Death by 1,000 Cuts: How Democrats are Using the Long Game to Take Away the Second Amendment

This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion
Get The Real News Delivered To Your Inbox

If You Want to Pass an Unpopular Law, There Is a Recipe

Hate is a funny thing. In the United States, we have the ability to control our own destiny, to an extent. For many people, they hate that other people have freedoms. They hate this idea so much that they decide to “cancel” those freedoms. Ironically, there have been many times throughout history where people have felt the same way; however, as the memes say, “show me one time in history where the people trying to burn books or silence thousands were on the right side of history.”

Historically, there have been two camps in the United States. On one side, we have the people who believe in individual liberty, religion, and family as the fundamental unit of society. Faith, family, and freedom. On the other side, there are millions of people who believe that they know what is best for others. These people use the mechanisms of the government to enforce their “good ideas” on other people. Rarely in history do good ideas need to be forced.

The second group, who call themselves “liberals” or “progressives,” historically believe in limitations of inalienable rights. You have a right to religion, as long as it is the religion we like. You have a right to free speech, as long as you agree with us. Everyone has the right to associate, as long as you associate with us or associate with a union. Americans have the right to petition the government unless it is about an issue that we want to shove under the rug. The Founding Fathers stated that these rights are inalienable, which means that they are absolute unless you are committing a crime or these rights have been removed through due process.

The Second Amendment

One of the rights that liberals most actively attack is the right to bear arms. Liberals attack this and have throughout history because it preserves individual control of the first group of rights. As noted above, progressives believe that they know what is best for others, thus sometimes they need to minimize the rights of others “for their own good.” If you do not believe this is an active philosophy, look at the COVID lockdowns, mask-wearing requirements, gatherings in ones own home, and even the new “Vaccination Passports,” which is a direct violation of people having security in the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.”

Progressives, for all the jokes we make, actually know history quite well. No armed population was ever crushed by the “elites” in modern history without being disarmed first. The cultural “elites” know that in order to subjugate the United States, they need to have a docile population. Do you want to be docile? I don’t. To preserve our independence, the Founding Fathers acknowledged a God given right to defend ourselves (let he who is without a sword, buy one. Luke 22:36). Liberals hate the second amendment because the right to bear arms prevents people from being subjugated to their will.

Conspiracy

The United States has a violence problem. Gun violence, rape, knives, cars, planes, bombs, these are all tools of violent people. As a nation, we need to realize that tools are never the evil part of the act- it is always the will of the criminal that is the problem. However, in many states we are not allowed to discuss the problems of the criminal. For some reason, holding people accountable for their actions has become “racist” or “bigoted.” Many liberals now argue that personal responsibility is taking the same track.

Fascist and communists in the 20th century found the best practices for getting people to give up personal responsibility. Everyone who has studied history knows that Hitler used the brown shirts to create an outcry against violence in public to allow new control measure to be implemented by the people (including a disarming). Likewise, Stalin created fear of the Menshavicks to allow the Bolshevik Revolution to succeed. Scared people turn to government to help them. Historically, this has always been true and leaders are more than willing to take advantage of this.

As we now stand on the eve of major gun control debates, what are we seeing? Each day there is a vote, whether in committee or on the floor, there is a mass shooting in the days leading up to the vote. Biden is scheduled for a gun control speech, someone shoots up a gas station, shopping center or mall. As a society, we tend brush this off as “well the vote or speech was in response to the shooting.” But if you look at each event, the votes were scheduled weeks in advance, the speeches announced before the shooting. At what point do we ask, “When does coincidence end?”

Biden’s Bully Pulpit

As President of the United States, Joe Biden has control of the Bully Pulpit- though generally it is not the best idea to let him speak from it. Even his media sycophants have started to question the mental capacity of the President. As he has said, “They checked my head several times and found nothing.” Biden’s handlers hate guns. Biden, therefore, speaks out against guns. The truth always is the first casualty of the war on guns.

Biden is poised to appoint a radical for the position of ATF director. Dave Chipman is on the record stating his radical agenda. One of his goals is to end people’s abilities to craft their own firearms- which limits new business development. He has also stated that pistols with braces should be illegal, in direct contradiction to the Federal Courts. Possibly his most problematic statement is that he wants to arrest people who fail background checks. It is already a felony in many states to try to purchase a gun when you have a record, so if he does not know this then he is not qualified for the job.

Wearing People Down

If you want to pass an unpopular law there is a recipe. First you have an idiot propose a law that cannot pass. Representative Jackson-Lee is the novel idiot who proposed a law that cannot pass. Then you have a group propose a “reasonable” alternative to the radical law- which we have also seen. If people still resist, then you threaten to take unilateral action- which never works. Biden is doing that with his “gun speech” and the appointment of a radical to the ATF. The final phase is for a moderate, or even a group of bi-partisan moderates, to propose changes “everyone can agree on.” These will be much better than the fool’s song of Rep. Jackson-Lee, but will still remove your rights.

So what is a good bill that could help with gun rights?

