RSS
Gun control was already a Biden Administration priority before the recent shootings in Georgia, Colorado, and Virginia. In fact, the House of Representatives passed two gun-control bills weeks before the shootings.
One of the House-passed bills expands background checks to include private sales, including those made at gun shows. Under this bill, someone who is not a licensed federal firearms dealer cannot sell a firearm without first relinquishing it to a federally-licensed dealer. The dealer must then conduct a background check on the prospective purchaser.
The second bill allows the federal government to indefinitely delay a background check, thus indefinitely delaying a gun purchase. Other legislation introduced in Congress would create a national firearms registry, which would only facilitate gun confiscation.
This same legislation would forbid anyone under 21 from owning a gun. The ban does not apply to the military, so it will not stop the majority of gun violence committed by 18-21 year-olds.
The bill requires Americans to obtain a federal license before getting a firearm, but individuals cannot receive a license unless they undergo a psychological evaluation. The psychological evaluation mandate could lead to individuals losing their Second Amendment rights because they once suffered from depression. It could also cause people to lose their Second Amendment rights because someone told the police they may become violent.
Police officers in 20 states and the District of Columbia already have the authority to take away an individual’s Second Amendment rights based on allegations and without giving the individual due process. These “Red Flag” laws are supported by politicians of both parties, including some who claim to be pro-gun rights.
For example, former President Trump supported Red Flag laws. President Trump and Congressional Democrats were on the verge of reaching a “bipartisan” deal to expand Red Flag laws in the fall of 2019. Fortunately, the Democrat attempt to impeach the President ended all efforts at “bipartisan” deals to take away our rights.
A psychological evaluation could also be used to deny an individual Second Amendment rights because they may engage in “domestic terrorism.” Among those likely to be considered as potential “domestic terrorists” are opponents of US foreign policy, mass surveillance, the income tax, the Federal Reserve, and – ironically – gun control.
There is also legislation to reinstate the assault-weapons ban. Like the original ban, which was in effect from 1994-2004, the new legislation bans an arbitrary list of firearms and will do little to reduce gun violence.
Criminals and psychotics are not going to be deterred by background checks and licensing requirements from obtaining a firearm. There will be a black market to service those who cannot obtain firearms by legal means.
By discouraging law-abiding Americans from owning firearms, these laws leave millions of Americans defenseless against gun violence. There is a reason why most mass shootings occur in gun-free zones.
If Congress is serious about protecting Americans from violence, it would repeal all federal gun control laws. A good place to start would be with the Brady background check law and the misnamed “Safe and Gun-Free Schools” law, which leaves children defenseless against mass shooters. Congress ending the unconstitutional and anti-liberty war on drugs would also greatly reduce gun violence. Gun control, like all attempts by government to control our lives, makes us less safe, and less free.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
America’s 2A rights are the light of the Western world. An ornament in prosperity, a refuge in adversity.
As the gilded age of the ‘American century’ draws to a close, the time to be armed is now. The Bolsheviks who staged the election coup of November 2020 are going to be as ruthless as their predecessors in 1919.
Gun control is 1 inch groups at 500 yards.
Now if we could only do this with voter registration…
“they” wish to destroy Christianity because with no “Loving God” of Slaves, Poor, and Downtrodden, there are no GOD given RIGHTS. That removes the basis of the entire Constitution.That is why Bolsheviks rabidly attack Christ.
We are the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment, which is included in the BILL(list) of RIGHTS of the PEOPLE
The one right in the Bill of Rights that says “shall not be infringed” is the one RIGHT Xiden is going after. It is important to took at what words meant at the time the Constitution and Amendments were written. For example it was understood that militia meant volunteers, not a standing army. Today people try to present that, for example, the National Guard, is the well regulated militia. It isn’t. Similarly,the word “infringe” was a relatively new word to the English language. Its original meaning is much stronger than what people think of it as being today. [infringe (v.) mid-15c., enfrangen, “to violate,” from Latin infringere “to damage, break off, break, bruise,” from in- “in” (from PIE root *en “in”) + frangere “to break” (from PIE root *bhreg- “to break”). Meaning “encroach” first recorded c. 1760. Related: Infringed; infringing.]
