Congressional Democrats’ ‘Assault Weapons’ Show Trial Fails, But Offers Some Lessons

nadler assault weapons ban judiciary

(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Gun control advocates intended for Wednesday’s U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing entitled “Protecting America from Assault Weapons” as a show trial exposing America’s favorite rifle and those own it. The effort failed like a wet firecracker.

The bitterly anti-gun committee chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York led the event intended to capture headlines nationwide. However, the Democrats’ latest chapter in the “impeachment” drama upstaged Nadler’s the made-for-media event. But that doesn’t mean we should ignore some important lessons from the Donkey Party’s latest farce.

In a nutshell, Nadler and his fellow gun-haters reiterated the same old tired talking points and sound bites from big gun control. And from the other side of the issue, patriots and liberty advocates dismantled the left’s talking points with vigor, some drama, and varying degrees of devastationn.

First off, we saw how Democrats would rather attack gun rights than the root causes of crime. In fact, we had seen this recently when Dems didn’t want to include gang members in their proposed red flag legislation, despite the fact that 80% of murders in America are committed by gang members.

At Wednesday’s hearing, for the handful who saw it, Dems probably succeeded in trying to make Republicans look uncaring and heartless though. Let’s face it: fear and emotion trump facts and logic for most low-information voters.

Nadler and friends never once discussed the proven benefits of firearm ownership for self-defense. Those benefits outnumber criminal misuse of guns by a massive factor.  But gun control has become the issue du jour for radical Democrats, especially with Trump’s roaring economy and foreign policy successes.

When it comes to guns, Dems have avoided saying whether they support confiscation or wholesale bans of semi-auto rifles, but they didn’t even try to say they opposed such radical proposals during the hearing. In other words, yes, they would ban (and confiscate) your semi-auto rifles – indeed any rifle that accepts a detachable magazine. In fact, they would like to see all “high-velocity” rifles banned.

Why are gun control advocates such control freaks? (See the list of what they actually want to ban. It’s lengthy, to say the least.)

Further testimony by gun control advocates, accepted without criticism or rebuttal from Democrats on the committee, included Charlottesville, Virginia, police chief RaShall Brackney. She testified that “I believe that any weapon that can be used to hunt individuals should be banned.”

Translation: Ban all guns except for police.

What’s more, under questioning from Rep. Gregory Steube (R-Fla.), she reiterated her belief repeatedly. “Any weapon that can be used to hunt individuals should be banned.”

Again, just to be clear, the Democrat witness Chief RaShall Brackney wants to ban all guns.

Perhaps the most entertaining portion of the event, and the point where things went completely off the rails for Democrat demanding gun control, was when talk turned to “weapons of war.”

Over at the Federalist, Mark Overstreet covered that angle gloriously:

Like other Democrats at the hearing, Rep. David Cicilline (R-R.I.), sponsor of legislation to ban “assault weapons,” referred to the firearms as “weapons of war designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible.”

Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) made the point that most firearms are “weapons of war.” He didn’t go into detail, but he could have mentioned the bolt-action rifles that were designed for military purposes and that are now owned by millions of Americans, such as the Mauser 1898, the Lee-Enfield, the Springfield M1903, and the Moisin-Nagant. He could have mentioned the made-for-the-military pistols, such as the M1911 .45 cal., the Browning High-Power, the Luger, the P38, the Beretta M9, the incredibly popular Glock, and SIG 320 pistols, also owned by millions of Americans.

It might have caused the Democrats’ brains to blow a fuse, but Collins could have also pointed out that in some instances, our armed forces have adopted firearms that were first in wide use by civilians—including the Winchester Model 70 and Remington Model 700 rifles, the Remington 870 and 11-87 and Mossberg 500 shotguns, and noted above, the Army’s new SIG 320 pistol, which it calls the M17. And to really blow the Democrats’ minds, Collins could have pointed out that Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s legislation to ban “weapons of war” expressly exempts the M1 semi-automatic carbine and M1 semi-automatic rifle, which Gen. George S. Patton called “the greatest battle implement ever devised.”

