Prospects for Trump gun deal grow dimmer

When even The Hill believes nothing’s going to happen….

Prospects for a bipartisan deal on gun control legislation have dimmed significantly as President Trump and Democratic leaders appear to be far apart on the key issue of expanding background checks.

Republicans expect Trump to put forward a proposal addressing gun violence later this week, but Democrats predict it is likely to fall far short of what is needed and that they may not vote for it.

Democrats are pressing Trump to agree to a gun control bill already approved by the House, but the president has yet to even signal support for a scaled-down background check bill sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).

“I don’t think anyone thinks he’s going to endorse the Toomey bill, which is weaker than the House bill,” said a senior Democratic aide, expressing growing doubt on Capitol Hill that Trump will strike a bipartisan deal.

As a result, the likelihood that Congress will fail to take action on gun violence a month after a new spate of shootings across the country appears to be growing.

Beto O’Rourke: We’ll Use Fines to ‘Compel’ Compliance with AR-15 Ban

The opinion of some pretty informed political analysts is that O’Rourke knows his campaign is going nowhere. So, for some future consideration, he’s been tasked with being the rabid radical nutjob spouting these grandiosely idiotic plans so that the real gun-grabber agenda can be pointed at as more ‘reasonable’. But that still doesn’t cut him any slack with me.

Robert “Beto” O’Rourke explained he plans to use fines to “compel” American gun owners to comply with his AR-15 ban, during a weekend exchange with reporters.

O’Rourke made his claim in a video posted by Fox4 DFW’s Teresa Riley.

Pres. Trump & GOP Must Not Buckle To Press & Dems Looking to Destroy Second Amendment

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.” ~ George Orwell, writer and essayist, from his novel on a Dystopian society, 1984

Engaging in compromise with those who abhor firearms and who detest those who choose to exercise their sacred right to keep and bear arms will serve only to compromise that right, destroying the Second Amendment.

The American citizenry are a free, powerful, sovereign people living in a free Constitutional Republic; a Nation that belongs to the entire citizenry, not to a select few individuals among the citizenry; and definitely not to the Government, an entity created to serve the citizenry, not to subjugate and oppress it. The words codified in the Second Amendment make this fundamental truth plain. The exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms make this truth a reality. The New Progressive Left seeks to erase the words of the Second Amendment from the Constitution.

If these radical Left-wing elements succeed in compromising the Nation by undercutting the Constitution, then the American people, like the populations of the EU, will face unending misery; misery manifesting in the suppression of basic freedoms, constant surveillance, control over thought and conduct, and penury; a sad, oppressive life, nay, something less than life: mere existence—in a new political, social, economic, and cultural construct; one that has erased the independence and sovereignty of our Nation and of all Western nation-states; destroying, as well, the constitutions, laws, and jurisprudence of all nation-states.

But to accomplish their goal, the New Progressive Left in our Country must indoctrinate our children, and reeducate those adults who aren’t so easily susceptible to prolific proselytizing and propagandizing; those adults who are not so willing to accept the fiction that our fundamental rights and liberties aren’t rights at all and never had been, but are merely man-made constructs, mere privileges, bestowed on the American people by grace of Government and by that same authority of Government would those same privileges be rescinded.

If the public believes the fiction—if, in fact, the public believes that fundamental, immutable, inalienable rights are not, at all, rights preexistent in man, bestowed on man by a loving Divine Creator, but are mere privileges, vouchsafe granted by Government to men—then these Marxists, Socialists, and Communists, will find it much easier to weaken and ultimately negate the one right that alone serves as the means of preventing subjugation of the American citizenry, and it is that one, fundamental right that most concerns them: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The problem for those of us who seek to preserve and strengthen our sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms is found less in the Radical Left or New Progressive Left elements now controlling the seditious Press and who have insinuated themselves in and are now legion in the Democratic Party but:

The growing possibility is that the U.S. President and Congressional Republicans might actually consider negotiating with the Democrats and in so doing, weaken rather than preserve and strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

What we must do is to make plain to both the U.S. President and to Congressional Republicans that they must not capitulate. We must make clear to President Trump and to Congressional Republicans that to cave in to Democrat demands for “muscular new gun control proposals,”—that Progressive Left Democrat Candidates for U.S. President, Joe Biden, and Elizabeth Warren, are calling for, as reported by The New York Times, on September 3, 2019, in an article titled, “Demanding Gun Control, but Differing on Tactics,”—is not the way to deal with these gun grabbers.

