You Could Lose All Your Guns Before 2035 Under The Amnesty Bill Before The Senate

Gun Owners of America
Gun Owners of America

Washington, DC –-(Ammoland.com)- We’ve written you before about the immigration amnesty bill that will be debated on the Senate floor beginning June 10 2013.

We had just been through a hard fight to stop gun bans and registration. And some of you may have even felt the immigration amnesty was not a “gun” issue.

But if the amnesty bill is passed, within 20 years, Washington could be as anti-gun as Albany, Hartford, and Sacramento.

This is because the bill will create at least 11,500,000 new citizens — but probably closer to 20,000,000 — and, if history is any guide, they will vote 71% of the time for far Left Democrats like Barack Obama.

Impartial analysts have determined that Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and probably Arizona will never vote for Republicans again. Given this, for the rest of your life, the White House will be occupied by someone who is just as anti-gun and just as liberal as Barack Obama.

Conservatives in the Senate think that they can woo new immigrants to their side of the aisle. But it is informative that, after the last amnesty bill (the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill signed by Ronald Reagan), those people given citizenship were LESS LIKELY to vote for more conservative and constitutional candidates.

Currently, the two political parties nationally, stand in a delicate political balance. Mitt Romney lost the presidency by 334,000 votes in four states (Florida, Ohio, Virginia and New Hampshire).

So if you add a net gain of almost 8.5 million Obama voters to the electorate, the same amnesty that turned California “blue” will probably turn the whole country anti-gun as well.

Already, the calls for gun confiscation in “blue” and “purple” states are growing louder and louder:

  • New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said that “confiscation could be an option” after the Sandy Hook shooting;
  • Likewise, an Iowa legislator said that we need to “start taking” guns from law-abiding gun owners;
  • This year, legislation in both Minnesota and Missouri would have (if enacted) forced residents to cough up their high-capacity magazines and many of their semi-automatic firearms;
  • And legislators in New Jersey were recently caught on an open microphone saying that “we needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”

By 2035, the battle will no longer be about stopping the expansion of background checks. Most likely, it will be about stopping the government from coming to take your guns away. And there is nothing we will be able to do about it.

ACTION: Click here to contact your Senators and urge them to vote against the anti-gun immigration amnesty bill.

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585
FAX: 703-321-8408
www.gunowners.org

About:Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. `The only no comprise gun lobby in Washington' – Ron Paul Visit: www.gunowners.org to Join.

  • 7 thoughts on “You Could Lose All Your Guns Before 2035 Under The Amnesty Bill Before The Senate

    1. June 10 2013. State Department memo reveals possible cover-ups, halted investigations

      Have you ever wondered why now? Why are all these scandals coming out at this particular time??

      Could it be an elaborate distraction? So nobody notices the passage of the amnesty bill??

      Remember the last time they tried to pass amnesty? That got such a massive negative reaction from millions of angry Americans, it took down the capital phone system.
      That scared the crap out of Washington Politicians.
      It was almost a revolt. I think it was a precursor of the Tea Party.

      The message above is not anti-Mexican, it’s just a warning. We already know that about 70% of those new voters will vote for dems. That’s a fact. (See California voting data etc).

      So, it’s pretty easy to see that America is heading for a liberal controlled, one party system.
      It makes no difference how our new citizens might ‘feel’ about being defenseless in a new era of increasing violence in north America.
      Once they help put anti-gunners in full control. The 2A is gone.

    2. Hey Carlo:

      Just look at the 1986 amnesty plan and see what it did to California and their recent gun grabs…. it is a matter of right thinking Americans vs liberal turds in the punch bowl.

    3. States will secede with Texas leading the way,..soon ! Take our guns cause were over run with Mexicans ?,…not today,not ever !

    4. If history is any measure today’s immigrants will go the way those of yesteryear (my Dad, my Mom’s folks, the kids of Mexican immigrants married into my extended family)they will become Americans hardly distinguishible from any group whose line goes back a hundred or two hundred years; the first generation is conservative as can be, the kids rebel and reach out to their more assimilated counterparts. Asking us to believe that the immigration problem can be tied to Second Amendment considerations is asking us to believe as if we were imbiciles. You do your cause no favor in writing as you do. Certainly there are those who would ban guns altogether, as there are those who must have collections of hundreds of the most powerful weapons available. Those two extremes are the frightened and ignorany members of our society. The answer lies somewhere between: we’ve tried to ban alcohol; we’ve tried to ban other drugs; in each case we have failed miserably. The answer for alcohol resulted in a level of control (pick your own judgment: too much or not enough). The recreational drug answer is in the making. I hope we will be smart enough to avoid the critically stupid step of banning firearms, but if the response of frightened gun owners pushes gun control so far out of the picture that law and order and civil safety are challenged, sure as shootin’ there’ll be a backlash.