Collins could have also made the point that according to the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Miller (1939), citing the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision in Aymette v. State (1840), weapons of war, designed to kill evil-doers as quickly as possible, are precisely the type of arms the Second Amendment most protects the right to keep and bear. But that will probably have to wait until a hearing is held after Republicans take back the House.

Yes, we should pound the “weapons of war” canard into the ground every time the gun grabbers trot it out.

Democrats had touted the hearing for weeks, hoping to use it to hammer “assault weapons” in front of the public. Fortunately for gun owners, the Dems’ own Trump Derangement Syndrome headlines pushed Nadler’s dog and pony show far off the front pages. What a shame.

comments

  1. avatar Dude says:

    “In fact, they would like to see all “high-velocity” rifles banned.”
    So subsonic 300 blackout is okay? These people are such fools.

    Let’s take a poll to see how many police departments are willing to give up their semi-auto rifles. It’s funny how the same people that complain about the racists, militarized police are willing to let them have weapons no one else can own. At a minimum, we get everything the police get.

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      So subsonic 300 blackout is okay? Yeah right? Only until it pops up on their radar.

      1. avatar GomeznSA says:

        Huntmaster – wouldn’t matter if it was subsonic – it is MAGAZINE fed and since we all know that is one of the features (according to them anyway) that would already make it prohibited.

        1. avatar GeorgiaBob says:

          I have a bolt action rifle, chambered in 300 Blackout, and it has a wood stock. That is not on Bobbie O’Rourke’s confiscate list, or the fat boy Nadler’s “protecting liberal’s from the constitution” proposed law. In fact, with a good suppressor, the entire House committee can natter on in peaceful silence, while zero in with sub 1/2 minute groups!

        2. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          All rifles, except single shots, are magazine fed. It’s just the type of magazine that varies.

    2. avatar aleric says:

      I can see them disarming the police as well, look at what they have done to the British Police who many cant even carry guns and run around with Tasers and Pepper spray only. The Left would disarm the police and keep that who protect them well armed.

    3. avatar SGT Preston says:

      Legislate so that only police have firearms, then you have a dictatorship, where subjects (not citizens) have to obey whoever has the guns, just because they HAVE the guns. Ordinary individuals, then have no protection from unrighteous police/political hacks extorting money and who knows what else from them.

    4. avatar MouseGun says:

      I could honestly see these clowns getting so desperate that they’ll eventually try banning firearms by the velocity of the cartridges they fire.

    5. avatar Voldamort says:

      Lefties define “high velocity”, as anything capable of 70 miles per hour, or more.

      1. avatar vab says:

        70 mph, the rate at which those leftists run their fecal matter-spewing mouths. Certainly, the same velocity–and any rate higher than that–cannot be used to describe their brain activity.

  2. avatar Merle 0 says:

    Just further proof gun control has 0 to do with crime, and 0 to do with mass shootings. It has everything to do with control of you.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Disagree. With liberals in the USA gun control is about the faulty reasoning that violence is caused by weapons. They think they are solving the violence problem or at least reducing it a whole big bunch.

      They are wrong, but they are well intended.

      1. avatar William Swinney says:

        I don’t believe they are well intended. They know exactly what they are doing, and disarming the citizens is it. It’s not about crime or gun control its completely about control.

      2. avatar Rattlerjake says:

        Merle O is 100% correct, all you did, Enuf, was mention the justification that the left uses to do what Merle O said! So you didn’t disagree at all!

      3. avatar Dude says:

        If they were really well intended, then they wouldn’t intentionally ignore data that refutes their claims. Take the hearing they just had on law enforcement racial bias. It was the same sort of ignorant farce as this hearing. They scream about guns in order to obtain and hold onto power. It’s the same with racism.

      4. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

        They are not well intentioned. They know exactly what they are doing. This is about control. All I have to do in determining this is listen to what they are saying. They come right out and say what they intend to do.

      5. avatar Ranger Rick says:

        The “well intended” argument can be made for many political actions in the 20th Century including:
        Russia 1917
        Germany 1933
        China 1949
        Cuba 1959
        Iran 1979
        Venezuela 1992

        1. avatar Voldamort says:

          The road to hell is paved with “good intentions”. Or, at least, evil intentions DISGUISED as good ones.