Liberals Want to Grab Guns…but Who Will Do the Grabbing?

I don’t think I’m alone when I say it’s frustrating having the same conversation over and over and over again.  I’m frustrated trying to explain the difference between a semi-automatic and a “military-style assault” weapon, parrying asinine retorts of how our Founding Fathers “only had muskets,” and being told by strangers what weapons I “don’t need.”  I’m frustrated with citing statistical evidence showing that the vast majority of gun violence in America is the result of suicides and of criminals who have obtained their guns illegally.  I’m frustrated with trying to justify my personal choices to people who are completely ignorant about guns and who are completely unwilling to learn.

I’m frustrated because it’s an exercise in futility.  They return the very next day to push their very same debunked talking points that I’ve spent the last conversation refuting.  Deploying factual evidence works only when dealing with people for whom factual evidence is valued, acknowledged, and conceded.  When they simply ignore it and continue to talk over you, there is no benefit in trying to make them see reason.  It is like talking to a brick wall.

If reducing gun violence were an honest aim of the Left, leftists would follow the evidence where it leads.  But leftists oppose gun ownership not out of any heartfelt reaction to mass shootings (though they routinely go through the necessary public genuflections).  They don’t care about dead students, dead Walmart shoppers, dead worshipers, dead police, or dead black Americans.  They don’t care about getting help for the mentally ill.  They care about the consolidation of political power into a centralized totalitarian entity, which they arrogantly assume they possess the competence to administer.

Lawmakers such as state senator Julie Morrison (D-Ill.) have smugly threatened mass confiscation, and others such as Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) have suggested prosecution and prison time for noncompliance with mandatory buyback programs.  During the September 12 debate, the floundering Robert Francis O’Rourke (D-Nowhere) gazed up from his water bong to yelp, “Hell, yes, we are going to take your AR-15!”

Scary words, to be sure.  But these threats raise the question of who exactly they plan on sending out to do the actual confiscating.  Do something! they scream from the podiums and across the Twittersphere, with no intention of ever actually doing that “something” themselves.  The bell-collared audience who noisily bleated their approval for O’Rourke’s rhetorical feed bucket?  They’re not going to “do something,” either, other than demand someone else do it.

That’s the job of the police, they say?  Good luck with that.  Out of the 250 million adults living in the United States, approximately one third of them own one or more guns.  That’s over 80 million doors for police to bust down in unconstitutional searches and seizures (these would be clear violations of the Fourth Amendment, but we wouldn’t even be having this discussion if the Bill of Rights were something the Left even pretended to respect).

Like combat soldiers, police can refuse orders they deem immoral or unconstitutional.  Polls continuously show (herehere, and here) that police overwhelmingly support the right of law-abiding citizens to own semi-automatic rifles, including AR-15s.  So how successful will be the efforts of the anti-police Left to convince the very same officers they hate to bust into American homes to steal guns the police think they have a right to own?  The growing trend of elected sheriffs and officials creating Second Amendment sanctuaries by publicly opting to not enforce unconstitutional gun laws should give pause to leftists who feel that America’s police will do their dirty work for them.

Even if a hypothetical Presidente O’Rourke were able to cajole every American police officer to act as his own personal Stasi, such a force would still be inadequate for the task of disarming millions of gun-owners.  This reality is amplified by the fact that about three quarters of gun-owners say gun ownership is essential to their freedom, giving a sense of just how much non-compliance such an effort would encounter.

Nor should they count on the members of a woke population to voluntarily disarm themselves.  The much touted New Zealand buyback program has confiscated under 10% of known banned weapons.  Mandatory registration laws in deep blue ConnecticutNew York, and California have garnered compliance rates of 15%, 4%, and 3%, respectively.  This is not even for confiscation, but for registration only.  How well do they think buyback programs will fare in Texas or Ohio?

