Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

January 6 Committee Reveals Recommended Charges Against Trump

January 6 Committee Reveals Recommended Charges Against Trump

The committee also referred four Republicans for ethics violations for defying subpoenas: Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Andy Biggs, Jim Jordan, and Scott Perry.

The January 6 committee announced recommended charges against former President Donald Trump for supposedly inspiring and causing the Capitol Hill riot:

The recommended charges were obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to make a false statement and ‘inciting,’ ‘aiding’ or ‘assisting’ an insurrection.

Lawmakers made the stunning decision during the panel’s final public hearing before the select committee is dissolved at the end of this year.

No US president has been the subject of a criminal referral by Congress until now.

‘At the heart of our republic is the guarantee of the peaceful transfer of power,’ said Vice Chair Liz Cheney at the outset of the hearing. ‘Every president in our history has accepted this orderly transfer of authority except one.’

‘In addition to being unlawful as described in our report, this was an utter moral failure and a clear dereliction of duty,’ she said at another point.

“Republican” Liz Cheney continued on her soapbox:

Lawmakers on the panel have heard from dozens of witnesses – mainly Republicans – and obtained thousands of pages’ worth of correspondences and other documents that paint a picture of Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Cheney said, ‘among the most shameful of this committee’s findings is that President Trump sat in the dining room by the Oval Office watching the Capitol riot on television.’

We all knew they would recommend charges against Trump. The Democrats and “Republicans” Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger wanted to sound and act important. Those two “Republicans” won’t be back for the next Congress.

Trump launched his 2024 presidential bid last month.

The committee also referred four Republicans for ethics violations for defying subpoenas: Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Andy Biggs, Jim Jordan, and Scott Perry.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Colonel Travis | December 19, 2022 at 2:43 pm

I just came out of the No Shit, Sherlock Committee meeting, we’ll have a response to this shocking news very soon.

    Connivin Caniff in reply to Colonel Travis. | December 19, 2022 at 7:06 pm

    I’ll have my response as soon as I see all the unedited, unredacted, unaltered video tapes of that day.

    When the “guarantee of the peaceful transfer of power” occurs on Jan. 1, the Jan 6 Committee part deux can review and release all the withheld exonerating evidence that Cheney and the other losers neglected to reveal.

In many South American countries, it is common for an incoming political administration to use its newfound power to prosecute the members of the outgoing administration. This usually results in either exile or jailing of the previous president, vice president, etc.

It appears that the Democrats intend to begin such prosecutions in this country, in conjunction with a politicized FBI and biased Justice Department. This will weaken our democracy and further polarize the people.

    MarkS in reply to OldProf2. | December 19, 2022 at 3:11 pm

    ,,and the solution is?…..not voting, as that has been corrupted, how about the courts? Nobody seems to have standing, unless you’re a Liberal..any ideas?

      Mark – I’m not a lawyer – don’t have the temperament for it – still you brought up a question about standing I’ve wondered about. The Epoch Times ran an article about the NC Supreme Court blocking a voter ID law using the same old sorry “will disenfranchise voters” tripe or that the law was rooted in racism … where the the basis of their claim is minorities are too poor or – ahem – unsophisticated to get a state ID – shouldn’t they have to produce some actual people to prove their are such people? Plaintiff has to prove standing – why not the defense – if they rely on some straw-man bullshit argument like “blacks are too poor and illiterate to get an ID” – which in a state like NC who makes state IDs free for the poor – is a complete farce – yet accepted as a valid proof. Just seems to me like standing ought be demonstrated by both sides – i.e., both sides need to have skin in the game.

        Dimsdale in reply to MrE. | December 20, 2022 at 8:33 am

        The soft bigotry of low expectations that the left has for blacks and other minorities knows no limit.

    Milhouse in reply to OldProf2. | December 19, 2022 at 3:13 pm

    The fact that something is done in South America doesn’t and shouldn’t mean that it shouldn’t be done here, if warranted. If the previous administration committed crimes, they should be prosecuted. They shouldn’t be immune just because we don’t want to look like a banana republic.

    That’s why it was so disappointing that Trump never meant “Lock her up”, and never for a moment intended to hold any sort of inquiry into her crimes and what charges could be brought against her. I’m not sure there was anything to charge her with, considering the statutes of limitations, but the DOJ should have been ordered to look.

