U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., was caught in a barefaced lie about the Feinstein gun ban bill in an interview with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC. Mitchell helped Murphy perpetuate the lie by failing to correct the falsehoods. A true journalist would have challenged the senator on his wildly erroneous statements.
Mitchell, who has built up a well-known, verifiable reputation as a lackey for the Obama administration and other extremist leftwing politicians, had played an excerpt Thursday of the heated exchange between U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas in the Senate over constitutional rights and Feinstein's sweeping, draconian gun ban bill. She then brought on Sen. Murphy to claim that Cruz is wrong and Feinstein is right about the Constitution and the Second Amendment.
But Murphy and Mitchell were caught, red-handed, in a series of barefaced lies about the bill. The senator claimed that Cruz had no basis for charging that the Feinstein bill is unconstitutional due to the fact that "the same law was in place in the 1990s and the Court never declared it to be unconstitutional."
Time for a serious fact check.
The Feinstein assault weapons bill that was approved by Congress in the 1990s did not ban over 150 types of firearms, including handguns. Her current bill does. The 1990s law did not require universal background checks that hamper private citizens from selling or giving their guns as gifts. The current proposal does. In the 1990s the assault weapons law did not ban certain types of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. But the current law would do exactly that. In the 1990s there was no provision in the Feinstein gun bill that would establish a national database of gun owners through the universal background check provision. But Feinstein's current proposal leaves the door wide open for precisely such a national database, which federal law currently forbids.
And finally, in the 1990s no attempt was made to prevent citizens who suffer from routine depression, anxiety, or post traumatic stress from purchasing guns, nor was there a provision that would allow cops to confiscate the weapons of gun owners who received treatment for such maladies. The current bill leaves the door wide open for exactly that, and liberal politicians in Connecticut, Illinois, New York, California, and Massachusetts have stated that this, indeed, is the goal -- that universal background checks, registration, and the "mental health" qualifier will not work unless there is mass confiscation of firearms and accessories.
California has already begun sending hordes of armed state law enforcement agents to the homes of those treated for depression and other relatively mild, treatable disorders in order to confiscate their guns. Even the family members of such patients have been forced to turn over their guns.
Thus, the current bill that is being hotly debated in Congress is not the same bill Feinstein proposed and got approved in the 1990s. In fact, there are far more differences between the two than similarities.
And this is what liberal politicians such as Murphy and their mouthpieces in the mainstream media, such as Mitchell, don't want you to know.
As with almost every other major piece of legislation that has been foisted on the public by the Obama administration and a Democrat-dominated Senate and both houses of Congress (from 2006 to 2010), the ruling elites believe they must hide the facts from voters and misrepresent legislation to prevent the peon slaves in the electorate from getting upset. They did it with Obamacare. They did it with the bailouts of Wall St., GE, GM, and others. They did it with taxes and the debt.
As mainstream media darling Nancy Pelosi famously stated, "We have to pass the bill to found out what's in it." What she meant was they have to pass the bill before they will allow the citizens to know what's in it.
In each case, the bills they have passed deceptively have turned out to be nightmares. The current gun bill being pushed by Democrats and Obama is yet another nightmare, except in this case it is the most dangerous of anything that's been seen so far.
Openly violating a clear provision of the Constitution -- the Second Amendment -- which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court twice since 2007, is a serious and potentially deadly crime. Our Founders called such violations treason, high crimes and misdemeanors. And in that era, the penalty was determined by Congress up to and including the death penalty.
NOTICE. You may enjoy my blog and its ongoing series, "Musings After Midnight." The following are a few examples:
My latest blog entry in the series, Musings After Midnight, is now available at The Liberty Sphere. It's titled, "I get a vote, you get a vote, all God's children get a vote! That's right, Mr. President, and that includes gun rights activists!"
Visit my ministry site at Martin Christian Ministries.