Back in 2019, when Kamala Harris actually sought to get voters to put her on the Democratic Presidential ballot rather than oopsing her way there in 2024, she had to offer reasons for voter support that extended beyond "Orange Man Bad." She laid out a series of planks that placed her at the leftmost flank of the
If Democrats can pack the Supreme Court this time, they will do it. If they cannot, they will ignore SCOTUS opinions on their actions. "Buying back" guns requires spending money - which, absent a congressional appropriation for such purpose (i.e., "a law") - is unconstitutional.
Another simple solution to a complex situation. The right to bear arms is like any other right and Jefferson does stress in the Second Ammendment "the right of the people"(by the way the title of one hell of a still socially relevant 1986 TV Movie) though since then there have been many layers added to it. Whether we're discussing the authority of any state militia(Federalist No.46) or individuals(Heller vs. District Of Columbia, 2008) or again gun type(Miller vs. The United States, 1938) gun violence in America will have to be addressed in the most complex ways. It takes patience and determination in the face of a lot of tragedy(ex. mass shootings). Having just finished with a bloody insurrection against the British Empire and an attempted coup in Massachusetts( Shays' Rebellion 1786-87) one has to wonder if Jefferson considered what it would be like in time of peace. Personally, I think he did.
The core problem is the misdirection of blame. Guns were available via mail order until the 1960s, and the phenomenon of mass shootings didn't exist. There are cultural issues at play, but their likely source being of the Left means that the dominant voices in media and by extension in politics won't even mention them.
Precisely. Guns aren't the problem - people are. They rail about "ghost guns," yet, prior to the GCA of 1968, no manufacturer was required to stamp a serial number on a firearm they produced. They argue about "machine guns" and even "silencers", yet when the NFA of 1934 was enacted, the only people who could afford the $200 tax stamp were the criminals (even the ATF's website admits it was a test of Congress' power to tax and regulate commerce). The fact is, the Second Amendment was intended such that every American could own "weapons of war" so that the government could not use a standing army against the people. As Hamilton stated in the Federalist No,. 29:
"if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army; the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Conventions stated, "The great object is that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun." Let's not forget, these men hadn't just returned from a hunting trip; they had just liberated a country from an authoritarian ruler and that ruler's army using "weapons of war" that they themselves owned.
To repeat, the problem isn't the guns - it's the people.
"Harris and countless other leftist politicians pander to these incorrect assumptions and exaggerated fears, and propose "look at me" laws that violate Americans' rights without reducing crime. The gag is that, when a particular restriction or prohibition doesn’t make things better, they stack more 'common sense' laws on top of the previous ineffective ones, with an unstated end goal of disarming law abiding Americans." - Not only do they pander to those assumptions; they are the ones who created the illusion and foster those assumptions.
The other piece I think is interesting to note is that the vast majority of "mass shootings" are committed with handguns. Yet you never hear them trying to come after those. I would wager the reason is that those scary black rifles use ammunition that could actually, and more easily, be used for defense against a tyrannical government, as it has longer range and higher velocity. In reality, those with common sense know the AR15 is just a high-velocity .22 caliber rifle that even the military often disparages due to the rounds going through a target without causing enough damage to stop the target, and often the target doesn't even realize he has been hit. But there are higher caliber "black rifles" that are more effective - you just never hear about them because..."AR15s!!!!"
Lastly, as to "buybacks", I have never (ever) had anyone satisfactorily explain to me how the government can buy something back that it never sold in the first place. The ridiculous side of that is that they would be using *your* money to "buy" *your* gun from you. They think you're more of a mark than P.T. Barnum ever thought of anyone.
I didn't bother mentioning the handgun-mass shooting bit in the name of brevity. Nor did I mention the many rifle formats functionally identical to "black guns" that wouldn't be covered by the existing forms of AWB. Both would be targets of later waves of gun grabbing.
Do note, by the way, that the "assault weapon" definitions commonly in use would capture larger calibers. In some jurisdictions, it's as blanket as "semi-auto + detachable magazine + pistol grip."