    After all, Hitler wore trousers; does that mean we should not?!

      mailman in reply to Milhouse. | December 19, 2022 at 3:36 pm

      Your thinking is what got us the Democrat J6 committee. Clearly it doesn’t take much brain power to work out just how incredibly bad it looks when you start charging your political enemies with bullshit crimes but apparently the possessor of the worlds largest brain can’t work this out.

      Anyone capable of rubbing two or more brain cells together worked out how utterly correupted the J6 committe was from the very beginning.

      There is NOTHING related to this committee that any sentient being should be taking seriously but apparently all that is lost on Justive Millhouse, the possessor of the worlds largest bwain .

      Mulhouse, “not sure there was anything to charge her with, considering the SoL”…….???

      You assure us you know The Law and Logic, but don’t understand the difference between not having committed a chargeable offense, and not being charged with the same before the legal clock runs out?

      Ex: While running the HillaryCare commission, the commission she supposedly ran violated multiple ethics laws designed to separate governance from pure politics. When called to testify, she played the Bimbo Card, unable to recall any specifics. Even The Capitol Steps (a mostly lib political comedy parody group) didn’t believe her, writing her her very own song mocking her testimony. But she was given a pass – because indicting a former First Lady was something a Bush republican thought beyond the pale.

        Milhouse in reply to BobM. | December 19, 2022 at 7:09 pm

        You are an idiot. If it turned out that the statute had run on all her offenses, then there would be nothing to charge her with, and it would be impossible to Lock Her Up.

        But Trump should have at least had someone look into it, and see whether there was anything that was still within the statute and could be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

        He didn’t, because he never intended to. When he said he’d lock her up he was lying.

          You may be marginally on our side, but I suspect you will still be canned once the next civil war is won and order is restored to the republic

          2)a beating with a cane

          (OK, I can’t spellll)

          ConradCA in reply to Milhouse. | December 19, 2022 at 11:00 pm

          The progressive fascists who ran the DOJ were co-conspirators. They knew she broke the law but refused to prosecute her because she is a Dem. Statute of limitations doesn’t state when their is no real justice system to prosecute her.

          To put it more correctly, Trump *knew* that the DOJ would never bring charges against Hillary for her obvious violations of the law. Example: her private email server used to conduct government business and the sworn testimony of her technical staff that he was ordered to wipe the drives of the subpoenaed server *after* being informed it was under subpoena. The DOJ would never charge, and if charged by some miracle, they would never prosecute, and if prosecuted there’s not a DC jury who would vote to convict.

          He *knew* he would be unable to push the DOJ in that direction even if he were willing to abuse his authority and order it. (Never give an order you know won’t be obeyed) On the other hand, the Biden administration doesn’t even have to give orders. The DOJ jumps to do their bidding and prosecutes everybody they can on Trump’s side without a single email or memo to leave a trail.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | December 21, 2022 at 1:26 am

          He never intended to have her locked up. When he promised to do so he was lying.

    ConradCA in reply to OldProf2. | December 29, 2022 at 8:28 pm

    The word is persecute not prosecute

If the DOJ decides to accept and act upon the J6 Committee’s criminal referral to charge Trump, which there is little reason to believe they will not, how is Trump expected to receive a fair trial in DC?

What big-time law firms with the necessary resources to go up against the Feds will want to take his case?

For President Trump, it’s a sad day in Mudville.

    he’s not supposed to receive a fair trial, that’s the point

    mailman in reply to Ghostrider. | December 19, 2022 at 3:37 pm

    They’ve already found him guilty.

    Virginia42 in reply to Ghostrider. | December 19, 2022 at 3:55 pm

    Of course they will. This is Garland’s Leftard Loony DOJ. They will do the Administration’s bidding.


    The wheels of justice are slow. We will have a new congress.. hope they can undo this bs.

      Subotai Bahadur in reply to amwick. | December 19, 2022 at 6:02 pm

      Democrats will control the Senate in that new Congress, and the Republicans have been in full Vichy mode in the House, despite winning a majority in the new Congress. And McCarthy seems determined to maintain that from January on. The wheels of justice are chocked.

