During the 2016 presidential campaign, I received criticism from supporters of Hillary Clinton for suggesting that if she was elected and Democrats took over Congress, then the Second Amendment would essentially be gutted.
It wasn’t just hyperbole; my opinion was guided by experience. In my lifetime, there has only been one political party that routinely advocated for more gun control and more gun bans: The Democratic Party. That, and Clinton herself has advocated for similar policies, even supporting her husband’s and Democrats’ “assault weapons ban” in 1994 (that wound up costing Democrats dearly at the ballot box).
“Oh, that’s what you guys always say,” one respondent wrote, daring me to come up with “any evidence” that is what Clinton and Democrats would do.
I did, but of course, it didn’t matter. You can’t convince a partisan of the truth no matter how many facts you use.
Fast-forward to this past weekend. Once more, Democrats were behind a major anti-gun rally in the nation’s capital, in which some demonstrators were crystal clear about their desire: Full banning of not just military look-alike weapons but all guns. Several protesters brought pre-printed signs that read, “I wish Obama had taken your guns.”
Now, Democrats in Oregon are backing a ballot initiative that not only bans military look-alikes and high-capacity magazines, it will require owners to surrender those guns or face felony charges.
Yes, this is America 2018, or parts of America anyway: Your Second Amendment rights are malleable, expendable, bendable, and subject to revoking by a “vote of the people.”
The proposal, called Initiative Petition 42, would require legal gun owners “to surrender or register their assault weapons or face felony charges.”
The measure is the state’s ‘reasonable response’ to improving student safety at schools, which of course it won’t accomplish.
“The proposal defines an assault weapon as any semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, and any feature like folding or telescoping stock, or that can accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition,” reported KGW News.
The measure states further that “a reduction in the availability of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines will promote public health and safety of the residents of this state” — without any proof whatsoever to substantiate the claim.
Not all Oregon lawmakers are marching like lemmings to this ill-advised drum beat.
“This is completely out of hand — I couldn’t believe it,” said Rep. Bill Post, a Republican. “I’ve been told so many times by people in favor of gun control” ‘No one is coming to take your guns.’ This explicitly comes for your guns” [Emphasis added].
It sure does. What’s more, it criminalizes your possession of certain types of guns.
Isn’t this blatantly unconstitutional? While it would seem so to any reasonable person who reads the Second Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” language, it’s not so as far as the U.S. Supreme Court is concerned.
A majority of justices have regularly refused to hear appeals to rulings by lower federal courts that have let stand state bans on “assault weapons.” According to those justices, the Second Amendment is indeed an individual right but it only applies to certain firearms like handguns to defend one’s home.
Of course, that’s absurd; the founders placed no such limits on the ownership of “arms.” And in fact, thanks to the doctrine of “incorporation” brought about by the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, the Bill of Rights apply to states as well as the federal government.
But that doesn’t matter to Democrats and their supporters. They’re coming for our guns. We knew it all along, mind you, but until now they’ve kept their ultimate goal under wraps.
J.D. Heyes is editor of The National Sentinel and a senior writer for Natural News and News Target.
Sources include:Submit a correction >>