With RINO-Republicans Like Ohio’s Matt Dolan, Who Needs Democrats?
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Ohio GOP lawmaker introduces gun safety bill; includes red flag law, enhanced background checks,” ABC affiliate News 5 Cleveland video reports. “Cleveland-area state Sen. Matt Dolan proposed bill with mental health in mind.”
That this obvious advocacy piece masked as news relies on assumptions right out of the starting gate is evidenced by repeating the term “gun safety” in the headline, the lede, the body of the “report,” and twice in the crusading reporter’s embedded self-publicizing tweet (embedded below). And curiously, since “red flag” laws are also promoted, you’d think the term “due process” would appear at least once in an unbiased report?
You’d think.
Also of note, no real opposing viewpoints are presented. The single gun owner quoted who appears marginally uncomfortable with what he’s being told isn’t totally against the idea; he just isn’t sure what it would actually do. He said that “most gun owners don’t want to cause issues.”
I suppose asking someone from Buckeye Firearms Association what they thought about it would be too much of an investigative reporting stretch. Besides, they’d probably just throw a wrench in the predetermined narrative and give the video editor much more work to futz around with context. And that’s assuming anyone at WEWS even bothered to look for “Ohio gun rights groups” to see what might turn up first on Google.
For his part, that Republican Matt Dolan is following a time-worn gun-grabber script could not be more apparent, especially when he declares, “[The bill] protects the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens while also…”
Grabbers always sound that way when they feign “I support the Second Amendment” right before showing everyone their big “but.” Remembering that it ends in “shall not be infringed,” what other tyrannical usurpations besides disarming citizens who have not been convicted, let alone even charged, does Dolan intend to “protect” us with?
“If someone aged 18 to 21 wants to buy a gun, they would only be able to buy a rifle or shotgun that holds only a single round of ammunition if they buy the gun by themselves,” the report notes. So evidently double-barrel Fudd guns are out.
Why would he invent such a ludicrous Constitutionally and historically unsupportable and offensive restriction?
“We have to face the fact that not every 18 to 21-year-old has mental maturity and emotional maturity,” Dolan declares. A Texas Judge would disagree.
OK, how many 18 to 21-year-olds? Half? Less? Got validly determined numbers? Besides, plenty of so-called “adults” don’t have maturity either, genius, and your buddy in citizen disarmament, fellow “Republican” Michael Bloomberg, even wants to raise the age for “minorities” to 25 (he just doesn’t want the general public to know he said that). So, are we to now have “maturity tests” as a prior restraint for all gun owners? In the name of “public safety”?
This will certainly be welcomed by Democrat beneficiaries of Dolan’s bloviating ignorance, who are delighted he is using their talking points while remaining oblivious to their wanting to lower the voting age to 16.
Here is where gun owners typically raise objections based on 18-year-old being old enough to join the military (or be drafted if the need arises again, dependent on how they “identify”). In this case, Dolan’s got it covered—or thinks he does.
You can get an “adult” to cosign, provided he accepts liability for your actions after doing so. And “There is an exception for young people who go into law enforcement and the military.”
Why? Suppose he doesn’t have numbers to prove they are substantially more prone to being law-abiding and less prone to suicide. In that case, he’s just playing to the “rah-rah” and “back the blue” crowd with no legitimate data to support violating equal protection under the law. In fact, if you look at what happens in the real world, that would be a tough case to prove, especially with reports finding:
“Evidence indicates that a substantial proportion of military personnel are involved in high-risk and antisocial behaviors that place them at jeopardy for criminal justice system involvement.”
And research concludes:
“Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10. That is just one-seventh of the rate for police officers.”
In any case, it ought to be a moot point because our rights are supposed to be recognized for individuals, not because we are arbitrary members of a collective that we have no control over, which, if you think about it, pretty much tells us why racists are wrong. And in any case, for a “lawmaker” presuming to tamper with the Second Amendment, you’d think Dolan would at least be cognizant of the U.S. Code section mandating:
“The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…”
Those featured in the story as backing this RINO bill are oblivious, too, and about more than that.
“And as long as law-abiding citizens, their Second Amendment, who are mentally capable, is not being infringed on, then I don’t have a problem,” asserted Donna Walker Brown, who the reporter considered it important (that is, useful) to identify as a gun owner and “former Cuyahoga County Republican Party Executive Committee Chair.”
See, Donna, there is a problem, even if you don’t see it. When red flag laws kick in, it has not been established that those caught in their net are mentally incapable. “Sentence first — verdict afterward” is something that, not that long ago, even children understood to be cartoonishly tyrannical and insane.
We also meet Erick Bellomy, Ohio head of Brady: United Against Gun Violence, who echoes Dolan’s lie that “We can preserve and protect the Second Amendment while also protecting the lives of Ohioans and Americans.”
Sure we can, Erick. Just like you and Brady don’t want to take our guns.
This is another anti-gunner who got into activism due to a terrible personal loss. Still, while we can all feel a natural human sympathy for that, it does not mean we need to sit still while he works to make us and everyone we love more vulnerable through government diktat. Learning that “his father was shot and killed in a drug deal gone bad” and that the perpetrator was “a family member [who] went to his house and tried to rob him and shot and killed him” makes it reasonable to ask if a more effective deterrence might have existed than placing more restrictions on you and me.
And as with Brady, don’t think for a moment that if now RINO-Republican Matt Dolan gets what he wants in this bill (and he won’t, at least not yet) he’ll be satisfied and go away. As I found when I was assessing candidates in the pre-primary Ohio U.S. Senate race:
The sixth, State Senator Matt Dolan, a “moderate Republican,” may as well be a Democrat as far as gun owners are concerned. Described by CNN as a “non-Trump Republican … in the McCain lane, the Romney lane…” Dolan penned an op-ed in support of the state’s proposed STRONG Act, essentially a “red flag” edict that promises due process before gun confiscations without really delivering it, and requires “background checks” on private sales, and adds liability penalties to sellers. And no surprise here, Dolan admits “I understand this bill probably doesn’t go far enough for some and goes too far for others.” Having adopted the language and rationale of the prohibitionists, is there any doubt on whose side he will “err” when new diktats are demanded?
Dolan’s current term in the Ohio State Senate ends in 2024. If he runs again, for that or any office, Ohio gun owners need to understand that the betrayals will only spread if they don’t make an example of GOP turncoats. With Republicans like him, who needs Democrats? Indeed, an enemy inside the gates is more dangerous than the ones outside.
Other fair weather Republicans will be watching to assess just how much they can get away with.