Biden Wants to Ban Non-Existent Assault Weapons Because the Second Amendment is ‘Not Absolute’
Go away, Biden. I’m keeping my AR-15.
I’m going to bite my tongue because I like my boss and job.
The Bill of Rights outlines our rights given to us by our Creator whether you think our creator is God, Mother Nature, or a Spaghetti Monster.
Biden is going after our guns. He says he’s not but he is going after our guns.
Give them an inch and they’ll go a mile.
These are your natural rights no matter what Brandon says:
For so many of you at home, I want to be very clear: This is not about taking away anyone’s guns. It’s about vili- — not about vilifying gum [sic] — gun owners. In fact, we believe we should be treating responsible gun owners as an example of how every gun owner should behave. I respect the culture and the tradition and the concerns of lawful gun owners.
At the same time, the Second Amendment, like all other rights, is not absolute. It was Jus- — it was Justice Scalia who wrote, and I quote, “Like most rights, the right…” — Second Amendment — the rights granted by the Second Amendment are “not unlimited.” Not unlimited. It never has been.
There have always been limitations on what weapons you can own in America. For example, machine guns have been federally regulated for nearly 90 years. And this is still a free country.
This isn’t about taking away anyone’s rights. It’s about protecting children. It’s about protecting families. It’s about protecting whole communities. It’s about protecting our freedoms to go to school, to a grocery store, and to a church without being shot and killed.
Then Biden had to make it sound like people who want our elected officials to respect our natural rights hate children:
For God’s sake, how much more carnage are we willing to accept? How many more innocent American lives must be taken before we say “enough”? Enough.
I know that we can’t prevent every tragedy. But here’s what I believe we have to do. Here’s what the overwhelming majority of the American people believe we must do. Here’s what the families in Buffalo and Uvalde, in Texas, told us we must do.
We need to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. And if we can’t ban assault weapons, then we should raise the age to purchase them from 18 to 21. Strengthen background checks. Enact safe storage laws and red-flag laws. Repeal the immunity that protects gun manufacturers from liability. Address the mental health crisis deepening the trauma of gun violence and as a consequence of that violence.
What are these assault weapons? Where does one buy assault weapons? I didn’t realize I could bring my AR-15 into war.
Biden keeps lying:
These are rational, commonsense measures. And here’s what it all means. It all means this: We should reinstate the assault weapons ban and high-capacity magazines that we passed in 1994 with bipartisan support in Congress and the support of law enforcement. Nine categories of semi-automatic weapons were included in that ban, like AK-47s and AR-15s.
And in the 10 years it was law, mass shootings went down. But after Republicans let the law expire in 2004 and those weapons were allowed to be sold again, mass shootings tripled. Those are the facts.
Thank you, Katie Pavlich, for linking to a 2004 study that found no one could credit the 1994 ban for the “decrease in violence carried out with firearms.”
“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury,” the summary of the report on the study’s findings states. “The ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs [assault weapons] were used in no more than 8% of gun crimes even before the ban.”
So Biden needs ten Republican senators to pass his gun-grabbing schemes. That won’t happen.
But the gun confiscating laws will likely pass the House since the Democrats have the majority.
The House Judiciary Committee passed the Protect Our Kids Act along party lines:
The legislation seeks to raise the legal age for purchasing semi-automatic centerfire rifles from 18 to 21 years old, create additional federal offenses for gun trafficking, and strengthen current gun laws by closing loopholes, which would be done by amending the definition of “manufactured firearms” to include using 3D printers to create guns, among other reforms, the committee’s Democrats said in a press release.
The majority of these shooters have the same traits: broken family, absent father, bullied, no family support system (like aunts, uncles, cousins), and portray all the signs of becoming a criminal.
How about as a society we tackle these issues instead of looking to the government?
As a former leftist, I know the answer.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
tried to assure Americans that “this is not about taking away anyone’s guns.”
Why would I believe this used-car salesman….everything that has left his mouth has been a lie.
