Archive for the ‘Second Amendment’ Category

This LTE contains its fair share of contradictions.. Perhaps, the biggest contradiction is the one found in this paragraph:

Imagine how we could lower gun deaths by requiring a license to purchase or use a gun! By requiring background checks for every gun sale? By limiting ammunition purchases? By making firearms inoperable by anyone except the original owner? This would stop killings by children and gun thieves. The National Rifle Association uses money to prevent Congress from passing such common-sense solutions, and — guess what — the NRA is funded by gun manufacturers. They would lose money if reasonable and constitutional limits were placed on weapons.

This is the ultimate contradiction in my estimation. How do you place restrictions on guns that pass constitutional muster? First, let’s start with the text of 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.

It’s important to notice why the Second Amendment was written — for “the security of a free state.” Further, it’s worth noting that the people who wrote the Bill of Rights said that it’s “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

The person apparently doesn’t know much about this subject because we already have a system of background checks. Some of the recent mass-shooters have shot people after passing background checks. The problem isn’t whether there should be background checks but whether these background checks should include mental health data or whether juvenile arrests should be wiped clean.

The talk about implementing “common sense solutions” is just that — talk. House Democrats don’t just want “common sense” restrictions. They want an assault weapons ban, red flag laws, etc. An assault weapons ban is worthless. If you specify which weapons are classified as assault weapons, it’s easy for the manufacturer to get around that. What they did with the initial assault weapons ban, a month after the ban went into effect, the manufacturers changed the model numbers. The new model wasn’t part of the list so it wasn’t classified as an assault weapon.

If the legislation defines assault weapon by caliber, muzzle velocity of the round, physical characteristic, etc., then the definition is too broad. In their Heller decision, the Supreme Court said that firearms “in common use” can’t be prohibited. That doesn’t stop Biden, Beto or Harris from wanting to confiscate guns:

Beto’s ‘Buyback’:

Sen. Harris’ executive order:

Democrats don’t want to pass “common sense” restrictions on guns. They want to confiscate our weapons. The people making these threats aren’t back-benchers. They’re the Democrats’ presidential candidates. Their fidelity to the Constitution is limited at best.

Thursday night’s debate showed just how much contempt Democrat presidential candidates have for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Kamala Harris said that she’d issue an executive order to confiscate (my word, not hers) AR-15s and AK-47s if Congress didn’t act on banning assault weapons. I quoted from the DC v. Heller case in this post why she’d get slammed 9-0 in the Supreme Court:

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

The Supreme Court has ruled that guns that are in common use are beyond Congress because they’re protected by the Second Amendment. Period.

Harris isn’t the only Democrat that thinks they’re above the Constitution. Robert Francis O’Rourke, the rich brat from El Paso, went on this tirade during the debate:

O’Rourke himself is just a punk who won’t be president. With that tirade, he took himself out of the running for being a serious challenger to Sen. Cornyn, too. That’s why I couldn’t care less about Robert Francis. What I’m bothered about was the applause he received from the audience at the Democrats’ debate in Houston. Those idiots are our neighbors, co-workers and friends.

This is what happens when our schools don’t emphasize civics in the classroom. Increasingly, our society thinks that they’re beyond the law and the Constitution. Chief of those that think that way is AOC. Harris apparently thinks that she can ignore the Constitution, too:

Harris responded, “I would just say, hey, Joe, instead of saying, no, we can’t, let’s say, yes, we can. And yes, we can. Because I’ll tell you something, the way that I think about this is, I’ve seen more autopsy photographs than I care to tell you. I have attended more police officer funerals than I care to tell you. I have hugged more mothers of homicide victims than I care to tell you. And the idea that we would wait for this Congress, which has just done nothing, to act, is just — it is overlooking the fact that every day in America, our babies are going to school to have drills.”

To Sen. Harris: I’ve read the Bill of Rights. It trumps the autopsy pictures that Sen. Harris has seen. It trumps the attempt to play on victims’ emotions, too.

