Thursday, December 27, 2012

Feinstein unveils sweeping gun-control agenda

Democrat legislation includes ban on scores of firearms, database of owners

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., plans to introduce sweeping gun-control legislation at the beginning of the congressional session in January.

“It [the bill] will ban the sale, the transfer, the transportation and the possession” of certain weapons, the California senator said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Not retroactively, but prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets.”

The senator describes the proposal as a version of the assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004.

Feinstein’s legislation ban scores of firearms, including military-style “assault” weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices. It also calls for the creation of a federal register that would require millions of gun owners to be fingerprinted and photographed.

Keep your gun rights: Sign new petition

The following is a summary of the legislation posted on Feinstein’s official senatorial website:
Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
  • 120 specifically-named firearms
  • Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
  • Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
  • Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
  • Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
  • Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
  • Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
  • Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
  • Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
  • Background check of owner and any transferee;
  • Type and serial number of the firearm;
  • Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
  • Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

Making as mockery of our legal system for this piece of garbage...

"This ridiculous haggling over [Fort Hood jihad mass murderer's] beard is part of the general policy of the U.S. government not to offend Muslims"

HasanBeard.jpgFrom Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

More on the latest manifestation of the dhimmitude that has overtaken the military at the highest levels. "Why Fort Hood shooter still awaits trial 3 years later," by Jack Minor for WorldNetDaily, December 25:
A new judge in the case of Nidal Hasan, who’s accused of screaming “Allahu Akbar” and gunning down fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, has decided to ignore an Army regulation. 
Col. Tara Anderson, replacing Col. Gregory Gross as judge, said that although the Army requires Hasan to be clean-shaven, she would not challenge Hasan’s decision to disobey the regulation.
“I’m not going to hold that against you,” Anderson told Hasan.
The beard is just one of many instances in the case in which the military has relinquished authority.
Hasan, a major and Army psychiatrist at Fort Hood, is accused of walking into the Soldier Readiness Center of the base Nov. 5, 2009, and opening fire on his fellow soldiers. Thirteen died and nearly 30 more were injured.
The attack stopped after Hasan himself was shot and paralyzed.
A survivor reported Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar,” or “Allah is greatest,” a phrase commonly uttered by jihadists prior to carrying out an attack. The Fort Hood attack was the worst shooting on an American military base.
Hasan had been on federal officials’ radar screen for at least six months prior to the shooting over postings he made on the Internet. He likened a suicide bomber who kills women and children to a soldier who throws himself on a grenade to give his life in a “noble cause.”
Intelligence officials also intercepted at least 18 emails between Hasan and the radical American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Hasan told al-Awlaki in one of the emails, “I can’t wait to join you” in paradise. He also asked al-Awlaki whether it was appropriate to kill innocents in a suicide attack, when jihad was acceptable and how to transfer funds without attracting government notice....
In July, the wrinkle over Hasan’s beard developed. During his time in the Army he was clean shaven. However, now that he was in jail for allegedly killing his fellow soldiers, Hasan claimed he has the right to wear a beard, in direct contradiction of Army regulations which require a soldier to be clean shaven unless there is a medical reason.
Hasan told Gross, the judge then hearing the case: “Your honor, in the name of almighty Allah, I am a Muslim. I believe that my religion requires me to wear a beard.”
Gross ruled that despite his claim, Hasan did not have a religious right to wear a beard and must shave it off. However, he would not enforce his ruling until after Hasan had exhausted all of his appeals.
Earlier this month, an Army appeals court took the unusual step of removing Gross from the case. The U.S Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces announced in its ruling it was removing Gross because he showed an appearance of bias in his treatment of Hasan.
However, the court refused to rule on the merits of Hasan’s claim, stating that if the new judge found it to be an issue, Hasan could start the appeals process all over again, which could delay the trial for months, or even years.
“Should the next military judge find it necessary to address (Hasan’s) beard, such issues should be addressed and litigated anew,” the judges wrote in their ruling.
On Dec. 18, Osborn once again affirmed that Hasan was violating Army regulations by sporting his beard. However, she has also indicated Hasan will not be facing any consequences for violating military regulations.
At the hearing, Osborn asked Hasan if he understood that by wearing the beard he was in violation of Army grooming standards. Hasan responded, “Yes.”
“I’m not going to hold that against you, but some people on the panel may have issues,” she said....
“If he were not a Muslim and murdered 13 people in cold blood he would long since have been tried and convicted by now,” said Robert Spencer, founder of Jihad Watch. “This ridiculous haggling over his beard is part of the general policy of the United States government not to offend Muslims and accommodate them in every way possible.”
Spencer went on to say the Army’s deference to Hasan on the beard issue is particularly appalling because it was his own piety that led him to kill his fellow soldiers.
“This accommodation is particularly unconscionable because Hasan said he has to have the beard because of his Muslim faith. But he also by his own account murdered 13 people because of his Muslim faith,” Spencer noted. “Because of this why should we be giving him any accommodation because of his faith? This would be like making sure a Nazi guard at a concentration camp in prison was later supplied with a copy of Mein Kampf along with a swastika emblem.”
Some have questioned why Hasan had no problems being clean shaven before the shooting and why it only became an issue recently. Spencer explained the reason is Hasan wants to make himself a martyr in the eyes of the Muslim world.
“The martyr goes into paradise in the condition in which they die. A beard is a sign of a Muslim’s piety, and if he doesn’t have it, it is a serious mark against him,” Spencer explained. “He will consider himself to be an Islamic martyr if he is executed for his crimes or even if he dies in prison for his crimes. This is why he has attempted to plead guilty on several occasions.”
Under military law, an individual is not allowed to plead guilty in any case involving the death penalty.
The American court system has increasingly been granting deference to Muslims during legal proceedings....
While rising in the presence of judges has been a centuries-old tradition, an appeals court laid aside the tradition in deference to a Muslim woman charged with funding a Somali terrorist organization.
Amina Farah Ali refused to rise during multiple court appearances despite being warned by Minnesota Judge Michael Davis that she was required to do so. Ali said that because Muhammed told his followers they did not need to stand in his presence, she did not need to honor the judge by standing. Davis subsequently issued her contempt citations.
But an appeals court overturned the citations, stating that requiring Ali to rise in the presence of the judge “substantially burdens the free exercise of religion” for her.
Spencer says the appeals court ruling is actually a ruling against the authority of judges over Muslims in the American legal system.
“Muslims such as Ali don’t stand for the judge because they don’t accept the validity of American law. By allowing it, the court is undercutting its own authority and giving credibility to the proposition that they really don’t have jurisdiction in the very case they are trying.”

