Image 01 Image 03

Elizabeth Warren plans include using tax code to deprive law-abiding citizens of 2nd Amendment rights

Elizabeth Warren plans include using tax code to deprive law-abiding citizens of 2nd Amendment rights

Proposal includes: taxes on guns and ammo, federal gun licensing program, raising age for gun purchases nationally to 21.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has been churning out plan after plan in her bid to be the Democrat’s nominee for president in 2020.  Most of her plans are wildly ill-considered and untenable, but her latest roll-out on “gun violence prevention” is positively bone-chilling.

CNN reports:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has unveiled a comprehensive plan to reduce gun violence by enacting a suite of new restrictions on buyers, cracking down on sellers and breaking “the (National Rifle Association’s) stranglehold on Congress” with anti-corruption legislation.

The proposal arrives as more than 15 Democratic primary candidates prepare to take turns speaking at a gun safety forum in Des Moines, Iowa, and a week after the mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio.

“The next President has a moral obligation to use whatever executive authority she has to address the gun crisis,” Warren writes in a Medium post. “But it is obvious that executive action is not enough. Durable reform requires legislation — but right now legislation is impossible. Why? A virulent mix of corruption and abuse of power.”

The details of the proposal are horrifying, but I want first to address CNN’s report about Warren’s demands of Walmart.

On Friday, Warren called on retail giant Walmart to remove firearms from its shelves.

“Companies that sell guns have a responsibility to the safety of their communities. @Walmart is one of the largest gun retailers in the world,” she tweeted. “The weapons they sell are killing their own customers and employees. No profit is worth those lives. Do the right thing—stop selling guns.”

Walmart has said it plans to remove displays for violent video games from its stores, but has no plans to further reduce its gun selection. The company does not sell assault-style rifles, a change made after the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre, or any weapons to people under 21 years old.

“I think it would be more effective if instead of taking down pictures of guns, they actually stopped selling guns,” Warren told reporters after an event in Iowa on Friday.

As a wise friend pointed out, this attack on Walmart is not only unfounded but extremely revealing in terms of the radical left’s true plans.

As even CNN notes, Walmart does not sell “assault-style rifles” (since 2015) or handguns (since 1993).  Walmart also raised the age of the people to whom it will sell firearms to 21, despite there being no law requiring them to do so.  Nor have I been able to locate any evidence that a Walmart-purchased rifle has been linked in any way to any mass shooting.

So why the push to get Walmart to stop selling guns?  It’s certainly not related to stopping mass shootings.  The extremist left can’t get guns banned entirely, so they want to ensure they can’t be sold to law-abiding Americans.

So far, Walmart isn’t biting.

CBS News reports:

Gun control advocacy groups hope Walmart, one of the nation’s top sellers of firearms, will reconsider its role in weapons sales in the aftermath of a shooting rampage that killed at least 22 people at one of its stores in El Paso, Texas.

. . . . But Walmart has no such plans, company spokesman Randy Hargrove told CBS MoneyWatch. “There is no change in any company policy,” Hargrove said. “No retailer is immune to violence,” he added of Saturday’s bloodshed, which came days after an employee shot and killed two other workers at a Walmart in Southaven, Mississippi.

. . . .  Walmart last month said it would no longer sell guns in New Mexico after a state law took effect requiring background checks for nearly all private gun sales except antiques and between relatives. The law lets federally licensed gun sellers, including Walmart, provide background checks.

The retailer stopped selling handguns in 1993 and assault-style weapons in 2015. Three years later, after a mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, it hiked the minimum age for gun and ammo purchases to people 21 and older.

Walmart said in a statement at the time that its “heritage as a company has always been in serving sportsmen and hunters, and we will continue to do so in a responsible way.” The company, the world’s biggest retailer by revenue, doesn’t disclose its gun sales.

Radical leftists like Warren want only criminals (and the government) to have guns.  Newsflash: they probably don’t get their firearms from Walmart.

