“I respect the culture, the tradition, the concerns of lawful gun owners. At the same time, the Second Amendment, like all the rights, is not absolute,” Joe Biden said. Where do you even begin with that as he plans to take away our inherent right to defend ourselves by disarming us?
Democrats make the United States more dangerous with unvetted millions teaming across our borders and more and more dangerous criminals released to our streets. At the same time, Democrats made it clear yesterday that they plan to take almost all of our guns.
THE GUN MANIFESTO
Suing Gun Manufacturers and Dealers Out of Existence
Yesterday, we addressed one tenet of their anti-gun manifesto which takes away the immunity protection for gun manufacturers and dealers. Without it, they could be sued and ruined simply for making or selling a gun that was used illegally.
An analogy to that would be if a husband kills his wife with a Hammers Blacksmith hammer, her family could sue Hammers Blacksmith. If a maniac runs over people in a parade with a car, they can sue the maker of the car.
Raising the Age of Ownership
Democrats want to raise the age to own a gun to 21 years. As Michael Tracey says, “At this point, why not just raise the legal age of adulthood to 21? Maybe even the voting age as well. Because the patchwork of laws governing what’s allowed at 18 vs. 21 are making less and less sense.”
Storage
Democrats want more stringent storage requirements. So, when the criminals break in, they’ve got you before you’ve got your gun.
You should know the bill does NOT have 60 votes in the Senate, but this is where they are headed.
If we lose one Amendment to our Bill of Rights, they all will fall. Democrats have been after the first two with rabid intensity for decades. In fact, they think the constitution, our law of the land, can be molded according to how they feel at any given time – not so. There’s a procedure they must follow but they’d prefer to tear it all down rather than follow any laws they dislike.
“The right to self-defense is not granted by governments. Gun rights are an extension of the Natural Right to self-defense, Kyle Becker tweeted. Exactly. And Democrats and RINOs want you to think they’re in charge of you.
The Tucker monologue last night did sum up some of the requirements well (you can watch it at the end). It’s clear Democrats are finally out in the open. They want to disarm all of their political opponents.
Highlights From Tucker’s Monologue
Democrats don’t enforce gun crimes in the cities. It’s likely because those are Democrat voters, Tucker said, adding, Biden didn’t bother to mention the gun crime against his own son for which he skated.
Politicians will not operate under the same laws they inflict on the rest of us. They get to protect their families and you get to disarm.
SOME OF WHAT DEMOCRATS WANT
The new gun bill will make Glocks and many other popular guns illegal. In fact, Rep. Mondaire Jones told Congress all semi-automatic ‘weapons of war’, their popular buzzword, should be banned. If Republicans won’t do it, than they will end the filibuster or stack the Supreme Court to do it. To paraphrase, he’ll destroy the entire judiciary to disarm you.
Democrats will ban magazines. Biden wants the number of bullets a gun can hold to be drastically limited.
The way they define ghost guns could mean anything. Democrats could define it at will.
When it comes to engraving all key components of the gun, the sole judge of what’s a key component will be the US Attorney General. As Tucker said, the “craven and ruthless partisan” Merrick Garland makes the decision as to which part is essential and requires an engraved component. If he decides it’s key and it isn’t engraved you go to prison.
They will ban assault guns. An assault gun is anything they say it is, and in the minds of many of them, it’s all semi-automatics. If that isn’t an obvious attempt to disarm anyone they want, what is?
Their version of Red Flag Laws allows them to seize guns for any reason.
Nothing these people propose will stop a lunatic who gets his hand on a weapon to kill large numbers of people.
A Libertarian Twitter user posted this, and he has a point. Tucker read it towards the end of the monologue:
The US government has been arming Ukraine, because they’re allies.
The US government has been seeking to disarm Russia, because they’re opponents.
In totally unrelated news, the US government seeks to disarm you.
— Spike Cohen (@RealSpikeCohen) June 2, 2022
We would like to add to Spike’s comment. Ukrainians are selling our javelins on the black market. Rand Paul wanted some oversight since our weapons to Ukraine are sent into a black hole. Democrats refused. Well, this is one thing that happens to them:
🚨🚨🚨 Explosive news folks!
Ukrainians are selling US Javelins on foreign shadow trading platforms for $30,000 each. https://t.co/LekWKErQ3W
— Bad Kitty For Congress 😼🌹 (@pepesgrandma) June 2, 2022
Fight by Joining
If you don’t want to join the NRA, there is the Gun Owners of America @GunOwners and the Firearms Policy Coalition @gunpolicy or join all three.
Also, read the myths about mass shootings from someone who actually researchers it, Professor John Lott. ALL of these mass shootings occur in gun free zones, and mass shootings do occur in other countries.
The monologue:
You can comment on the article after the ads and subscribe to the Daily Newsletter here if you would like a quick view of the articles of the day and any late news:
The process of issuing a GVRO ( “gun violence restraining orders”, also called “extreme risk protection orders”) in most states starts with someone petitioning the court for it. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia currently have passed red flag laws. States vary on who can bring these petitions. In some states, only direct family members and dating partners can petition the court for a GVRO. In others, though, this list is expanded to former dating partners, co‐workers, friends, et al.
The problem here is that the petition speeds through the court, often without giving the subject person actual notice or an opportunity to defend against the accusation. The bare minimum should be for a hearing ahead of the issuance of a GVRO, with the subject present.
