Big Government Tyrrany: Government “Officials” Exempt From Proposed “Assault Weapons Ban”

Posted on January 27, 2013


Washington D.C. (The Gaslamp Post) – The first sign of a tyrannical government has always been the creation of laws that they themselves are not subject to.  Dictatorial power wielded by a tyrant has always started with the creation of laws that they themselves do not have to obey.

Inasmuch as it would seem to be beating a dead horse when discussing the unconstitutionality of recently announced legislation regarding the banning any legally obtained firearms, we are once again discovering details of that legislation that the elites themselves, who are creating the laws – need not apply.

Do as I say, not as I do:  “I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.” Diane Feinstein, April 27, 1995.

Do as I say, not as I do: “I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.” Dianne Feinstein, April 27, 1995.

Late last week it was announced in The Weekly Standard that while the proposed Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 was moving towards taking 150 types of firearms and “high capacity magazines” away from law-abiding Americans, neither the bill’s drafter, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) nor any other government official, police, and military would be included.  In fact, even RETIRED law-enforcement personnel would be permitted to keep theirs.

Not everyone will have to abide by Senator Dianne Feinstein’s gun control bill. If the proposed legislation becomes law, government officials and others will be exempt.

“Mrs. Feinstein’s measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel,” the Washington Times reports.

Sen. Feinstein, who proclaimed vehemently that she wouldn’t be taking the firearms away that she has singled out, fails to make mention that since they cannot be transferred or manufactured, future generations – especially our own children will be even less able to protect themselves from government tyranny than we are now.  Now we know why.

While this legislation is publicly proclaiming that it will reduce gun crime and mass shootings, it does absolutely nothing to the criminals who would commit the crimes; it’s only disarming law-abiding citizens.  According to The Wallstreet Journal, Vice-president Joe Biden last week fielded concerns that Americans may have had with Sen. Feinstein’s proposal, and stressed that it was all to keep American’s safe.

The vice president noted that those weapons are involved in only a small fraction of gun deaths but said the restrictions make sense because police officers are outgunned on the streets by criminals with high-powered firearms.

While he defended the proposed ban, Mr. Biden, who emphasized that he’s a gun owner and a supporter of the Second Amendment, said he is more focused on limiting the capacity of magazines.

“There is no sporting need that I’m aware of for a magazine that holds 50 rounds,” he said.

Conveniently ignoring the fact that it is found nowhere in the United States Constitution that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to any sort of “sporting purpose”, the vice-president is telling us that they can have such things, but you cannot.  Ignoring the rash of police shootings which resulted in unarmed civilian fatalities towards the end of last year, Vice-president Biden stuck to his guns in assuring you that they know what they’re doing, but it’s unsafe if you own something that looks scarey.

Would weapons like these being wielded against YOU in your own home be considered scarey to you?

Would weapons like these being wielded against YOU in your own home be considered scarey?

The claim about the rash of police shootings of unarmed civilians can be confirmed simply by Googling “2012 police shoot unarmed man.”

Out of curiosity, exactly whom would be more safe if the law-abiding citizen is disarmed?  A second question is; how is this legislation going prevent mass shootings and murders?  Are not killing and murder illegal?  What good are more laws intended to make either MORE illegal?  Food for thought.

Now anyone who would have a counter-view to the before-mentioned statements which have been pointed out, rest assured that there exists another arrogantly written article which was published late last week.  It should remove any doubt as to the intention of this legislation.

Those who support Sen. Feinstein and her intention to keep all of us “safe”, and whom believe these interpretations of current events are mere fear mongering and intentional stirring up discontent among those who neither support our duly-elected president, nor share allegiance to the political affiliation; they should see this.

In an article published under “opinion” in The Salt Lake Tribune this past Friday, an unnamed author made the claim that the Federal government was all-powerful when it comes to whatever they decide we are allowed to own.  Going further, the unnamed author also made the statement that any elected sheriff or state that would threaten to arrest any federal government official who would attempt to enforce big government efforts to disarm Americans – was merely “grandstanding.”

The article entitled, “Sheriffs vs feds – Grandstanding is useless” not only misses the mark when it comes to the exact roles of certain branches of government, but makes a very terrifying assertion.  One would like to believe that the author merely misspoke, and that a statement could have been worded better, but what was actually said in the article is chilling and should raise a major red flag for every American citizen.

According to The Salt Lake Tribune:

First, there is no proposal to authorize federal agents to seize guns that have been lawfully purchased. Nobody is going to knock on Utahns’ doors and demand that the occupants turn over their assault rifles, even if the president’s proposals were to become law.