Nope.  If they want guns confiscated, they’ll have to do it themselves.

 

Lies, Damned Lies & Politicians

Q: “How do you tell when a politician is lying?”  A: “His lips are moving.”

This is particularly true when the political topic is guns.We have even seen commentators on the left questioning their own side’s stance on gun control.

Jeffrey Goldberg’s 2012 Atlantic article“But these gun-control efforts, while noble, would only have a modest impact on the rate of gun violence in America. Why? Because it’s too late.”

Justin Cronin’s New York Times 2013 article“. . . I am my family’s last line of defense. I have chosen to meet this responsibility, in part, by being armed. It wasn’t a choice I made lightly.”

Jamelle Bouie’s Slate 2015 article“. . . assault weapons—there’s no official definition for the term, which makes identifying them for prohibition difficult, if not impossible . . . But out of 73 mass killers from 1982 to 2015, just 25 used rifles of any kind, including military-style weapons. Most used revolvers, shotguns, and semi-automatic handguns. Which gets to a related point: We might feel safer if we ban “assault weapons,” but we won’t be safer. Of the 43,000 Americans killed with guns since 2010, just a fraction—3.5 percent—were killed with rifles.”

Leah Libresco’s Washington Post 2017 article“By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, . . . But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them.”

Alex Kingsbury’s New York Times 2019 article:  “. . . [C]alling for military-style rifles bans—as I have done for years—maybe making other lifesaving gun laws harder to pass.  America’s gun problem is far larger than military-style weapons, the mass killer’s rifle of choice. There are hundreds of millions of handguns in the country . . . The guns . . . are here to stay.”

After each mass shooting the demand for more gun control rises in proportion to the death toll.  Few Democrat politicians forego the opportunity to denounce guns in civilian hands.  Even a few Republicans now vie for their place in the line before the microphones.  But all this clamor for gun control is another BIG LIE.

Even if that progressive wet dream—repeal of the Second Amendment—happened, gun owners would defy the ban, burying their Cosmoline coated guns in PVC pipe.  Merciless enforcement might scare some, but there would remain hundreds of millions of firearms in patriot hands.

The most remarkable aspect of gun control advocacy is that proponents cannot explain how their “common sense”, “reasonable” measures will reduce gunshot mortality and morbidity.

Background checks are a perfect example of the unwillingness to acknowledge the ineffectiveness of a gun-control measure.  For more than 20 years we have had in place an extensive regime, the National Instant Background Check System, required of all retail dealers.  And almost all mass killers have passed this background check.  A few stole their guns or bought them illegally, sometimes violating state laws mandating background checks on private sales.  Occasionally, the NICS failed due to weaknesses in implementation.  Also, straw buyers routinely buy guns on behalf of prohibited persons—yet these violations are rarely investigated or prosecuted.

Background checks can’t stop anyone with a modicum of craftsmanship from building his own gun.  Nor can they influence robbers, traffickers or other criminals.

We should strive to improve the existing background check system for licensed dealers before expanding its scope, because it produces far too many false positive (and temporary) prohibitions.  “Universal” background checks will not be the magic bullet that stops criminal “gun violence”.

“Assault weapon” bans are another example of a gun-control proposal that doesn’t stand scrutiny.  The FBI reports more homicides by hammers, clubs and cutlery than by all rifles. Yet, no one speaks of banning cutlery or clubs (except in England, of course).

Just what would be banned as an “assault weapon” anyway?

Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy was asked: “What is a barrel shroud?  And why should we regulate that?”  She finally admitted:  “I actually don’t know what a barrel shroud is . . . I believe it a shoulder thing that goes up.”  A barrel shroud is just a fore grip that prevents the user burning his hand on a hot barrel. Neither this, nor any fore grip, have any influence on lethality of “military-type guns”.