Warren’s war on the Second Amendment includes raising taxes on both firearms and ammo and eliminating the filibuster to ensure that gun-grabbing legislation passes the Senate.

Vox reports:

Less than a week after mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, Sen. Elizabeth Warren has released one of the most sweeping gun policy proposals of the Democratic presidential candidates. And she’s set a big objective for the plan: to get US gun deaths down by 80 percent.

It’s an ambitious, if not downright impossible, goal — one that would attempt to shift US levels of gun violence down to that of America’s developed peers. But Warren’s plan goes further than the typical Democratic proposals, which are mostly focused on universal background checks and an assault weapons ban, to start moving America in that direction.

. . . .  Her proposal begins with executive actions to expand background checks, close loopholes in current gun laws, and target gun traffickers and licensed gun dealers who break the law. She proposes sweeping legislation, including universal background checks and an assault weapons ban but also a system requiring a license to buy and own guns as well as urban gun violence intervention programs.

She also vows to revisit the issue of guns every year, “adding new ideas and tweaking existing ones based on new data — to continually reduce the number of gun deaths in America.”

Yes, you read that right, part of her proposal includes a mandatory federal “gun licensing” program, a program we all know would mean a federal database of all legal gun owners.

Vox continues:

On the legislative side, Warren’s plan includes universal background checks and an assault weapons ban, paired with a ban on high-capacity magazines. It also aims to repeal more loopholes in existing gun laws, end special legal protections for gun companies, improve oversight of gun dealers, and raise the minimum age for gun sales to 21.

But she also proposes policies that go further than Democrats have generally gone, at least before 2020. For one, she proposes a federal system that would require everyone obtain a license to own and buy a gun. She would pair that with the mandatory registration of guns — essentially requiring, like cars, license and registration. It’s a system the research shows can reduce gun deaths more effectively than simple background checks, and a key reason why Warren’s home state of Massachusetts, with a similar system at the state level, has the lowest gun death rate in the country.

Warren also proposes a one-week waiting period for firearm purchases and a higher tax on gun manufacturers. And with her assault weapons ban, she proposes a program that would force current assault weapon owners — with the threat of penalties — to dispose or register the guns.

Warren’s plan includes a combination of executive action, including EO’s, and legislative action.  Vox does have some well-reasoned good news:

It’s unlikely all of this could really pass Congress (especially if Republicans continue to control the Senate), with or without new anti-corruption laws. Even if her plan passes, just about all these ideas are likely to face court challenges — which could ultimately succeed in front of a conservative-leaning Supreme Court.

One of Warren’s problems, and it’s a problem across the extremist gun-grabbing left, is that she seems to imagine that Americans can’t wait to have our Second Amendment rights (further) curtailed.

From her proposal:

And while the majority of Americans — including a majority of gun owners — support sensible gun legislation, even the most basic proposals, like universal background checks, are consistently blocked by far-right ideologues in Congress who are bought and paid for by the gun industry, their NRA partners, and a supporting army of lobbyists and lawyers.

She sets up a whole host of strawmen and completely ignores the hundred million (plus?) Americans who do not want their gun rights infringed in any way.

Those “far-right ideologues in Congress” are in Congress because they were elected by their (likely gun-toting) constituents.  The NRA and an “army of lobbyists and lawyers” have whatever power they have because they’re supported by Americans who voted for Republicans over gun-grabbing lefties who consistently forget this huge swath of the American electorate even exists.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


It is terrifying that this person could actually be a viable candidate to be President of this country. Something is so seriously wrong that I have little faith that we can survive as a United country. There are few things to be happy about aging but not being around for the last chapter is one of them. I feel horrible for my daughter and the children of chapter one of the next book.

legacyrepublican | August 11, 2019 at 7:41 pm

But, she is all for hunting deplorables. I can assume that since she is very silent on Rep. Castro’s doxxing of Trump supporters.

Which makes her a brown shirt.

    You call Big-Chief-Pimple-on-her-Tongue Warren a Brown Shirt?

