The New American 
December 29, 2012
Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California has stirred up a hornets’ nest with her latest proposal to ban so-called “assault weapons”  and standard capacity magazines while creating a federal registry of gun owners, complete with pictures and fingerprints. Analystssay  supporting the measure would be “political suicide” for Democrats, and some opponents of Sen. Feinstein’s most recent assault on the Second Amendment are evenasking the White House to put the far-left lawmaker on trial for treason . More than a few critics also suggested  the move against gun rights could start another revolution or civil war.
Despite claims by the Obama administration and the establishment media, recent polls show that a majority of Americans oppose Feinstein’s scheme , not that opinion polls matter when discussing rights enshrined in the Constitution. Analysts also say the dangerous legislation is unlikely to pass — especially with GOP control of the House and even liberal so-called “RINO” Republicans in the Senate vowing to oppose the measure . The previous “assault weapons” ban, which expired in 2004, was also entirely ineffective, according to studies .
Instead of more gun control laws, pressure is mounting on legislators to repeal statutes purporting to create so-called “gun-free zones,” which experts say are a “magnet” for mass murderers who obviously do not obey laws anyway . The National Rifle Association (NRA), meanwhile, is pushing a controversial  plan for federally funded armed guards at schools  to help prevent future tragedies.
Sen. Feinstein’s proposed legislation , which she promised to introduce in 2013, would purport to ban the sale, manufacture, or importation of 120 types of guns — essentially semi-automatic firearms that some politicians and their allies in the establishment press have arbitrarily described  as “assault weapons.” Included on the list are many of the most popular pistols, rifles, and shotguns owned by tens of millions of Americans. The bill would also seek to criminalize the possession of standard capacity magazines that accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The anti-gun extremists in Washington, D.C., critics say, are hoping to completely disarm America. “The bottom line: If we are foolish enough to embrace a ban on any weapon in the coming Congress then we are unwittingly embracing a ban on every weapon,” noted  AWR Hawkins with the pro-Second Amendment group AmmoLand Shooting Sports, saying Feinstein’s plan was really a thinly veiled attempt to ban handguns as well. “The Democrats cannot be trusted with our freedoms, and they will politicize every tragedy to accomplish their ends.”
Another one of the most troubling aspects of the Feinstein scheme is a provision that would purport to mandate a federal database of gun owners, which, aside from being anti-constitutional, is also currently prohibited by statute. According to a summary of the legislation released by Sen. Feinstein, the bill would unconstitutionally seek to register weapons in a federal database that would include photographs and fingerprints of gun owners.
Also required to be able to keep one’s “grandfathered” weapons under the proposal would be local law enforcement verification placed in the federal registry, as mandated by the “National Firearms Act” (NFA) — essentially requiring a signature from a county sheriff or city police chief. One of the many problems already cited with the plan is that some anti-gun local law enforcement bosses could refuse to sign, as they already do oftentimes for machine guns , leaving gun owners with the option of either giving up their weapons, facing arrest, or hiding them.
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Of course, the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to create a national registry of gun owners any more than it would permit a ban on semi-automatic rifles or pistols — in fact, the Second Amendment explicitly guarantees the God-given right to keep and bear arms, and the Supreme Court recently upheld that right. Aside from that, though, critics of the scheme have pointed to the historical record on gun registration : It is often simply a precursor to outright confiscation, as countless governments including the National Socialist (Nazi) regime of Adolf Hitler, numerous mass murdering communist dictatorships, and even modern-day Western countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia have proven.
Plus, critics of the proposal point to studies showing that the previous “assault-weapons” ban — in place from 1994 to 2004, but far less draconian than the current proposal — did virtually nothing to stop crime, murder, or mayhem, despite promises by its supporters. One 2004 study by the National Research Council cited  in news reports, for example, found that the scheme “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence.”