        2. avatar Erik Weisz says:

          But none of those examples even pretended to be “well intentioned”.

      6. avatar LazrBeam says:

        I have agreed with you before on here, Enuf, but this time I’m going to respectfully disagree. The liberals do not intend well for the 2A. Their goal is power. Total, unadulterated power. With that, they have control. I’m here to tell ya, we are already in a war for the soul of this nation.

      7. avatar Someone says:

        No. They don’t give a rat’s behind abour crime or “gun violence”. They just use it as a convenient pretext for disarming their opposition. It’s all about power, not saving lives, otherwise they would not concentrate on rifles that are used in tiny fraction of murders.

  3. avatar Rocketman says:

    Everyone needs to pay attention. The words “I believe that any weapon that can be used to hunt individuals should be banned.” includes far more than just guns. If we take her literally then what she is saying includes bows and arrows, spears, swords, battle axes, blowguns, bolos, rocks, tree limbs and anything else that has killed someone since mankind lived in caves. She makes Senator Schumer look like Ted Nugent.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Thus the term “The Right To Keep and Bear Arms”,that covers everything from the sling shots to nukes.

    2. avatar Dwight Hansen says:

      Every single weapon I train with in Kobudo.

      A couple of months ago I trained for 4 days in Minneapolis with the founder of my Kobudo style. In attendance was a lesbian couple from Canada. They were a cute couple, very sweet & highly skilled. I noticed they had “pride flag” Beto sticker on their car. I never said anything as it wasn’t my place to do so but I did wonder if the fact that the weapons we had just been training with were literally the “weapons of war” of the Ryukyu Kingdom (Tinbe Rochin – shield & short spear) & that those weapons had been banned by the Japanese when it made Okinawa a Prefecture. The kata we were training is absolutely FULL of killing strikes. Literally we were learning to kill people with them..

      1. avatar M1Lou says:

        They don’t get that. Even people that practice HEMA or Kendo seem to miss the point they their training is combat training meant to kill as many people as fast as possible with a blade. My last resort defensive weapons in my home are a sword bayonet from my Brunswick rifle, two kukris, and an Italian bayonet for my BM-59. They sit on my weapons display, but are ready to go if need be.

        1. avatar SoBe says:

          I keep a couple of katanas and a broadsword also next to my two bows just in case.

      2. avatar Voldamort says:

        Greetings from one of the ones known to Zenkoku Ryukyu Kempo Karate Kobudo Rengo Kai practitioners as: “the Montana Boys”. A small piece of advice, practice Naihanchi Shodan a LOT. Backwards and forwards. Much wisdom and cool techniques hidden in there…

      3. avatar Voldamort says:

        Did that training in Minnesota include Ryan Parker or Brian Thilmony?

    3. avatar ex-exec says:

      Or cars, trucks, and even drones.

    4. avatar vab says:

      Don’t forget “wrong think” as a “wepon.” Social media has a very good handle on this one and has no problem conspiring with the leftists, both in our government and not in our government.

  4. avatar Jacob says:

    Can we stop repeating the claim that “80% of murders in America are committed by gang members”? The claim is very believable and it might be true, but I have been unable to find any proof for it.
    You hear the 80% number all the time, but I have looked very hard for evidence and haven’t found any. I don’t know where that claim originally came from.

    1. avatar Shire-man says:

      Nationally gang related homicides account for about 13% of homicides.
      That 80% number comes from Chicago and like any statistic gets applied more narrowly or more widely as the junior high debate class dictates.

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        No, it’s not just CHIRAQ, it IS nationally. 8 out of 10 homicides nationally are gang-related. The only people who believe otherwise ARE at the level of their junior high debate class. Which is to say, far below us.

        https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

    2. avatar Merle 0 says:

      It is true though, the vast majority of violent crime involving the use of a firearm is gang related. When you break down gun involved homicides (first remove suicides, the left loves to throw that inaccuracy in there), in the US, it’s very clear the US has a gang problem. The data is well researched and backed up by the FBI. Judging the US by the crime stats, when you remove the violence plaguing the cities, the violent crime rate drops to that of Finland. But the left doesn’t want you to know that. The democrats want to give the gangs a pass. Because they want, yes want, the gangs to remain armed while honest law abiding citizens are disarmed. This desire of theirs is made very clear by their actions.