There is no practical definition of an “assault weapon” that distinguishes it meaningfully from most other types of firearms. The attempt to do so would lead down the slippery slope to outlawing all semi-automatic firearms. But it’s politically and practically impossible to confiscate the ubiquitous semi-auto long gun in America, while handguns have already been defined by the Supreme Court as in common use and therefore inviolable.

In fact, none of the supposedly “reasonable”, “common sense” gun controls proposed stand up to political or practical scrutiny.  Gun control advocates know this and refuse to debate the effectiveness or economics of implementation and enforcement.  When challenged they always retreat immediately behind the shield of “We have to do SOMETHING!”

Stated clearly, we are being lied to. Politicians promise gun control to satisfy their fearful constituents, yet there is never any measurable impact on gunshot deaths or wounding.

Why? Because no gun control measure short of successful nationwide confiscation of all firearms could substantially affect these casualties.

Two-thirds of gunshot deaths are suicides, and a single-shot weapon does as well as one with a 100 round magazine for that. One-third of gunshot deaths are homicides;, and almost all injuries are attempted homicides. These are committed mostly by convicted felons, gang members, and in drug-related crime. Meanwhile, mortality due to firearm accidents has practically become a rounding error.

Until we are prepared to criminalize as much as half of Americans, repeal of the Second Amendment won’t happen.  Nor could it be passed while 42 states are Right-to-Carry jurisdictions and just 13 opposing states could block any amendment.

Politicians using gun control to mobilize their base on Election Day are also inflaming gun owners to vote to against them. These effects seem, so far, to offset one another.

Why do progressives risk jeopardizing the rest of their platform for the promise of “reasonable” and “common-sense”, but impotent, “gun control”?  Why do they pursue incremental gun control that can’t deliver on its false promise of reducing gunshot mortality and morbidity?

Maybe they’re lying to themselves as much as to the rest of us. 

Why AR-15s Are The Plastic Straws Of The Gun World

How did AR-15s become the plastic straws of the gun world? It’s simple: Demagogues need scapegoats. Yet just as banning plastic straws won’t make a dent in the ocean-polluting plastics problem, banning “assault rifles” (which aren’t) won’t save even one life.

It’s tragic how, just like faddish teenagers playing a dangerous or stupid social-media-driven prank, so-called adults go on misguided, media-driven, lynch-mob kicks. Remember when SUVs were demonized as planet killers approximately 15 to 20 years ago? Some environmentalists claimed that SUV drivers were essentially “hate group” members, and other vandalism-crazy greenies would, ironically, set fire to the vehicles to combat global warming. Yet SUVs currently appear more popular than ever, and all is quiet on the gas-guzzler front. What happened? The demagogues and their dupes have moved on to a different neurotic fixation.

Now the suburban soccer mom can drive her Panzer-size SUV (by the by, back in the “day” they were called “trucks” — ah, marketing) content in the “feeling” that she’s saving the environment because she supports banning plastic straws. Never mind that doing so likely won’t save even one marine mammal, since the U.S. is responsible for only one percent of ocean-polluting plastics, and straws account for just 0.025 percent of that. Never mind that anti-”strawism” began with erroneous claims in a nine-year-old’s science project (ugh, beam me up, Scotty). The lynch mob must be fed, and plastic straw users, well, really suck….

Joining straws in the dock, and giving new meaning to demonizing the one percent, are Assault Rifles™. Not only are they used in, approximately, just one percent of homicides, they aren’t even “assault rifles,” a term that had always referred to weapons that could be fired fully automatic or in more than one way (fully auto, three-shot bursts, etc). Now the term is being applied to semi-automatic (one trigger pull, one shot) rifles with certain cosmetic features (a military “look”), which is a bit like putting a Porsche body on a Yugo chassis and claiming the car will win races.

But, hey, as anti-gun crusader Josh Sugarmann once put it, these “weapons’ menacing looks,” coupled with the public’s confusion — “anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.” Yeah, it’s a con.

That said, AR-15s are used in an inordinate percentage of high-profile mass shootings. But believing that outlawing them would reduce these incidents’ frequency makes as much sense as believing that banning the BMW 4 Series — which AutoBlog.com lists as the car most likely to be involved in a crash — would reduce the accident rate.