      Subotai Bahadur

      Milhouse in reply to amwick. | December 20, 2022 at 12:59 am

      The new house can withdraw the referral, but so what? That would be meaningless. The referral has no legal effect; it’s just a letter to DOJ suggesting that it bring these charges. It’s up to DOJ whether to accept the suggestion or ignore it; and DOJ can do the exact same thing without anyone suggesting it. If it decides to prosecute it doesn’t need the referral, and if it decides not to then the referral is not an obstacle. So withdrawing it won’t change anything.

The real charges are ‘He’s going to upset our grift because he’s a blunt speaking outsider who tells us that Congress has no clothes.’

The last outsider who preached this kind of reform was Jimmy Carter who was not that much of an outsider having been governor of Georgia. Yet the Democrats did everything possible to obstruct him and get him to lose his reelection bid in 1980, including Ted Kennedy primarying him.

    henrybowman in reply to MosesZD. | December 19, 2022 at 11:05 pm

    To be fair, until Brandon came onstage, no US president ever destroyed a functioning US economy as expertly as Jimmeh did.

All four charges are ridiculous.

“Obstruction of an official proceeding” is a relatively new crime, and until last year it was universally understood to mean destroying evidence that one has not officially been asked for yet, but which one has reason to know is likely be subpoenaed eventually. It’s not spoliation of evidence because it isn’t evidence yet, but it’s obstruction. Or at least so goes the theory. Anyway, nobody ever thought of applying it to creating a disturbance during a session of some official body; if it had been, there would have been a lot of Dems charged with it when they made nuisances of themselves in committee hearings or in Congress itself. Such as all those members who sat on the floor and had to be dragged off so the session could continue; I forget what they were protesting, possibly George Floyd.

I’m not sure what the “defrauding the USA” charge is about. But since the other three are ridiculous, I’m fairly confident this one is too.

“Conspiracy to make a false statement”, I assume this is about him urging people not to tell the truth to this committee. Except that as I understand it the basis for calling the statements he urged people to make “false” depends entirely on the committee’s opinion; he very clearly had a different opinion, and believed he was urging people to tell the truth.

The fourth is the most ridiculous. “Incitement” has a very specific meaning in law, which the supreme court carefully crafted to avoid violating the first amendment. It’s speech that is both (1) subjectively intended and (2) objectively likely to cause (3) imminent commission of a crime. Since nothing he said was in any way aimed at getting anyone to do more than march on the Capitol, which is a constitutional right and a time-honored American tradition, there can’t be incitement. Both “assistance” and “giving aid and comfort” require acts; mere words can’t qualify, even if he had said something that would assist the rioters or comfort them, which he didn’t. Oh, and the riot was not an insurrection either. Mere words of encouragement, even for an actual riot or even for an insurrection, are protected by the first amendment so they can’t be crimes.

    malclave in reply to Milhouse. | December 19, 2022 at 3:39 pm

    It’s D.C. Why pretend the law has anything to do with it?

    The first amendment has been suspended/canceled. All who disagree with the Democrats and the Deep State are insurrectionists.

    txvet2 in reply to Milhouse. | December 19, 2022 at 4:58 pm

    So you think they’re Trumped-up charges?

    OK, OK, but SOMEBODY had to say it!

    mailman in reply to Milhouse. | December 20, 2022 at 4:45 am

    The Democrat party is ridiculous. Whats your point?

    BierceAmbrose in reply to Milhouse. | December 20, 2022 at 5:12 pm

    To: J6 Committee / Eleventy-Seventh Congress / Pelosi’s Patrols

    Re: Referral of The Bad Orange Man for We’re not Sure What.

    The fact that something came out other than you wanted doesn’t make it a crime. People saying stuff you don’t want to hear is neither a crime. Your political opponent arguing his position superior, and execution cleaner, than yours is part of the game, even after an election has been tallied.

    You can waste as much of your own time as you like with show trials that go nowhere. Please refrain from wasting our time with that same stuff. We take hijacking government authorities a bit more seriously than you seem to. Perhaps that’s because the remedy for your misbehavior you get voted out. You’ve encrusted yourself with many immunities and exceptions over the years. The remedy should we misbehave is firing, impeachment, or even criminal prosecution.