    Being partly of Central European Jewish heritage, and remembering a father (alov hasholom) haunted by the loss of Old Country relatives during the Shoah, I fully agree with you.

      tic...tic...BOOM in reply to Kepha H. | August 16, 2019 at 8:04 am

      Remember, Hitler banned the private ownership of all firearms. After that it was easy to take complete power. She is Hitlerian in her thinking.

Warren wants all gun owners to trade their weapons in for bows and arrows.

“Yes, you read that right, part of her proposal includes a mandatory federal “gun licensing” program, a program we all know would mean a federal database of all legal gun owners.”

Memo for Professor Fauxcahontas: Canada, which doesn’t have a Second Amendment, tried to create a firearms registry beginning in the 90’s which ended being an massively expensive failure. Heck, if Canadians offered up that much resistance to firearms registration, how much do you think Americans will put up? If you think you know the answer–you don’t.

    amatuerwrangler in reply to MarkJ. | August 11, 2019 at 10:50 pm

    “Massively expensive” is not anything that bothers Democrats one bit.

    I keep hearing and reading about “sensible gun laws” but no one takes the time to spell out what they would look like. Give us a draft of that such legislation would look like; Title, section sub-section, etc… the nitty-gritty. And how will they handle mental illness in all this, what with HIIPA and the fact that people can be perfectly sane when they bought that gun, but 20 years later they are starting to get a bit squirrelly.

It’s sad how the news media label these gun-prohibition proposals as “gun safety.” In real life, gun safety requires two things:
1. Own a gun.
2. Learn to use it safely.
Ignore any group that claims to promote “gun safety” but doesn’t actually provide courses on the safe handling of guns.

I’m in favor of real gun safety. A similar term that the media have corrupted is “gun control.” In real life, gun control requires two things:
1. Sight alignment.
2. Trigger control.

It’s also sad how the media have corrupted the term “trigger warning” to mean some kind of left-wing BS rather than the actual, important trigger warning:
“Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target!”

Given the division in this country now, I doubt we would remain as one singular country if this Ditz is somehow elected President. I would also have lost all faith in the elects as she would not win a race that wasn’t stacked in her favor, be it her one state which pretty much knee jerk elects a D regardless of how bad they are.
I believe the left want a civil war, and have been pushing toward that goal for a while, but they need the lie that it was started by the right. I think Barry Soetoro was doing all he could to push toward that goal. Being that the left started the last Civil War, they want to make it look as if this time it is the right who started it.
The ideology has been diverging rapidly these past 10 years, and the left believe they can take off the masks and people will flock to them. I fear they might be correct, or getting close to it. With PC and the indoctrination centers we used to call schools teaching in a manner which would have made Stalin proud, or Mao proud, this push for taking larger bites out of the second amendment makes more sense. All totalitarian type regimes hate a free, a truly free, people, and require they are made to lose the ability to protect themselves.
You cannot convince me that the left truly believe that their gun legislation which limits guns for those who would never turn them on innocent people, would do one thing to limit the mass shootings. If these murdering scum didn’t have guns they would turn toward explosives, or use vehicles, or rampage with machetes. They have to know that, they aren’t truly as dumb as they pretend to be.

    tom_swift in reply to oldgoat36. | August 11, 2019 at 10:52 pm

    If these murdering scum didn’t have guns

    Oh, they’ll have guns.

    I read an interesting account by a fellow who wanted to assassinate an enemy. (He actually had a pretty good case, but that’s another story.) Hardly a firearms aficionado, he took the advice of all the TV shows and movies and decided a gun would be just the treat. So he bought one locally, in the same place people buy narcotics—”down on the corner.” He asked around a bit and within a half hour someone walked up, said he would sell him a pistol (and silencer!), and named a (fairly high, I thought) price. A half hour later they met again in the same place, this time each with a brown bag. They exchanged bags, looked in to verify the goods, and never saw each other again. No IDs or paperwork, of course, but still a very professional business transaction all around.