Background Checks for All Firearm Transfers

Any transfer of a firearm between two people should be subject to a background check. This background check should be free if it is done by the local police, city hall, or post office (do not take the gun into the building). If this is done by an FFL, there should be a reasonable fee allowed for the person’s time. The seller should receive a receipt that they have completed the background check and a record that the gun was transferred should be kept. The buyer should have the option to have their name on the record or have it removed. Any federal or state employee who maintain records on the ownership of guns shall be guilty of a third-degree felony and be terminated from their position.

Red Flag Adjudication

In the event that a person is accused of being a danger to themselves or others, they may be detained by police for a mental health check. During the time of this check, the firearms may be placed in the care of a family member or in a secure storage facility (private). If the person is adjudicated to be mentally fit, the guns are returned to them, and the person who made the accusation shall be guilty of filing a false police report. If the person is adjudicated unfit, under state law, then the firearms are sold at public auction with the proceeds going to the owner. If the firearms are “lost,” as has become the custom in some areas, the guns are to be replaced with the same type of gun or the person shall be paid three times the fair market value of the firearm.

Non-Citizens

Non-Citizens may not own firearms in the United States. Any citizen of anther nation who comes to the United States for hunting or sport shooting may apply for a temporary permit to bring the firearm into the United States. When not being used in the event to which the person is permitted, the firearms shall be stored at a local police station or game station or with a registered guide. Any non-citizen caught with an illegal firearm shall be immediately deported after a magistrate hearing within 12 hour of the detainment. Any non-citizen committing a felony with a firearm will be deported after a minimum jail term of five years. Any non-citizen killing another person during the commission of a crime with a firearm may be subject to the death penalty at the discretion of the Jury (must be read as an option).

Gangs

Any person who is a known member of a gang who possesses a firearm during the commission of a crime will have a mandatory augmentation to their sentence of 10 years. Any known member of a gang who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime will have a mandatory augmentation of their sentence of 20 years. Any known member of a gang who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime and wounds or kills another human being shall receive the death penalty.

Mass Shootings

Any person who participates in a mass shooting, whether planning, securing resources illegally, or the actual shooting, shall receive the death penalty upon conviction. All wealth owned by the bad actors shall be given to the victims.

Repeal of NFA

The National Firearm Act should be repealed, in its entirety as law abiding citizens should be able to own any firearm they see fit to defend themselves against threats, foreign and domestic.

Storage

Persons owning more than 5 firearms must have a lockable storage area for their firearms. There is no inspection of this rule. If they do not have such an area for their firearms, then they run the risk of liability should someone steal or misuse one of their firearms. All firearms do not have to remain in this area.

Sellers and Producers

Lawsuits against sellers and producers of firearms are only valid if:

1.) The Seller/Manufacturer markets the gun as criminal weapon;

2.) If the Seller/Manufacture does not put safety features on the gun;

3.) the Seller/Manufacture created a non-serialized firearm (complete) and sold it or gave it away in violation of the law.

4.) The seller/Manufacture showed Negligence, Recklessness, or a Knowing or purposeful nature in the sale of the firearms.

Seizures

Any firearm seized under a warrant or under the law from a person who is deemed not fit to own the firearm, through criminality or mental problems, shall be sold by the municipality which seized it at public auction. Public auctions must be open to all legal residents of the state in which the seizure was made. Non-Serialized firearms will be serialized before the sale. The notice must be made public so that people know when the auction is, announced in papers, digitally, and posed in courthouses and public buildings. Background checks are required for all sales. Reserves are banned for these actions. Buyer premiums are banned for these auctions. All proceeds go to the municipality general fund and all serials from the evidence are cleared for the new seller.

Taxes

As firearms are a right, no tax may be levied against an owner, against a firearm, against a seller of a firearm beyond the normal income tax, business tax, or personal taxes as applied by law.

Firearms Training

All Municipalities may receive a federal grant of up to $10,000 per year for firearm training for their citizens. For these trainings, they may not cost more than $25 per person, must be offered twice a year, and graduates shall be presented with a certification of completion. No municipality may require that persons take this training more than once every 10 years.

Conclusion

These simple changes would help define the legal landscape around firearms. For years, we have been more worried about the tool, and less worried about the criminal committing the act. Now is the time to change that. We can make a bill that will make the nation a better place and maintain our rights. People will always be killing people; however, if we can make it harder for criminals to kill people- then we should. Taking criminals off the street and out of the country is more effective than punishing law abiding citizens.

Progressives are known for saying “If it saves but one life.” These suggestions could save thousands of lives a year, not just from gun crime, but from other crime as well. Treat the disease, not the symptom. If people want real change, they need to be willing to actually talk about the problem,

Dr. Christopher W. Smithmyer

Dr. Christopher W. Smithmyer

Dr. Christopher W. Smithmyer is a writer for NRN and an adjunct professor at both Penn State University and the University of South Florida. He is the author of several books, most recently “A Criminal History of the Democrat Party” which is available on Amazon and via the publisher, Elite Exclusivity. Follow on Twitter at @Acriminalhisto1

NRN • New Right Network
Logo
Shopping cart