March 16, 2005

The GFW Agenda

I made a post a couple of days ago about the goal of the GFW's with universal registration ie, the total eleimination of private firearms, and I got a couple of e-mails telling me that I was a Neanderthal that was seeing a conspiracy theory where there was none to be seen.

One e-mailer told me that "surely I couldn't argue with keeping tabs on who owns guns, for the public safety". And that the (GFW'S) "people that try to put into effect gun registration/licensing are only making common sense the law".

Well, Yes, I CAN argue with that false premise. Every major gun control group has only ONE goal in mind; nothing less than the total banning of ANY private firearms. They know that they don't have the public support for a total ban right now, so they are working towardes their goal with an incremental set of laws, licenses, and anti-gun propaganda.

Don't believe me? Well read these meeting notes from a Handgun Control Inc. planning meeting on December 17,1993.
This was their agenda for regulations they thought could be enacted in 1994:


* Ban of all clips holding over 6 bullets.
* Ban on all semiautos which can fire more than 6 bullets without reloading.
* Ban of possession of parts to convert arms into miliary configuration.
* Ban on all pump shotguns capable of being converted to more than 5 shots without reloading.
* Banning of all machine guns, destructive devices, short shotguns/rifles and assault weapons.
* Banning of Saturday Night Specials.
* Banning of Non-Sporting Ammunition
* Arsenal licensing (for possession of multiple guns and large amounts of ammunition)
* Elimination of the Department of Civil Marksmanship.
* Ban on possession of a firearm within a home located within 1000 feet of a schoolyard.
* Ban on all realistic replicas/toy guns or non-firearms capable of being rendered realistic.
* The right of the victim of gun violence to sue manufacturers and dealers to be affirmed and perhaps, aided with money from government programs.
* Taxes on ammo, Dealers licenses & guns to offset the medical costs to society.
* The eventual ban on all semiautomatics (regardless of when made or caliber).

This was #16 on their long term goal agenda:

16. EVENTUAL BAN OF HANDGUN POSSESSION This may be closer to reality than many of us think. Handguns are becoming increasingly unpopular and we think that within five years we can enact a total ban on possession at the federal level.

Do you honestly think that they have eased up their position in the intervening years? If you do, please pass the fairy dust, cause I would like my world to be all rosy light too.

If you want to keep one of the basic rights that this country was founded on, you'd better educate yourself and join us in the fight. Even if you don't care to exercise your 2nd. Amendment rights personally; if that right is overturned, which one will be next? Still think I'm a "Chicken Little"?

Well this is part of their long-range lobbying talking points:

Legal Point 3: Suing the makers of toy-replica guns, toy weapons and violent entertainment: One of the purveyors of violence to society, companies which profit from violence would eventually be identified and made legally responsible for the violent acts inspired by their products. A study would have to be created to link these companies to those actions taken as a result of their products. Threat of legal action would convince many manufacturers and distributors that other nonviolence-related recreational materials and toys, would make them fiscally accountable for the cost to society incurred as a result of their merchandise. Items could include: violent video games, television shows, movies, videotapes, water guns, super soakers, electronic noise guns, replica guns, toy weapons like swords, batons, martial arts items. Tort law as we know it may not have to undergo a change in order to facilitate these actions. As many people know, it is not necessary to actually win in order to affect change, since the constant threat of legal action will induce change in the way people do business. People all know that the real fiscal effect of repeated legal actions can bankrupt a peddler of violence just as well as winning a large settlement. Any additional ideas or proposals should be directed to our Washington D.C. office for collation, investigation and discussion.

Take note of the fact that they know that they don't even have to win any legal cases to make their agenda fact....Just how many times can even a large toy company such as Mattel undergo the legal costs of defending in Federal lawsuits before they decide that the cost is too high to sustain and stay in business making any toy deemed by these Facists as "unsuitable"?

Hat tip to Kim du Toit for the link.

Posted by Delftsman3 at March 16, 2005 08:20 AM

Great post Bert. Most people would rather bury their head in the sand and let government take care of them, the people of Hungary learned about confiscation in 1958 when their benevolent government squashed and suppressed the entire nation, all they had to fight with were pitch forks and Molotov's, they had surrendered their weapons to the government. Let's not forget that the surrender monkeys(UN)are behind this too.

Posted by: Jack at March 16, 2005 04:07 PM

I'm not sure if I qualify as a surrender monkey or not. I WAS strongly against the invasion of Iraq. I still believe it was uncalled for and a mistake. I don't see however how we can just surrender now, and pull up stakes and walk away. We created the situation and now we are obligated to stay until it is at least halfway safe and secure.
As far as the right to bear arms, well, I think NOT everyone who wants to should have the right to own a weapon. Not children under the age of 21, not convicted felons, not those who are mentally ill, and not those who have been convicted of domestic violence.
I do think handguns need to be registered.I see no reason why shotguns, or rifles that are primarily used for hunting need to be registered. I also see no reason why anyone would need an fully automatic weapon. But, my scope of reasoning may be limited. So if they can show cause/need and it is within the scope of the law then by all means let them have at it. I see no reason why shotguns, or rifles that are primarily used for hunting need to be registered. Unless they have been altered in such a way that makes them unusually dangerous to the general public.
One thing I strongly believe is that gun owners should be held to full responsibility if their gun is used to commit a crime. Owning a gun is a right, and with rights come responsiblity. If you own a weapon and your child gains access to it, then commits a crime, you as well as he/she should be held responsible. Both legally and financially.
I guess that puts me in the middle. Some regulation isn't too bad, but too much is unnecessary.

Posted by: wanda at March 18, 2005 09:00 PM

Australia last week found out the hard way, when police started "Inspecting" the way some 200,000 registered owners stored their guns: in less than a week, over 40,000 guns were confiscated. I did ask TIm Blair if he knew whether 200,000 search warrants were needed, or if LEOs could enter at will to do this check.

Posted by: John Anderson at March 18, 2005 09:30 PM

"A study would have to be created to link these companies to those actions taken as a result of their products."

Hmm. They're not just anti-gun wackos bent on legal harrassment, they're dishonest propogandists.

Nice posting.

Posted by: Tuning Spork at March 19, 2005 06:49 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?