Second, while the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution may provide that citizens can arm themselves, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government has authority under the Constitution to set reasonable limits on gun ownership and use. No one in the Obama administration is suggesting repeal of the Second Amendment.

In the author’s first point they are absolutely correct; there is no outright wording that has been found as of late which states that any firearms are going to be confiscated.  The notion that such a thing would become reality comes from those who know history, and have a HUGE problem with a political hack insisting that a law-abiding citizen must be registered, photographed, and fingerprinted in order to possess something that is their right to possess.

When Stalin went after the legally owned firearms by Russian citizens between 1918 and 1938, he knew who they were, where they were, and what they had.  How?  Because the useful idiots who he used to overthrow the Russian government, saw him as a hero which would never do such a thing when he talked them into registering.  Hindsight being 20/20, this is a no-brainer.

Hitler did the same thing when he invaded Poland and went door to door, disarming, and then slaughtering the opposition when he was done.  Hitler obtained the registration information that was already collected and just went down the list.  Again, a no-brainer.

The second point that the author was trying to make was that the Supreme Court of The United States ruled that “the government has authority under the Constitution to set reasonable limits on gun ownership and use.”  This is not interpreting the law, this is a proclamation.

Nowhere in Article II, Section III of the United States Constitution, which establishes the parameters of authority for the Judicial Branch of the United States Government, does it say anything about setting limits on what right and where.  Nowhere does it say that they have the authority to define or specify an unalienable right.

Article II in whole states:

1:  The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;–between a State and Citizens of another State;   –between Citizens of different States, –between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

2:  In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.  In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

3:  The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states quite clearly:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

While it does say “a well regulated Militia”, nowhere is it implied that it is up to the state to regulate.  In a land of free men, they were to regulate themselves.  Did George Mason (a signer of the Declaration of Independence) not say in 1775:

“And we do each of us, for ourselves respectively, promise and engage to keep a good firelock in proper order, & to furnish ourselves as soon as possible with, & always keep by us, one pound of gunpowder, four pounds of lead, one dozen gunflints, & a pair of bullet moulds, with a cartouch box, or powder horn, and bag for balls.”

That was the Founding Father’s idea of a “regulation”; the Militia is ALL MEN aged 18 to 50, and the REGULATION is to have sufficient arms and ammunition to put up a fight.

Oh, and let us not forget the most crucial part of the amendment; “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  I fail to see how a group of judges whom legislated from the bench, were able to decide that law-abiding citizens should be limited to what they may possess in order to defend themselves, when the constitution states – quite clearly mind you, that our rights “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

Now all of that aside, as was mentioned before there was a pretty disturbing statement made in the article by the unnamed author.  It reinforces their claim that we the law-abiding can be restricted, but says that there is a legitimate purpose for the government not to be, and why.

According to The Salt Lake Tribune:

“Assault weapons that can fire numerous times in seconds are designed for only one thing: killing large numbers of people. The military and law enforcement officers need that ability; ordinary law-abiding citizens do not.”

Yes, you read that correctly.  Nothing has been taken out of context.  As was stated before, one would like to believe that the author perhaps misspoke, but it’s difficult to wrap one’s mind around that notion when they read how blunt that statement truly is.

Only law enforcement and military “need” the ability to kill large numbers of people…  Which people in large numbers do our law enforcement and military need to kill again?

Did you know that under Obamacare, the IRS gets their own SWAT team?

Did you know that under Obamacare, the IRS gets their own SWAT team?

Compounding that thought is the fact that in the not-so-distant past, American law enforcement used these same weapons to cut down over 80 people, many of which were innocent women and children.  For anyone who remembers the fiasco when law enforcement killed over 80 members of Waco, Texas’, Branch Davidian’s “compound”, they would surely have a problem with the government telling them what they can and cannot fight back with.

The media played around with language, the ATF under Janet Reno lost paperwork, and by the time it was all said and done, the government was ruled “justified” in torching the building with everyone inside, and cutting down anyone trying to escape.  Does the thought still linger in the mind of anyone as to whether or not the American citizen should be able to fight back or whether or not their government may ever decide to turn on their own citizens?

Yes, those are tanks that were used to serve a search warrant.

Yes, those are tanks that were used to serve a search warrant.

Basic human instinct would tell anyone that there is something more to this kind of legislation.  Those pushing it are acting outside of the constitution and have no legitimate place in an elected office.  They are able to do what they are doing because We the People have tolerated them.

I would love to think that I am getting all of this wrong, but the writing is on the wall.  When America, when are you going to put your foot down and say “ENOUGH”?

(h/t:  Drudge Report)