Biden has zero credibility, and he’s too stupid to know it.
Damn man, that’s awfully harsh on used car salesman.
The Founding Fathers used squirrel hunting guns (flint locks) after passing the Second Amendment. Those guns shot soft lead bullets that deformed greatly when hitting a target, causing deadlier wounds at short distances than a 9mm. True, though, those rifles were not made of Armalite…
I think you mean by Armalite, right?
The Founding Fathers Never envisioned modern high capacity printing presses shooting out hundreds of pages per minute. Maybe it’s time for common sense restrictions on the 1st Amendment.
For vegan fun owners, they gave tgg hug em in Vegimite.
Let me try that again: for vegan gun owners, they gave Vegemite.
And that was supposed to be an improvement??? 🙂
covfefe
The Founding Fathers had privately-owned cannon, despite Lying Joe’s bald-faced lies; also privateers, which were fully armed WARSHIPS.
They also owned “machine guns” (look up “Puckle’s Patent”).
A right is not a privilege granted by government, it is a birthright held despite government.
I always though “shall not be infringed” makes it pretty clear the right IS absolute.
I believe they think “infringed” means those little tassels on western buckskin clothing.
No, the RKBA is not absolute, just as the freedom of speech isn’t. Legitimate exceptions to the RKBA don’t infringe it, just as legitimate exceptions to the freedom of speech don’t abridge it, and just as reasonable searches and seizures don’t violate “the right of the people to be secure … against unreasonable” ones.
Just what those legitimate exceptions are is for the courts to determine. The exceptions to the freedom of speech are by now well known and pretty much a closed set; nobody seriously expects more exceptions to be suddenly discovered lying around in plain sight but somehow unrecognized for centuries. What can make a search or seizure reasonable has also been thoroughly explored.
But the limits on the RKBA have not been explored because for so long the courts just ignored it. Scalia was correct in saying that exceptions almost certainly exist; but his suggestions were just that, idle speculations. He didn’t say those were exceptions, just that they might be, and if and when they ever come up the courts would have to consider them. The case in front of him didn’t require deciding that, because clearly no possible exception applied; the government admitted that if the right existed at all, it was being infringed.
What is required to maintain a “free state”? That wou!d be the starting point for discussion. Those on the Left that say only 18th century muskets would have to show how a government of muskets and black powder cannon is equal in threat to the 21st century state. For those that live and breathe ” The Law”, we are seeing “The Law” perverted with a progressive removal of opposition to the present ruling class and The Party. “The Law” isn’t the final arbiter as things are going. The Second Amendment infers conflict to overcome tyranny….by extras legal means if necessary.
As for the success of The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, the argument should be DOA and obvious. Since the ban didn’t confiscate firearms and magazines, then guns=crime should have shown no change rather then the claimed decrease. Since the ban dealt with cosmetics and not basic functionality, ,the added number of firearm to the pre-ban firearms further degrades any argument for effectiveness. Removal of threaded barre!s with flash hiders, bayonet lugs and eliminating a collapsible stock does nothing to change the performance of a ban era to A pre-ban firearm.
For all those the live and breathe “The Law”, then there will be no change in the profession. One can Then easily practice in any legal system.. Any lawyer can learn to love Big Brother. The schooling is already underway.
Indeed. That’s what the Miller court did when it said that weapons that a militiaman would have no use for aren’t necessary to maintain a free state, so banning them doesn’t infringe the RKBA. Maybe that decision was wrong, but the court was asking the right question.
I would think one exception would be that violent crazy people and violent felons, don’t have the RKBA, so banning them from being armed isn’t an infringement.
There is no militiaman qualifier in the 2nd. It’s the right of the PEOPLE, not the right of the MILITIA.