    In conclusion, we are taking your referral under advisement, and will act upon it appropriately. Perhaps less shenanigans, next time if you choose for there to be a next time. Meanwhile, how’s that permanent demographic majority working out for you?


    A DoJ Wprth the Name

It will be a cold day in hell when any charges are recommended against Hunter Biden who is insulated by 15 layers of immunity. He can go his merry way eating, drinking, lavishly spending, drugging and sexing his life away without a care in the world.

I don’t imagine anyone is surprised at this point. They’ve been lying about Trump for the past six years, and they’re not about to stop.

Sometimes I wish a nuke would take out the fetid swamp in DC. It’s a wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Not a lawyer, but always baffling how they can charge “Conspiracy to do X” and not actually charge or prove X.

And of course it is now obstruction of an official proceeding to attempt to follow the rules and object to the railroad.

Can we please get an impartial (yes, I know) expert in election law to Fisk these charges for the tissue paper and swamp dreams the Dems are spinning?

    Milhouse in reply to georgfelis. | December 19, 2022 at 3:18 pm

    A conspiracy does not have to have been carried out to be criminal. If you and I agree to commit a burglary, and one of us takes a concrete act in furtherance of that conspiracy such as buying a ski mask for it, but we never take it any further, we’re guilty of conspiracy but not of burglary.

      MarkS in reply to Milhouse. | December 19, 2022 at 4:02 pm

      a thought crime?

        Milhouse in reply to MarkS. | December 19, 2022 at 7:14 pm

        No, it’s not a thought crime. It requires an agreement between more than one person; since we are not telepaths, that can’t happen by pure thought. And it also requires a concrete act by one of the conspirators.

          I can tell you’re not the judge for the Oath Keepers trial, where the conspiracy pushed by the prosecution had no text messages indicating planning, no discussions indicating planning, no informants saying there was planning during the J6 demonstration, *but* there was apparently a conspiracy made on the spur of the moment to overthrow the government by entering a building where the police were holding open the doors, blocking rioters from attacking an officer, and leaving when they were told.

      Peabody in reply to Milhouse. | December 19, 2022 at 4:09 pm

      I thought everyone was considered innocent until proved guilty.

        The Gentle Grizzly in reply to Peabody. | December 19, 2022 at 4:30 pm

        That is not how it works anymore, if indeed it ever did.

        Milhouse in reply to Peabody. | December 19, 2022 at 7:12 pm

        No, everyone is presumed innocent before the law until proven guilty. So the prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that we’d agreed to commit the burglary, and that one of us had bought the ski mask. Otherwise we could deny one or both of those claims, and we couldn’t be convicted. But if both claims were proven then we’d be guilty of conspiracy even though no burglary ever took place. The conspiracy itself is a crime.

        Otto Kringelein in reply to Peabody. | December 21, 2022 at 8:30 am

        I thought everyone was considered innocent until proved guilty.

        There is no “innocent” or “guilty” any longer. The democrats use the legal process as the punishment. No trial necessary. No finding of guilt or innocence necessary. The process is the punishment. You lose your livelihood. You lose your financial standing. You lose your family. You lose your friends. You lose everything. And even if you’re found “not guilty” or the case is ultimately dismissed you still have lost it all.

        It’s the method used by the democrats to punish anyone that doesn’t toe the democrat ideological and political line.

        that is all.

The news would have bene it that hadn’t. Every loser on that panel thinks they are doing gods work.

V Thought crimes before the crime ever happoned.

Their itching for a real revolution

    Martin in reply to Skip. | December 19, 2022 at 5:13 pm

    They think they are itching for a real revolution. They don’t have the foggiest idea how such a thing would go.

Exactly as predicted.

Mark my words, they are GOING to try to arrest Trump.

    Wouldn’t put it past the DOJ/FBI doing it before Christmas. The DOJ should be issuing charges NLT tomorrow because they have already been coordinated with the Sham Committee.

      You are making the assumption that government is *efficient* even in doing things they want to do. *Inefficiency* will be the key to the next two years. Trump will be “Under investigation” right up until election day, both to stop him from running (and providing an endless string of Dem attack ads in the process) and to stop him from promoting whoever becomes the Republican nominee. Then the minute that a Republican wins the election (we hope), the DOJ will suddenly become efficient as anything. Charges-Dismissed. Evidence-wiped. Retirements-galore.

    mailman in reply to Olinser. | December 20, 2022 at 4:49 am

    At 4 in the morning with a full on raid in front of CNN.

