That bit in the Constitution about “shall not be infringed” – meh, only a technicality or “guidance” (at best)
(H/T: Newbusters)
Here’s a few other morsels of “we aren’t going going to take away your guns”…
…only the ones WE like will be the ones you get to keep (after all, they aren’t doctors, right? You got to keep those, right?). All emphasis are mine, some reformattting by me:
…Sorry, some of your guns have got to go. They are weapons of war that were designed solely to create massive casualties on the battlefield. They’re not practical for hunting or self-defense because they were designed for combat.
Actually, they are practical because they work. After all, combat is when other people ARE COMING TO KILL YOU FIRST. That is the ultimate in self-defense. However, yet another bozo shows more of his ideology than his knowledge of guns. And the people that own them. It’s the regular, tired Progressive mantra that if ONE person sins, you ALL are guilty and MUST be punished for your collective sins. After all, you all hate children!
And no, unless it was the only thing left hanging around, the point of the spear infantry in all of our armed forces would rather have much better things. After all, AR-15’s are not even considered “high caliber” – it uses a medium caliber round.
Sorry, your ownership of an assault weapon is not a legitimate stand against potential tyranny. If it ever came to that, you’re not going to win against highly trained law enforcement or the military. It’s a bogus argument that you use because owning an assault rifle gives you a delusional sense of power and control.
He’s also not much of a student of military history is he? What kinds of old “primitive” armaments have the Afghanis used, like, forever?
Also, that argument you love that other guns have the same features as your beloved AR-15, but just don’t look like assault weapons. Yeah, well, if that’s true- they need to go, too.
So he loves him a made up term – assault weapon. I bet he doesn’t even know why, especially for that “thingy that goes up”.
Sorry, people don’t need to be buying guns at gun shows.
Why, hate capitalism? Regular dealers have to have an FFL license and do the NICS process. But I repeat myself – he hates capitalism and the idea that you get to buy something when you want, when you want, and from whom you want at the price you are willing to pay.
…Some people with certain types of mental illness shouldn’t be allowed to own guns.
I would agree with that but then again, laws are already in place for that – with due process. I bet it’s that due process he’s having a mental midget meltdown over.
And then the worst part:
Everyone with a gun should have to have a license that needs periodic renewal and review. People with guns should have to purchase insurance. Child-locks should be mandatory. Gun-safety training should be a prerequisite to ownership
This is turning a Constitutional Right on its head and making it a Privilege to grovel before the Government to have one. Hey, Clete – I’ve got your Free Speech, freedom of expression license right here. Just pass my test and I’ll THINK about letting you spend money to have one IF you are a suitable person. And after this screed, I think not.
********************
If Trump wants to be a one term President, this would start that ball rolling:
“White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders also told reporters that Trump hasn’t ‘closed the door’ on a potential ban of assault-style weapons and ‘hasn’t yet determined’ whether there should be a federal age limit for purchasing semi-automatic rifles.”
I hope that there’d be a Primary real quick. It took everyone by surprise that he told his Justice honcho Sessions to institute a bump stock ban; People of the Gun will be MUCH more obliging to file suit and tie up that E.O. right quick (as Obama found out).
(H/T: Truth About Guns)
********************
And of course, the NYT has to weigh in on banning guns. Of COURSE, not directly, but tangentially, like the gun-hating Socialist lawmakers out in Seattle that decided to tax bullets at about 1/2 their value. Sure, keep your gun but you’ll have nothing to use with it. So we have another smack at this time by denying the use of credit cards by buyers to purchase pretty much any semi-automatic firearm. Which makes it cumbersome for said buyers and probably put a lot dealers out of business –
Andrew Ross Sorkin is peddling a batty idea to have credit-card companies act as regulatory proxies to shut down the sale of so-called assault weapons. The proposal is for Visa, Mastercard, et al. to shut out any firearms dealer that sells scary black guns of the sort Sorkin does not like. Ingenious! Sorkin writes: “Assault weapons would be eliminated from virtually every firearms store in America because otherwise the sellers would be cut off from the credit card system.”
…There isn’t any generally agreed-upon definition of “assault weapon,” but if we broadly mean the sort of firearms that are used in mass shootings — semiautomatic rifles and handguns with detachable magazines — then what Sorkin here is saying is the equivalent of, “You can sell cars, but not cars with automatic transmissions.” In many gun shops, semiautomatic rifles and handguns represent practically the entire inventory. I would be shocked if there were very many ordinary gun shops (as opposed to, say, fine-shotgun brokerages) in which the sale of semiautomatic rifles and handguns represented anything less than 75 percent of the firearms sold or 80 percent of the revenue. The AR-15 is the Toyota Camry of the firearm world.
(H/T: The Corner)
********************
In the wake of yesterday’s deadly school shooting in Florida, President Donald Trump tweeted that there were signs that alleged shooter Nikolas Cruz was “mentally disturbed.” Trump encouraged people to report bad behavior to authorities.
In response, a Twitter and media parade of people spouted misleading claims about an Obama-era regulation that Trump and Congress rolled back.
None of this is a remotely accurate description of what happened. A year ago, Congress and Trump eliminated a proposed rule that would have included in the federal government gun background database people who received disability payments from Social Security and received assistance to manage their benefits due to mental impairments.
This is a regulation that potentially deprived between 75,000 to 80,000 people of a right based not on what they had done but on the basis of being classified by the government in a certain way. The fact that these people may have these impairments did not inherently mean that they were dangerous to themselves or others and needed to be kept away from guns.
As I noted when the regulation was repealed last March, this rule violated not just the Second Amendment but the Fourth, because it deprived the affected people of a right without due process. The government does have the power to restrict and even deny gun ownership to people, but it has to show that these people have engaged in behavior that makes weapons dangerous in their hands.
That’s why the regulation was opposed not just by National Rifle Association (NRA) but by several mental health and disability groups and by the American Civil Liberties Union. Pundits largely ignored the latter groups’ opposition to the rule, preferring to play up the power of the NRA and their influence on Republicans to turn the issue into a partisan fight.
(H/T: Instapundit)