Quite apropos, AutoBlog’s subtitle boldly reminds readers, “Remember: People cause crashes, not cars.” The point is that outlawing a vehicle wouldn’t take the kind of people who drive it off the road; they’d just get into accidents in a different vehicle.

This point is even more relevant for AR-15-category rifles. The AR-15 is commonly used in mass shootings for two simple reasons: It’s the most popular rifle in America.

And it looks cool.

In reality, though, such a weapon isn’t the best choice for committing mass shootings, which generally involve attacking soft targets at close range. More effective would be a semi-automatic, 12-gauge shotgun or even a pump-action one (and a shotgun was used in the Aurora, Colorado, shooting in 2012).

In other words, not only would mass shooters simply choose a different weapon if AR-15-type rifles were somehow unavailable, but it’s arguable that the rifle’s criminalization could push them toward more effective weaponry.

Speaking of which, presidential contender Irish Bob O’Rourke said in March, echoing many, “I just don’t think that we need to sell any more weapons of war into this public.” He’d have been more accurate if he’d stopped after his first four words. But the pitch is rhetorically effective, conjuring up images of flesh-eviscerating machine-gun fire.

Yet leaving aside the common argument that allowing Americans the same firearms the military uses was the Second Amendment’s actual intent, first note that the AR-15 was never a standard issue US military rifle. In fact, while the M-16 — which uses the same platform but isn’t limited to semi-auto fire — was, it was supplanted a while back by the M-4; this, in turn, is set to be replaced by an entirely different rifle that will likely even use different, more effective ammunition (critics have long bemoaned the M-16’s/M-4’s relative lack of stopping power).

Moreover, how many guns weren’t designed as “weapons of war”? Bolt-action rifles were once state-of-the-art weapons of war. So was the flintlock. Go back even further, and clubs were weapons of war, and many people are still killed with them today. Should we outlaw baseball bats?

In fact, far from devastating, the AR-15’s standard round is small caliber (the same diameter as a .22) and has the second least power of the 41 cartridges found on this Rifle Cartridge Killing Power List page (note: When loaded with 5.56mm ammo, the power is somewhat greater but still relatively lacking). In other words, you can acquire any number of hunting rifles far more devastating than an AR.

This, mind you, is why some states have prohibited the AR-15’s use in deer hunting; its relatively weak round may not kill the animal, but simply send it off wounded and suffering.

It’s also why the nine-year-old girl in the video below could fire the weapon with ease. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDdHj6iCP0k

In contrast, I’ve seen a 240-pound man (who wasn’t prepared for the extreme recoil) almost knocked over by a 12-gauge shotgun loaded with a magnum shell.

So we can outlaw AR-15-type rifles if it makes us feel better, but just as banning plastic straws won’t save marine life, it won’t save even one human life. For this reason, it would also be followed by another scapegoated gun targeted for criminalization. Note here that Britain’s deadliest ever mass shooting, the Dunblane massacre in 1996, inspired sweeping anti-firearms laws — after being committed with handguns.

Oh, and London just surpassed N.Y.C. in homicides last year.

This is unsurprising since, as Professor Thomas Sowell illustrated, there’s no correlation whatsoever between stricter gun laws and lower murder rates.

This is why, more to fear than guns are demagogues — shooting off their assault mouths.

Pelosi And Schumer Had A Call With Trump About Gun Control. This Is Their Non Negotiable.

About 2/3rd of the deaths in the U.S. that involve the use of a gun are suicides. No kind of a background check will in any way do one thing to decrease that number. Of course, SanFranNan & ChuckU are being their standard operational demoncrap selves.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Sunday had a call with President Donald Trump about gun control legislation. According to a statement from Democratic leadership, universal background checks are a non negotiable that must be included in any proposal Trump moves forward with. Specifically, Democrats want Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to bring the legislation to a floor for a vote.