Yes, the larger calibers definitely end up falling under "assault weapon" with the gun grabbers. They now want to eliminate public ownership of .50 caliber weapons, because...well, we know why.
If Democrats can pack the Supreme Court this time, they will do it. If they cannot, they will ignore SCOTUS opinions on their actions. "Buying back" guns requires spending money - which, absent a congressional appropriation for such purpose (i.e., "a law") - is unconstitutional.
Another simple solution to a complex situation. The right to bear arms is like any other right and Jefferson does stress in the Second Ammendment "the right of the people"(by the way the title of one hell of a still socially relevant 1986 TV Movie) though since then there have been many layers added to it. Whether we're discussing the authority of any state militia(Federalist No.46) or individuals(Heller vs. District Of Columbia, 2008) or again gun type(Miller vs. The United States, 1938) gun violence in America will have to be addressed in the most complex ways. It takes patience and determination in the face of a lot of tragedy(ex. mass shootings). Having just finished with a bloody insurrection against the British Empire and an attempted coup in Massachusetts( Shays' Rebellion 1786-87) one has to wonder if Jefferson considered what it would be like in time of peace. Personally, I think he did.
The core problem is the misdirection of blame. Guns were available via mail order until the 1960s, and the phenomenon of mass shootings didn't exist. There are cultural issues at play, but their likely source being of the Left means that the dominant voices in media and by extension in politics won't even mention them.
Precisely. Guns aren't the problem - people are. They rail about "ghost guns," yet, prior to the GCA of 1968, no manufacturer was required to stamp a serial number on a firearm they produced. They argue about "machine guns" and even "silencers", yet when the NFA of 1934 was enacted, the only people who could afford the $200 tax stamp were the criminals (even the ATF's website admits it was a test of Congress' power to tax and regulate commerce). The fact is, the Second Amendment was intended such that every American could own "weapons of war" so that the government could not use a standing army against the people. As Hamilton stated in the Federalist No,. 29:
"if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army; the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Conventions stated, "The great object is that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun." Let's not forget, these men hadn't just returned from a hunting trip; they had just liberated a country from an authoritarian ruler and that ruler's army using "weapons of war" that they themselves owned.
To repeat, the problem isn't the guns - it's the people.
"Harris and countless other leftist politicians pander to these incorrect assumptions and exaggerated fears, and propose "look at me" laws that violate Americans' rights without reducing crime. The gag is that, when a particular restriction or prohibition doesn’t make things better, they stack more 'common sense' laws on top of the previous ineffective ones, with an unstated end goal of disarming law abiding Americans." - Not only do they pander to those assumptions; they are the ones who created the illusion and foster those assumptions.
The other piece I think is interesting to note is that the vast majority of "mass shootings" are committed with handguns. Yet you never hear them trying to come after those. I would wager the reason is that those scary black rifles use ammunition that could actually, and more easily, be used for defense against a tyrannical government, as it has longer range and higher velocity. In reality, those with common sense know the AR15 is just a high-velocity .22 caliber rifle that even the military often disparages due to the rounds going through a target without causing enough damage to stop the target, and often the target doesn't even realize he has been hit. But there are higher caliber "black rifles" that are more effective - you just never hear about them because..."AR15s!!!!"
Lastly, as to "buybacks", I have never (ever) had anyone satisfactorily explain to me how the government can buy something back that it never sold in the first place. The ridiculous side of that is that they would be using *your* money to "buy" *your* gun from you. They think you're more of a mark than P.T. Barnum ever thought of anyone.
I didn't bother mentioning the handgun-mass shooting bit in the name of brevity. Nor did I mention the many rifle formats functionally identical to "black guns" that wouldn't be covered by the existing forms of AWB. Both would be targets of later waves of gun grabbing.
Do note, by the way, that the "assault weapon" definitions commonly in use would capture larger calibers. In some jurisdictions, it's as blanket as "semi-auto + detachable magazine + pistol grip."
Yes, the larger calibers definitely end up falling under "assault weapon" with the gun grabbers. They now want to eliminate public ownership of .50 caliber weapons, because...well, we know why.