      1. avatar Someone says:

        In all fairness, if you want to compare violent crime rates excluding American cities, you should exclude Finnish cities from their crime rates as well. Even in Finland most of the criminals concentrate in large communities.

      2. avatar Dan W says:

        The vast majority of violence in the US is committed by nonwhites. Unsurprisingly when you use whatever euphemism to remove them from the the data the numbers are simply that of the Europeans Americans are descended from.

        Africans in Africa = high crime rate
        Africans in America = high crime rate
        Finn’s in Finland = low crime rate
        Finn’s in America = low crime rate

        It’s the people that count, not the location.

    3. avatar Dude says:

      According to 2017 FBI statistics, over half of homicides are listed with unknown or unspecified circumstances. What we do know is that less than 3% of the homicides involved the use of a rifle.

    4. avatar GS650G says:

      Ok 75% then.
      Feelz better?

    5. avatar Excedrine says:

      No, we can’t. No, we shouldn’t. If you haven’t found any proof of it, then you clearly haven’t “looked very hard” at all. The entirely factual claim that 80% of all American homicides are gang-related comes directly from the CDC.

      https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

      1. avatar Voldamort says:

        In Jacob’s defense, he likely only looked “very hard” at snopes, the blaze, and MDA. And then wonders why he’s so confused…. 🙂

  5. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

    “Weapons of war”is false for most civilian firearms. Guns need a selector switch to be a true “weapon of war”.

    1. avatar M1Lou says:

      Not really, some countries issued rifles like the FAL in semi auto only. Weapons of war, including full auto is protected by the 2A, but infringed upon by the NFA34.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        Exactly!!!

        The 2A protects the owning and carrying of arms the same as any standing army.

    2. avatar enuf says:

      All guns come from military arms development or borrow design features from there. From muzzle loader to rolling/falling blocks, levers, bolts, hand cranks and self loaders, we all carry weapons of war or derived from war.

      1. avatar Dwight Hasnen says:

        I’ve been pondering that question. It really depends on how close in degree you use to make the decision. The only combination I can think of is a Remington 788 in 30-30. Other than being a bolt action (which was deigned for military) the action was for the civillian market. The cartridge was designed from the ground up as a hunting cartirdge. At least I can’t recall a military application.

        It would be interesting to see what other can come up with.

        1. avatar Merle 0 says:

          It being a bolt action, I don’t think it qualifies. I think the only guns could even come close to being not derived from anything military would be break action shotguns. But I’m sure those have still been used in some military capacity at some point. I mean you could call the m79 a giant break action shotgun.

    3. avatar Nickel Plated says:

      I think we really need to retire this old trope when discussing “assault weapons”.
      We argue that it’s not really an assault rifle because it doesn’t have full auto. But considering that the US military and most halfway decent militaries around the world train their soldiers to use semi-auto the overwhelming vast majority of the time, except for some very specific cases. It just strikes me as a distinction without a difference.

      Does the lack of full auto really make our semi-only AR-15s any less effctive, or “dangerous” than a selectfire AR15?

      All it does is claim “Well what I own is not a “weapon of war” so it shouldn’t be banned”. Implying that it’s fine to ban weapons of war, and totally ignoring the fact that weapons of war are SPECIFICALLY the weapons protected by the 2A.

      1. avatar Dwight Hansen says:

        To me if it doesn’t have a NSN number isn’t not a weapon of war.

        Anyhting that is issued will have one.

      2. avatar Dan W says:

        The whole technical definition of an assault rifle needing a giggle switch is exactly as unpersuasive as you say.

        The people ( useful idiot class not politicians ) who advocate gun control want safety. To get them to change their minds all you need to do is make it obvious that not treading on the snake is the safer option.