“200 days ago, the Democratic House took decisive action to end the gun violence epidemic in America by passing H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112: bipartisan, commonsense legislation to expand background checks, which is supported by more than 90 percent of the American people.  With the backing of the American people, we continue to call on Senator McConnell to ‘Give Us A Vote!’

“Yet, for 200 days, Senator McConnell has refused to give these bipartisan bills a vote on the Senate Floor, again and again putting his own political survival before the survival of our children.  Every day that Senator McConnell blocks our House-passed, life-saving bills, an average of 100 people – including 47 children and teenagers – die from senseless gun violence.  Some 20,000 have died since the House took action on February 27th.

“This morning, we made it clear to the President that any proposal he endorses that does not include the House-passed universal background checks legislation will not get the job done, as dangerous loopholes will still exist and people who shouldn’t have guns will still have access.  For instance, someone prohibited from possessing a gun under an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) law could still obtain a firearm by exploiting the gun show and online loopholes that H.R. 8 would close. We know that to save as many lives as possible, the Senate must pass this bill and the President must sign it.  We even promised the President that if he endorses this legislation and gets Senator McConnell to act on what the House has passed, we would both join him for a historic signing ceremony at the Rose Garden.

“Congressional Democrats will continue to join with law enforcement, survivors, students and parents, health care providers, mayors and public health officials across the nation to accelerate a relentless drumbeat of action to force Senator McConnell to pass our background checks bills.  We will not stop until these bills are passed and our children’s lives are safe.  We call upon Senator McConnell to ‘Give Us a Vote!’

McConnell has made it clear that he wouldn’t bring any gun control proposals to the floor for a vote if President Trump has vowed to veto the bill.

“My members know the very simple fact that to make a law you have to have a presidential signature. They are working on coming up with a proposal that the president will sign,” McConnell said last week.

Ted Cruz: Trump Will Lose in 2020 if He Cuts Deal on Gun Control

Sen. Ted Cruz is warning that President Donald Trump making a deal with Democrats on gun legislation might cause conservative voters to stay home in 2020.

“If Republicans abandon the Second Amendment and demoralize millions of Americans who care deeply about Second Amendment rights,” the Texas Republican said, “that could go a long way to electing a President Elizabeth Warren.”

“We’re going to see record-setting Democratic turnout. The only element missing is demoralizing conservatives so they stay home. I hope we don’t do that,” Cruz told reporters at a Thursday breakfast.

He was responding to a question that specifically referenced a possible deal between the Trump administration and a bipartisan group of senators including Democrats Christopher S. Murphy of Connecticut and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, as well as Republican Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Those senators spoke with Trump on Wednesday and signaled that the president was nearing an announcement of his position on background checks for gun purchases.

“It would also be a serious mistake as a policy matter,” Cruz said, arguing that none of the recent mass shootings would have been stopped by the Democratic legislative proposals. He instead was pushing legislation he has drafted with former Judiciary Chairman Charles E. Grassley of Iowa that is focused on ensuring that federal agencies report all crimes into the existing background check database.

“The far left is pissed off,” Cruz told reporters Thursday. “They hate the the president, and that is a powerful motivator.”

Cruz cited his own 2018 reelection contest against then-Rep. Beto O’Rourke, which saw record-setting Democratic turnout in Texas.

“The Texas Senate race ended up being the most expensive Senate race in U.S. history, and I think that foreshadows what 2020 will be nationally,” Cruz said.

Kamala Harris Does Not Understand Why the Constitution Should Get in the Way of Her Gun Control Agenda
The presidential contender conspicuously fails to explain the legal basis for her plan to impose new restrictions by executive fiat.

She fantasizes about being the tyrant in chief, that’s why she can’t explain the legal basis, because there isn’t one.
It’s the old “We could have a utopia on Earth if only we could get some of these pesky laws, and people, out of the way.”
No matter which end of the political spectrum you’re on, this is the exact reason the 2nd amendment was demanded to be included in a Bill of Rights.

During last night’s Democratic presidential debate, former Vice President Joe Biden admonished Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) for promising to impose new gun controls by executive fiat if Congress fails to pass the laws she thinks it should. That gave Harris a perfect opportunity to explain how her 100-day plan for gun control can be reconciled with constitutional restrictions on presidential power. The former prosecutor not only conspicuously failed to do so but literally laughed at the question.