    The writer said that he didn’t go through with the hit. But the interesting thing is that it’s hard to imagine how any law can be any more effective in eliminating guns from the criminal (amateur or professional) population than our current laws are in doing the same for narcotics.

      smalltownoklahoman in reply to tom_swift. | August 12, 2019 at 6:19 am

      Yes the criminal element within our country will always have guns. Anyone who thinks it’s possible to completely remove firearms from a nation of our size either didn’t really think things through or is just as delusional as one of those mass shooters. We stretch coast to coast across a CONTINENT with a couple of outliers. With thousands of miles of borders and coastline to patrol and monitor it’s next to impossible to keep out all of what we don’t want within our nation. All one has to do to see the proof of that is to just take a look at our southern border with Mexico and all the problems down there; and that’s mainly drugs and people! Add guns to the mix of something cartels could make good money off of (more so than they do now anyways) and you will see an explosion of illegal firearms start being smuggled across the border.

Four simply words, “shall not be infringed,” and still she as a proxy/representative of the left refuses to acknowledge their meaning and impact for liberty. She understands the words; she just doesn’t like them.

And yet, on any number of occasions (e.g., when she became a lawyer in NJ, TX, MA; when she became a US Senator (2013, 2019) she taken the Article VI oath to “this Constitution,” meaning the written one, the one that contains those four words. And never meant a syllable of her oath.

Readers on this site know what to do. Part of our job is to persuade others to,


i read this article and noticed something interesting. Nowhere in any of this crazy womans proposals does she mention how she will get the guns out of the peoples hands that do most of the killing. CRIMINALS. I guess she thinks that the only dangerous people in this country are law abiding gun owners

i read this article and noticed something interesting. Nowhere in any of this crazy womans proposals does she mention how she will get the guns out of the peoples hands that do most of the killing. CRIMINALS. I guess she thinks that the only dangerous people in this country are law abiding gun owners

She resents what firesticks did to her ancestors.

They always bring up cars, registration and licensing….both of which are not required to buy a car….Only to operate on public roads. Licensing is required for eventual confiscation . Utopia is only achieved through force just like it’s sibling…communism. When rights become privileges ,only the privileged have rights.

The most important step in the totalitarian control of any society is the disarming of the law abiding populace. This has to be done, because, at some point, that law abiding populous will object to all of their property being stolen from them by the government.

Warren is simply one more in a long line of totalitarian Democrat politicians.

More legally ignorant bloviating by a former Harvard law professor.

The National Firearms Act (“NFA”) was enacted 85 years ago. The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 (“FFA”) was enacted over 80 years ago. Bot use the Commerce Clause to regulate the Interstate Commerce of firearms. Both are carefully circumscribed use of the Commerce power. This is why you can give your spouse a gun or loa one to your neighbor – because those actions do not affect Interstate Commerce. The story is different when a purchase or sale crosses state lines. In that case federal law require that the transfer go through a Eder also licensee (FFL).

Former Harvard law professor Fauxhauntis Warren completely ignores that the federal government has no Constitutional power to regulate firearms unless the action being regulated involves the regulation of Interstate Commerce.

Moreover, she ignores the plain wording of the 2nd Amdt esp as interpreted by the Heller and McDonald Courts.

Similarly, in another direction, she is proposing a wealth tax, ignoring that the Constitution provides for an apportioned tax, or an income tax, but there is no provision for a wealth tax. Again, this former Harvard law professor is proposing legislation that the federal government has no Constitutional power to implement.

    puhiawa in reply to Bruce Hayden. | August 11, 2019 at 9:23 pm

    Justice Roberts and the liberals simply do not care what the Constitution means or says.

    Actually, the SCOTUS was wrong in its rulings on most of the cases stemming from the NFA and FFA. It was wrong when it said that the federal government could regulate interstate transport of firearms, even though such regulation infringed upon the right of a person to own or possess arms. And, it did the same thing when it ruled that only “militia weapons” were protected by the 2nd Amendment [which was largely reversed in Heller] and that a sawed off shotgun was not a militia weapon, even though such shotguns were extant in US military armories at the time. The federal government CAN regulate the manner of transport of weapons across state borders, as long a such regulation in no way infringes upon any person’s right to own or possess weapons of all types.