    4. avatar Joe Davis says:

      Correction…nope ! I own a M1 carbine that was made just for war and …a Remington 700 …and a Remington 870 shotgun ….and a 1911 .45acp ….couple more probably that have been used by the military so no

    5. avatar James Campbell says:

      I’m offended by people calling my AR-10 in 308Win a “military weapon”. Eugene Stoner and Armalite Corp had the gun designed/produced in 1953, the first time an AR-10 trigger was pulled on a battlefield was 1968. The military gun is a copy of my “civilian weapon”, and I demand the military stop using rifles visually similar to my civilian gun to kill on the battlefield, giving it a bad name in the public’s eyes. They must stop now, military buyback time.

      1. avatar James Campbell says:

        I’ve reconsidered the military AR buyback. At a minimum, loosen the laws so I can own an AR with select fire or full auto. If I’m getting heat for having a “battlefield” weapon from the anti-gunner leftards, I want the capabilities of the “battlefield” version of the AR-10.

  6. avatar Ralph says:

    “[P]olice chief RaShall Brackney . . . testified that “I believe that any weapon that can be used to hunt individuals should be banned.”

    So ban cops then?

    And WTF is a RaShall????

    Signed,

    RaRalph

    1. avatar The Great Infringer says:

      “And WTF is a RaShall????”

      RaShall not be infringed?

  7. avatar M1Lou says:

    I have two real weapons of war sitting next to me. A Snider-Enfield 3 band rifle, and a Snider-Enfield carbine. I also have a Parker Hale P-1858 reproduction and a Springfield 1816 reproduction on the wall. All were once either in service, or a copy of a service rifle. They are of course obsolete, but they were once standard issue weapons. Most weapon designs were driven from military need. Again, the 2A protects weapons of war not just your grand pappy’s huntin raffle.

  8. avatar GreyBeard says:

    When I deployed for Desert Storm (helicopter aircrew), I was issued a Smith & Wesson Model 10. Revolver.

    The front sight broke off, so I used the remaining screw as an aiming post. When they distributed ammo, I got 12 rounds of .38 Special in a ziplock bag.

    Needless to say, when we started flying actual missions, I swapped my “weapon of war” with a crew chief for an M-16 that I might could actually hit something with farther than I could throw it.

  9. avatar Ralph says:

    I think Nadler is a total douche, but let’s be fair and give the devil his due — he would be a strong contender in The World’s Ugliest Man competition.

    1. avatar M1Lou says:

      He’s half the man he used to be from the 1990’s. Literally.

    2. avatar OTM says:

      Every time they post a picture of him he looks like the human slump test for a pile of shit.

  10. avatar KyKPH says:

    “Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party.” MAO ZEDONG

    Sound like anyone involved in Nasler’s committee?

    Mao was #1 on the people killer hit parade of the 20th century, Hitler was just #3. After disarming China after WWII, his policies lead to the deaths of up to 20 million of his fellow countrymen. Beware of politicians that want to take away your last ditch means of resistance to THEIR policies!

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Nonesense. There are no similarities between any American political party or leader and history’s worst mass murderers.

      When POTG spout those comparisons it only helps the anti-gun side by making us look like a bunch of nut jobs.

      Most liberals have deeply ingrained faulty reasoning on guns and violence. They think they are fixing a violence problem. Because on this issue most of them are ignorant, emotional and desperate.

      The rare crackpot voices on their side that go to extreme fantasy, such as Beto, are their embarrassment factor.

      1. avatar Huntmaster says:

        Nadler like Mao is intent on ensuring that guns are only are only in the hands of those enlisted to accomplish their agenda and goals. Nadler like Mao, has no problem using the threat of government sanctioned violence to achieve this. In he fact is actively pursuing legislation that will require the use of deadly force and or the caging of people who choose not to comply. In what universe is that not a singularity?

        1. avatar Huntmaster says:

          Damned spell checking… give us back the editing function.

      2. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

        I’m sure you consider yourself a smart person. The fact you can’t see this is how it begins is mind boggling. Giving excess power to the government is anti American

      3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “…is actively pursuing legislation that will require the use of deadly force and…”

        The name of that bill?

        1. avatar Dan W says:

          Every single one of them. that’s what all laws are, do this or eventually dudes with guns will come for you.

  11. avatar GeorgeBurns says:

    You know what, screw all of them, we pay too much attention to nonsense, anyone can open an investigation into anything Doing something is a far cry from talking about it. If it gets to the point of actually losing our rights, then they will find out how much we can rally do.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      “If it gets to the point of actually losing our rights…”
      Look behind you. Do you see the little dot disappearing in the dust? That’s the point you are looking for.