The senator’s campaign website promises that “if Congress fails to send comprehensive gun safety legislation to Harris’ desk within her first 100 days as president—including universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and the repeal of the NRA’s corporate gun manufacturer and dealer immunity bill—she will take executive action to keep our kids and communities safe.” Biden interprets that pledge as a promise to ban “assault weapons” without new legislation, something the president clearly does not have the authority to do.

Harris’ plan for unilateral action on “assault weapons” is actually more modest than Biden implies. She says she would “ban AR-15-style assault weapons from being imported into the United States,” noting that the Gun Control Act “empowers the executive branch to prohibit the importation of guns not ‘suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.'” As Harris points out, “both Democratic and Republican presidents,” including George H.W. Bush in 1989, have used that provision to block importation of “assault weapons.” But two other parts of Harris’ gun control plan do not seem to have any statutory basis.

Harris says she would “close the ‘boyfriend loophole’ to prevent dating partners convicted of domestic violence from purchasing guns.” Under current law, people convicted of misdemeanors involving “domestic violence” are barred from possessing firearms. But crimes against dating partners count as “domestic violence” only if the perpetrator has lived with the victim or produced a child with him or her. Harris seems to think she can eliminate those requirements without new congressional action, but it’s hard to see how. Congress has defined “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” and only Congress can change the definition.

Harris also thinks the president can “mandate near-universal background checks by requiring anyone who sells five or more guns per year to run a background check on all gun sales.” Since only federally licensed dealers are legally required to run background checks, such a rule would require dramatically expanding that category.

The problem is that federal law defines a gun dealer as someone who is “engaged in the business of selling firearms,” which in turn is defined as “devot[ing] time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.” The statutory definition explicitly excludes “a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.” Under Harris’ plan, a hobbyist or collector who sold more than four guns in a single year would be required to obtain a federal license and conduct background checks, which is plainly inconsistent with current law.

Instead of explaining the legal basis for the “executive action” she has in mind, Harris made a weak joke: “Hey, Joe, instead of saying, ‘No, we can’t,’ let’s say, ‘Yes, we can.'” Then she launched into a description of the casualties from mass shootings, adding, “The idea that we would wait for this Congress, which has just done nothing, to act, is just—it is overlooking the fact that every day in America, our babies are going to school to have drills, elementary, middle and high school students, where they are learning about how they have to hide in a closet or crouch in a corner if there is a mass shooter roaming the hallways of their school.”

That is not an argument in favor of any particular gun control policy, let alone an argument for the president’s authority to impose it unilaterally. “Let’s be constitutional,” Biden said. “We’ve got a Constitution.” To which Harris replied, in effect, “Constitution, schmonstitution. Why should that get in the way of my agenda?” Even voters who tend to agree with Harris about gun control should be troubled by her blithe dismissal of the legal limits on the powers she would exercise as president.

Gallup: 83 Percent of Adults Blame ‘Mental Health’ for Mass Shootings

A Gallup poll released September 11, shows that 83 percent of American adults blame a “failure in our mental health system” as a reason for mass shootings.

According to Gallup, Americans believe the second-highest factor deserving blame is “the spread of extremist viewpoints on the internet.”

The Americans blame “easy access to guns” thirdly, but only ranked access to firearms four percentage points above the blame they placed on “drug use.”

Beto O’Rourke hands GOP, NRA golden ticket.

Thanks, Beto.

“Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” he said, on television, on the Democratic Party debate stage, for all to hear and see. “We’re not going to allow them to be used against fellow Americans anymore.”

And with that, all the Democrats who’ve tried for years to deny the gun confiscation motives behind their gun control pushes went — nooooooo.

It doesn’t get any clearer than that, does it?

“Hell yes,” we’re going to take your guns.

“Hell yes,” we’re going to confiscate your firearms.