    The point is, that the 2nd Amendment is one of the most clearly written parts of the US Constitution. Yet, the courts continually insist on seeing language in it which does not exist or, as in the case of Heller, simply adding language, such as “reasonable restrictions”.

      alaskabob in reply to Mac45. | August 12, 2019 at 12:00 am

      As I understand it….there are primary and secondary levels of Bill of Rights. Some rights are more equal than others and the lesser are open to considerable restriction…..for the public good. Domestic tranquility even if it means subservience .

      Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | August 12, 2019 at 12:11 am

      And, it did the same thing when it ruled […] that a sawed off shotgun was not a militia weapon, even though such shotguns were extant in US military armories at the time.

      It didn’t rule that. It said there wasn’t anything in the record on whether it was one, so the lower court should find out and rule accordingly.

        Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | August 12, 2019 at 11:01 am

        You, like the Court, are pslitting hairs. How very like an attorney.

        The matter was brought up, before the SCOTUS in Miller. The government brought up the argument that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to sawed off shotguns, because it applied only to “militia weapons”, those used by the military. The Court accepted that, as there was no attorney present to argue against that point, even though two members of the Court had served in WWI and had personal knowledge that short barrelled shotguns were used in the trenches by US troops in that war. It is the reason why the courts have since ruled that SBSs and SBRs can be regulated.

        Miller was another one of those cases where the Court wanted to rule a certain way and found a reason to do so.

          Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | August 12, 2019 at 11:23 am

          Once again, the court did not rule that sawn-off shotguns are of no use to a militia, and are therefore unprotected; it found that there was nothing in the record on which it could make such a determination. Justices’ personal knowledge is irrelevant; they can only rule on what is in the record, and there was nothing there because the trial court had not even looked into the question (not surprising, since the idea that the amendment only applies to weapons that could be used in a well-regulated militia had not yet been invented). So the Supreme Court sent the case back to the trial court with orders to find out whether the weapon fit the criteria or not, and to rule accordingly. That is all.

        Bruce Hayden in reply to Milhouse. | August 12, 2019 at 2:25 pm

        The Miller decision is interesting, in relationship to both Heller and the reality that the closest civilian analogue to the main battle rifle and carbine used by our military for almost 60 years now is the AR-15. The primary difference is that M16s and M4 carbines have a third position on the selector switch, for burst or full auto fire, making them machine guns under the NFA. Issuance to the troops of machine guns on a regular basis goes back several more years, to the adoption of the M14 in the 1950s.

        Miller said that sawed off shotguns could be regulated under the NFA because no showing had been made that they had been in common usage by the military (Miller, by that time, being dead, and the case thus moot). But it would be trivial to make that factual showing as to select fire M16s and M4 carbines. Indeed, no one would need to testify, because the case could easily be made from official records alone.

        So, the question then becomes of the legal effect of the Militia Clause if both M16s and AR-15s are banned for civilian use? Or even heavily regulated. What does the civilian militia train with? 75 year old M1 Garlands and M1 Carbines? The M1 Garand is semiautomatic loaded with en block clips. Worse, the M1 Carbine utilizes 20 round (“high capacity”) detachable magazines. Does that mean that we need to go back to 100 year old WW I firearms?

        My theory, since Heller, has been that Miller, by introducing the idea that firearms can be banned if they weren’t in common usage by our military, now forms a floor on what can be banned. If the government can ban the semiautomatic analogue to our main battle rifles and carbines of the last 60 years, does that mean that they cannot ban the select fire versions actually used by our military for so long? Banning both would seemingly nullify the Militia Clause (as well as one of the historical justifications for the Right To Keep And Bear Arms). I think that they can pick one or the other, (or possibly both), but neither is not truly an option.