And nobody says the right is confined to militiamen. But what is the right? The Miller court said that since the 2a’s stated purpose is to enable a well-regulated militia, which is necessary to the security of a free state, the right it says shall not be infringed is the right of the people to keep and bear those arms suitable for a militiaman, and no other. Since Heller didn’t overturn that decision, as far as I know it remains the law. Maybe some future court will decide Miller was wrong; maybe it won’t. But either way the court was defining the right being protected, not the extent of the protection or who has it.
Shall not be infringed is absolute language. There is no wiggle room built into that.
Sure, but what shall not be infringed? .
The first amendment says “shall not be abridged” too, but there are exceptions to the freedom of speech, and those don’t abridge it.
And the fourth amendment says “shall not be violated”, but reasonable searches and seizures don’t violate the right to be free from unreasonable ones.
Likewise the RKBA has exceptions, and they don’t infringe it. What those exceptions are is a different question.
The right to keep and bear arms, and ARMS is a very broad descriptor that encompasses a lot of different things. It really doesn’t leave any room for exceptions, regardless of how much the communist pedophile in the white house may want it.
“Arms” does include a lot of different things. But it doesn’t include everything, and it’s up to the courts to decide what it includes. It’s also up to them to decide who has the right. Surely you agree that it’s not literally everyone. So the courts have to figure out who is meant. Who, in 1788, was allowed to bear arms?
One argument by the Left is that the National Guard fulfills the requirement for 2A… which is rather interesting in that the National Guard didn’t come into existence until the 20th century… the Founders were fortune-tellers. This is where originalism plays a part… what they saw and what they were protecting against. To a person, they feared an all powerful government. They would be horrified with the present US Feds.. The balance of power and the evidence of abuse are heavily on the present Party’s rule.
Perpich v DOD pretty much queered that leftist argument. All the feds have to do is federalize (call up) your state’s NG, and suddenly your state ain’t got no militia. The Founders were very clear that this was not their vision for the militia.
I get that lawyers have twisted the 2A that way. “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. No infringement. There is no other honest take, despite what our robed overlords have to say.
Yes, but no infringement of what? The freedom of speech has exceptions, which don’t abridge it; why would the RKBA not have non-infringing exceptions too?
The right to keep and bear arms.
This isn’t something that is super complicated, or at least it shouldn’t be. Listing infringements and saying they aren’t infringements doesn’t change what they are. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t give you a 5 legged dog.
The wiggle room was not meant for devious minds to abuse… but there it is. The performance of the present majority party and admin has carte blanche within DC except temporarily at the SCOTUS. The emphasis is on “rule” and not “law”.
It is, perhaps, a fact provocative of sour mirth that the Bill of Rights was designed trustfully to prohibit forever two of the favorite crimes of all known governments: the seizure of private property without adequate compensation and the invasion of the citizen’s liberty without justifiable cause…. It is a fact provocative of mirth yet more sour that the execution of these prohibitions was put into the hands of courts, which is to say, into the hands of lawyers, which is to say, into the hands of men specifically educated to discover legal excuses for dishonest, dishonorable and anti-social acts.
–H.L. MENCKEN
Are you just dense? Or just another gun grabber apologist?
Or both?
The 4th Amendment is the ONLY amendment among the Bill of Rights that allows for reasonable consideration. That’s it. Abridgment and infringement are violations of those pre-existing rights acknowledged by the 1st and 2nd amendments respectively.
If there was intention to allow for reasonable abridgments or infringements, there would have been some indication, as exemplified in the text of the 4th amendment. There is none regarding the 1st and 2nd amendments.
No matter which portion of the text of the 2nd amendment you append “shall not be infringed” makes no difference, regardless of syntax and commas.
Oddly, you use Scalia’s views to support your views when it’s convenient, and discard them when they aren’t. Why is that?
You’ve got it completely wrong. The 4th amendment’s language is just as absolute as the 1st and 2nd’s. “Shall make no law … abridging”, “shall not be infringed”, “shall not be violated”. The question in all three cases is what shall not be abridged, infringed, or violated? What is this pre-existing right?