Trump will be convicted. I see them filing charges. I see a federal judge refusing to toss the charges. I see a jury in the most corrupt part of the country, Washington DC, convicting without even looking at the lack of evidence. Then I see the Democrats going after other Republicans.

The GOP has got to be made to realize that just because their last name isn’t Trump doesn’t mean they won’t be next on the Democrats hit list.

Democrats have not forgotten about DeSantis little stunt at Martha’s Vineyard. It’s not even about a conviction. It’s about stopping him from running or wrecking his campaign if he is running. If he’s convicted that’s a bonus.

Democrats have declared war on Republicans. Democrats are using the DOJ to attack Republicans. The first target is Trump. Up next is DeSantis.

Republicans better start fighting back. Nuclear political warfare. Every Democrat whose shit smells funny needs to be arrested and charged. Including their family members.

Some of you may yell, “we aren’t a banana republic!” but we are. We are a banana republic. Just one side hasn’t yet learned that truth yet.

    The problem with the GOP is that far too many of them are too heavily invested in being the good opposition and not upsetting the apple cart. The “old” GOP will do nothing to stop this. Fuck me, they are fully on board with whats being done as that will send a message to anyone else that dares upset the status quo!

This is my stunned face. The Dems are so scared of Trump that they have waged a 6yr war on him and pursued it even after he is out of office. As for Cheney and Kitzinger, I wonder who is angling for that recurring guest spot on CNN and MSNBC? I even heard that doofus from CA who lied about Trump in front of every camera he could find chime in.

Does Congress really think that trying to charge someone with “Conspiracy to make a false statement” is a good idea. We would have to arrest all 535 of them.

Not a shock that a committee designed to come up with false charges against Trump would result in making false charges against Trump. It won’t be a shock when Reich Minister Heinrich Garland pursues these charges in order to perform the “persecution by prosecution” dance that so many leftists love to conduct on political opponents.

Liberals claim that the charges are based on proof, but we all know they’re not. They’re based on wild speculation and imagination from a few facts that are wildly misconstrued and given nefarious motives.

This is just more evidence that the Democratic Party is a domestic enemy of the Constitution and needs to be treated as such.

Subotai Bahadur | December 19, 2022 at 6:07 pm

This is not yet a “Calvo-Sotelo” moment. But we are edging closer and closer.

Subotai Bahadur

“Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.” IMO Trump is the only Republican that might not be able to beat Biden in 2024. The public is “done” with old politicians.

    henrybowman in reply to jb4. | December 19, 2022 at 11:11 pm

    My own viewpoint is that none of the BS Democrats pile on is going to weaken Trump that much among the actual electorate. What will weaken Trump, if anything, is his own unforced errors. And frankly, those seem to be accelerating instead of diminishing.

    ConradCA in reply to jb4. | December 19, 2022 at 11:31 pm

    If the progressive fascists get what they’re seeking and throw Trump in jail it’s likely to anger his supporters to the point that they exercise their 2nd amendment right to remove tyranny.

      #FJB <-- Disco Stu_ in reply to ConradCA. | December 20, 2022 at 7:02 am

      Uh oh, I just agreed with your statement. We now could be in jeopardy for charges of conspiring to inspire or encourage future unapproved thoughts.

    mailman in reply to jb4. | December 20, 2022 at 4:53 am

    Yet somehow throwing the full weight of the State against your political enemies somehow doesnt do anything to Democrats and their political aspirations?? This right here is what is wrong with the country. The fucking Democrats can literally do what ever they please and people like you will just sit there tossing off about “BUT TRUUUUUUUMP SAYS MEAN THINGS”!! while Democrats burn the country down around your ears.

This is weak sauce. It’s projection and wish casting by those who hate and fear DJT. Utterly without merit and frankly stupid. This isn’t changing anyone’s mind.

    It is not done out of fear of Donald Trump.

    It is calculated to weaken him politically overall while strengthening him in the Republican Primary.

    It is also highly likely to change minds, it is likely to get primary voters to pick the weakest candidate.