2012: When Dreams Died

By: Victor Davis Hanson / Townhall Daily Columnist
 2012: When Dreams Died
The year 2012 saw the triumph of cold reality over pie-in-the-sky dreams.

Barack Obama in 2008 won an election on an upbeat message of change in the hope that the first black president would mark a redemptive moment in American history. Four years later, the fantasies are gone. In continuing dismal economic times, Obama ran for re-election neither on his first-term achievements -- Obamacare, bailouts, financial stimuli and Keynesian mega-deficits -- nor on more utopian promises.

Instead, Obama's campaign systematically reduced his rival, Wall Street financier Mitt Romney, to a conniving, felonious financial pirate who did dastardly things, from letting the uninsured die to putting his pet dog Seamus in a cage on top of the family car.

Obama once had mused that he wished to be the mirror image of Ronald Reagan -- successfully coaxing America to the left as the folksy Reagan had to the right. Instead, 2012 taught us that a calculating Obama is more a canny Richard Nixon, who likewise used any means necessary to be re-elected on the premise that his rival would be even worse. But we know what eventually happened to the triumphant, pre-Watergate Nixon after November 1972; what will be the second-term wages of Obama's winning ugly?

The so-called fiscal cliff offers more examples of 2012 dreams giving way to reality. Obama will probably get his long-promised taxes on the rich. But so what? There are not enough caricatured "millionaires and billionaires" even to make a dent in his administration's fifth consecutive $1 trillion-plus deficit.

Instead, all that is left for Obama is to go over the cliff or wait for Republicans to counter-propose the necessary cuts in entitlements so that he can both reluctantly accept these budget-saving measures and demonize those who so threaten "the most vulnerable." What will stop the massive borrowing is not the myth of bipartisan cooperation, but the reality of returning high interest rates that will make the current splurging simply unsustainable.

What did we learn from the killings of Americans in Benghazi? So far, the fantasy of jailing a single Coptic filmmaker for posting an anti-Islamic video has trumped the reality of holding the administration accountable for allowing lax security and offering only feeble responses to a massacre prompted by a pre-planned, al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist attack on a U.S. diplomatic post.

As the year ended, a deranged 20-year-old killer in Newtown, Conn., shot down 26 children and adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. The nation decried the killer's access to his murdered mother's semi-automatic arsenal to achieve his gruesome toll.

But banning the sale of assault weapons will probably not stop another Newtown massacre any more than an earlier ban prevented the Columbine shootings -- unless the federal government is prepared to enter American homes and confiscate millions of previously purchased semi-automatic and assault weapons. Steps toward a far more realistic solution -- jawbone Hollywood to quit romanticizing gratuitous cruelty and violence; censor sick, macabre video games; restrict some freedoms of the mentally ill; and put armed security guards into the schools -- are as much an anathema to civil libertarians as the banning of some guns is a panacea. So we pontificate while waiting for the next massacre.

In February, the European Union grandly announced a second -- and last -- 130 billion-euro bailout of Greece and an apparent solution to the southern European debt crisis. But the year ended with Greece never poorer and never more indebted. The proper solution was never band-aiding Greece with some German euros, but rather asking why under the EU system had Greece -- and other Mediterranean EU members -- been allowed to become so indebted for so long in the first place.

On June 30, supposed reformist Mohamed Morsi was sworn in as president of a new democratic Egypt amid grand talk of the Arab Spring. But in November, Morsi, as a good Islamist, hounded out of office his secular rivals in the judiciary and suspended the rule of law. And days ago, by popular vote, Morsi oversaw the implementation of the Muslim Brotherhood's version of Sharia Law as the basis of the new Egyptian constitution. Given the chaos of Libya and Syria, and the murder of Americans in Benghazi, the cruel winter of 2012 has now ended the dreamy Arab Spring of 2011.

As the year ends, there are ominous signs of impending financial implosion at home. Abroad, we see a soon-to-be nuclear Iran, an even more unhinged nuclear North Korea, a new Islamic coalition against Israel, a bleeding European Union, and a more nationalist Germany and Japan determined to achieve security apart from the old but increasingly suspect U.S. guarantees.

The year 2012 should have taught us that dreaming is no answer to reality; 2013 will determine how well we learned that lesson.

Vietnam Plus-50

HANOI, Vietnam -- It has been 50 years since President John F. Kennedy ordered U.S. "advisers" to South Vietnam to help battle the communist North and 37 years since the end of that divisive war and the country's unification under Communism.

Today, Vietnam is fighting a war with itself.

A local TV program reminds a visitor of Chinese propaganda "operas" circa 1970. Performers, some wearing military garb with a backdrop of missiles and an American B-52 bomber going down in flames, commemorate the 1972 Christmas bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong ordered by President Richard Nixon.
Banners and posters in the streets reinforce the government's history lesson.

Younger people, who substantially outnumber the old guard, seem mostly indifferent to these messages, because few lived through the war. An American official tells me just 4 percent of the population belongs to the Communist Party.

While there are large pockets of poverty between and even within major cities like Ho Chi Minh City, Da Nang and Hanoi, prosperity is making inroads. The 1-year-old Da Nang airport is more modern than some U.S. airports. Luxury hotels, clothing stores and restaurants abound. While many cater to foreign travelers, many locals wear stylish Western clothes and transport themselves on motorbikes and in cars. Twenty years ago, the primary mode of transportation was the bicycle.

Vietnam eagerly wants to conclude a trade agreement with the United States known as TPP. Among other things, it would allow for more capital investment here and more Vietnamese goods to be sold in the United States. Deputy Foreign Minister Nguyen Phuong Nga tells me that since normalization of relations in 1995, the U.S. has become the "eighth-biggest foreign investor in Vietnam," totaling $10 billion.

U.S. officials say human rights issues, including more religious freedom, are holding up American approval of the new trade deal. I asked Madame Nga about this and the recent sentencing of three bloggers to between four and 12 years in prison for criticizing the government.

She deflects the question by noting press criticism of government corruption (true) and claims people have freedom of speech so long as they do not cause "harm," a word open to interpretation in a one-party state.
Vietnam recently opened two new areas to exploration for the bodies of American soldiers missing in action.

Madame Nga says Vietnam has "actively worked with and supported the U.S. in finding the MIAs during the last 20 years," but notes that on the Vietnamese side "about 3 million MIAs remain to be found." She also says "there are more than 3 million Vietnamese known as victims of Agent Orange ... while thousands of hectares of land are contaminated with dioxin." She adds her appreciation for money provided by Congress to help victims and clean land, but she says more is needed.

As in many other one-party states, the Internet remains a powerful counterforce to managed information. The U.S. Embassy provides, and the government mostly allows, an information center where students and others can log onto iPads and search for information that is often counter to the government line.

The old guard remains suspicious about American objectives, seeing economic and political liberalization as a strategy to achieve among the Vietnamese people what America failed to in pursuing their "hearts and minds" in the war.

Professor Carlyle A. Thayer of the University of New South Wales, an expert on Vietnam, said recently, "Vietnam is motivated to keep the U.S. engaged in Southeast Asia, and the South China Sea in particular, as a balance to China," which claims some territorial rights in conflict with Vietnam and is a formidable economic and military power on its northern border.

Vietnam is in transition, and it is unrealistic to expect too much progress too quickly. Considering where it was when the U.S. left in 1975, the country appears to be inching in a positive direction. Those Americans who died here left behind the seeds of democracy, capitalism and a desire for prosperity and freedom.

Whatever one's view of that war, it can be said they did not die in vain.
Hey libs...gun control is NOT about guns but is about control even of you
By: Diane Sori

The gun control liberals are still blaming the 'bad guns' for all our country's woes, as they plot and plan to take away our right to bear arms.  Bolstered in their quest by President Obama, Mr. 'I send my girls to an armed guarded school but you can't,' who's calling for a reinstatement of the Assault Rifle Ban that lapsed in 2004, these folks believe an assault rifle is an automatic rifle.

So libs, it's time for firearms basics 101...

We all know that you guys, especially you sheeple, lack even basic knowledge and understanding about the very nature of firearms, and that's something the msm counts on to push the Obama gun control agenda forward.  The msm and Obama will NEVER tell you the true firearm I will.

First, you need to understand that the term 'automatic' refers to the type of action when a rifle discharges. Full automatic is a rapid discharge of rounds as long as the trigger is depressed...semi-automatic is where one round is discharged with each trigger pull.  Full automatics, aka machine guns, have been banned for civilian use since the 1930's.  Semi-automatics are a common action for most firearms in existence today from hunting shotguns to so-called assault rifles, and there is absolutely zero difference in performance between an 'evil looking' assault rifle and a traditional hunting rifle other than the way it looks...cartridges and performance are exactly the same.

Second, there are only six types of actions that exist....full automatic, semi-automatic, bolt action, pump action, lever action, and single shot.  With the bolt, pump, and single actions a new round must be physically chambered after each round.  A single shot requires an extra step of opening the chamber and physically removing the spent round and depositing a new one.  As for handguns, aka pistols, there are semi-automatic, single action, and double action.   A semi-automatic handgun performs much in the same way as a semi-automatic pull, one round with a new round being chambered as the spent round is discharged.  Single action is a revolver which is typically six rounds in a cylinder, and the hammer must be pulled back after each shot.  A double action is also a revolver where the hammer is synced with the pull of the trigger and that's it.  The only other type in existence is a muzzle loader and we do not want to go back in time to that antiquated period in firearm history.

But the $64 thousand question on most of you liberals minds is what exactly is an assault rifle.  Simply and directly the term 'assault rifle' is a name that the media concocted, with the ONLY difference between a so-called 'assault rifle' and a traditional looking hunting rifle of the same caliber is the way it looks...the stock, the grip, the's one and the same just in a different wrapper.

Now that you libs hopefully have firearms basic 101 under your belt, I hope you can understand the critical words, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people.' Guns are an inanimate object that need a person to pull their trigger to kill or maim someone...they don't do it all by themselves. 

Even you liberals can understand that if you just put your glass full of kool-ade down.

So what happens next if you succeed in getting guns we ban automobiles.  Maybe under Obama's warped logic we should since over 30,000 fatal accidents happened in the US in 2010 (the last year for which statistics have been released), which resulted in a total of 33,808 deaths (some fatal crashes resulted in multiple deaths) with 4,872 of those deaths being pedestrians, cyclists and unspecified other non-occupants.  Also, 217,000 people were incapacitated by auto accidents, and another two million people were injured.

And after banning guns and then banning automobiles, do we next ban hospitals because as many as 98,000 people a year die from medical mistakes...more than from vehicle accidents, breast cancer, AIDS, and gun deaths combined.   Do we stop doctors from prescribing medicine because an estimated 450,000 preventable medication-related adverse events occur each year.

Anything can happen in Obamaland, even the absurd, as Obama's slap-happy with those pesky Executive Orders you know.

But now for a reality 2011, the last year that official numbers were released by the FBI, there were 12,664 murders in this country with 8,583 of those being caused by firearms...a number far far less than either automobile deaths or hospital/medical deaths.


With gun deaths proven to be remarkably LOWER than all other causes of death, your liberal push for gun control is horribly misplaced...or is the Obama wanted gun control is NOT about controlling 'bad guns' for the safety of our children but is about total control...and the msm is helping Obama achieve his goal of disarming and controlling 'We the People' (including you libs) as he chips away at the Second Amendment.  Remember, the msm reports to the nth degree anytime anyone anywhere is killed by a so-called 'assault rifle' even though there is no such thing, because that's Obama's lynch pin to stripping us of our right to bear arms.

'Aint life grand in Obamaland (insert sarcasm here)...