MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Ban’

ATF Director Says Assault Weapons Ban Now On His “Wish List”

Posted by M. C. on November 11, 2023

Another NON-elected official calling the shots.

Turning the nation into a giant Chicago.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/atf-director-says-assault-weapons-ban-now-his-wish-list

by Tyler Durden

Friday, Nov 10, 2023 – 11:00 PM

Submitted by Gun Owners of America,

Looks like Biden’s ATF director has drastically changed his views from his Senate confirmation hearing.

During a recent interview with Caroline Light, the Director of Undergraduate studies in Women, Gender and Sexuality at Harvard University, ATF Director Steve Dettelbach was asked about his gun control “Wish list.”

Steven Dettelbach (right) with historian Caroline Light (left). Source: Harvard 

According to Harvard Magazine, ATF Director Dettelbach answered that he’d like to revive the federal prohibition on “assault weapons,” which expired in 2004. 

The so-called “assault weapons” that Dettelbach refers to are commonly owned modern sporting rifles that 1 in 20 Americans own.

This is a drastic change from Dettelbach’s nomination hearing, where he promised to be a fair regulator and only use the tools that Congress gave him.

These words earned him his nominations from holdouts like Senator Angus King of Maine and West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin.

Senator King was credited with torpedoing the previous ATF director nominee, David Chipman.

Chipman, a former ATF agent and veteran of the gun-control lobby, was withdrawn after his views on firearms confirmed that he would be antagonistic towards the firearms industry as a regulator.

Dettelbach was seen as a law enforcement candidate, with a background as a United States Attorney who promised to “never let politics in any way influence my action as ATF director.”

It is clear that Director Dettelbach has become a gun-control advocate in the vein of David Chipman. In fact, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, no ATF director has ever advocated for an assault weapon ban until now.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Proposed Bill Bans Body Armor, Makes Possession a Crime, Forces Citizens to Turn it In or Face Arrest – Activist Post

Posted by M. C. on January 7, 2021

The armor is purely defensive in nature, and people should always have the ability and right to defend themselves against attack.

The right to self-defense is the right from which all other rights are derived. As John Locke stated, self-defense is the first law of nature. Each person owns his or her own life and no other person has a right to take that life, or hinder the preservation thereof.

When seconds count…you’re screwed.

https://www.activistpost.com/2021/01/proposed-bill-bans-body-armor-makes-possession-a-crime-forces-citizens-to-turn-it-in-or-face-arrest.html

By Matt Agorist

Lawmakers in New York have proposed one of the most tyrannical and utterly worrisome pieces of legislation we’ve seen. They want to ban citizens from having body armor to protect themselves from bullets. As no one has ever beaten anyone to death with a bullet proof vest, the intentions behind this bill are clear and have no other purpose other than making it easier for government to kill citizens and harder for citizens to protect themselves from bullets.

New York, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, now wants to make it a misdemeanor and potential felony for people to purchase or possess a passive means of resistance to bullets.

Unlike other attempts to ban body armor like we’ve seen in the past, this bill does not grandfather people in who already own it. In fact, the bill says that it must be turned over to the state for disposal, or you are guilty. After the passage of the bill, citizens will have 15 days to turn it in before they are declared criminals.

Assembly Bill A352 was introduced and cosponsored by David McDonough, Richard Gottfried, and Michael Montesano. It reads as follows (emphasis added.)

§ 270.21 Unlawful purchase or possession of a body vest. A person is guilty of the unlawful purchase or possession of a body vest when he or she knowingly and unlawfully purchases or possesses a body vest, as such term is defined in subdivision two of section 270.20 of this article. This section shall not apply to active law enforcement officers or those whose occupations require the use of body vests as determined by the department of state.

Unlawful purchase or possession of a body vest is a class A misdemeanor for a first offense and a class E felony for any subsequent offense.

§ 2.  Any person currently in possession of a body vest, as such term is defined in subdivision two of section 270.20 of the penal law, shall have 15 days from the effective date of this act to dispose of such body vest at any local or state law enforcement agency.

On the government’s website, they allow comments from citizens. Naturally, this piece of legislation is not being well received. One person pointed out the obvious, saying, “The only legitimate reason for this bill is to make it easier for the State to murder the disarmed subjects of New York.”

“I cannot believe that such a bill would even be introduced in our state. The government here wants to control every aspect of our lives, even such a purely defensive item. Shame on our lawmakers for even considering such a bill,” another commenter wrote.

“This is a vile and wicked bill! Body armor is the most passive form of self protection possible that a person can use and you want to take that away from law-abiding citizens?! You should be disgusted with yourselves for ever proposing such a thing!” another person pointed out.

We agree with all of them.

The reality is America has less major crime than at any point in the last 40 years, and yet we have cops patrolling American streets as if they are in the Korengal or Fallujah, and treating the citizens as such, with absolutely no regard for the Constitution.

Perhaps if these lawmakers put as much effort into disarming the overly militarized police, as attempting to take away law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves from would-be shooters, people wouldn’t have the impetus to wear body armor.

