Bob Owens

The saddest truth in politics is that people get the leaders they deserve

Feinstein to promote so-called “assault weapon” ban bill today; don’t be distracted from their real goals

Written By: Bob - Jan• 24•13
Miss Carolyn's Dog and Pony Revue. The other kind of dog and pony show.

Miss Carolyn’s Dog and Pony Revue. The other kind of dog and pony show.

Let’s skip the crap: Democrats have zero chance of passing Dianne Feinstein’s fantasy ban on semi-automatic rifles through the Senate, much less the House of Representatives.

It isn’t even their real goal. It’s a tactical diversion. For now, at least.

What Feinstein and her fellow bullies want is to browbeat legislators to “compromise.”

In Democratese, “compromise” is when they demand a dozen liberties be stripped from you, and give the most outlandish rights away and “accept” just one or two of your freedoms being stripped away.

The apparent real targets of the various Democratic bans floating through Washington are:

  • Bans of standard capacity magazines
  • A national gun registry
  • tracking, limiting sales of ammunition, or stopping online sales of ammunition

Bans of standard capacity magazines
Modern handguns using double column magazines dating back to the 1930s have used 13-17 rounds as their standard design capacity. Many modern semi-automatic rifles of contemporary military utility designed in the 1940s & 50s use a standard capacity of 20-30 rounds, while some more modern arms and magazine designs use 5-60 rounds.

In 1994, politicians arbitrarily decided that more than 10 rounds in a magazine was “high capacity.” They chose this number  on polling data, not any sort of expert opinion.

Standard capacity magazines of 13+ rounds for handguns and 20/30/50+ rounds for carbines and rifles were chose by experts, because they are the best magazines capacities for those firearms based upon years of scientific research and field trials.

Do not allow your congressperson or Senator to compromise away your rights to standard capacity magazines, which are a necessary part of the kit for a “well-regulated militia.”

A national gun registry
The only purpose of registration is as a preexisting necessity for confiscation. New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo wanted to confiscate firearms in the law he forced through several weeks ago, but feared a bloody revolution if he tried to push it through so brazenly. Instead, he “compromised,” telling gun owners they must “register” their arms… for later confiscation, once all the gun owners have self-identified themselves as easy targets on a list.

Do not allow your congressperson or Senator to create a nation gun registry. Registries exist as a prerequisite for confiscation, which allowed the unopposed democide of 262 million souls in the 20th Century alone.

Tracking, limiting sales of ammunition, or stopping online sales of ammunition
Barring the ability (for now) to push through gun confiscation, the would-be elites in Washington—mostly Democrats, but with more than a handful of Republicans—would make it as difficult as possible to buy ammunition. They would like to make it more expensive, hence the restriction on internet sales (and competition for your business). They would like to track “large” orders of ammunition not because of any legitimate threat that has ever been posed by large orders, but because shooters that spend a lot of trigger time are those that are the most competent, and would pose the greatest threat to a rouge government.

Do not allow your congressperson or Senator to pass legislation tracking or limiting the sale of ammunition, and do not let them stop the online sales of ammunition. It serves no purpose in stopping street crime, and only serves to give the government more power over the people.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.


  1. Comrade X says:

    There’s some people who are really trying to fix our problems & these are the people we need to get behind:

  2. HempRopeAndStreetlight says:

    Registration, attacks on ammunition, and magazine bans are intolerable offenses that will be considered no different from a ban on modern sporting rifles. Frankenfienstien’s diversion aside, we must also watch for the bastards going after “private sales.”

    Evil times on the horizon.

  3. Gayle says:

    Good concise talking points.


  4. Comrade X says:

    Here’s the question, can we support some form of universal background checks change?

    Now I don’t trust government (kinda runs in our American DNA) and I would be oppose to government doing the slow down on getting background checks completed like during a gun show (have seem that happen before IMHO) BTW I am going to be at a gun show this weekend selling AR’s uppers & lowers and P-mags (don’t plan to have to be there long). I have no problem doing private sells with kin and friends who I know but when it comes to someone I don’t know, if they don’t have a CCP (which means they can past a background check) I am running them thru a FFL, the last thing I want to do is support some gang or crazy person; what say you?

    • Rob Crawford says:

      “Universal background check” means no more private sales, and an effective gun registry, if a dispersed one.