Perhaps it’s just me but Sen. Harris sounded like she was high when she said “Hey, Joe, instead of saying ‘no, we can’t,’ let’s say ‘yes, we can.’ That laughter made her sound like she was high.

Whether Sen. Harris was high or not, she’s definitely wrong on the Constitution.

After reading Tina Smith’s quote in this article, it isn’t difficult to not trust Democrats when guns are concerned.

When asked if she thinks Congress would pass universal background checks this year or next, Smith is quoted as saying “I’m not optimistic. We’ve seen this cycle over and over again: concerns, promises to take action and then backtracking.”

Then there’s Angie Craig, another Democrat who sounded like an idiot when she said “The fact is most Americans support common-sense gun legislation. The only thing stopping it is the special interests that seem to have control over some politicians in Congress. I’m sick and tired of the NRA.” The article nots that “Craig supports universal background checks and banning what she called ‘military-style assault weapons.'”

What’s appalling is that neither Craig or Smith know the first thing about guns, yet they want to tell gun owners what they can’t do. As for Craig saying “I’m sick and tired of the NRA”, that shows how ignorant of who the NRA is. The NRA are people from all across the United States determined to prevent politicians from gutting the Second Amendment. Before people say that that’s conspiracy theory talk, I’ll show you a trio of Democrats running for president who support firearm confiscation:

Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) told reporters in New Hampshire on Friday that mandatory buybacks were “a good idea.”

Presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke, the former congressman from El Paso, spent the final weeks of August demanding mandatory buybacks of millions of assault rifles currently owned by law-abiding Americans. “All of them,” he tweeted defiantly.

Elizabeth Warren is the other Democrat presidential candidate who supports a mandatory confiscation of assault weapons.

Democrats love using the euphemism buyback instead of confiscation for obvious reasons. Confiscation is the right term. It’s impossible to buy something back that wasn’t your property previously. Since the government didn’t own the guns previously, it can’t buy them back. Democrats know this but that won’t prevent them from using that dishonest term repeatedly during this debate.

Here’s something to contemplate: if felons commit crimes, is it logical to violate law-abiding citizens’ Constitutional rights? Here’s another question worth pondering: will any of the Democrats’ solutions stop even 1 mass shooting? Thus far, the answer to that question is an emphatic no.

That’s because the Democrats aren’t looking at what’s caused mass casualties. With the Parkland shooting, the shooter told people that he was going to kill students. Rather than taking him seriously, the people running Marjorie Stoneman Douglas turned a blind eye towards the shooter. That was just a continuation of what they did earlier in his school career:

Cruz’s eighth-grade language arts teacher, Carrie Yon, kept diligent notes on his behavior for Cruz’s “Functional Behavior Analysis”:

Sept. 3: While reviewing [a] homophones worksheet, when another student mentioned the amendment that talks about ‘the right to bear arms’ Nick [sic] lit up when hearing the word that related to guns and shouted out “you mean like guns!” he was overly excited thinking that we were going to talk about guns. Nick later used his pencil as a gun … shooting around the classroom.

Then there’s this:

Yon provided her opinion for the “Functional Behavioral Analysis”:

“I feel strongly that Nikolas is a danger to the students and faculty at this school. I do not feel that he understands the difference between his violent video games and reality. He is constantly showing aggressive behavior and poor judgment. His drawing in class show violent acts (people shooting at each other) or creepy sexual pictures (dogs with large penises) … I would like to see him sent to a facility that is more prepared and has the proper setting to deal with this type of child.”

That doesn’t include talking about the other government failures prior to Cruz’s Valentine’s Day massacre. Those things don’t fit into the Democrats’ narrative so they’re ignored. The Democrats’ constant focus is on things that won’t stop these shootings. Democrats only want things that are ineffective or are marginally effective. For instance, the 1994 assault weapons ban didn’t prevent a single mass shooting.