The armor is purely defensive in nature, and people should always have the ability and right to defend themselves against attack.

The right to self-defense is the right from which all other rights are derived. As John Locke stated, self-defense is the first law of nature. Each person owns his or her own life and no other person has a right to take that life, or hinder the preservation thereof.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that the police have no duty to protect citizens, so that responsibility now falls squarely on the shoulders of individuals themselves.

To take away people’s ability to access defensive armor, after telling them that they are on their own and are owed no protection by law enforcement, almost seems like a cruel joke.

Why should a law-abiding American, who takes steps to defend themselves passively, be criminalized?

Where is the sense in government banning something that provides people protection from harm?

The logic of this bill is so askew that it wouldn’t be surprising if perhaps next they will try and pass a bill that outlaws hiding behind things while being shot at.

When the state attempts to make it illegal to protect yourself from bullets, it may be time to start purchasing gear to protect yourself from bullets.

Source: The Free Thought Project

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Minds.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Useless Ban the Useful – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on March 5, 2020

Which reveals the actual purpose of forbidding plastic: the law hands more power to politicians and bureaucrats and shovels yet more of our money into the state’s coffers: “Three [of the five] cents will be given to the state’s Environmental Protection Fund, while the remaining 2 cents is handed to local agencies.”

Plastic bags aren’t free. They are a cost of business. Like everything else that is “free” the lowly unwashed consumer pays.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/03/becky-akers/the-useless-ban-the-useful/

By

Politicians share more traits with plastic shopping bags than we might assume at first glance. Both are almost always opaque; the big mouths of each flap in the breeze; and plastic shopping bags enjoy a useful life of about 12 minutes before becoming trash, while politicians—-hmmm….

OK, forget that last: politicians are worthless from the get-go. So perhaps they envy plastic bags, which Americans find so very valuable that they consume somewhere between 14 billion to 100 billion of them per year. Ergo, officials in the People’s Democratic Republic of New York have banned plastic shopping bags as have those in the PDRs of California and Hawaii. (Before you gloat that at least your locale isn’t that crazy, check to see what your legislators are hatching.)

New York State decreed last year that its serfs must forego the convenience of “free” plastic shopping bags with their purchases—or such bags at any price; their diktat went into effect this past Sunday. Certainly, this is among the minor annoyances we suffer under Amerika’s totalitarian regimes: it’s not as though the TSA will now infest supermarkets, groping customers, or cops will haunt Aldi’s liquor aisles, demanding ID before infiltrating the dairy section to slaughter the completely innocent “by mistake.”

But the difficulties of shopping sans plastic bags dramatically increase in New York City. Most folks there lug purchases home by hand rather than merely stowing them in their car; they walk, sacks in hand, sometimes only a few blocks but often more. Thanks to exorbitant property taxes, apartments are notoriously small in the Big Apple, space is tight, and many people spontaneously dart into bodegas for some sushi and a serving of aloo gobi rather than cooking dinner in a cramped kitchen.

Their Rulers’ latest decree turns that easy task onerous: as of March 1, “Shoppers can carry their own reusable bags, buy one at the store, or cough up an extra 5 cents for a paper bag…”

As always, potentates pooh-pooh the problems they’ve produced. “Erica Ringewald, a spokeswoman for the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation,” enthuses,“You leave the house, you say, ‘I got my keys, I got my phone, I got my sunglasses, I got my bag…’” But Erica lives in Albany, where she no doubt drives to stores. Breathtaking, isn’t it, her disregard for the elderly, arthritic widow in Coney Island who, having forgotten her bag, painfully grasps her tub of margarine for the three blocks she’ll hobble to her apartment.

You may be marveling as I was at that “extra 5 cents for a paper bag…” That is not an optional expense from entrepreneurs struggling as they typically do to ease their customers’ pain at the State’s diktats; no, that petty larceny is mandatory. Politicians aren’t ordering stores to sell bags—yet. But they are commanding those who offer paper to charge a nickel per bag. Which reveals the actual purpose of forbidding plastic: the law hands more power to politicians and bureaucrats and shovels yet more of our money into the state’s coffers: “Three [of the five] cents will be given to the state’s Environmental Protection Fund, while the remaining 2 cents is handed to local agencies.”

New York City is heavily Marxist, so worry over the State’s newest intrusion into daily life arises not over its totalitarianism but over its “impact” on the “disadvantaged.” One Stalinist at Whole Foods opined to the New York Times,  “I know this [ban] is much easier for the bourgeoisie than it is for the working class…” I nominate that quote for this year’s “Moronically Regurgitating the Communist Manifesto” Award. Predictably, Our Rulers exempt welfare-queens from their ban: “If you pay using SNAP or WIC, you will not be charged any paper bag fees. Stores must provide SNAP and WIC users with free carryout bags. No other customers are exempt from this fee.” It’s always a blessing when the State foregoes taxes, given the horrific harm it buys us with our own money. But it’s also a bit much to rob us on behalf of these sponges while excusing them from the ban.