  12. avatar JoeWay says:

    Ink and pen have caused more destruction than can be comprehended. When laws pertain equally to all individuals. We may then see some relaxation of murders and other violence. We need people of equal temperament to be writing laws. They have absolutely no idea or want to have any idea or understanding of what the average person has to deal with on a daily basis.

  13. avatar Ark says:

    Impeachment hysteria has killed their gun-grabbing fantasies for this year.

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Yeah… and it might even overcome their efforts at election fraud next year. They just can’t stop shooting at their own feet.

  14. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Vigilantism would temporarily raise the rate but with gang membership greatly reduced there would be considerable rate decline afterward.

  15. avatar David Andrews says:

    The dems do not have any new firearms information. They simply chew over and over the same old trash. They do not want to reduce crime or shootings. Their total intent is to completely disarm the American citizens. Then the Socialist Democrats (Communists) will be able to DICTATE to us and they will be able to run roughshod over the entire citizenry of the U.S.A. They will be in complete control and we, the poor unarmed defenseless citizens, will be SLAVES of the Communist dems!

    1. avatar Someone says:

      That’s the plan!

  16. avatar Gideon Rockwell says:

    There is no such thing as an assault weapon. Assault Weapon is a scary dog whistle term created by the D.N.C. and their propaganda machine commonly known as the fake news media. Every sporting arm began life as a military arm, dating from the earliest front end loading firearms. Sports shooters demand the same reliability, durability and accuracy of their arms as the military. Both sports shooter and the military conduct themselves in the same type of environments, therefore all military arms eventually evolved into sporting arms. When I was a youngster , I remember going into one of the popular family owned gun shops in my home town. There were big wood barrels with various versions of the Enfield Rifle, 03 Sprinfields, M1 carbines. You could walk the rows of used gun racks and see various sporterized M-98 Mausers which were extremely popular and even sporterized old 30-40 Krags. Today the natural evolution of the sporting arm leads us to the AR series of arms. The AR platform is nothing new it is Eugene Stoner’s brainchild from the late 1950’s which began as the AR-10 308. He later scaled it down and took a popular high velocity varmint round the 223 and souped it up a little creating the 5.56 MM NATO round. These are not the man shredding super lethal rounds the ill informed left wing gun grabber ninnies would have you believe. But over the last 25 years the sports shooting public and those looking for a highly flexible family friendly utility arm have accepted it with an enthusiasm not seen since Tyler Henry and Oliver Winchester released the first successful lever action arms on the market. The AR-15 5.56 MM has taken the place of the Winchester 92 and 94 in gun racks on farm and ranch trucks, ATVs and Tractors. Your more likely to find an AR Carbine in the saddle scabbard on a ranch workers horse in the border zone than a lever gun these days. As far as family friendly for those on a budget, highly reliable ARs are available for under 700.00 and the carbine 5.56 will fit every member of the family due to it’s lightness and collapsible stock. There are millions of these guns in private ownership with thousands being sold everyday. The gun grabbers are out of their liberal minds if they think they are going to confiscate them.

  17. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Its the same old story. Libitards keep repeating the same lies and they all believe each other after awhile.
    Its all about control not about the law or rights. They want control and presently as a party have none.
    Nadler is still a fat loser of a person. He should have been voted out of congress 20 years ago. He just talks to hear himself. Schummer and he are actually twins. And both are useless human beings.

  18. avatar Baldwin says:

    In all of the above comments I see a lot of folks arguing their position using technical details as if in a true and honest debate with anti-gun people knowledgeable of the fine points of firearm technology. The technology and fine points of proposed rules and law don’t matter because these facts don’t matter. The national debate does not have anything to do with facts. None of the finer points about guns for war or magazine round counts or cosmetic features matter. The technical aspects of our firearms just don’t matter. None of the myriad of petty and gross infringements on RKBA are valid. There is only one rule of law that matters and it is the RKBA.The true argument is about our freedom and how do we intend to restore and maintain it!