    Sanddog in reply to Bruce Hayden. | August 11, 2019 at 10:11 pm

    I pointed that out to our state legislature when I was speaking out against our new gun laws and most of them were just dumbfounded. The reason the Fed didn’t involve themselves in private party transfers within a state was because they couldn’t find any legal justification to do so.

Shrieking Crow has become ever more desperate as her poll numbers shrink. Her inner fascism has been on display for a month and it is not pretty. Like Sanders, she is literally evil and makes one think of Chavez or Castro.

She’s Pro-Choice: to keep and bear arms… legs, a head, presents an ethical conflict for her quasi-religion.

A little clarification is necessary. CBS news reports that Walmart in New Mexico is no longer selling firearms and that our new law “lets” federally licensed gun sellers provide background checks. That is factually incorrect. The new law forces every FFL in the state to conduct FBI NICs checks for private sales. Walmart decided it was easier to cease selling firearms than to keep their sporting goods sales areas staffed every hour they were open and tolerate people walking in off the street with firearms in their hands, walking through the store, to find someone to conduct the check. The law sets a limit on what FFLs are allowed to charge and mandates that we must do person to person transfers, even though federal law gives us the right to decline to perform them. I don’t know a single FFL who has conducted a private party transfer so I’m guessing compliance rates are in the single digits and will remain so. 29 out of 33 Sheriffs in New Mexico opposed the new firearms laws so I believe most people feel pretty comfortable ignoring the law and telling the legislature to shove it.

    Milhouse in reply to Sanddog. | August 12, 2019 at 12:15 am

    But without such requirements it’s impossible to make background checks mandatory for private sales. Private sellers have no access to NICS, so how can they conduct such checks unless FFLs are required to do it for them, at a nominal price?

      Obie1 in reply to Milhouse. | August 12, 2019 at 8:59 am

      In MA, it is done via a form FA-10, which requires the LTC numbers of both parties. Having an LTC means that one has already passed a background check. We are allowed four transfers a year.

      Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | August 12, 2019 at 11:06 am

      Background checks for the purchase of a firearm are a violation of the 2nd Amendment, as they exist for the sole purpose of regulating [infringing upon] the right of a person to own a firearm. And, when the firearm involved is presently owned within a single state and its ownership is transferred solely within that state, by a private entity not engaged in interstate commerce, not even the commerce clause applies. The constitutionality of universal background checks can not be constitutionally justified.

        ConradCA in reply to Mac45. | August 12, 2019 at 12:18 pm

        Isn’t it true that membership in the militia was restricted to citizens in good standing? That means that criminals were excluded and therefore criminals don’t have 2nd amendment rights.

Up to now, Obama was the greatest gun salesman in US history. Stock prices and gun sales were very constant for decades. One year after Obama was elected, gun sales in the US exploded. They have since trailed off since Trump was elected. If Warren wins, and she follows through with these plans, buy the stock of every gun company that offers public stock.

    Miles in reply to OurUS. | August 12, 2019 at 4:04 am

    NICS checks being about the only solid, if not totally accurate, indicator, the only reason that sales ‘dropped off’ after Trump was elected was due to the huge spike in 2016, due to the populace being bombarded with the line that Hillary! was leading in the polls. That skewed the numbers.

    NICS numbers actually returned to near what the normal rate would have looked like had there not been the such incendiary gun control rhetoric from Mrs Demoncrap Herself.

    If Trump manages to screw over the gun owners again look for an even larger spike next year.

She’s a fraud and a sinister POS.

That aside, over my dead body.

So, we are so surprised, surprised, surprised…..

Walmart also raised the age of the people to whom it will sell firearms to 21, despite there being no law requiring them to do so.

And despite it being illegal in many states and cities. Has anyone sued them yet?

Companies that sell cars have a responsibility to the safety of their communities […] The vehicles they sell are killing their own customers and employees. No profit is worth those lives. Do the right thing—stop selling cars.

    aka Hoss in reply to Milhouse. | August 12, 2019 at 10:52 am

    After they nab the cars they can start filling up the swimming pools: they’re nothing but injury and death waiting to happen.