Not surprisingly, politics rather than facts has driven the hatred for plastic bags. For starters, “Plastic bags are less than 1% of all litter … EPA data …[show] that the entire category of plastic sacks, wraps, and bags — including trash bags as well as grocery bags — together account for only a little over one percent of all municipal solid waste, and only a small fraction of overall plastics.” I don’t have stats, but I’d wager politicians and bureaucrats comprise at least another 49% of “municipal solid waste,” while the Thousands Standing Around at airports account for the remainder. Those hoping to save the planet should go after that garbage first.

Second, “In 2011, the UK’s Environment Agency … looked at the number of times that a bag would need to be reused in order to have the same environmental impact as the conventional … [plastic] bag that people are used to. They reach [sic] the following conclusion: ‘In round numbers these are: paper bag – 4 times, LDPE bag – 5 times, non-woven PP bag – 14 times and the cotton bag – 173 times.’”

Other studies have delivered similar findings. But reality doesn’t matter when politics decides an issue: only publicity for politicians does. Accordingly, New York City’s bigwigs are squandering our taxes on “free” “reusable bags” that the Department of Sanitation will dispense to subjects, regardless of the “environmental impact.”

That’s after they wasted our money on a “NEW YORK STATE PLASTIC BAG TASK FORCE” and its “REPORT,” which alleged, “Single-use plastic bags are a detriment to the health of communities and the environment alike. … their negative impacts can be seen daily. These problems … are not only a statewide problem but a national as well as international issue of concern.”

Hey, more parallels with politicians!

Be seeing you

?u=http4.bp.blogspot.com-NGrzJgBQttYTcu7PiwD8AIAAAAAAAAAvcmq8Obg1hU8Us1600FreeMarketsGovernmentMeddling.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Michael Bloomberg Proposed Ban on Baby Formula as NYC Mayor

Posted by M. C. on February 19, 2020

Ironically, a 1997 lawsuit filed against Bloomberg and his company alleged that he told an employee who disclosed her pregnancy to him that she should “kill it” in order to protect her career at his firm.

Progressives looking out for you.

Because you are too dumb to take care of yourself.

This tells you something about the American Academy of Pediatrics.

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/02/18/nyc-mayor-michael-bloomberg-proposed-ban-baby-formula/

by Dr. Susan Berry

As New York City mayor, Michael Bloomberg demanded that mothers breastfeed their babies and insisted hospitals keep baby formula under lock and key.

In 2012, the current Democrat presidential candidate created the “Latch On” initiative, which exerted control over a mother’s decision on how to feed her baby.

The Daily Mail reported at the time:

Mayor Bloomberg has demanded that hospitals stop handing out baby formula to persuade more new mothers to breastfeed their babies.

The New York City health department will monitor the number of formula bottles being given out and demand a medical reason for each one.

More than half of the city’s hospitals agreed to institute the Latch On program. Subsequently, those hospitals ended the practice of distributing free bags of formulas and baby bottles to new mothers.

With the support of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the campaign was presented as a health initiative for both mother and baby.

“With this initiative the New York City health community is joining together to support mothers who choose to breastfeed,” said Thomas Farley, city health commissioner.

WTVR reported Bloomberg defended the initiative, claiming it would make people healthier.

The proposed ban on baby formula arrived soon after another one on sugary drinks in large containers to control obesity. In 2008, Bloomberg also banned trans-fats in city restaurants and demanded menus display calories contained in each food item.

“Most of the public health officials around the country think that this is a great idea,” Bloomberg said of the baby formula initiative. “I gather that the immunities that a mother has built up get passed along to the child, so the child is healthier.”

However, some mothers complained about the campaign.

“It’s up to the mother to choose what’s right for her and her child,” said Lisa Tacy, according to WTVR. “I don’t think the government should be doing anything to prevent the mom from being a mother and making her own decisions.”

Ironically, a 1997 lawsuit filed against Bloomberg and his company alleged that he told an employee who disclosed her pregnancy to him that she should “kill it” in order to protect her career at his firm.

Be seeing you

The Greatest 'Yo Mama' Jokes In The History Of The ...

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Dems at Climate Forum: Ban Everything! [Supercut]

Posted by M. C. on September 5, 2019

banning certain behaviors

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) went the furthest, saying we should try to minimize human life itself to help the environment.

Progressive eugenics…back in fashion.

https://news.grabien.com/story-dems-climate-forum-ban-everything-supercut

By Tom Elliott

Among them: Bans on straws, red meat, incandescent lightbulbs, gas-powered cars, nuclear energy, off-shore drilling, fracking, natural gas exports, coal plants, and even “carbon” itself…

Sen. Harris said she would update government food guidelines to try to phase out eating red meat: “The answer is yes. I’ll also say this. The balance that we have to strike here, frankly, is about what government can and should do around creating incentives and then banning certain behaviors…

Most incredible: CNN asked most candidates if they support a “carbon-free America” and every candidate answered in the affirmative. How America can become “carbon-free” as every living thing on Earth contains carbon was never discussed or explained.

Be seeing you

NAACP leader receives award from eugenics founded Planned ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »