This post may come in more than one installment. I will do my endeavor to cover the salient points as succinctly as possible.
For those of you curious about the title of this post, I mentioned in another firearms related topic that this one was forthcoming. It traces the history of restrictive gun control in this country back to it's origins in N**i Germany. I intend to walk the reader through this convoluted story as unconfusingly as possible, so please bear with me.
In 1968, then president Comrade Lyndon Johnson was an ardent supporter of gun control. His partner in crime was none other than Senator Thomas Dodd, father of former Senator Chris Dodd of Fannie and Freddie and Obamacare fame. (Apparently, as you will note, the apple did not fall far from the tree, but that is another story). Senator Dodd, Sr. was a member of the commission charged with trying N**i War Criminals. This will become germaine (no pun intended) in a moment.
Two very important catalysts occurred in 1968 to facilitate the passage of the GCA '68, those being the assassination of Martin Luther King, and the second the assassination of Robert Kennedy. (It is interesting to note that Coretta King, Dr. King's widow, became convinced that James Earl Ray was innocent, and called for re-opening the investigation. The chance of that happening apparently died with Ms. King. Concerning Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of Robert Kennedy, he was also disposed of before he could answer any embarrassing queries.
The stage is now set. Enter LBJ, whose calls for gun control became more strident, now that he had a soapbox on which to stand, and his co-conspirator, Senator Thomas Dodd, of Nuremburg fame. On July 2, 1968, this worthy requested the Library of Congress to t***slate the N**i Gun Control Act of 1938 into English. There is a copy of the affirmative reply from the Library dated July 12, 1968. This is on or about the time that deliberations on GCA'68 began.
On to the scary part; the similarities between GCA '68 and the N**i legislation of 1938:
1). Creation of the ATF, counterpart of the N**i SS, tasked with enforcement of firearms laws.
2). Requirement of Federal License for the business of selling firearms, same as the German version.
3). Establish a list of "Prohibited Persons," same as N**i version. On it's face, a good idea, perhaps, but deliberately left open ended to add any number of persons not currently prohibited, witness the refusal of gun sales to Veterans who have requested counseling. If the grabbers have their way, that list will expand. Believe it.
4). Establish a criteria for "Sporting Purposes." this cute little catch-all ignores the fact that the Second Amendment had nothing to do with "Sporting Purposes." (This was a bone thrown to a defeated Germany after WWI, retained and modified in the N**i version).
5). Establishes a National Registry of Firearms owners. The N**is didn't bother with such niceties as having their version of form 4473 stay in the gun dealer's place of business, By this time, they had no need to resort to euphemisms and trickery, which is the real purpose of this ATF form, a de facto registration.
6). Restrict sale, importation and ownership of handguns. This one was a given.
As you can see, this law, which may be found in Title 18 USC, Chap.44, for those who are interested, has it's roots in N**i Germany, implemented not for the purpose of preventing crime, but for control. Just another tool of the statists who take their cue from the novel "Animal Farm," wherein we learn that "all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others." Although somewhat off the subject, may I point out that last year, more than 15,000 "prohibited persons" were denied purchase of firearms. Of this number, less than 100 were prosecuted, and only 20 odd were actually convicted. The Comrade-in Chief would have us believe that the solution to laws that are not enforced is to pass more laws that won't be enforced. Once again, it has nothing to do with crime control, and everything to do with people control, if you have read my posts with my admittedly amateur psychological observations about incremental erosion of freedom. Quite frankly, anyone who REALLY wants to know what the Government is really up to should read both Sun Tsu's "Art of War," and Plato's "Republic."
Thank You

Clips as in "CLIP" used in the M1 Garand were a common type of quickly loading a firearm from times past, the Magazine as well is a long ago term, as is firearm, since the days of ancient china, when the first projectile devices were used, however the ignorant and willingly uneducated of our great and wondrous electronic age of googly this and spaceworld that have a nasty habit of uttering misinformation from their mouths like 100 round magazines and assault weapons and clips and such, what a bunch of ignant morons, these are the people who control the media and the ones in DC controlling my life as well as yours at the moment. They twist and turn to suit their momentary needs out of desperation to stay in the fat cat cushy positions of power they now have by hook or by crook. Websters dictionary define as follows:

1weap·on
noun \ˈwe-pən\
1: something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy

2: a means of contending against another

so when in the hell are the i***ts who write the articles and put the POTUS speech and talking points in front of him going to start to get it right.

Anything used against another in an act of violence or outrage can be called or used as a "WEAPON" so stop labeling ugly black flash suppressed pistol grip banana magazine loaded firearms as "ASSAULT WEAPONS" morons....

Quid Pro Quo, PoliticalOrphan: Even Obama recently at a White House correspondence dinner admitted he was a Muslim socialist, but the press in lock step refused to report his statement as it was stated containing the word "Muslim" in it, alleging it must have been said in jest. Moreover, your statement that you have investigated numerious "proofs" and found them all false is a strawman argument as there will likely not be any absolute "proof" of the issue. And, you don't identify a single one of your alleged nebulous "proofs". However, when absolute proofs do not or can not exist; it is accepted evidence to legally prove an issue or point by the preponderance of the evidence. Given the preponderance of the factual evidence that I have seen, it is my judgment that a conclusion that Obama is a Muslim is far more justified than any conclusion that he is not. Nor do I believe you will ever see Obama publically say he is not a Muslim.

"Rumsfeld faults Obama for his weak rhetoric. "For wh**ever reason, this administration is almost totally unwilling to even use the word ‘Islamist,’" [Donald] Rumsfeld " Hat tip: Newsmax

'Merica f*** yeah! That's all I got out of this post. Seriously, you're gonna have to do better than some patriotic BS. No, had a marine fast unit shown up it would have taken casualties. These were a significant number of well armed terrorists as well as armed civilians. If you really think Americans can't be k**led by terrorists like these, I'll point you to both the American death toll in the war on terror and the Battle of Mogadishu in '93.

As for Tasine, I'll respond to you once there's something other than the mindless spewing of propaganda in your post. Please, try and have an intellectual debate with me. I don't care about your "evil socialist mass media" crap, anyone with an iota of sense knows that's completely made up. You have absolutely no idea what the word means, that much is exceedingly clear. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

You act like you know all the facts, but in reality you're just some random citizen sitting at home dealing with an intense hatred for America's democratically elected (twice) government. I doubt they really were denied help. Even if they were, there are plenty of good reasons why they might have been, starting with the fact that you can't just randomly send marines in every time Americans, even important Americans, are in trouble. We can't just invade a sovereign country and k**l their civilians. Another reason would be that sending troops in could cause unnecessarily high casualties for our own troops.