DOUGLAS V. GIBBS<---------->RADIO<---------->BOOKS<---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <----------> DONATE

Friday, June 24, 2016

Congress Gun Control Attempt and Trump NRA Tweet Raises Concerns

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

"Shall not be infringed" is a pretty definitive statement.  Considering the U.S. Constitution was written in order to create the federal government to handle the issues the States needed help with, such as common defense, the idea for the federal government for national security reasons to ban the ability to purchase a firearm if a person is defined as a threat to national security makes sense to some.  Others see it as a potential Pandora's Box creating a treacherous opportunity for the federal government to define "terrorism" any way it desires, and ultimately for the ruling elitists to use the manipulation of language to disarm the American public.  From an originalist point of view, the Second Amendment makes any and all gun legislation by the federal government unconstitutional, and therefore, all federal gun laws are unlawful.

Donald Trump, the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party in the 2016 Presidential General Election, has a history of speaking in ways that he thinks will appeal to everyone.  He sometimes seems like he is trying to be all things to all people, a concept that cannot survive in the political realm.  He also is not the most knowledgeable person one may expect in his new political position about the American System.  Some potential voters even consider him to be nothing more than a run of the mill New York liberal.  Others truly believe Mr. Trump wants to make America Great Again, and that he is the best person for that job.

Is his promised methods and positions something that runs in line with constitutional authority?

The United States Congress has been battling over whether or not to pass legislation banning the opportunity to purchase firearms by folks who are on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list.  Makes sense, one might believe.  On the surface it is totally reasonable to say that you don't want terrorists who want to kill you to buy guns.  "There's got to be a law," an uninformed voter might exclaim.  A number of Democrats demanding that there must be "common sense gun control legislation" even performed a 24-hour sit-in (I suppose it reminded them of the sit-ins they performed during their hippie days back in the 60s and the 70s) after an astoundingly magnificent speech delivered by conservative Senator Ted Cruz of Texas (and recent presidential campaign fame).

Before we decide on the necessity of a federal law that would ban people on a terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, from buying guns, let's break down what it is, and what the long-term consequences of such a law could be.

Natural Law offers that our rights, which includes the right to keep and bear arms, do not belong to us because a Bill of Rights says so, or because the government allows it, but because our rights are inherent.  We are entitled to our rights, they are self-evident, they are unalienable, and we are endowed by our Creator to have them - so says the Declaration of Independence.

Government exists to provide a certain level of protection for the people.  The federal government was created by the United States Constitution to provide for the common defense which includes raising a supporting an army, providing and maintaining a navy, and calling for the militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions (Article I, Section 8).

Which brings us to Trump's tweet about getting together with the NRA over "not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns."  Conservatives like Ben Shapiro claim that Trump has flipped on the gun issue by sounding like he may be in disagreement with Republicans and the NRA on this issue.

Did he flip?

It was a question.  Trump wanted to talk.  He was not stating a position.  The NRA (who has said for the longest time that seeking to ban guns for people on the watch list is an impossibility) gladly responded to Trump's tweet.


Trump believes terrorists ought not have guns, and that makes sense, but he's not sure how we should be doing it.  NRA agrees, says, "Let's Talk."

That's not a flip.  That's a call for "hey, let's get together so we can hash it out and understand what we need to do."

The mainstream liberal-biased media, or course, jumped at the chance to make it look like Trump supports the ban, and the NRA jumped at his request. . .


Did you expect any different?

In the end, the U.S. Senate rejected the anti-gun bills, and the Democrat Party's latest gun control push went nowhere.  The sit-in by the Democrats was a waste of time, and their attempt to shout down Paul Ryan when he spoke shows how adolescent they truly are.  The bills could not muster enough support, not that the House would buy into the gun control madness that is, in short, an issue outside the authority of the federal government, anyway.

Shall not be infringed means exactly what it says.

Besides, gun control has always been a losing issue for the Democrats.  If they keep these shenanigans up, they will practically hand the White House over to Donald Trump.

Even if the gun control bills had a chance, they are useless anyways (in addition to being unconstitutional).