Even the Justice Department explained that it had “no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury.” When the ban expired, anti-Second Amendment extremists claimed murder and mayhem would be sure to follow. Of course, that never happened, with murders nationwide actually dropping by almost four percent  — the first decline since 1999 — the year after lawmakers refused to renew the ban.
There was at least one development, however, that was widely attributed to the last “assault weapons” ban: the overwhelming defeat of Democrats at the polls, likely costing the Democrat Party the control of Congress. Analysts, even those who support more infringements on gun rights, have said the current legislation would almost certainly amount to “political suicide” for Democrats , and especially for any RINOs who might be tempted to join in. Most Americans reject the ban, and gun owners tend to remember politicians who attack their rights.
“I think that is a phony piece of legislation and I do not believe it will pass for this reason: It’s all built on lies,” NRA chief Wayne LaPierre said  recently about the controversial scheme, which his organization and its millions of members oppose. Other gun rights leaders such as Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, known as the fiercest and most uncompromising defender of the right to keep and bear arms, have been just as vocal, warning politicians  that they will pay a major political price for seeking to assault the unalienable rights of Americans.
While political analysts say the prospects for passage at this point remain slim, gun rights activists have still been making their voices heard loud and clear across the Internet, posting comments all over the Web stating that they will not register or surrender their weapons regardless of any unconstitutional statutes purporting to require it. They are also calling their lawmakers, just in case. More alarming, perhaps, some commentators are openly speculating that further gun control efforts could be the spark that finally kicks off an armed rebellion in the United States.
“Feinstein’s bill is unprecedented in the history of this country, and requires widespread enforcement in every town and hamlet in order to be effective,” wrote  Brandon Smith with the liberty-minded Alt-Market in a widely disseminated  piece saying Feinstein’s bill would trigger the next American Revolution. “The way in which it is designed makes a violent response from the public inevitable.”
Like other analysts making a similar case, Smith looked at the numbers. “To put this bluntly, there are approximately 50 million gun owners (according to official estimates) in the United States. If only 2% of those gun owners refuse to submit to the Feinstein Database, and the feds attempt confiscation, they will have a massive revolution on their hands,” he wrote. “Many Americans, including myself, will not be strolling into the local Fusion Center to register our weapons. Why? Because gun registration reeks of fascism!”
Unsurprisingly, the New York Times, widely ridiculed as the official propaganda mouthpiece of the establishment , has come out in favor of Feinstein’s controversial proposal. “This is the kind of approach needed if the nation is ever to come to grips with gun violence,” the statist paper said in a half-baked editorial . While critics of the establishment press assault on the Second Amendment say the media is largely “talking to itself,”  a veritable parade of supposed “news” characters have also been shrieking for more gun control — most notably, perhaps, CNN’s Piers Morgan, a Briton whom activists are now lobbying to deport for his attacks on Americans’ constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Despite the establishment media hysteria aimed at creating the perception of stronger support for more infringements on gun rights, polls also show the American public still overwhelmingly supports the right to keep and bear arms. Even in the face of non-stop “assault weapon” propaganda in the mainstream press, most Americans oppose the proposed ban, and 75 percent are against a handgun ban, according to a recent Gallup survey  conducted after the Sandy Hook massacre.
As anti-gun rights lawmakers pursue unconstitutional legislative schemes, disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder suggested theObama administration may try to use non-existent “executive” powers to assault gun rights . Holder, whose Justice Department was infamously caught arming Mexican drug cartels in Fast and Furious while using the ensuing chaos to push gun control , famously proposed a taxpayer-funded campaign to “brainwash” Americans against guns .
While it seems unlikely at this point that Sen. Feinstein’s proposal will pass, the establishment has shown that it is fully behind the plan. Even if it does not get through this time, the anti-gun rights fanatics do not intend to give up anytime soon — though some analysts have already suggested that the gun control movement is “doomed.”  If the proposal does somehow manage to get through Congress, however, that is when gun rights activists say the real problems will begin.
Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, politics, and more. He can be reached firstname.lastname@example.org .