The 4th says what the right is: “to be secure.. against unreasonable searches and seizures”. Reasonable searches do not violate that right. In exactly the same way, the freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms have exceptions. Not the amendment, but the right itself.
Defamation laws, for instance, do not abridge the freedom of speech. Nor do laws against true threats, incitement (as defined in Brandenberg), and several other things. But it’s not a free-for-all; the exceptions have pretty much all been discovered by now, and if something isn’t on that list it’s probably not an exception.
The exceptions to the second amendment are not so well known, because the courts have avoided considering it. For decades the supreme court deliberately refused to take any case that would require it to rule on the 2A. And as Thomas has pointed out, in the years since Heller it has resumed that refusal, effectively turning the 2A into a second-class right. Once the court starts taking it seriously it will have to explore what exceptions might exist to the RKBA. Scalia gave a list of possible exceptions that occurred to him, but didn’t say any of them were definitely exceptions. He left that to later courts to figure out, once there is a case or controversy that requires it.
Really?! What the hell are you talking about?
To the contrary. If there are no documented exceptions then there are no exceptions in law.
That’s not how law works. There are exceptions, and they’re documented in the history of court decisions. Where else would you expect to find them? The constitution just says “the freedom of speech”. It doesn’t define what that is; that’s the court’s job. And the courts have worked hard over the centuries at defining it precisely, which includes working out exactly what exceptions exist to it, and what their limits are. By now we pretty much know all of them and their boundaries, but the courts are still figuring out the edge cases that keep coming up. But whatever the freedom of speech is, it absolutely must not be abridged.
The same is true for “unreasonable searches and seizures”. The constitution doesn’t say what those are; that’s the court’s job. Whatever they are, the right to be secure from them must absolutely not be violated.
And the same is true for the RKBA. The constitution just says it shall not be infringed, but leaves it to the courts to say what it is, and thus what infringes it. For instance everyone would agree that violently insane people are an exception, and disarming them isn’t an infringement. Ditto for convicted violent felons. But what about minors? They have full 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendment rights; obviously they have full 2nd amendment rights too. So does that mean the government can’t ban the sale of weapons to 10-year-olds?! Or is that an exception to the underlying right itself, so that the 2A permits it because it’s not an infringement? The courts will eventually have to decide that one.
Is the 13th Amendment Absolute?
Will I need to fill out a form, pay a fee and the Government MAY issue me a permit to NOT be a Slave (with a waiting period of course.)
Don’t forget to renew that 4th A permit or they are going to seize your house and 401k.
No, the 13th amendment is not absolute. It has an exception right in the text. But beyond that, the right it protects is itself not absolute, and needs to be defined by the courts. Hence conscription doesn’t violate it.
Not that it matters, because SCOTUS has resolutely refused to stamp out the lower court revolt against Heller by defending it in cases coming before it. Not one anti gun law has been struck down by SCOTUS since then. When the same court is too cowardly to go where the ruling should take them it might as well have not made that ruling in the first place.
Biden will eventually learn that his own Presidency “is not absolute”.
“What are these assault weapons? Where does one buy assault weapons? I didn’t realize I could bring my AR-15 into war.”
Hopefully we won’t have to find out how effective they could be as a weapon of war. There’s a lot riding on these midterm elections!
How many Americans out there still believe an AR-15 is fully automatic? I bet the number of CNN watchers who believe it is over 50%.
Well, you need a really low IQ to watch CNN…
It has to be high enough to turn on the TV and change channels. Or just stay out of airports.
Actually there are a handful of full auto AR-15s, from before the full auto version was adopted by our military as the M16. Some of them apparently went to war too, sent to Vietnam before the relabeling was completed.
What is a bit scary to me (showing my age), personally, is that the demo of full auto AR-15s to DOD was over 60 years ago, but was only 25 or so years after the 1934 NFA was enacted, classifying full auto firearms as machine guns, and requiring a tax stamp for their possession. One exception, of course, to this stamp requirement are ATF licensed firearms manufacturers, like Armalite, Colt, etc. The other big exception is the sale to the government. That’s how you get perfectly legal full auto AR-15s.