“Hell yes,” we’re going to one day, make it so the Second Amendment is a Second Amendment In Name Only — and that whole God-given right to self-defend is a thing of the past.

Democrats have been trying for years to convince Americans that registrations and limits on assault weapons and universal background checks and other so-called common sense gun control proposals were harmless steps to curb gun-related violence that even hard-core Second Amendment activists should embrace. That the evil National Rifle Association and all those evil gun rights groups were trying to drum up fears of confiscations that just weren’t true.

That Democrats had no intention of taking away firearms from the legal gun owners. That if you like your gun, you can keep your gun.

And for some, the left’s talking points have been convincing. Particularly, as school shootings and tragic, heartbreaking stories of gun-related violence dominate far too many media cycles.

Then comes Beto, charging to clarify.

“Hell yes,” we’re going to confiscate.

It doesn’t get more honest than that.

There’s the golden ticket the NRA, the Republican Party, the patriotic Second Amendment supporters of this country needed to prove their argument, to prove their points, to showcase the truths about the Democrats’ ultimate gun controlling end game.

Democrats want to confiscate guns, pure and simple. Beto O’Rourke himself admitted it.

This letter was submitted to the New York Times

Dear Letters Editor:

There’s a serious flaw in John Donohue and Theodora Boulouta’s claims about the 1994 assault weapons ban (“That Assault Weapon Ban? It Really Did Work,” September 4). There are few actual “assault weapons” of any type in their dataset, either pre- or post-ban.

According to data by Mother Jones magazine, there were 3 mass public shootings with assault weapons in the ten years before the assault weapons ban, 2 during the 10-year ban, and 4 in the ten years after. Shootings had to have six or more fatalities to be included. As the authors note, these changes constitute large percentage variations, but are not statistically significant.

If Donohue and Boulouta are right that the ban had an impact, it should have reduced the number of shootings with assault weapons relative to shootings with other guns. While the share of mass public shootings with assault weapons did indeed fall from 30% in the pre-ban period to 25% during the ban, it fell to just 14.8% in the post-ban period. If the ban was really the driving force behind the change, it makes little sense that the sharpest drop would occur after the ban expired.

Sincerely,

John R Lott, Jr., President of the Crime Prevention Research Center

Professor Carl Moody, Department of Economics, College of William & Mary

“Red Flag” Candidate Alyssa Milano Owns Two Guns and Has Self-Admitted Mental Illness — But Leads Charge to Take Away YOUR GUNS!

Alyssa also has self-admitted mental illness and owns two guns herself

As Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot points out— “Serious question. How does @Alyssa_Milano have two weapons for self-defense when she has self-admitted mental illness?”

https://twitter.com/ItsGitNWesterny/status/1171840816790347776

Here’s a good part of the meeting between Alyssa Milano & Senator Cruz. You’ll notice, Milano had to bring along two (2) ‘assistants’ for the emotive effect.

And here’s the whole thing

Calif. Sheriff Urges All Concealed Carry Holders to ‘Exercise Your Rights’ in Defense ‘Against Active Shooters’

Tulare County, California Sheriff Mike Boudreaux is encouraging all concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit holders in his community to exercise their rights to defend themselves and others against active shooters.

Reacting to mass shootings in the U.S., Sheriff Boudreaux posted a message on Twitter August 6, calling for those who legally own firearms and CCW permits to “protect life” against active shooters:

“I encourage all CCW holders in Tulare County to exercise your rights. Do so legally and only with a valid permit. Secure our communities and protect life by being able to defend ourselves against active shooters, threats to life and those who use guns for criminal behavior.”

“We need to level the playing field,” Sheriff Boudreaux said in a follow-up statement to “America’s 1st Freedom.”

Law-abiding gun owners don’t commit mass shootings, Boudreaux said, responding to critics:

“I have more than 10,000 gun permits issued in my county. In the thousands that we’ve issued, we’ve had zero issues with law abiding citizens who are carrying concealed weapons.”

“If something like those horrific active shooter incidents was to happen here, I want the people of my county to be able to defend themselves,” Sheriff Boudreaux told “America’s 1st Freedom.”