bans have no Impact on Crime or Terrorism
The original 1994 assault weapon ban was ineffective and the recent opinion polls found little appetite for a return of such prohibitions. There was no impact to crime rates and most Americans know that regardless of the Presidents statements, gun control will have no effect at all on terrorism.
Under its guidelines, the new measure is more prohibitive than the original ban that expired more than a decade ago. It would add 157 firearms identified by name to that list’s 660 restricted guns.
Not just singling out specific firearms, it would also ban semi-auto handguns and rifles with a detachable magazine and only one “military-style feature” such as a pistol grip, telescoping or folding stock, or bayonet mount. The previous ban allowed a single feature but kicked in at the point of two or more. Likewise, detachable magazines capable of holding 10 or more rounds would be prohibited.
Further, the bill in its current form would prohibit semi-auto rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds as well as semi-auto shotguns of any kind if they had a banned cosmetic feature. Cosmetic features seem to scare Democrats more than actual deaths which is why they allow Obamacare which kills 1,000 people per day through medical mistakes and yet go after rifles which were only responsible for 248 murders in all of 2014.
These people quickly gloss over the fact that California, site of the San Bernardino terrorist act, has the strictest gun laws in the nation, including an assault weapons ban, 10 round magazine limits, a 10-day waiting period and the requirement that ALL gun sales go through a background check, even private party transfers.
None of these laws had any impact on the terrorist who does not respect our laws in the first place. It is shocking to most sane people that our leaders would expect the same laws nationwide to have a different impact on future attackers.
Follow the Money
The San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook had $28k deposited in his account from yet undisclosed sources, this alone blows the “lone wolf” theory out of the water along with the third shooter that witnesses still insist was present at the shooting. Following this money trail will be interesting if the public is actually kept in the loop on this.
ISIS has a money trail to follow and that trail leads to the oil fields they control, remove those fields or their control of those fields and the money will dry up quickly. It will be a lot harder to fund cells worldwide without the four hundred million dollars a year from oil and gas that ISIS makes. It’s incredibly costly to fight a war, try to establish a caliphate, pay foreign fighters and govern its own territory.
Gun control advocates also have a money trail to follow, and that trail leads to the feet of Michael Bloomberg who was recently at the White House to discuss and strategize gun control with the President. I’m sure Obama and Bloomberg discussed where the money should be spent to accomplish the most damage to the Second Amendment, but I have another question about the meeting.
Do the armed Secret Service personnel protecting the President allow Bloomberg’s armed private security near the President? Just always wonder about the protocols on things like that since they are both rich, important people who always have guns close by to protect them as they attempt to disarm the rest of us.
Terrorist Cells Are in the United States
Even if the San Bernardino was actually a “lone wolf” attack; which is highly doubtful considering the bank deposit, multiple middle eastern men seen coming and going from the Farook home prior to the attacks and of course the wife / handler who conveniently had the same views as Syed and was willing to die on American soil for their jihad; there are still many who say these cells have long been in place.
Former CIA officer Bob Baer told CNN that ISIS is already on this side of the Atlantic. “I have been told with no uncertainty there are ISIS sleeper cells in this country,” he said. About 100 Americans are being tracked by the FBI because of their travels to Syria, some possibly to join ISIS. And ISIS is actively recruiting Westerners and European Muslims who could easily enter the US.
Aarafat “Ralph” Succar of Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, home of the city’s largest enclave of Syrian immigrants said, “I believe the terrorists from Syria have been coming into the United States, not only in the past few years, but way before that, I think they’re already at work.”
Succar, a member of the Bay Ridge Community Council, said corruption in his homeland is so rampant that anyone could easily pay bribes and obtain official identification papers bearing a fake name to disguise their real identity.
“You can go to the Syrian government today and say to them, ‘I need a piece of paper that says I’m Tony Caterpillar.’ And they give it to you,” he said. “These are not forged documents. These are written out by a government employee who needs money, whose family has no food.”
Shouldn’t Our Government Vet Newcomers at Least as Well as a Fast Food Restaurant?
As the President continues to allow refugees into the United States with extremely poor background checks (the social media accounts of these people are not even looked at to see if they support ISIS, even fast food businesses check applicants Facebook pages), it is extra comforting to find out that the people coordinating these efforts actually have no idea what they are doing.
Michele Thoren Bond, assistant secretary for the Bureau of Consular Affairs, told the House oversight hearing that was investigating immigrant vetting processes so as to prevent terror attacks, that the US had revoked over 122,000 visas since 2001, including 9,500 over terrorism concerns and that the administration is not sure where thousands of foreigners in the US who had their visas pulled over terror suspicions are currently located.
When the Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) asked Bond to clarify about the present location of those who had their visas pulled, she admitted, “I don’t know.” “You don’t have a clue do you?” said Chaffetz.
This is the same administration that wants to allow tens of thousands and maybe even hundreds of thousands Syrian refugees into the country with the same vetting that allowed Tashfeen Malik to enter the country and go on a killing spree at her husband’s office party.
If this doesn’t make you feel safer than a Benghazi email on Hillary Clinton’s personal server, I don’t know what will.
Bill Kendall
.png)