That’s basically correct but needs a bit of detailed clarification. (I got this straight from Gene Stoner and Jim Sullivan back in the day at meetings where this subject came up)
The ARMALITE AR-15 was in fact the 5.56 version of the AR-10 (7.62) with the top charging finger handle and was selective fire and made/deployed specifically for the military.
After all the politics, financial stuff and selling to Colt,
The COLT AR-15 ( both are called AR-15’s even though radically different visually and in components) was in fact the “civilian” AR-15 and never was available in full auto to the public.
Colt “modified” the Stoner/Sullivan design mainly for ease and speed of mass production so essentially the M series is almost identical in all critical areas to the civilian AR.
That’s where a lot of the confusion comes from.
Side story…. when Germany was upgrading their main battle rifle there were 4 contestants…. labeled G1, G2, G3 and G4. One of the rifles was the AR-10, with others the FN-FL and Swiss… the H&K was contestant G3… and won. Hence the “G3” title. Germany did use the FN also as the Stg-58. The AR-10 was too advanced for its time and lost from barrel problems. So… the opportunity to get the Air Force contract made the M-16 a reality although as you noted … Colt had the rights.
Need to go back to the 50’s with the initial AR-10 in the competition for the new main battle rifle. This was downsized to a sentry rifle version which becomes the M-16. The civilian AR-15 went on sale in 1964. …58 years ago. Should (when) the Republicans cave, the only choice is fast or slow transfor.nation to a single party fascist socialistic state. At that point, I’d see their Cloward and Pevin plan and raise it. If it is the will of the ignorant governed to go that route…let them have it..good and hard.
It is amazing how Democrats will invoke the name of God and ‘for His sake’ when they really want a political objective badly enough.
Gee, it’s almost predictable… every time after one of these mass shootings, Ds wring their hands and insist that the only solution is “commonsense” gun control, even though these “commonsense” gun control measures never seem to work. It’s almost like a playbook: problem – reaction – solution.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the textbook definition of “false flag”: stir up shit by covertly instigating a crisis so you can present your own solution and ram through your own agenda. Ds are no more interested in “protecting the children” than they are about runaway inflation or securing the border from hordes of alien invaders. Ds are interested only in power and control, and “gun control” is in reality “people control.”
Crooked, corrupt pols and a tyrannical government like the Ds are always in favor of are precisely the reason why the Founding Fathers stated very clearly that the right of the people to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Period.
If the Ds were really interested in protecting the children they would restrict ownership of swimming pools, and hold pool builders (as well as those who provide parts) responsible for the drowning of children in them. That is a number much greater than those who die from firearms events.
There is no common sense gun control. There is only unconstitutional gun control and people who try to get that should be hung for treason.
We need to call gun control what it is; civilian disarmament.
Let’s see, police department sits around while known violent guy who should have had multiple assault charges on his socket used what appear to have been illegally purchased guns to shoot up a room full of kids.
The admin’s solution to that is, checks notes, require the average citizen to depend even more on the cops doing a competent job.
So how is he going to enforce this? Send the same cops out to go door to door to collect them? How does he think he’s going to get anything more than a meticulously crafted note saying they totally complied with the orders and totally found almost no-one actually had anything at all?
I think that if those cops did actually try to go door to door and confiscate weapons, they’re probably going to “collect” a lot of ammunition first.
After the first few times, what’s to keep the remainder from banding together, taking up their arms, and “confiscating” the armories of their local police departments?
They didn’t seem to in New Orleans during Katrina. Armed and threatening law enfarcement went door to door, confiscating firearms. Not a single shot was fired.
In a situation where most people didn’t have good transportation and the power was out so there were no mass communications, either.
When they force us all to have electric cars all they have to do is throw a few switches and we’d be without transportation and communication. I think there are common threads to all of what the New World Order wants. Did I mention digital (and therefore electricity dependent) currency?