Find one government in all of history that banned it’s own ARMED FORCES from “Keeping and Bearing” ARMS.
Find one government in the history of humanity that felt a need to document a “RIGHT” for it’s ARMED FORCES to possess ARMS.
Oppressive Governments ALWAYS ban the People’S RIGHT to arms.
The claim that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to give Our ARMED FORCES a “right” to keep and carry ARMS is S-T-U-P-I-D.
The only reason for the Second Amendment is to clearly spell-out the GOD GIVEN RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS to keep & bear ARMS
The only reason for the BILL(list) of RIGHTS was to codify INDIVIDUALS’ GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.
Has there ever been a government that was not chock full of it’s “rights” up to and including declaring itself to be the Lord God Almighty?! (Rome, Egypt, Israel,etc)
Does the 1st Amendment mean the GOVERNMENT is allowed to give speeches? Try shutting up any Politician. But THEY would LOVE to shut YOU up, hence the FIRST Amendment.
Anyone who tells you the 2nd Amendment applies to the Army or State Militia, is telling you they think you are STUPID.
There has NEVER been a government that felt it had to codify it’s army’s/soldier’s “RIGHT” to “Keep and BEAR ARMS” because there has NEVER been a government that refused to allow It’s own soldiers to KEEP and BEAR ARMS!
The Second Amendment was written for the People, like the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights. This was confirmed by the SCOTUS in the DC vs Heller decision, where they stated that the “People” in the Second Amendment were the same “People” that are mentioned in the First and Fourth Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment clearly codifies the “right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms”, and certainly not “the Militia”.
Why would “the Militia”, a type of army manned by citizen-soldiers as opposed to full-time “regulars”, need a constitutional amendment to guarantee they have the right “to keep and bear arms”?
Is there any specific statement anywhere in the Constitution that the army Congress is empowered to raise has the “right to keep and bear arms”? Of course not. …………. That is assumed.
(So like ….. we do not need ID to visit politicians in their offices in D.C.????????????)
If I can VOTE without ID because “one the of most basic and sacred rights guaranteed by the Constitution: the right to vote”
Then I can BUY A GUN without ID because THAT is “one the of most basic and sacred rights guaranteed by the Constitution” TOO!
If I can vote by MAIL I can buy and sell GUNS by MAIL.
If POLL TAXES and LITERACY TESTS are INFRINGEments on the right to vote then every “gun control” proposal is an INFRINGEment on the RIGHTS codified in the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment, the ONLY Amendment that states “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.
FBI: Background Checks Are Necessary for Gun Owners, But Not Those Housing Unaccompanied Minors
the 2nd amendment,, specifies that the RIGHT to bear arms is the right of the people,, NOT the militia,,,, it is the people who will make up the militia,, but the right is not the right of a “well regulated militia” it is the right of the people, We the people were BORN WITH UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, meaning they come from GOD.
… the Bolshevik-Left insists there is NO GOD so they can deny all your GOD given RIGHTS.
Your Rights do not come from the Constitution. Your Rights come from Our Creator, and the Constitution was written to SUPERVISE, REGULATE, and CONTROL government actors. As it relates to firearms, the Heller “decision” was completely unnecessary, and likely a smokescreen to make it APPEAR that the USG retained some rights to regulate some firearms. Check out the relevant part of US v. Cruikshank:
“[The Right to Keep and Bear Arms] is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed;… This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,…”.
U.S. v. Cruikshank Et Al. 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
Res adjudicata – “the thing has already been decided.”
The 9th and 10th Amendments help make it ABUNDANTLY clear to even the DENSEST of intellects that we truly have NO “Constitutional rights.” What we have(at the risk of being redundant) is Constitutionally-SECURED rights, but these rights are ONLY as secure as:
a) the honor and integrity of those taking the oath, and
b) the ability of the People to COMPEL obedience on pain of perjury charges and removal from office.
