By Vin Suprynowicz
Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell of California wants to ban “assault weapons” (by which he means semi-automatic hunting and target rifles, of course), install a federal gun “buy-back program” for those who own them (think you’d get to name your own price?), and criminally prosecute those who refuse to hand them over, reported Robert Donachie on the Daily Caller Web site on May 3.
The collectivist congresscritter wrote an op-ed published that date in USA Today, recommending that the federal government take “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” away from law-abiding citizens and threaten them with jail if they refuse.
“Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed,” Swalwell whined. “This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come. Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.”
Wow! Whose weapons do your suppose the Congresscritter would grab first? Those of the FBI? The BATF? The 101st Airborne?
At least the Democrats aren’t hypocrites. In blatant defiance of the Constitution they laughingly swear to “protect and defend,” they’ve wanted to disarm us so they could treat us like Hitler treated the Jews, like Stalin treated the independent farmers of the Ukraine, for more than 80 years, now.
More dangerous — because the traitor moves smilingly among us, disguising his intent — are elected so-called Republicans who pose as defenders of the Second Amendment, but then cave as soon as the socialist teachers’ unions load some schoolkids up in buses and haul them to the capital (kids most of whom literally couldn’t tell you in what decade the Revolutionary War was fought, who we fought it against, the name of our commanding general, or even how to load a rifle), to chant and screech that they want “more gun control”
“The post-Parkland gun control push may have netted zero action in Congress but it has certainly found takers in one of the most unlikely of places,” reported AWR Hawkins of Breitbart News on May 15. “Five Republican Governors have surrendered ground on gun control or made clear their intentions to do so.”
The state-level slide toward gun control began in Florida, where Gov. Rick Scott (RINO) signed a $400 million gun control bill into law. Breitbart News reported that the gun controls included firearm confiscation orders, waiting period for long gun purchases, and an increase in the minimum purchase age from 18 to 21.
(Just because they’re thus banned from owning a weapon with which they could otherwise practice the most vital skill of a combat soldier on weekends, 18-, 19- and 20-year-old Floridians enlisted in the U.S. Army or Marines have nothing to worry about: When the time comes they can always just point their index finger at the ululating attacker with the Kalashnikov, and say “bang.” Or, alternatively, undo their fly and threaten their armed assailant with their other gun — the one Gov. Scott hasn’t yet gotten around to taking away.)
The Los Angeles Times reported the measure Rick Scott signed also banned bump stocks, although they were not even used in the Parkland school shooting.
On April 12, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott (RINO) signed a massive package of gun controls into law. Those controls included a ban on private gun sales and bump stocks, though neither private gun sales nor bump stocks were contributors to the Parkland attack.
Scott’s gun controls also bar law-abiding citizens from owning “high capacity” magazines, by which the Vermont lawmakers mean the normal 13-, 20- and 30-round magazines with which many modern weapons were originally designed to function.
“Ironically, Phil Scott was able to win his gubernatorial race by proclaiming he saw no need for more gun control in the state of Vermont,” Hawkins of Breitbart reports. On June 22, 2016, he told Vermont Public Radio, “I don’t believe that we need more gun restrictions in Vermont at this time. I think we should enforce the ones we have. I think we should focus more on safety and gun education, but also addressing the violence problem that is systemic across the country -– and I don’t have the answers for that, but that’s what’s driving this frustration, this outrage.”
On April 24, the Huffington Post reported that Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (RINO) signed a bill which bans bump stocks and implements a law to allow police to confiscate firearms.
On May 14, Breitbart reported that Gov. Bruce Rauner (RINO) proposed confiscation laws for his state of Illinois, as well as a tripling of the 24-hour waiting period on gun purchases. Rauner wants law-abiding citizens to wait 72 hours before being allowed to pick up their guns at the store and take them home. Real handy for a woman who learns she’s being stalked by a would-be rapist or murderer. Could her surviving children at least sue Gov. Raunder for disarming their mom? No. That’s why we call Bruce Rauner and his gang “rape enablers.”
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (RINO) had the opportunity to roll back gun controls and regulations via permitless carry legislation that reached her desk in early May. Instead on May 11 she vetoed the measure, thereby preserving the requirement that law-abiding citizens must apply for and obtain written permission from their state government before being allowed to exercise their firearm rights.
NRA-ILA executive director Chris Cox responded to Fallin’s veto: “Gov. Mary Fallin vetoed this important piece of self-defense legislation,” after promising to support similar legislation during her campaign. “Make no mistake,” Cox said, “this temporary setback will be rectified when Oklahoma residents elect a new, and genuinely pro-Second Amendment governor.”
‘A STAUNCH SUPPORTER OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT’
Gov. Fallin said something interesting as she betrayed her constituents and her oath of office on May 11 — something I’d like to focus on for a moment.
Anders Hagstrom of the Daily Caller Web site reported on May 13: “Republican Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin vetoed legislation Friday that would’ve allowed anyone in the state to carry firearms without a permit, claiming the current barriers to getting a gun are ‘few and reasonable.’
“Fallin stressed that she is a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment and owns firearms herself, but she claimed removing the permit requirement would have an adverse effect on policing.”
“SB 1212 eliminates the current ability of Oklahoma law enforcement to distinguish between those carrying guns who have been trained and vetted, and those who have not,” Fallin said in a statement. “Oklahomans believe that law-abiding individuals should be able to defend themselves. I believe the firearms requirement we currently have in state law are few and reasonable. Senate Bill 1212 eliminates the training requirements for persons carrying a firearm in Oklahoma. It reduces the level of the background check necessary to carry a gun.”