    1. avatar Dan W says:

      Their feelings don’t care about your facts.

      The only argument that works in making banning guns scarier than not.

  19. avatar GS650G says:

    Can we stop calling it gun control now that democrats officially was to disarm civilians?
    Just can it gun bans. Or civil disarmament.
    Because as we see in the UK, knives are next after projectile launching devices. Speech is being criminalized too. Give someone the finger and that goes on your permanent record , mister.
    After we are all stripped naked of any self defense maybe Nadler the Wise can hold hearings on why small segments of the population commit most of the crime and how Democrat controlled areas are where they commit these crimes.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      That’s raceees!

  20. avatar Gsmithy69 says:

    Have been saying it forever all firearms well nearly all firearms are weapons of war and Democrats won’t ever be honest and come out and say they want them all they just use weapons of war as a catch phrase problem is what they think is Grandpa’s hunting rifle is more powerful than an ar15 or ak47 put together 😂🎯✌

  21. avatar Robert Messmer says:

    There has been zero question since at least 1995 that the Democrats want to disarm the American citizen. The Red Chinese Senator stated in 1995, ‘if I could have gotten the votes, I would have said, Ok Mr. and Mrs. America turn them ALL [emphasis mine] in.’ So I do not understand all of the surprise at Robert O’Rourke’s declaration that “Hell yes we are going to take your guns.” We have known for almost a quarter of a century that was their plan. They still nurse the grudge over losing the Civil War and want to pay us back.

    1. avatar Rocketman says:

      Not quite. They are still angry that the Soviet Union broke up in 1991 because of Reagan and want revenge by turning America into “Soviet Union 2.0”

  22. avatar Michael says:

    If you vote democrat in any election you’re voting for the demise of America and you too will be included in the eradication.

  23. avatar Clayton Smith says:

    Wake up Americans. This has nothing at all to do with crime in any way. This is about disarming the public all together so you can not resist the anti constitutional legalities they have in store for us. Educate yourself, don’t listen to talking points, think for yourself and learn to read between the lines.

  24. avatar Thomas Showalter says:

    The issue is disarming the American citizen; it’s not gun violence, homicide rates, etc. It’s all too simple: the socialists cannot fund their $50+!T socialist uptopia without confiscating nearly all of privately held assets. They cannot do that with 80 million armed citizens. So, disarm the citizens, take their assets and proceed with the socialist agenda.

  25. avatar Joe Fourtynine says:

    The purpose of disarming civilians has nothing to do with “weapons of war” or the myriad other scare fictions Socialists utter.

    The purposes are:

    1 To distract from the Socialist’s reliance on firearms to enforce ever-expanding State authority.

    2. To incite hatred for military and law enforcement personnel who tend to consistently vote against the Socialist agenda.

    3. To incite hatred for residents of rural communities, small towns and mid sized cities who vote against the Socialist agenda.

    4. To set legal precedents for disarming the civilian population that can be expanded sufficiently to enforce total disarmament followed by accelerated depopulation of rural areas comprising most of the continental United States.

  26. avatar Sam Hill says:

    There are a ton of well meaning people posting here and publishing articles. The first thing to understand is the people who are advocates of gun control are not fools and they don’t hate guns, and the control they want is not of guns. It is of people. I hesitate to bring religion in to this, but think about it. For eons people have controlled the masses with some form of religious belief stll do in some parts of the world. But when that no longer assures complete control by an elite few over the populace force must take it’s place. You can not enforce control over an armed population. First thing an invading military does is disarm the defeated. Again control issues. Last thing I am going to say. They are out numbered and they know it so they got to be sneaky, all is fair, and the end justifies the means.

  27. avatar Dan W says:

    We need to compromise on the gun control issue with the Democrats. We will meet them halfway just like they say they want.

    A complete and total ban along with violent confiscations of all firearms from all Democrats. This will get them what they want, good and hard.

  28. avatar Alan says:

    I find myself curious about the following, in particular this” buy back” business. Government didn’t provide through sales or any imaginable method, the so-called “Assault Weapons” in the first place. That obviously being the case, how could government possibly “buy back” something it played no role in the sale of to begin with. Hey people, the earth is still round, isn’t?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email