      • Comrade X says:

        Let’s get rid of the word universal, should we keep the background checks as they are?

        I am totally against gun registration, period! But should we be selling guns to criminal gangs (like Holder).

        How about private sells only to CCP holders or you go thru a FFL? And No registration allowed! BTW all CCP’s should be granted unless they can’t pass a background check.

        As we all know guns ain’t the problem but if we are going to have rules what should they be?

        Another point I happen to know someone who has a CCP and carries that has never even shot the pistol he carries, in a gunfight I would look at him as a hazard more than a help, I believe in states rights and it should be up to the state but my state doesn’t even require any type of NRA type gun safety class to get a CCP, would it be prudent for that to be required?

        I know if you compromise with the liberals an inch they will take a mile but what is really the right & best thing to do?

        OK, back to the revolution!

      • Rob Crawford says:

        I say we demand “Constitutional carry”.

        Let them “compromise” with us.

    • tahDeetz says:


      … not one more damn inch.


    • HempRopeAndStreetlight says:

      HELL NO.




      Nothing needs to be done, nothing needs to be changed, and ANY new gun regulations are tantamount to an intolerable act.

      In fact, any sort of restriction on who I can give or sell my guns to is an open declaration of civil war on the citizens of the united states by her government, and will be reacted to and dealt with accordingly.

      Molon Labe

  5. Chief661 says:

    Not that it did any good but I wrote/faxed a letter to DiFi when this story first broke that I considered it was unconstitutional and that that I had no intentions of complying with this crap should it pass. This is the line in the sand Bob wrote about.

    • Klingonwork says:

      Comrade X, if Nancy Lamsa could pass a background check, what good would that have done keeping her weapons from her son? Point is, crazy people are going to get a hold of guns…just like crazy people are going to get a hold of knives, hatchets, cars, and jet airplanes. Crazy people (includes gangs) will use cotton balls to kill if they are intent on it, you cannot convince me more registration or checks are necessary, nor will I ever comply with more of those laws. What Bob says about “democratese” is spot on…they know they cannot pass Diane “Carrie Nation” Feinstein’s fantasy bill…so they EXPECT everyone else to “compromise”. Ann Coulter had it right when she said compromise has come to mean giving away the farm little by little. Any additional laws will drive gun/ammo ownership underground just like prohibition, and armed insurrection will start making the news.

      Not one more inch will I give.

      Molon Labe

      • Comrade X says:

        Klingonwork, I respect your stance and when the shooting starts I’s got your back.

        Lamsa broke over 40 laws when he did his dirty deed and punishing the law abiding isn’t going to stop the law breakers nor the fact that we don’t enforce the laws we have, deserves the question why do we need more.

        But we do & will have laws I have no problem improving the laws we have if we don’t infringe on the law abiding or the constitution, just an opinion I have, that’s all.

  6. obsidian says:

    How do we stop the liberals?
    The anti second amendment people will shoot us if we do not comply, jail us, sue us, audit our taxes and take everything we have away, threaten to nuke state that don’t comply and still half the country will vote for them.
    Hell, our only hope is the Republicans who are for the most part muzzled, leashed or the republican’s are active and covert co-belligerents with the democrats.
    We, The people of the United States have no way of stopping the democrats winning their war against the constitution, the Bill of Rights and the nation as a whole.
    The only real way to stop them is civil war, American’s are way to Obese, happy and dumb wallowing in comfort to fight for their rights.
    All we can really hope for is for the NorKs to make good on their nuke America training missile shot and hit Washington DC when every politician is there.
    We can then start fresh with all the career bullshitters and complete liberal ass wholes vaporized by their own petard.

  7. […] Lots of the usual go-along-to-get-along suspects are already gloating that the Democrat Socialists will “never” be able to get a gun-confiscation bill through Congress–which I suppose is true, for certain values of “never,” meaning “this week or next.” As always, they’re missing the big picture. […]

  8. robins111 says:

    The background check, is the foundation for a universal gun registry scheme, wait nd see, sooner or later, it’ll be a question on what you are selling to Bob down the street, then it gets entered into a database. That’s what happened in Canada, then, they start deciding that Bill really shouldn’t have a handgun, and they’ll be at his door with a tac-team, telling him to fork it over..

