2020 Gun Vote — Defending The Second Amendment

Some have called me a single-issue voter. Of course, that’s not true. Like everyone else I have strong opinions about the full breadth of issues facing our country. I just happen to place my first priority on Constitutional / Bill of Rights issues. If a candidate or party platform can’t say they support our natural rights UNCONDITIONALLY, then why would I entrust anything else to them? Call it a shibboleth if you will, but how a candidate responds to a simple question like “Do you support the Second Amendment?” is going to determine if I want to listen to anything else they have to say.

For me, when the answer to that vital question is “Yes, but… “ or “Yes, and… “ it’s a warning. The but or and is usually followed by ‘I also support reasonable gun safety/gun control laws’. Beyond that you’ll hear the usual lies about how “common sense gun safety” laws being proven to save lives. They are not.

It’s no secret that many of the extremist left politicians and zealots would like to see the Second Amendment repealed altogether. Others simply prefer to assign creative interpretations to it such as, the right to bear arms was only intended to be for those in state militia (today’s National Guard) or that it was never meant to include modern arms, only those in existence (muskets) at the time it was written. Still others believe it was intended only for hunting. They see the Heller and McDonald United States Supreme Court decisions as the first time the right to bear arms was granted to an individual instead of the first time the existing natural right for individuals was upheld.

So, when I see a political platform threating to infringe on our Second Amendment protected rights like I am now, I become very concerned. The Democratic platform include such things as:

A ban on so-called “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines”. Dealing with those already in circulation includes registering them as NFA (National Firearm Act) items with a $200 fee per firearm or magazine OR turning them into the government at a mandatory buy-back, a.k.a. confiscation.

The flawed logic for the NFA registration option is because of the background check, NFA items are rarely used in crimes. Of course, this has nothing to do with it. With the exception of submitting fingerprints, there isn’t really a difference in the background check other than the $200 fee and up to a year of waiting for the results. The difference is NFA items cost a LOT more. Legally transferable fully automatic firearms, of which there are a finite number in existence since no more are legally available after 1986, range anywhere from $10,000 to $50,00 or more.

Registration as a NFA item would of course eliminate anyone who is not wealthy enough to afford to pay for their ‘privilege’ of owning a common firearm. It would also eliminate ownership in states such as California where NFA items are outlawed.

The other issue there is the ever-expanding definition of “assault weapons”. When the term was first coined, it included only a certain number of described firearms. Then it expanded to firearm types, then the features found on firearms and now in some places includes any semi-automatic firearm. There is no one definition of “assault weapon” and it is always evolving to include more. The popular political misconception of it being a “weapons of war” is a lie and only meant to evoke emotions about how supposedly dangerous they are.

Another aspect of the proposed gun control plan is nationwide Universal Background Checks. This would eliminate the so-called “private sale loophole” by requiring all sales go through a FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee). With this comes the less advertised Universal Firearms Registration scheme where all firearms are now registered with the government, generally considered a precursor to widespread confiscation.

Other points of the gun control plan include provisions to: “prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts.” Online firearm sales are of course a lie since firearms must be sent through a local FFL, but everyone already knows that. Banning the online sales of ammunition, kits and gun parts on the other hand is something straight from the State of California. Ammunition there can ONLY be purchased through a licensed “ammunition vendor”, along with the appropriate background check (registration) and fees. Kits and gun parts will soon be treated the same, only being available through FFLs with a background check (registration) and fees.

There is a lot more, including limiting purchases of firearms to one per month, incentivizing states to enact so-called “red flag” no due process confiscation laws as well as state and local licenses for individuals before they can purchase a firearm.

As there always is with gun control, there is more. But remember, gun control does absolutely nothing to increase public safety and the answer to fix that shortcoming is always to implement more gun control.

If this concerns you, then I suggest you take one last read of the Second Amendment before you head into the voting booth. If your government is willing to take away your natural rights, do you really want to trust them with everything else?

The Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Vote wisely.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #NaturalRights, #GunVote, #2020Elections, #VoteWisely, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com