Guns X Drugs [makes sense to me]

[messianicdruid]

This guy's argument makes a lot of sense to me:

"I have to admit that this whole Newtown government psychological operation and gun grab issue didn’t make any sense to me until I watched the anti-USA Barry Soetoro speak and was somewhat surprised that he didn’t go for the jugular on gun control. That started me thinking as to why? The only logical answer is that gun bans in the sense that nearly all of us think of them is not the plan at all. No, they want their gun bans but know they can’t have them in the traditional sense.

So, what could be the real true plan to ban guns for most of the USA populace? Believe I’ve figured it out and I don’t believe for a second that “they” aren’t smart enough to have planned it this way. They are way smarter than most of us as they have some of the smartest people in the world working on their team.

How many years ago did they start giving our kids these psychotropic drugs knowing full well that they could be turning them into killers. I’m assuming here that it actually does. If so, they knew full well and started that 20-30 years ago and now magically we have mass killers all doped on the drugs that the government and medical/pharma industry told you what was best for you. But now, the same problem they created in the first place, they magically have an answer to fix the problem. Won’t be to stop the drugs I’m afraid – only to make sure people can’t get guns.

So, perhaps all of the web sites that are posting all of this crap about psych drug links to all of these mass killings should re-think this issue. Could very well be that it’s true with those drugs but it could also be just as true that there’s more to these mass murders than just the drugs. Could our government be smart enough to stage these atrocities already knowing years in advance that the blame will go to these psychotropic drugs and guns – both? Could there be a better situation for the government to be in? I think not. They don’t have to directly control guns, but to indirectly control them using the bought and paid for medical community. They are ingenious and don’t think for a half a second that they aren’t that smart."

the rest of the story: http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/gun-control-made-easy-and-your-enemies-help/36464/#more-36464

and finally:

"So, there you have it. Clearly, Barry and the gun-grabbers have laid their cards on the table and went all in. They were stupid enough to go all in before the flop, but brazen enough to see if you have the cahonies to call their bluff. Are you? You and I have to go all in to beat them.

If you allow the background checks to move forward, this will be on you and I – no one else. Not your fathers, grand-fathers and certainly not your kids – this one is on you and if you aren’t man or woman enough for the job, just shut the up and get the hell out of the way because there are some of out there that understand what is truly at stake."

Max Barnes – Lakeland FL Sent to us by the author.

[messianicdruid]

added to absurdity:

"The mass media is still all atwitter with talk of "closing the gun show loophole" and "universal background checks." These phrases are tossed about without concern to their true intent: a de facto system of gun registration in these United States. I am dead set against any form of registration, since the history of the 20th Century showed countless times that registration leads to eventual confiscation.

There is one other inherent problem with gun registration schemes that is often ignored: that is that it only applies to law-abiding citizens. By virtue of established case law and cemented with an 8-1 Supreme Court decision, criminals are exempt from gun registration because it would violate their Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination. Second Amendment expert Clayton Cramer explains it all in a fine essay titled: The Fifth Amendment, Self-Incrimination, and Gun Registration. Here is an excerpt:


In Haynes v. U.S. (1968), a Miles Edward Haynes appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. His argument was ingenious: since he was a convicted felon at the time he was arrested on the shotgun charge, he could not legally possess a firearm. Haynes further argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun, especially a short-barreled shotgun, was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law. If he did register it, as 26 U.S.C. sec.5841 required, he was incriminating himself; but if he did not register it, the government would punish him for possessing an unregistered firearm -- a violation of 26 U.S.C. sec.5851. Consequently, his Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination ("No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") was being violated -- he would be punished if he registered it, and punished if he did not register it. While the Court acknowledged that there were circumstances where a person might register such a weapon without having violated the prohibition on illegal possession or transfer, both the prosecution and the Court acknowledged such circumstances were "uncommon." The Court concluded:


"We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851."

If you ever get into an argument with a neighbor or co-worker about any gun registration stupidity, then I recommend that you either send them the link to Cramer's essay, or hand them a printout of it. End of argument! - J.W.R."

http://www.survivalblog.com/2013/02/one-absurdity-of-gun-registration-criminals-are-exempt.html

[Twisted Titan]

If you allow the background checks to move forward, this will be on you and I – no one else. Not your fathers, grand-fathers and certainly not your kids – this one is on you and if you aren’t man or woman enough for the job, just shut the up and get the hell out of the way because there are some of out there that understand what is truly at stake."



You cant stop Background Checks from being rammed down your throat if that is what they have plannned.

All you can do is not comply with them and to make it your buiness not to willfully give them up.

[woodman]

If they are able to push through background checks, it will signal the end game. All they have to do in the future is change the criteria for ownership, i.e. what the checks are checking for. Ever get a ticket for reckless driving? Sorry , no guns for you. Been accused of domestic assualt? No guns for you. Ever been depressed, no guns for you.

[mick silver]

more need to read this ... so back up

[midnight rambler]

added to absurdity:

"The mass media is still all atwitter with talk of "closing the gun show loophole" and "universal background checks." These phrases are tossed about without concern to their true intent: a de facto system of gun registration in these United States. I am dead set against any form of registration, since the history of the 20th Century showed countless times that registration leads to eventual confiscation.

There is one other inherent problem with gun registration schemes that is often ignored: that is that it only applies to law-abiding citizens. By virtue of established case law and cemented with an 8-1 Supreme Court decision, criminals are exempt from gun registration because it would violate their Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination. Second Amendment expert Clayton Cramer explains it all in a fine essay titled: The Fifth Amendment, Self-Incrimination, and Gun Registration. Here is an excerpt:


In Haynes v. U.S. (1968), a Miles Edward Haynes appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. His argument was ingenious: since he was a convicted felon at the time he was arrested on the shotgun charge, he could not legally possess a firearm. Haynes further argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun, especially a short-barreled shotgun, was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law. If he did register it, as 26 U.S.C. sec.5841 required, he was incriminating himself; but if he did not register it, the government would punish him for possessing an unregistered firearm -- a violation of 26 U.S.C. sec.5851. Consequently, his Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination ("No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") was being violated -- he would be punished if he registered it, and punished if he did not register it. While the Court acknowledged that there were circumstances where a person might register such a weapon without having violated the prohibition on illegal possession or transfer, both the prosecution and the Court acknowledged such circumstances were "uncommon." The Court concluded:


"We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851."

If you ever get into an argument with a neighbor or co-worker about any gun registration stupidity, then I recommend that you either send them the link to Cramer's essay, or hand them a printout of it. End of argument! - J.W.R."

http://www.survivalblog.com/2013/02/one-absurdity-of-gun-registration-criminals-are-exempt.html

Wouldn't the same legal standard apply to ANYONE who manufactured an arm (supposedly) regulated by the NFA?? ???