Pelosi: 'We Want Registration'

[frawin]

Disturbing, but not surprising coming from one of the biggest liberals and the dumbest speaker of the house in history.

BELLEVUE, Wash.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on April 7 acknowledged that gun registration is on her agenda, days after Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters in Mexico that the Second Amendment would not "stand in the way" of administration plans to crack down on alleged gun trafficking to Mexico.

"These are alarming remarks from Speaker Pelosi and Attorney General Holder," said Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb. "It appears that the Obama administration and Capitol Hill anti-gunners have dropped all pretences about their plans for gun owners' rights, and it looks like the gloves are coming off."

Pelosi's revelation came during an interview on ABC's Good Morning, America. While insisting that Congress "never denied" the gun rights of American Citizens, Pelosi told Roberts, "We want them registered. We don't want them crossing state lines..." Gottlieb noted that citizens' rights do not stop at state lines.

"But that doesn't really matter," he observed. "History has shown that around the world, registration has always led to confiscation."

In Mexico, according to the Wall Street Journal, Holder was asked if the administration might encounter constitutional issues as it tries to crack down on alleged gun trafficking. His response: "I don't think our Second Amendment will stand in the way of efforts we have begun and will expand upon."

"These comments belie administration promises and Democrat rhetoric that party leaders respect the rights of law-abiding Americans to own the firearm of their choice," Gottlieb said. "They imposed registration of semi-autos in Pelosi's California and it led to a ban, but it certainly didn't disarm criminals, like the convicted felon who killed four Oakland police officers last month. We know from Holder that the Obama administration wants to renew the nationwide ban on such firearms, but that won't prevent crime, either.

"The administration and Congressional anti-gunners have declared war on gun rights," Gottlieb said. "The press seems deliberately blind to the statements from Pelosi and Holder, who blame our gun rights for their incompetence in dealing with crime. More than 90 million gun owners haven't hurt anybody, and they are tired of being treated like criminals."

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
 


 

[Varmit]

Not that surprising.  After all, during the campaign Comrade obama said very clearly he wasn't coming after our guns.  Of course, we can expect the exact opposite.  I just wonder how he plans on going about the confiscation?

[larryJ]

Oh that is an easy one to answer.  Here in the L.A. area the police hold a "local fair" (not the right words, but you can see what I mean) in which people are encouraged to bring in a gun and receive a gift card to the store of their choice or a gift certificate good for a free meal for you and your "friends" at your local Dennys.  All the government would have to do is have one of these "fairs" but offer larger incentives and look at all the guns that would be gone.  As far as this local fair, I wouldn't doubt that the person turning in the gun is being secretly photographed and the gun tested later for ballistics.  If it turns out to be a murder weapon, then they have a photo of the guy who turned it in.  There are no questions asked or names taken during these fairs.  I admit this would not work to remove all guns, but it would get some off the street.  Then, later, when the government passes a law limiting the rights of gun owners, somehow, someway, if you have a gun, you are a criminal because you didn't turn yours in for an all expenses paid trip to Disneyland or the right of citizenship without taking the test or a once in a lifetime ride in Air Force 1 or not have to pay income taxes for ten years.  Larryj

[srkruzich]

You know what i have two words.  **** Pelosi! 

Sigh looks like were going to be in for a long 4 years.

[Diane Amberg]

Larry, Philly has turn in your gun days too. With some success.

[srkruzich]

You know what is funny is they had one in a town in ga and gave food for guns.  Made absolutely no sense whatsoever as the gun itself will provide food.   I have literally lost everything i owned, my house, car stuff in house, and penniliess and my guns are some of the few things i kept and carried with me.  Pretty much it will be the only thing i would never sell or give away. 

[frawin]

You know what i have two words.  **** Pelosi! 

Sigh looks like were going to be in for a long 4 years.

Steve, in 2010 there will be 36 of the 100 Senate seats up for election and all of the House Seats will be up for election. Hopefully the Republicans can and will get control of at least the Senate or the House, or even better both Houses.

[srkruzich]

You know what i have two words.  **** Pelosi! 

Sigh looks like were going to be in for a long 4 years.

Steve, in 2010 there will be 36 of the 100 Senate seats up for election and all of the House Seats will be up for election. Hopefully the Republicans can and will get control of at least the Senate or the House, or even better both Houses.

Well hopefully and i pray that we will surivive this government, we can get the chance to throw the whole lot of them out.  I am hunkering down here, expecting the worst to happen in terms of Government and economy.   hopefully i'll manage to feed myself for the next four years from what i grow cause i expect the prices will be high or the food will be in short supply through regulations of this oppressive police state.

[Kjell H.]

April 7, 2009
@ 10:29 am by Michael O'Brien

The ball is in Congress's court to craft a compromise in reinstating regulations on assault weapons, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) acknowledged Tuesday.