But here’s the thing, ma’am: The fact that you inherited grandpa’s squirrel gun or a black-powder wallhanger and that you call yourself “a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment” doesn’t mean a thing. It won’t save you from (depending on where final justice is meted out) either hell or the gallows.
Holders of public office in the United States don’t get to decide whether or not they are, or want to be, “staunch supporters of the Second Amendment.” Their oath of office leaves them no choice in the matter, making such a pronouncement about as meaningful as bragging “You can trust me; I breathe air and drink water!”
I’ve examined many copies of the Bill of Rights — an integral part of the Constitution all you folks swear a binding oath before God to “protect and defend.” And I have never seen a copy with the added clause, “except that we can enact and enforce all the infringements we want, as long as we — and a minimum of five leftist politicians dressed up in black dresses and calling themselves ‘Supreme Court justices’ — decide those infringements are ‘few and reasonable.’”
It simply ain’t there. When you were administered that oath, you were free to say, “You know, I haven’t really stopped to read this ‘Constitution’ you mention. Could we postpone this for 40 minutes or so while I sit down and read it through?” It’s in plain English. You were responsible to read it and understand it, yourself. You could have refused and walked away. Instead, you voluntarily swore to protect and defend it, not REWRITE it.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution has just two clauses. Any reputable grammarian or legal scholar will confirm for you that the introductory clause doesn’t restrict or limit the effect of the operative clause, but it does explain WHY we have a second Amendment. The introductory clause states “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . .”
What does that mean?
Our founding fathers knew there were damned few “free states” in the world of the 1780s — though they might have numbered king-less Switzerland among them. They knew a people could remain free for any period of time only if the vast body of the able-bodied citizens (they would have said “men”, but if able-bodied women want to volunteer for militia service today, it’s fine by me) own and are free to carry around armaments of military usefulness which are EQUAL OR SUPERIOR TO any and all armaments likely to be deployed by the elements of any standing army which the central government can or might choose to send against them, with the aim to deprive them (us) of our rights or liberties.
(Remember, although he likely would have been happy to seize muskets as well, what General Gage was mostly aiming to confiscate when he sent Lt. Col. Francis Smith and 700 Redcoats to Lexington and Concord were the civilians’ CANNON, POWDER, AND SHOT. Those “civilians” owned functional, state-of-the-art CANNON. Now that we Americans have won our freedom from King George, where do I go to buy and haul home my functional 155 mm. howitzer, with ammo?)
And the second clause, of course, states “. . . The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
Leaving aside that nonsense about your Oklahoma government police “being able to distinguish between those carrying guns who have been trained and vetted, and those who have not” (How? Oklahomans with concealed-carry permits will now have to wear bright pink “Pussy Hats,” visible from 60 yards?), let me sum up for you what this clause means, bit–, er, that is to say, Governor Fallin, ma’am:
It means that, if hell-bound oathbreakers and traitors like you hadn’t spent the past 85 years enacting and enforcing some 20,000 to 40,000 overlapping, interlocking, state, local, and federal “gun control” laws (the ones you simper and prance and call “few and reasonable”), today I would be free to drive downtown to the nearest gun store, pull up to the drive-through window, and without signing my name or showing any “ID” or suffering any “waiting period,” purchase for cash a “newly manufactured for civilian use,” belt-fed 30-millimeter cannon (from which it’s been estimated that four to six rounds well placed should be adequate to shoot down any attacking government helicopter or fighter aircraft), mount it on top of my vehicle, and drive it around town with impunity.
If a few million of us did that (as the Constitution without which you would have no legitimate power whatsoever GUARANTEES us we can), how well do you think the BATF and the FBI would fare the next time they decided to burn to death scores of innocent Christian women and children seeking shelter in a church, like they did at Waco, Texas, in the spring of 1993 — earning promotions, awards, and the fulsome, snickering praise of the ghoul Charles Schumer?
Does the lady believe Oklahomans should need a “state permit” to go to church? To write a letter to the editor? To attend a political meeting? Why is it only this ONE PLANK of the 10-plank Bill of Rights that she thinks she’s free to break her oath of office and infringe, infringe, infringe? What do all these corrupt, lying, prancing politicians have in mind for us, once we’re finally, completely disarmed?
THE CLAPPER DEFENSE
Meantime, on another subject . . . Who Knew? It turns out Richard Nixon didn’t need to resign the Presidency in disgrace, after all.
If only he’d known about the James Clapper Defense!
After months and months of denying he had any direct role in illegal spying on the campaign of Democratic opponent George McGovern (as former Obama Director of National Intelligence Clapper insisted for more than a year there was no FBI spying on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump), it turns out all Nixon had to do was turn around at the last minute and say: “Of course we sent a bunch of Cuban ex-CIA agents to burglarize Democratic campaign headquarters at the Watergate! It was the right thing to do! It’s standard operating procedure. In fact, George McGovern should THANK us! Those men only broke in to Democratic campaign headquarters that night to . . . (wait for it) . . . protect George McGovern from the Russians!”
And the Nonpartisan Mainstream Media would, of course, have lapped it up, agreeing “Of course! So simple, now that it’s all been explained to us! And any of you who are criticizing President Nixon’s actions must be AGAINST OUR WONDERFUL CIA!”
In fact, after serving out his full two terms, Dick Nixon could then have landed a comfy. six-figure retirement job as an “analyst and commentator” on some television network, like today’s CNN.
Vin Suprynowicz was for 20 years an award-winning columnist and editorial writer for the daily Las Vegas Review-Journal. He blogs athttp://www.vinsuprynowicz.com .