Gun Control v. Gun Safety. Gun Grabbing by any other name STILL stinks!

It Takes a Dictionary

Bankrolled by dot-com billionaire Andrew McKelvey (pal of billionaire globalist George Soros), the pair--along with former Bill Clinton White House policy and PR specialist Matt Bennett--formed the phony gun-ban front-group Americans for Gun Safety, which has now been transformed into something called the "Third Way." Their aim was to hide all manner of gun control under a sticky coating of "gun safety" sugar. In fact, after extensive polling, they discovered that the American voter had had enough with gun control, and they urged their fellow travelers to abandon the term.

Under an instruction, "Redefine the Issue from Gun Control to Gun Safety," they wrote that, "Gun control has become a loaded term that leads voters to believe that the candidate supports the most restrictive laws." So instead, those candidates can go for exactly the same strictures on gun rights and get away with it if they call the restrictions "progressive gun safety laws." Yet among those "gun safety laws": prohibitions on private ownership of semi-autos, which the progressives would deem "assault weapons."

Thus, Kessler`s and Cowan`s smoke-and-mirrors battle-plan--arrogantly titled, "Taking Back the Second Amendment"--says, " . . . progressives need not change their positions . . . " but simply, "change the rhetoric they employ."

The "blueprint" was formed around public opinion polling that also showed, "Progressives need to be aware of the near-universal support for, and interpretation of, the Second Amendment among all voters . . . that it confers an individual`s right to own firearms."

Thus, they tell anti-gun rights politicians: "It`s critical that progressives recognize that only an aggressive outreach strategy to gun owners will ensure that your opponent`s message about your gun record does not define your candidacy."

In the case of Hillary Clinton, her gun record more than defines her candidacy--and it is very bad indeed. Hiding that record is her game plan for today. If she gets away with it and takes the Oval Office, bank on Kessler, Cowan and Bennett assuming prominent policy positions in a new Clinton administration.

Entire article;

http://www.nrapvf.org/News/Article.aspx?ID=272#

[. . . ] It was through Peters that Soros bankrolled the Million Mom March. Peters had come to the United States under a Soros umbrella, hard on the heels of her successful Australia campaign under which all licensed owners of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and pump rifles forfeited those legal firearms under threat of imprisonment. Peters called it a "buyback," but it was, in reality, theft by government. Among the firearms Peters labeled as "weapons of war" that were destroyed were thousands of Ruger 10/22s, Browning Sweet 16 shotguns and Remington 760s.

All told, hundreds of thousands of registered guns were turned in by licensed owners. Many of those licensed gun owners were compelled to watch their prized possessions torched or cut with chop saws. [. . . ]

The key to this horror was licensing and registration

Aussie companies export security solutions to the US

http://www.austrade.gov.au/Aussie-companies-export-security-solutions-to-the-US/default.aspx

http://www.redflex.com/

And then there`s Obama...

Like Hillary Clinton, presidential candidate Barack Obama is using the scripted rhetorical tricks in the Third Way playbook to the letter. And like Hillary, he is talking our talk while walking their walk.

Obama`s attempt to fool gun rights voters is designed for the politically less savvy and is intentionally opaque. Part of his syrupy rhetoric is an attack on NRA.

"The problem that we`ve had is that the overwhelming majority of gun owners . . . would be amenable to reasonable gun control laws," Obama said. "The NRA`s attitude has been that any restriction is an infringement on the rights of gun owners . . . I think they are oftentimes able to scare law-abiding gun owners . . . "

If anybody should scare gun owners it is Obama--the real Obama, not the scripted actor in the Third Way play.

The freshman Illinois U.S. Senator has embarked on a cynical divide-and-conquer strategy where he would have some firearms owners believe they would be out of harm`s way when it comes to his gun control schemes. In Iowa, a recent headline told it all--"Obama: My wife sees need for rural gun ownership."

But given the first commandment of the Third Way`s "Taking Back the Second Amendment"-- "progressives need not change their positions . . . " but simply, "change the rhetoric they employ"--the positions he has taken should scream out to anyone hearing his soothing words that begin with, "I respect the Second Amendment." "But . . . "

There is always that word, followed by the inevitable "reasonable" and "common sense" code words created as cover by the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign.

Obama`s Position Versus Rhetoric

Try this for "reasonable." As an Illinois candidate for reelection to the state Senate, Obama set the "common sense" standard for his gun control stance in pledging support on a "1998 National Political Awareness Test" to "Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons."

That position, cited on pro- and anti-gun websites across the net, is such a remarkably harsh choice that it has even been condemned on far-left blogs like the Democratic Underground. In agreeing to the goal of banning commerce in "all forms" of semi-autos, Obama had ratcheted up his position expressed in an earlier questionnaire where Independent Voters of Illinois interviewers garnered his support for a ban on the "manufacture, sale and possession of handguns."

As an Illinois state senator he was an aggressive advocate for all manner of new gun controls. In a state that has gun-owner licensing and de facto firearms registration, he pressed for creating mug-shot files and fingerprint databases for law-abiding gun owners. He voted against legislation giving homeowners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. The true test of his anti-Second Amendment activism, however, is found in his service on the 10-member board of directors of the radical anti-gun money machine, the Joyce Foundation.

That foundation, which has given at least $50 million to anti-Second Amendment forces, is the principal source of capital for the gun ban far-left Violence Policy Center, and for a host of groups like Handgun Free America and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), which under a recent Joyce grant called for the routine warrantless seizure and destruction of firearms by police agencies.

Yet Obama`s spot on the board was more than ceremonial. According to a puff piece in the Oct. 12, 2007, Boston Globe, Obama considered becoming the CEO of the Joyce Foundation in 2000, after he was defeated in a race for the U.S. Congress. During his tenure at the Joyce Foundation, Obama was involved in the approval of $18,326,183 in anti-Second Amendment grants, including funds for the Consumer Federation of America, which had just hired retiring arch anti-gun U.S. Sen. Howard Metzenbaum.

That grant was to support a backdoor ban on firearms under the guise of "regulation of guns as consumer products." Joyce also gave $600,000 as seed money to create a group whose purpose is to provide anti-gun propaganda to Hollywood filmmakers.

Or try this: Joyce even gave a $1 million grant to the Violence Policy Center to "promote public health-oriented gun policy through research, public education, coalition building and advocacy."

All of the anti-gun rights grant descriptions for the years 1998 through 2001--when Obama was an activist board member--boil down to words like "advocacy," "communications strategies," "comprehensive health and safety regulation of the firearm industry," "policy advocacy activities" or "sound public health regulations of firearms."

Doubtless, if Obama were to ascend to the Oval Office, much of this same pervasive, corrosive work would be carried out by federal agencies like the U.S. Department of Justice, the Center for Disease Control and the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs Development, using tens of millions in taxpayer funding.

Finally, as a U.S. senator, Obama voted against ending punitive lawsuits designed to bankrupt the federally regulated firearm-business community.

With the U.S. Supreme Court about to hear the District of Columbia`s challenge to the U.S. Court of Appeals decision striking down the city`s ban on operable firearms in private homes as unconstitutional, Obama, the Harvard Law School graduate, opined unequivocally that D.C.`s ban was "constitutional." This is coming from a man who, as president, could appoint perhaps three or more members of the U.S. Supreme Court over the next several years.

http://www.theiacp.org/documents/index.cfm?fuseaction=document&document_id=969