That’s assuming they allow us to have electric cars – or any form of personal transport – in the first place.
They’ll have to pry the keys to my gasoline car out of my cold, dead hands. I know how it works, I can repair it and it has been utterly reliable. Plus, I’m not going to pay $50k to buy a vehicle that is inferior in every measurable way that what I already own.
A lot has happened since then. The Coward of Broward, not the least.
“They didn’t seem to in New Orleans…”
You answered your unstated question. It was New Orleans.
A salt weapon is a sharp edged shaker.
The Biden admin made a mistake by wading in with this address. In fact it made several mistakes. Here are what I think are the most important two mistakes.
1. Biden isn’t a direct participant in the negotiations in the Senate. Using his platform and coming across as a political hit job framing anyone who disagrees as heartless, uncaring or cruelly selfish may have inserted a poison pill. Good faith negotiation isn’t done with slurs against the folks on the opposite side of the table.
2. By attempting to insert bans into the negotiations he simultaneously undercuts the d/prog negotiators and raises hope for a ban in some corners of his base. A ban isn’t part of the negotiations and won’t be passed so he is setting up another disappointing loss for himself.
Plus, he’s a known liar and a pedophile. Nobody is believing a word he says.
Three words … F*ck You Pedophile.
Brandon is NOT going to defy the uber-left wing zealots this close to the election and they are teeing it up to go after everything before November to eliminate the Senate filibuster rule. Their entire agenda depends on it. Desperation.
The good part is that this time, Brandon is trying to make it sound like he is actually on the side of lawful gun owners. This is a glaring concession that the gun lobby is NOT a bunch of wild-eyed extremist right-wingers. It’s possibly the most bipartisan major political issue and everyone knows it. More than ever, gun control is a losing issue! New gun owners continue to dominate gun sales which tells us that no one is going to turn their guns in if this goes through.
Brandon is doing nothing more than throwing the final issue on the pile for the Nazis as they tee it up to go after the Senate filibuster rule. The silver bullet. If they succeed, you can blame the corrupt GOPe squishes which includes almost all Republican senators. You can count those on our side on one hand and have fingers left over.
Gird your loins, this is going to be intense.
There are 400 million guns owned by Americans. Banning guns is like trying to ban drugs — it’s not going to make even the slightest dent in the supply. Today, there are Federal and State laws prohibiting mentality incompetent people from owning firearms. Did those laws stop the mentally ill shooter? No, they didn’t.
Every year 37,,000 people are killed in auto collisions, including children. That is magnitudes higher than school shootings. That can be reduced to 0, if we limit all vehicle speeds to less than 10 mph. But the convenience of driving fast seems to outweigh 37,000 deaths per year, including the deaths of many children. If our woke scolds were truly outraged by the deaths of children, they would work to limit road speeds to 10 mph. But, they don’t, because it’s not a political issue they can use to score political points. They know a gun ban is impractical, but they can use it to showboat their superior morality.
My guess is that the 400 million is too low. There were roughly 38 million NICS background checks in both 2020 and 2021. You need to round that up for multiple gun purchases in one background check, and also for those, like me, who were able to avoid NICS checks due to my CCW permit that required an FBI background check. That probably means almost 50 million guns sold each year.
So the 13th amendment right not to be a slave isn’t absolute either?
[involuntary] Shared/shifted responsibility and other redistributive change schemes.
That’s right. Besides the exception that’s right there in the amendment, there are all sorts of things that the courts say don’t count as involuntary servitude, such as conscription.
Biden doesn’t think Article I is absolute either: even though it states that ALL legislative power is vested in the Congress, the President can make law if the people stubbornly insist their representatives preserve their unalienable rights.
“For God’s sake, how many women must be raped before you cut off your own penis?”
I wonder how many would die in Civil War 2.0 if they tried to confiscate the guns.