After the Orlando shooting President Obama called on Congress to seek gun control.  It was no surprise.  Democrats always politicize things, even if one has nothing to do about the other.  In Orlando, guns weren't the issue.  Islam was.  Yet, the Obama regime sought to quell any narrative that might blame Islam and instead focused on gun control.  The thing is, the four different bills that the Senate rejected would not have stopped the Orlando massacre.  Fox News says that none of the bills would have stopped any of the mass public shootings since at least 2000.

The attacks, all of them since 2000, have been in gun-free zones.  Going as far back as 1950, all but three U.S. mass public shootings (with three or more fatalities) have occurred in places where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms. Time after time these killers explicitly pick targets where victims can’t defend themselves.  So, how is not allowing law-abiding citizens to purchase guns going to stop mass shootings in places where guns weren't allowed in the first place?  Fact is, criminals will still get a hold of guns.  Killers kill.

Senator Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) bill would ban people on the No Fly list from buying guns. But neither Omar Mateen, the Orlando nightclub shooter, nor any of the other Islamic terrorists from Fort Hood to San Bernardino were on the terror watch or No Fly lists.

Senator Chris Murphy’s (D-Conn.) bill would require background checks on transfer of guns between private parties, this is also completely unrelated to past mass public shootings.

Do we really want the people who are ideologically tainted manning a list, and defining who is on the list, that bans guns from people they don't like?

When it comes to immigration, the Democrats tell us that background checks and lists don't work.  When it comes to the Islamic refugees coming into this country, the Democrats tell us that background checks and lists don't work.  But when it comes to making sure the dangerous guys don't have guns does?  The Democrats seem to have the idea that outlawing something, and then waging political war against it, will solve the problem.  How's their war on drugs working out?  Has the drugs surrendered yet?  What about their war on poverty?

France’s strict weapon bans didn’t stop terrorists in any of the four terrorist attacks they've seen recently.  The way to stop mass shootings and terrorists with guns is to loosen restrictions.  What do you think would have happened in Orlando if a number of members of the nightclub were packing, and knew how to use their firearm?  Would Mateen have even attempted what he did if he'd known that it was possible that any of his potential victims were armed?

Reality disagrees with the Democrats.

Background checks do not stop mass shootings.  More people are killed with clubs and hammers than rifles.  Should they be pushing, using their logic, for hammer control?  AR-15s are not “Automatic” Rifles nor are they assault weapons.  The "AR" stands for ArmaLite Rifle, the brand name of the firearm.  Guns are used for defensive purposes approximately 760,000 times a year in the United States, but the media never reports those shootings.  Gun free zones, statistically, are killing fields.

As for the Democrats using our children as a prop to support their gun control madness, the truth is, children under the age of 10 unintentionally killed in fire-related deaths was over seven times higher than the number of children killed in unintentional gun-related deaths, and the number of children killed in unintentional drowning deaths was sixteen times higher than the number of children killed in unintentional gun-related deaths. The raw numbers were as follows: Number of children killed in unintentional fire-related deaths was 262, the number of unintentional drowning 609, the number of accidental gun-related deaths was 36.

The truth has been spoken, and it reveals that the Democrats are wrong.

But, we know the true reason behind their push for gun control has nothing to do with our safety, right?

They believe in big government, and historically, statism always disarms the populace.  People who are in fear of the government, and cannot defend themselves against tyranny, are much easier to control.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

House Democrats stage a gun control protest on House floor - Business Insider

House Democrats stage sit-in protest in dispute over gun control - Fox News

House Democrats stage a sit-in on the House Floor on Gun Control - The Atlantic

Senator Ted Cruz Delivers the Awesome About Gun Control on the Senate Floor - Red State

House Democrats Stand Down After Chaotic Sit In - Yahoo News

Ryan sends lawmakers home after Dem sit-in fails to force gun control vote - Fox News

GOP Senate Debates Gun Control in Response to Terrorism - Daily Signal

Ha, Ha, Suckers, Trump Flips for Gun Control - Daily Wire

Senate rejects series of gun measures - CNN

Smart Gun Push Could Conflict with Constitutional Rights - Daily Signal

Joe Biden: Ban Civilian Ownership of Assault Weapons - Tea Party News

The Dirty Secret About the four Senate Gun Control bills - Fox News

No comments: