Pelosi: "We want [all] guns registered"

[Louis of PA]

on examiner.com

Pelosi made it official to ABC: ‘We want registration.’

Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dropped a verbal bombshell in the middle of an interview on Good Morning America April 7, and surprisingly, neither the press nor a majority of gun rights activists seemed to notice.


Responding to a question from ABC’s Robin Roberts, Pelosi said that while Congress apparently does not want to take anyone’s guns away, “We want them registered.”

Roberts: Under the Bush administration, you pretty much said the ball was in their court when it came to reinstating the ban. Now, it's a Democratic President, a Democratic House. So, is the ball in your court where this is concerned?

Pelosi: Yes, it is. And we are just going to have to work together to come to some resolution because the court, in the meantime, in recent months, the Supreme Court has ruled in a very- in a direction that gives more opportunity for people to have guns. We never denied that right. We don't want to take their guns away. We want them registered. We don’t want them crossing state lines...

Perhaps equally alarming was Pelosi’s dismissal of an amendment on the District of Columbia voting rights legislation that would expand gun rights in the city.

Pelosi made the astonishing argument that the desire by District residents to have a vote on the House floor via a fully-recognized representative is “a civil rights issue.” However, in her opinion, requiring the city to recognize the right to keep and bear arms – that was affirmed by the Supreme Court last year when it struck down the District’s handgun ban – is “draconian.”

“I don’t think that that should be the price…to pay to have a vote on the floor of the House,” Pelosi told ABC’s Roberts.

Translation: Pelosi thinks one civil right is more important than another.

During his presidential campaign, President Barack Obama supported reinstating the federal ban that expired in 2004. In Mexico, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported a renewal of the ban.

Even if Pelosi was only alluding to so-called “assault weapons” that the Obama administration would like to ban – as acknowledged earlier this year by Attorney General Eric Holder – she certainly did not make that clear. And even if she were, gun rights activists will quickly point to California, where first there was registration and then came the ban.

That ban did not prevent a scumbag named Lovelle Mixon from gunning down four Oakland, CA police officers last month, nor did a federal statute prohibiting convicted felons from having any kind of gun keep Mixon disarmed. Yet Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has called for renewing the ban nationwide, ignoring the California law’s failure to stop Mixon from getting a gun.

California has the toughest ban on assault weapons in the nation.

Last month in Mexico, Holder told reporters that in the Obama administration’s effort to crack down on the alleged illegal smuggling of guns from the U.S. to Mexico, “I don’t think our Second Amendment will stand in the way of the efforts we have begun and will expand upon.”

About the same time, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was reminding reporters in Mexico that she had favored a semi-auto ban while in the Senate, and that the administration is “exploring” some avenues regarding these firearms.

Obviously, I am someone who supported the assault weapons ban which was passed in 1994, but it was passed with an expiration date and it expired ten years later. I, as a senator, supported measures to try to reinstate it. Politically, that is a very big hurdle in our Congress. But there may be some approaches that could be acceptable, and we are exploring those.

Whether Pelosi or Holder or Clinton meant to alarm American gun owners – tens of millions of whom have never harmed a soul – their rhetoric has sufficiently aroused concerns. Considering the anti-gun track records of Pelosi, Holder, Clinton and their boss, those concerns are legitimate.

While MSNBC’s David Schuster sought earlier this week to demonize these gun owners in the wake of the Pittsburgh shooting, that’s hardly the way to build consensus.

There are no easy solutions, but this much is certain: Banning firearms from law-abiding citizens because criminals use guns illegally is not one of the options.

Check with other gun rights examiners:
David Codrea
Daniel White
John Longnecker
John Pierce
Kurt Hofmann

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[John Sukey (Deceased)]

Pelosi: She who would be queen. "Off with their heads!"

One excellent reason why I hope nobody takes our obama and biden, as guess who would get the oval office!

[0311Shooter]

This article is scary. But I think there is still a ways to go before they try to move ahead.

This week Holder was on CBS on the Katie Show. If you didn't know the players you would think Holder was a good guy. He was passive on new gun control but Katie, acting like she knew it all, kept badgering him over and over. She asked him about the Mexican gun connection. He didn't say much. She asked him about an AWB. He harumphed a bit. She asked him twice about the Gun Show LOOPHOLE. He didn't jump. She kept trying to get him going, it didn't work. She asked about the Letter from the Democrats, he denied that it had anything to do with it. She asked if congress was "afraid" of the NRA? He held his ground.

I would give him an A- on the interview. I would give the beitch an F- - - -.

[Art]

This just is not the hill the Dems want to die on.....right now. If he answered truthfully her question about the congress being afraid of the NRA he would have said yes.

[7.62 NATO]

The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):

M1 Carbine

Sturm Ruger Mini-14 ,

AR-15,

Bushmaster XM15 ,

Armalite M15,

AR-10,

Thompson 1927,

Thompson M1;

AK,

AKM,

AKS,

AK-47,

AK-74,

ARM,

MAK90,

NHM 90,

NHM 91,

SA 85,

SA 93,

VEPR ;

Olympic Arms PCR;

AR70,

Calico Liberty ,

Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU ,

Fabrique National FN/FAL,

FN/LAR, or FNC,

Hi-Point20Carbine,

HK-91,

HK-93,

HK-94,

HK-PSG-1,

Thompson 1927 Commando,

Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;

Saiga,

SAR-8,

SAR-4800,

SKS with detachable magazine,

SLG 95,

SLR 95 or 96,

Steyr AU,

Tavor ,

Uzi,

Galil and Uzi Sporter,

Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).

Pistols (or copies or duplicates):

Calico M-110,

MAC-10,

MAC-11, or MPA3,

Olympic Arms OA,

TEC-9,

TEC-DC9,

TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,

Uzi.

Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):

Armscor 30 BG,

SPAS 12 or LAW 12,

Striker 12,

Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):

A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock,

(ii) a threaded barrel,

(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see

below),

(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.

Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than

10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).

A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a

detachable magazine, and has:

(i) a second pistol grip,

(ii) a threaded barrel,

(iii) a barrel shroud or

(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and

(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10

rounds.

A semiautomatic shotgun with:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock,

(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),

(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity

of more than 5 rounds, and

(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.

Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."

Note that Obama's pick for this office, Eric Holder, wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event." In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.

The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose -- is that devious or what? And of course, "sporting purpose" is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.

[Louis of PA]

I would give him an A- on the interview. I would give the beitch an F- - - -.

Shooter, I spell it using a "C" as the first of four letters.

Regards

[Mickey]

Now you folks with an FFL correct me if I'm wrong. But I always thought that the paper work we filled out when buying a gun was sent in to the goverment. and this these forms all have our name, address, and guns serial number on them? Or does the dealer just keep those forms for thier records? If they are sent in to the goverment would'nt that be a registration, or are they so stupid as not figure that out?


Mickey

[jjroth]

retained by the seller for all time , until the business closes, then sent to BATFE archives.
THe NICS is only supposed to be retained for 30days(?), then expunded, the DEM want full retention.

[John Sukey (Deceased)]

Well yes, the NICS paperwork is supposed to be destroyed, but the FBI seems to be reluctant to do so and we have no idea if they have complied with that.

[conductor]

Well yes, the NICS paperwork is supposed to be destroyed, but the FBI seems to be reluctant to do so and we have no idea if they have complied with that.

That's true, John. But the NICS paperwork does not have any indication of the gun's serial number on it. The serial number does appear on the 4473, but that is kept by the dealer.
And by the way, current ATF rules say that the dealer has to keep the paperwork for 20 years, then it can be destroyed.