  9. Cole says:

    Not so sure it’s a dog and pony show. That’s most likely. Demand a lot to get a little. But after Obamacare I no longer know what “can’t pass” in congress. They have the votes in the Senate. And I don’t see Boehner provided more than empty words (and tears) if it lands in the House. Are we hoping a committee kills it? That’s terrifying. Honestly, I think it goes as far as the Democrats want it to. Which is even more terrifying.

  10. Larry Sheldon says:

    Silly goose! That is the very heart and soul of “compromise” — demand three times what you think you can get, settle for half of it.

  11. emdfl says:

    I’m old enough to remember when the penalty for treason against the country/constitution was a short drop or a stone wall…
    Bad times are coming and both the repubs and the demos are sitting around playing kissy-face with each other and figuring that they’re immune.

  12. Justin says:

    I think you meant rogue, not the reddish color which is rouge.

  13. Orion says:

    I find it amusing that you think that contacting your ‘representative’ to the criminal syndicate is somehow going induce them to act on your behalf, or that the syndicate is going to do anything other than slowly smother you.

    Perhaps you can request a favor on the occasion of the President’s daughter’s wedding…


  14. Bill says:

    I’m not giving a damn thing in compromise. You have to be reasonable for a compromise, and nothing presented is reasonable or relevant.

  15. Larry says:

    “Let’s skip the crap: Democrats have zero chance of passing Dianne Feinstein’s fantasy ban on semi-automatic rifles through the Senate, much less the House of Representatives.”

    We were also told there was no way Obama would win a second term and that Obamacare didn’t have the support it needed to pass.

  16. Comrade X says:

    On Thursday’s Mark Levin Show: Senator Diane Feinstein has brought up a bill that is a totalitarian regime’s dream. It would ban hundreds of various types of guns, impose regulations on law abiding Americans, and severely limit an individual’s liberty and freedom of choice. Mark urges the Republicans to put the bill up for an up or down vote – to stop playing politics, stop trying to amend it, and put it up for a vote because it won’t pass. We shouldn’t let Congress or a President unilaterally dictate what our rights under the Constitution should or shouldn’t be…..

  17. Comrade X says:

    Page after page of Patriots;

    Many of them current military;

    “I Will not comply!”

  18. 33 P says:

    Nope, can’t comply! Obama, Holder say they can kill Amerikans at will, so I guess they feel they can confiscate. Nothing else matters from here on. If they are willing to kill without due process then all I can say is that it’s ON! They declared War folks! duh


  19. Survival Skvez says:

    Some compromises are reasonable (you want the cake, I want the cake, lets split it in the middle and have half each) and some are not.
    The wolf wants to eat your three children so you ‘compromise’ and he only eats the one. The next year the wolf returns and wants to eat both your children so you compromise and he only eats one. The next year the wolf returns and wants to eat you and your last child, since your last child is too young to survive alone you compromise and he only eats your child. The next year when the wolf returns you are feeling ill and have no children to keep you safe from the wolf …

  20. figment says:

    @Rob Crawford says:
    January 24, 2013 at 2:50 pm
    I say we demand “Constitutional carry”.

    Let them “compromise” with us.

    Heh! I agree. Colonialists over the age of 16 were required to carry a firearm for personal protection. Children were trained at a young age in proper firearms SOP — hunting and warding off Indian attacks.

  21. NYPatriot says:

    If anything … call or write your senators and congressman SUPPORTING total gun bans. Tell your friends and family to do the same. Why? Does anyone here think that we are achieving anything but delaying actions on the march to total ban on all semi-auto weapons? Just look at NY. Does anyone doubt that the “slow, gradual, long game” is the best play for them? “Bit by bit, piece by piece, chip the constitution away” is the path to victory for these people. And, most importantly, they have the demographics on their side – WAAYY on their side. In a few years they will be able to VOTE all of our rights away. They will control the House, Senate, President and Supreme Court. The Constitution will be “legally” scrapped. We are being absorbed by the Socialist Blob and they are growing stronger – year, by year, by year. The long game is their path to Total Victory.

    Enough. Let it happen now. Let them ban all guns and for the individual states to break away while we are strong enough to defend ourselves. If we wait another 4,8,12,16 years it will only be a more bloody and nasty process … because the Socialists will not be as scared of us anymore.