    5. (ECPA) The Privacy Act of 1974 The Wire And Electronic Communications Interception And Interception Of Oral Communications The Wireless Telecommunications Privacy Act of 2000 The Freedom of Information Act) and Obama’s indefinite detention, possible use of drone policy etc, The Obama National Security Strategy released in May that allows for the targeted assassination of US citizens including “homegrown terrorists” without due process, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s ongoing effort to create international small arms accords that may be used to subvert the Second Amendment rights of US citizens etc. These are real concerns and though it is unlikely that the american military could ever be convinced to attack american citizens outright, if one is labeled a “terrorist” for their beliefs, which groups such as the black panthers unofficially were (and systematically assassinated) in addition with the numerous historical precedents of American abuse of authority since WWII it is unlikely but not not inconceivable that the government may target certain individuals and seek to disarm the populace. We need to provide new immigrants with this information and make sure our rights are not slowly worn away or outright taken. The late Malcom X preferred the conservative wolf to the liberal fox for this reason. Like the frog in a stove, we may be boiled before we notice the temperature of the water. This right is something that blacks, whites, latinos, and asians can agree upon when given the right information. Blacks have been assassinated by the government for their political views, Japanese-Americans put in camps, Latinos discriminated against legally, and Whites have always been socially and economically stratified such that one group of is dictating and often abusing another. These historical precedents are real and thus so is the threat against our guns, but just to say that immigrants as a group are a threat to the second amendment is a fallacy implies if one believes in the second amendment that we also must be against immigration and amnesty. This is wrong, idiotic, and offensive. Gun rights and explication of why they are exist and their importance to keep and maintain is a discussion worth having in this immigrant context, but all the author is doing here is basic fear mongering.

    6. Framing this argument in terms of immigration is a blatant fallacy. Any decent researcher knows that correlation does not equal causation. You are implying that simply because new immigrants tend to be more liberal that the US could face a total gun ban by 2035. I think this sort of rhetoric is the kind that keeps back true conversations about gun ownership. I am a gun owner, not affiliated with any political party, and a second amendment supporter. Instead of talking about the challenges in terms of democrats vs republicans, (Let’s face it your article implies latinos/immigrants vs whites) what needs to be discussed is whether or not these incoming immigrants will be amenable to disarmament, and if they are, what can be done to make a case to them such that they see the importance to every citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. My grandparents are immigrants. They are infinitely more conservative than I in addition to being gun rights supporters. The author assumes these new immigrants will vote along party lines. They certainly might if they are not given an intelligent, dynamic, contextualized argument as to why this right is necessary. However, if they read this article, with it’s multitude of assumptions, obvious lack of research and context, self vs other mentality, cut and dry attitude, they certainly will vote without critical thinking. In the end, we need to facilitate an intelligent forum for discussion about this topic. While I think you have the right idea (defending the second) you not are defending it, especially in this case, with the right reasons. To be frank, this is low-brow, us vs them fear mongering with racist undertones. Indeed, it is much easier to write an article like this and energize non-critcal thinkers who already agree, than to do adequate statistical analysis and research (which are needed to make your claims). That said, this issue is worth taking the time and checking assumptions, data, and even drafting a plan ensure gun rights are not taken away due to possibly uniformed immigrant voters. I’ll tell you one thing. Regardless if a nationwide gun ban gets passed or not, which it will not, a nation cannot realistically control it’s citizens making weapons themselves as a means for protection against tyranny. This law abiding citizen stuff is all well and good, but at it’s core the laws we have in this country as a whole are to protect against government tyranny. While dictatorship and stripping of rights is highly unlikely, the recent lawmaking abilities of the executive branch since George Bush Jr. (Patriot Act, violations of federal law including: The Telecommunications Privacy Act of 1984 (TPA) The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986
      (ECPA) The Privacy Act of 1974 The Wire And Electronic Communications Interception And Interception Of Oral Communications The Wireless Telecommunications Privacy Act of 2000 The Freedom of Information Act) and Obama’s indefinite detention, possible use of drone policy etc, The Obama National Security Strategy released in May that allows for the targeted assassination of US citizens including “homegrown terrorists” without due process, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s ongoing effort to create international small arms accords that may be used to subvert the Second Amendment rights of US citizens etc. These are real concerns and though it is unlikely that the american military could ever be convinced to attack american citizens outright, if one is labeled a “terrorist” for their beliefs, which groups such as the black panthers unofficially were (and systematically assassinated) in addition with the numerous historical precedents of American abuse of authority since WWII it is unlikely but not not inconceivable that the government may target certain individuals and seek to disarm the populace. We need to provide new immigrants with this information and make sure our rights are not slowly worn away or outright taken. The late Malcom X preferred the conservative wolf to the liberal fox for this reason. Like the frog in a stove, we may be boiled before we notice the temperature of the water. This right is something that blacks, whites, latinos, and asians can agree upon when given the right information. Blacks have been assassinated by the government for their political views, Japanese-Americans put in camps, Latinos discriminated against legally, and Whites have always been socially and economically stratified such that one group of is dictating and often abusing another. These historical precedents are real and thus so is the threat against our guns, but just to say that immigrants as a group are a threat to the second amendment is a fallacy implies if one believes in the second amendment that we also must be against immigration and amnesty. This is wrong, idiotic, and offensive. Gun rights and explication of why they are exist and their importance to keep and maintain is a discussion worth having in this immigrant context, but all the author is doing here is basic fear mongering.

    Comments are closed.