During an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," Pelosi said that the Congress will work to find some middle ground between the previous ban, which expired in 2004, and the precedent laid by the Supreme Court in a ruling enumerating more concrete gunowners' rights last term.

"We have to find some level of compromise," Pelosi said, citing 53 victims of gun violence nationwide in less than a month. "And we have to rid the debate of the misconceptions people have about what gun safety means."

"Yes, it is," the Speaker said when asked if the ball is in Congress's court now that Democrats control the White House. "And we are just going to have to work together to come to some resolution."

Pelosi indicated that new regulations might entail registration and prohibitions on transporting some firearms across state lines.

The Speaker also expressed displeasure at the attachment of a gun rights provision to legislation that would grant Washington, D.C. a voting member of Congress.

"Right now, we have the debate in Congress over the District of Columbia wanting a vote on the floor of the House, something we all want. That's a civil rights issue," she said, pledging to find "middle ground" on the issue. "And, yet, they want to put a gun...bill, attach that to that. I don't — I don't think that that should be the price to pay to have a vote on the floor of the House."

Watch the video of Pelosi's interview here.

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/04/07/pelosi-pledges-compromise-on-assault-weapons-ban/ (scroll down, top of page empty)

Best part of vid starts at the 3:05 mark
-----------------------------------------------------------
My personal opinion is, "Her lips were moving so I have to assume she was lying!"
Aside from not being a real fluent speaker, I would like to ask this! She talks about compromise.
What compromise? I have a compromise for her.  Repealing all gun laws that violate the 2nd amendment.
  Let's not pass any new laws and try enforcing laws that already exist, including immigration and truth in sentencing. I'll bet we'll see a dramatic decrease in crime.

Why is it in any gun law 'compromise', law abiding gun owners always lose something and the antis always gain something? This is not the definition of compromise.  Why is it the rights set down indelibly and clearly in the 2nd amendment are open for limitation while gossamer 'rights' extrapolated and interpreted by lawyers are constantly expanding?  Gun laws come after regular people like us, they never go after the criminals that buy illegal firearms.

The only compromise we should consider is how much of our rights we TAKE BACK in one move....Anything other than that is nothing but a sellout.....

[Teresa]

"And we have to rid the debate of the misconceptions people have about what gun safety means."

Some how I get the feeling that she isn't talking about our view of handling and using firearms in a safe manner

"Right now, we have the debate in Congress over the District of Columbia wanting a vote on the floor of the House, something we all want. That's a civil rights issue," she said, pledging to find "middle ground" on the issue. "And, yet, they want to put a gun...bill, attach that to that. I don't — I don't think that that should be the price to pay to have a vote on the floor of the House."

Would have loved to hear a strong interviewer ask her what the Amendments to the Constitution are if they aren't also Rights ... Rights that are such a strong part of what is not only good for the citizens of the United States individually but for the Nation as a whole.

(((WARNING)))... the blond is getting fired up..

Here's my compromise,
1) Nation wide unrestricted CCW ( Carry Concealed Weapon)
2) Repeal all anti gun laws passed since 1800
In exchange for these reasonable and common sense requests we agree not to hang the treasonous bitch and her co conspirators for their numerous violations of the Constitution and federal law.
Does someone need to remind her that it is politics like her's that the Founding Fathers wanted us to be capable of overthrowing with any and all means available?


So??  "My question is:...............
How do we exercise that RIGHT and indeed OBLIGATION without becoming a criminal. Say for instance you started a militia, and declared war on elected officials, and I mean going on national T.V. and announcing it. "We declare war on congress for eroding our civil liberties, for spitting on the constitution, and spending the country into bankruptcy, AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE."

The answer is simple, WIN. That's the only thing that kept the Founding Fathers from being hung for treason.

The rest is this........ What would happen to you is that you would be slapped in irons and marched through the streets as a "domestic terrorist". What this says about us is that we have become so afraid of our government that we will not act against it.

We're frogs in a pot    The heat has been on high for several decades, and most not only don't care but actually think it is both right and within the "meaning" of the Constitution   

It is not just the Second Amendment either.  It is legal to kill babies for convenience; strip clubs and "gentleman's" magazines are protected by the First Amendment, but Christianity is something to be protected from rather than available; Freedom to protest is ok as long as you get a permit three months in advance and all the authorities agree with your request; Your private property is yours to use and enjoy unless someone decides the public could enjoy it more if they had access, so you are forced to give an easement (if your lucky) but at least you still get to pay taxes on it; As a member of the local community you MUST fund your public school, whether you use it or not, and someone else dictates what you can and cannot teach; ...

We are sitting in a simmering pot looking for a cold beer while pots all around us have become "frog stew" and are still being stirred by the mindless privileged frog crew.

A new question - At what point are we willing to lay it on the line ... like our Founding Fathers did?

((I'd like to answer my own question..but I will wait and see what anyone has to say..))