    I say: the slow death march is apparent, undeniable, irreversible.

    I say: we are stronger than we have ever been RIGHT NOW. 20 million background checks for guns in 2012 alone. Probably 15 million more in private sales. God only knows how many guns changed hands that didn’t require background checks.

    I say: we will never be stronger than we are now. Every passing year will result in our children and grandchildren being indoctrinated into the Social Collective.

    I say: If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace….

  22. snipe says:

    Exactly right. Registration in particular would be big win for the leftists. Especially since there would be a large percentage of owners who would not comply. Making criminals out of your political adversaries is fun!

    My recollection is that originally the law forbade the Feds to use the background check and purchasers application filed with the gun merchant to create a database. Anyone want to be that there is a database or interconnection of data bases anyway?

  23. Comrade X says:

    Many banks are being run by slimballs (and that folks is why this country is going down the drain):

    NOTICE: We are unable to process credit card transactions at this time. Intuit Merchant Services has told us that they will NOT process anymore transactions and may put a freeze our accounts because we sell firearms related products. I was told that they are backed by Chase Banks. DO NOT conduct business with these financial institutions if you care about the Constitution of the United States, the Second Amendment or your RIGHTS as a firearms owner. We, as firearms owners, are under attack. I wonder how many of these anti-gun banks received Bail-out money from the current administration?

    We are working on getting set up with a firearm friendly processor and hope to be back on line to serve you quickly. Thank You for understanding.

    • Klingonwork says:

      Comrade X, heard about that, closed my CC with Chase, enjoyed answering when they asked why.

      While I am staunchly against registration, I do see your point on gangs. It is the conundrum, although my thought is most gang members probably get the bulk of their weapons through nefarious sources and/or illegal activities. I think most law-abiding folks like you and I would recognize what my Texas grandpa called a “shady character” and wouldn’t associate in the first place let alone sell a weapon to them that could be turned back on us. Perhaps if there were a way for us to inquire about someone’s background anonymously so the government could not determine what type of weapon or to whom, I would not have a problem with that…I too would not want to sell to a crook or gang member.

      Even with my psychedelic daydreaming above, I just do not trust any government and particularly this government not to abuse the process.

      Have a another question: Want yours/everyones opinion/thoughts on something. If the president or any of the members of Congress are sworn to uphold the Constitution, and per the wording of the Constitution it cannot be modified or construed to mean something else, isn’t Feinstein, Cuomo, Schumer, and der Fuehrer broken their vows by proposing new gun laws? Should they not be brought up on charges for abrogating their duty? Quite seriously, are they not now technically treasonous?

      I have your back too…

      Not one more inch.

      Molon Labe

      • Comrade X says:

        Klingonwork; agree completely on who the traitors are and hope they get exactly what they deserve.

        There is a very dark cloud forming which one day soon with pour down upon us all the evil that it contains.

        It will be our duty to bring our light for all to see and follow.

        Molon Labe

    • robins111 says:

      One of the banks listed is the TD, which stands for the Toronto Dominion bank (Canada). They were major contributors to the Canadian Liberal party which pushed through our firearms act.. They are the very definition of smarmy scum..

  24. Neo says:

    I had this e-mailed to me. I’m no lawyer, but if this is correct, Feinstein is clearly treading into Constitutionally settled caselaw.

    United States v. Miller 1939.
    Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn’t, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.

    … so much for the hunting argument

  25. 11C says:

    This was just passed on to me. I wonder if she’d even get it:

    Senator Feinstein. I congratulate you in your tireless efforts to make our society a safer one. I’m a very proud supporter of the legislation you introduced today and I wish it well. I have only one suggestion that I think would enhance the safety of our children and society. While a registry of gun owners is a wonderful thing, I think that once a registry is established those on it should also be required to wear a badge or patch or armband or some article of outerwear that would readily identify them to the public around them. Thanks again for all your efforts.

  26. Thomas says:

    Bob where did you get that photo of the demacratic national convention?

  27. Glen says:

    And while we’re distracted with piecemeal attacks on the 2nd amendment the Senate and House will pass “immigration reform” – amnesty for our illegal third world invaders. Amnesty is Obama’s primary legislative goal this year. When it happens you can kiss this nation goodbye in all but name.