      CommoChief in reply to Danny. | December 20, 2022 at 10:06 am


      Why waste time and resources attacking something or someone who isn’t a threat? That’s flipping stupid. The d/prog are deathly afraid of DJT and a couple other potential r standard bearers. They will try to bleed them with a constant barrier of attacks, most of which are baseless.

      They did the whole ‘prop up the weak candidate Trump’ routine in early 2016 then he won the primary. Suddenly the d/prog plan of influencing the r primary didn’t look so smart. Then DJT whipped HRC and the tears flowed.

      I agree that their plan is to more/less do all the things you suggest but the motivation is fear of having DJT spank their asses again. An unconstrained r POTUS tearing out the ideological Federal workforce is a huge threat to the d/prog.

Now that the recommendation has been made, expect charges to be delayed until 2024, with the “trial” scheduled for election day to drive the point home.

Since the comittee does not comply with its authorizing resolution, all fruits and work products are fruits of the poisonous tree

Courts have disagreed with me view
IMO this is the EXACT reason for the second amendment

If they mean to have a war…

    Milhouse in reply to rduke007. | December 20, 2022 at 1:05 am

    There is no such thing as “fruit of the poisonous tree”. That is not a real legal doctrine.

    Evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible not because anyone claims the constitution requires this, but because the supreme court issued a rule in its capacity as overseer of the judicial branch. It’s a good rule, but that’s all it is. It’s not required by the constitution, and it has no effect outside its scope.

    In any case, this referral is just as valid no matter who or where it comes from. You or I could just as easily write a referral and send it to the DOJ, and it would have the exact same legal status as the house’s referral. So the committee’s legality is irrelevant.

    Milhouse in reply to rduke007. | December 20, 2022 at 1:07 am

    Oh, one more thing. That the committee does not conform to its authorizing resolution is an internal matter for the House. Its rules may have been violated, but its rules are not laws, and violations are nobody’s business but its. If the House doesn’t object to a violation, then it doesn’t matter; you can see it as not a violation, or you can see it as waived, either way it becomes irrelevant.

      either way it becomes irrelevant.

      No. It shows a pattern of disregard for its own ethics, proceedures and machinations which pursue an agenda that is neither American nor Justice

      Off with their heads

This is some nazi BS and they’re obviously calling on their Gestapo to take out political opponents.

This is Injustice Dept’s website, which lists all of the Jan 6 Martyrs:

My PDF printout of this link is 238 pages.

It lists hundreds and includes links to thousands of Pacer documents.

How many $ 100 millions did Mr. 10% flush down the toilet on this star chamber?

What’s the statute of limitations on this obstructing operations violation?

We have video of Pussy Riot and Code Pink disrupting votes and similar within various chambers. Multiple instances. Clearly, they conspired — how’d they all manage do dress the same; same signs; same slogans? Since they are political *organizations* operating outside the voting process, let’s go with “sedition” too.

BTW, how close to the door of the Supreme Court do you have to get to be obstruction? Their home? Eating dinner in town where they work?

    What’s the statute of limitations on this obstructing operations violation?

    Presumably the standard five years. So the next GOP administration will only be able to prosecute such offenses occurring in 2020 or later.

      BierceAmbrose in reply to Milhouse. | December 21, 2022 at 6:36 pm

      Well…. why am I not surprised on that.

      Somehow I hear The Church Lady proclaiming “How Con-veeeeeeen-ient.”

        That’s why I said that even had Trump made good on his promise, the number of her crimes for which she could still have been locked up would have been low, and it might even have turned out that there was nothing for which she could have been locked up. That would have been unfortunate, but not Trump’s fault. What I fault him for is that he didn’t even try, because he had never intended to fulfill this promise, even when he made it. It was an outright lie.

        I believed at the time, and still believe, that at the time he said he’d Lock Her Up he actually intended to make up with her and resume their previous friendship. And if she’d only been willing to swallow her pride and accept his overtures she could have had a significant role in his administration. We got very lucky that she couldn’t bring herself to do that.

American citizens still have their 2nd amendment cilvil right to defend their liberty from tyranny of their government. I bet if the progressive fascists try to put Trump in jail with these faux charges that a lot of citizens will take advantage of their 2nd amendment to fight this tyranny.