In 2018, five states had laws that fit the bill of a typical “red flag law.” With Hawaii’s governor signing Act 150 in early July, that number has rose to 19 states and the District of Columbia. Nearly all GVROs provide for the removal of a person’s firearms without ever giving them notice. In many of these schemes, including California’s, a confiscation order may be issued against someone completely unaware of any accusations underlying the order, first learning of the petition when the police arrive to seize their firearms.
In addition to worsening police relationships and violating due process, GVROs, as they stand, disproportionately harm the poor. Imagine police officers arriving at your door to seize your car, because it had been independently determined, without any opportunity for you to plead your case, that you were no longer safe to drive. Your only recourse is now to hire an expensive lawyer to fight for the return of your property. That’s exactly what happens after a GVRO is issued.
This, in addition to the fact that the poor are most likely to be the victims of violent crime, and thus the most in need of a firearm for self‐defense, makes GVROs less of an obvious solution than they might seem. Far from stopping preventable murders, these laws bring up more red flags than they solve.
Those who support red flag laws point out that before a person’s guns would be confiscated, there must be evidence of a history of violence, or, barring that, documented threats that the person has said he or she is considering harming themselves or others.
Gun rights activists argue that the laws can too easily take a person’s guns based on unproven accusations.
“The biggest issue with all these bills is due process,” Dan Reid, western director of the National Rifle Association, told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “A person is going to lose their rights based on a third-party allegation. They’ve never been convicted of a crime. They’ve never been adjudicated mentally ill. That’s not how our system of justice should work.”
https://www.fox13memphis.com/news/trending/red-flag-laws-what-are-they-how-do-they-work-which-states-have-them/OT3V6OZTBVBZVLVUGZSMQGQORY/
‘Red Flag’ Laws and Their Awful Consequences
https://www.cato.org/commentary/red-flag-laws-their-awful-consequences
Here are seven reasons red flag laws should be opposed, particularly at the federal level.
1. There’s No Evidence Red Flag Laws Reduce Gun Violence
2. Congress Lacks the Authority
3. We Have Federalism
4. Red Flag Laws Violate Due Process
5. Red Flag Laws Could Lead to More Violence
6. It’s Not Just the “Mentally Ill” and Grave Threats Who Are Flagged
7. They’re Basically Pre-Crime
https://fee.org/articles/7-reasons-to-oppose-red-flag-guns-laws/
My problem with Red Flag Laws is they provide no protection from malicious accusations. The same with malicious accusations in divorce cases. Fortunately, the Johnny Depp Case is showing a movement against malicious accusation. Red Flag Laws do violate Due Process so the bar must be extreme and not just hearsay, but in any case someone making a malicious accusation needs be subject to a law suit. I also content that in cases like a Red Flag Law, the Government MUST provide legal representation at Government Expense. Personally, I think the Government should pay for your lawyer anytime it takes an individual into court. Being drug into court by the Government shouldn’t put anyone of the Poor Farm and this is a tactic used by the Department of Justice and Liberal DA’s routinely.
Actually, the Second Amendment is absolute. It was enacted to ensure that every Citizen has access to the same military equipment that the average Soldier in the US Military has access to. So restricting access and ownership to any weapon a soldier is given, or it’s equivalent, is a violation of the Constitution.
Red Flag Laws are also Un-Constitutional because the Government would be confiscating property without, or before, there is due process. But then, there are a lot of Laws that are Un-Constitutional.
The Founding Fathers enacted the 2nd Amemdment to make sure The People could defeat the Federal Government and the U.S. Army if it got too big for it’s britches. Traitor Joe is playing a very dangerous game. If Civil War were to break out, I would not want to be a Member of Congress or a Member of the Traitor Joe Administration. There are a lot of people out there a lot more pissed off than I am.
Comrade slo jo is correct in that no amendment is absolute, in that it can always be rescinded or removed by act of congress and approval of 2/3rds of the states. Refer to the 18th amendment. Which is exactly why the proposed Convention of States is so extremely dangerous, it would usher in a completely new constitution, and you can bet your bippy our so called “guaranteed rights” will become nonexistent.
However, since dear comrade witless insists the amendments are NOT absolute, and can make revisions as HE sees fit, then it is only fair that those requiring payment of taxes and others putting restrictions on rights are “flexible” as well. Yeah, I’m one of those more pissed off than you are. As I’ve thought about this for decades now, I’ve come to the conclusion the Republics only hope is to discard then entire feral gommermint and replace it with one that will obey and honor our Constitution and the Principles it stands for. That means replacing every single feral employee, clear down to the White House janitors.
The question becomes not “Who is John Gault”, but WHERE is John Gault.
God gave us the ability, we need to start using it. A handful of us cannot do it alone.
Long Live The Republic
First you have to get 3/4 of the people/states to agree to an Amendment which would be near impossible in today’s America, especially one taking away an inalienable right – self defense. The 18th Amendment is good example. I was passed under the mentally impaired idiot Wilson. A Right was taken away, then reinstated by the 21st Amendment. Taking Rights from People is a bad idea. Until the Constitution is Amended, the Right is Absolute. (Unless you have an Activist Supreme Court.) Taking away inalienable rights almost always end in Revolution!
As far as an Article 5 Convention, The Radical Left is only about 20% of America; but a very loud 20%. In the last 2 years we have watched small business almost wiped out by big business control over Government. In an Article 5 Convention, small business interest would prevail. Article 5 Convention Amendments still require ratification by 3/4 of the States. The States want their Power back so I content that all amendments would be a limit on Federal Government Powers.