Any details on these so-called “anti-corruption” proposals? Because I can’t think of one that would affect the NRA at all, since it doesn’t engage in corruption.

Federal license required doesn’t sound like it would satisfy “shall not be infringed”.

I’d like to see her expand on her plans for “urban gun violence intervention programs.” This has been the holy grail for decades, stopping the steady flow of gun deaths in cities like Chicago and Baltimore. What bright ideas does she have that nobody else already thought of?

    ConradCA in reply to artichoke. | August 12, 2019 at 12:38 pm

    Seeing only a small percentage of murders are done with all types of rifles and rifles are the most effective tool for citizens to protect their liberty from tyranny why are the progressive fascists focused so much of their gun control effort on banning them? The real reason they want to ban assault weapons is to prevent citizens from fighting the Marxist tyranny that the progressive fascists want to impose on us. Just look at the plans of the Democratic Party’s little Stalins as they attempted to win their party’s nomination.

the National Safety Council puts out a book every year called “Accident Facts”. They tally deaths from all causes — and sort according to work related, men, women, age, etc. Very thorough.
Accidental deaths from firearms as a % of all accidents has not changed in 80 or so years (how long NSC has been doing this) — inspite of increase in population, gun ownership etc. JUST ONCE would a politician deal in facts?

What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand, Senator Warren?

The ostensible noble goal is always about reducing “gun deaths”, as if that was the only kind of violent loss of life there was. Nevermind that almost invariably, cities with the most gun restrictions have the highest murder rates. (The advocacy media tries to claim the opposite by only counting murders committed with firearms, a form of lying through statistics.)

The reason being there’s lots of ways to commit homicide. A gun is just one way. But a gun is also an effective deterrant against most of the other ways.

Firearm ownership prevents far more violent deaths than it enables.

Warren claimed for years to be a minority that gave her all kinds of advantages. Whether she either lied about this on purpose or was just too dog gone lazy to spend five minutes to see if her claims were valid, the bottom line is that she violated the law, stole AA slots from someone else, and illegally benefited from these actions.
Doesn’t it seem just too hypocritical that a person who was too lazy or dishonest to be telling gun owners how to behave, how they need more laws to regulate their behavior (that isn’t illegal to begin with), how we need to stop illegal behavior all over the country, and so forth. It’s only icing on the cake of hypocrisy of how her proposals would accomplish nothing other than making legal gun owners into criminals.
Here’s an idea. Before lecturing America on lawful behavior and proposing laws to force people into “more responsible” behavior, how about she first learn about what legal and responsible behavior just might be?

How about background checks, a Federal registry, waiting periods, and extra taxes for immigrants?

And leaving law abiding citizens alone…

    aka Hoss in reply to Mudcat. | August 12, 2019 at 10:49 am

    How about we’ll concede to some gun-control legislation as long as a national ID requirement to vote is added to the bill as well as some common-sense reform to freedom of the press (since they’ve become a propaganda arm of the democrat party).

Pol taxes are unconstitutional, so why not taxes on other rights?

    Milhouse in reply to MarkS. | August 12, 2019 at 11:28 am

    Poll taxes are not unconstitutional. The constitution explicitly mentions them. They’ve also got nothing to do with the subject, since they are not a tax on any right (except perhaps the right to breathe).

Pretty ridiculous stuff. But it’s not clear that any of these are serious proposals; as in, not even Warren herself necessarily thinks any of them will ever happen, or that they’re even desirable. This rubbish is probably about as serious as a promise of a chicken in every pot. It’s intended to get her enough voters to win the nomination—virtue-signaling (although “virtue” is hardly the correct word for outright deception) on a grand scale. “Were I the Surgeon General, I’d see that cures are developed for all known diseases!” Some idiots would like the sound of that—”I mean, it’s just common sense, ain’t it?”—and an idiot’s vote counts the same as anybody else’s.

2smartforlibs | August 12, 2019 at 8:46 am

Yet she wonders why the only way she can see the inside of the WH will be if she books the tour.