And to any loons who want to come back with “the gov has all the tanks and fighter planes and nukes, etc” I suggest you educate yourself on the history of guerilla warfare, especially as employed against “super powers.”
Biden’s claims as to gun ownership and the Second Amendment are completely belied by the history of gun ownership in the US since the American Revolution, Note that his proposed legislation ignores the issues of school safety, and mental health screening of adolescents
Firearms are not mentioned in the Second Amendment. Only “Arms.”
Firearms are a subset of “arms” as are all weapons.
Honestly this is a classic dementia sign, an elder convincing himself that something that happened decades ago happened a particular way, and NO amount of evidence will ever convince them otherwise.
EVERYBODY knows that the so-called ‘assault weapons ban’ was a political loser that did nothing to stop ‘gun violence’. When they first passed it in 1994, it was a MAJOR reason that the Republicans took back the House in the biggest turnover in decades.
You haven’t heard their ‘assault weapon’ crap in a while because everybody knew it was bullshit. That’s why they switch to ‘weapons of war’ or ‘military-grade weapons’ or other bullshit in the last few years.
But Biden pushed it back in the day, and in his addled brain he is convinced that it was some huge political win. So now he’s pushing his Assault Weapons Ban again because in his mind it was his biggest win and he’s going to do it again.
There may be some light at the end of this tunnel at least politically. Both Arizona and Georgia have Democrat Senators up for reelection later this year . Both are pretty pro 2A states. Both Senators have avoided the 2A issue at length. Casting a vote, even to send to the floor, will not play well at home.
“Both Senators have avoided the 2A issue at length.”
To the contrary. Mark Kelly is Gabby Giffords husband, and runs her national gun-control group, one of the three largest in the country. No way any amount of “silence” can lift that albatross off his neck.
Is the issue total or bloc deaths? If the former, then we should pass reasonable regulations of scalpels, knives, and other blades that are elected by criminals in the majority of homicides committed with assault weapons to deny lives for social (e.g. “burdens”), redistributive (e.g. progressive schemes), clinical (e.g. sacrificial rites), and fair weather (e.g. cargo cults) causes.
Shall not be infringed. Sounds quite absolute to me.
“No right is absolute,” is a favorite mantra of the Left.
(Except abortion, of course. That right is absolute.)
I saw a video link in the comment section at Epoch Times yesterday, from a guy who has made a study of mass shootings and claims the common thread linking all of them is drugs, in particular, anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, ADHD type drugs. I didn’t watch the video for long because of the ‘rapid-fire’ graphic presentation style the maker used … way too fast to read comfortably. Nevertheless it made an impression on me as to root cause or trying to use drugs unsuccessfully to treat the root cause: mental illness.
Such drugs lose effectiveness over time as the body gains a tolerance, and the withdrawal symptoms if quit cold turkey can be worse than the original problem they were prescribed for.
This is key. When you come off those drugs, one of the side effects is way more crippling depression than you originally had going in. A significant number of these shooters were taken off the drugs just prior to the shooting, or stopped taking theirs themselves.
But they shouldn’t have been.
Every story, without exception, when talking about FU*K lyin’ pedo joe biden* should be required to state at the very beginning – this man is a known serial liar. Anything he say is not the truth ever,
In any case I’ll let Sean Davis reply for me as he’s fairly succinct and truthful.
—————–
Your crackhead son lied on a federal background check form so he could illegally buy a gun.
I don’t want to hear a word from you on gun laws until your deadbeat, crackhead, porn-addled gun criminal son Hunter is behind bars. https://t.co/gLHuQokKGS
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) June 3, 2022
Hear about the mass shooting that murdered A grandfather and his four grandsons this last month? Shooter was an Hispanic gang banger who escaped A prison bus and murdered the five while on the lam. Oh…they were white…so memory holed. Murder weapon…AR-15. Racism, segregation, voter fraud, religious persecution… The fresh look of the 21st century.
I guess he didn’t mean to protect and defend the Constitution