My hope is that attacks on 2nd amendment rights will be the catylist to finally make average citizens fight back against their fascist government.
Give up your guns? You can then give up entirely. It’ll be the final straw & it’s your back that will break — the choice is yours.
Worst-case thinking: The filibuster is eliminated. The Dems then pass legislation that is tantamount to confiscation. How? Psych profiling would be applied retroactively to existing gun owners, and they would all fail. A newly expanded Supreme Court would approve it, Then the question would be whether the police or national guard would enforce it. My guess is that the blue-state police would, but my hope is that the red-state police and sheriffs would not.
The US Bill of Rights have little to do with God. Stop trying to equate. When Judgement Day comes you might be very surprised about pro gun doctrine. You know – before that the time that will come when people when people will turn their swords into plowshares.. Or you didn’t read that part?
You want a gun – fine. But don’t use God’s name in vain
One addendum to the Worst Case.
Pack the court.
Jokem, SafeNow did include that. He wrote “A newly expanded Supreme Court…”.
PS: Yeah, 1″ in 500 yards is serious gun control. Agreed.
Psych eval: If you want to keep y0ur guns, you fail. We will then take them.
Missed it…
suck gun control **** @ your own risk, loyuh-dindus
Justice Amy Coney Barrett Second Amendment dilemma
In some 225 years neither law professors, academic scholars, teachers, students, lawyers, or congressional legislators after much debate have not been able to satisfactorily explain or demonstrate the Framers intended purpose of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. I had taken up that challenge allowing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s dilemma to understand the true intent of the Second Amendment.
I will relate further by demonstration, the intent of the Framers, my understanding using the associated wording to explain. The Second Amendment states, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Militia, a body of citizens organized for military service.
If, as some may argue, the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms, the only way to describe ones right as a private individual is not as a “militia” but as a “person.” (The individual personality of a human being: self)
The 4th Amendment reminds us, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons….”
The Article of Confederation lists eleven (11) references to“person/s.” The Constitution lists “person” or “persons” 49 times to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a constitutional legal standing as to a “person” his or her constitutional duty and rights, what he or she can do or not do.
It’s not enough to just say “person/s” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times, but to see it for yourself (forgo listing), and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every person be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person.”
The President was elected on 13 of these references. Of which 11 are Amendments, conditioning a “person,” unlike the Second Amendment, to the role of the President of the United States.
Whereas, in the Second Amendment any reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there a reason? Which leaves the obvious question, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey the same legal standard in defining an individual “persons” right to bear arms as a person?
Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s dissent in Barr v Kanter (2019) Second Amendment argument acquiesced to 42 references to “person/s, of which 13 characterize either a gun or firearm. Her Second Amendment, “textualism” approach having zero references to “person/s. Justice Barrett’s view only recognizes “person/s” in Barr, as well in her many other 7th circuit rulings. It is her refusal to acknowledge, recognize or connect the U.S. Constitution benchmark legislative interpretive precept language of “person/s,” mandated in our Constitution 49 times, to the Second Amendment.
Leaving Supreme Court Justice Barrett’s judgment in question.
In the entire U.S. Constitution “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references, there is no mention of “person” or “persons.” One reference to “people” in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons in describing militia.
Now comes the word “shall” mentioned in the Constitution 100 times. SHALL; ought to, must ..
And interestingly, the word “shall” appears in the Second Amendment. “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and shall not be infringed.”
“[S]hall not be infringed.” Adding another word “infringed” to clarify any misunderstanding as to the intent of the Second Amendment. Infringe. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another;
The condition “Infringe” has put a stop as to any thoughts counter regarding the Second Amendment, as you shall not infringe or encroach on beliefs other to what is evident as to the subject “Militia.” Article 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States, …”
Clarifying “..the right of the people to keep and bear arms…”
People. Human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest.
Finally, another reason and need for…. “A well regulated militia, …” exactly, because we fight among ourselves.
In closing, I am not against guns, everybody has them. I’m against using the Second Amendment illogically as a crutch. If it makes those feel better so be it. Just what it deserves, use it with a wink.
William Heino Sr.