One of the glaring failures of the current background check process is the non-participation of states and even Federal agencies to input data to the system. The Southerland Springs Church gunman had been convicted at Court Martial of domestic abuse, yet the Air Force had not reported that conviction to the database. Even the Federal Government fails to comply.

Who are these gun owners that support more gun-control legislation?

Power. Power. Power.Power.Power.Power.Power.Power.Power.Power.Power. Power. Power.Power.Power.Power.Power.Power.Power.Power.Power.Power. Power. Power.Power.Power.Power.Power.Power.Power.Power.Power.Power. Power. Power.Power.Power.Power.Power.Power.Power.Power.Power.Power. Power. Power.Power.Power.Power.Power.Power.Power.Power.Power….

This is Fauxcahontas’ monomanical mantra. It should frighten everyone as much as it does considering hillary clinton’s monomanical mantra for power.

Remember Epstein.

She giving me an idea.
We can charge each pregnant woman getting an abortion $1,000 tax to have one.
We can require the abortionist to pay $500,000 for a license to perform abortions and they MUST have a $100 million dollar insurance policy. And they must keep all their abortion instruments locked up at all times when not in use.
And we should also re-institute the poll tax. No one on the left cares what the courts says so we can ignore any law that says poll taxes are illegal. I’d say $500 for democrats and $0.25 for conservatives.

    Milhouse in reply to 4fun. | August 13, 2019 at 8:21 am

    Poll taxes are perfectly legal. Making the right to vote depend on paying them, or on any other tax, is explicitly banned by the constitution.

So it’s probably a good thing she doesn’t have a chance in hell of being President.

OnTheLeftCoast | August 13, 2019 at 4:16 am

As Dan Bongino noted, I thought Warren (and other Democrats) was all about the idea that raising taxes doesn’t hurt business.

Unknown3rdParty | August 13, 2019 at 8:25 am

As usual, it’s about attacking law-abiding citizens but doing NOTHING about criminals. In this case, both have guns, but only the law-abiding will be affected.

There is no such thing as “gun violence”. This is a focus-group-driven buzzword and talking point to create an imaginary bogeyman as the main anti 2nd Amendment propaganda tool. There are PEOPLE who commit violence with guns, but there are many more people who commit violence without them.
And, since the term “gun violence” is a catchword/cliche, the title suggests an unattainable goal. People have been robbing and killing other people, using the weapons of the day, since the beginning of man on this planet, which identifies the real issue – controlling criminal impulses in humans, not the otherwise legal instruments they use to commit crimes.
Anyone who doesn’t realize and/or acknowledge this isn’t thinking, s/he is ‘feeling’, and our liberty cannot depend upon what anybody ‘feels’.

Some of the common meme among the leftist gun grabbers. Buzzwords are key tool that are used. A buzzword that is commonly used in political circles. if you really start digging into what many of these politicians actually believe, you will find out that they actually support “common sense restrictions” on the 2nd Amendment. But it has always been obvious to people who actually think in any rational manner that that confiscation is the ultimate goal of all of all marxists.
It’s why the “common sense solution” talk quickly gives way to broad denunciations of a “national gun culture”, of “white privilege”, of rural folk “clinging to their bibles and guns”, of American militarism and toxic masculinity, and of all the things for which guns are merely a symbol to the leftists who hate them. A cultural critique is very different than a common sense solution.
Gun rights are not negotiable.. We really don’t need to have a conversation about our rights to keep and bear arms. They’re rights. There’s nothing to talk about.
The 2nd Amend is a RESTRICTIVE admendment. It states such in the Preamble to Bill of Rights. the 2A does not grant nor convey any right, but RESTRICTS and PROHIBITS the government from infringing upon this enumerated, pre-existing, God given right.

We have millions of feral pigs destroying crops. The safest way to get rid of them is to shoot them.

personally feel that unregistered/unlicensed firearms (and yes, even title II weapons)pose substantially less threat to the republic than do unregistered/unlicensed/ineligible voters