Until Democrats study what’s causing these shootings and become interested in connecting the dots with the people pulling the triggers, I’ll remain skeptical of the Democrats’ gun-grabbing plans.

What do the shooters who killed people in Odessa, TX, El Paso, TX and Dayton, OH have in common? This isn’t difficult. I’m betting that we’d quickly agree that the 3 shooters are criminals. Considering that fact, isn’t it interesting that the Democrats’ first ‘solution’ is to violate law-abiding citizens’ civil rights?

Stop and think about that in those terms. If you wanted to lower crime, why would your first step be to restrict the civil rights of law-abiding citizens? That’s like a mechanic changing the oil and coolant when the customer told him that the car was having difficulty shifting from reverse to overdrive. In other words, it’s stupid to fix things that aren’t broken instead of fixing what’s broken.

Why wouldn’t Democrats fix the things that are broken rather than tinker with things that aren’t broken? They might if their highest priority was to fix things rather than to acquire power and check things off the Democrats’ ideological check list. The things that Democrats most want are checking items off their ideological checklist and obeying Resist Movement activists.

Most of the criminal gun violence is committed by handguns. Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians alike know this. They’ve known that for a generation or more. Why hasn’t Robert Francis O’Rourke insisted on a mandatory handgun confiscation program like he’s pushing his mandatory assault weapons confiscation plan?

O’Rourke won’t champion such a confiscation program because he knows that the fastest-growing group of people applying for conceal-carry permits are single moms. Taking the guns away from single moms that they use to protect their families is politically stupid. That’s why Robert Francis O’Rourke won’t propose such legislation. Neither will other Democrats.

Instead, it’s easier to propose confiscating scary-looking weapons like this:

The weapon above isn’t any more lethal than a semi-automatic rifle of the same caliber that doesn’t have a pistol grip. That’s just reality. Finally, the assault weapons ban didn’t have an appreciable affect on gun crime because the so-called assault weapons that were banned in the legislation didn’t exist by the time the legislation took effect.

The assault weapons ban outlawed specific brands and models. The minute that the legislation was signed outlawing those guns, the manufacturers changed the model number. Problem solved. As I wrote here, the Heller Decision held:

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

The simple fact is that the Supreme Court has ruled on guns “in common use.” As long as a gun is commonly owned, Congress can’t confiscate it.

This SCTimes Our View Editorial is a total cheap shot on their behalf. They start their editorial by saying “If it seems like we just wrote about this a few weeks ago, it’s because we did. Following the back-to-back mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, that left more than 30 people dead and dozens more injured at the beginning of August, we (as well as millions of Americans) called upon lawmakers to enact common-sense regulations to help reduce these horrifying events. And as you likely know, nothing was done.”

That’s bad enough. Still, it’s infinitely worse when they said “Then, on Aug. 31, another mass shooting occurred in Odessa and Midland, Texas. Eight people, including the shooter, were killed and 25 people, including three police officers, were injured.”

The obvious inference was that Congress had dropped the ball by not coming back early from their annual August recess and immediately passing gun control legislation. I’d love hearing the SCTimes explain what they’d recommend. Here’s what they said:

And again, as we said earlier this month, it’s time for our elected officials to try some common-sense rules when it comes to guns:

  1. Require background checks for all gun purchases online and at gun shows.
  2. Do more to regulate high-capacity weapons, like in-depth background checks, mandatory training and even liability insurance.
  3. Ramp up resources for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms so that gun sellers are reviewed more often and with more scrutiny.
  4. Fully fund comprehensive mental health care. More resources for mental health care could help prevent mass shootings.

I’d love hearing the Times explain what they’d do when they ran into things like priorities like preserving doctor-patient confidentiality statutes. Is the Times recommending the erosion of another our rights? Or is it that they just didn’t think this through?

This is an unbelievably complicated issue. What’s worse is the fact that we’re dealing with protecting our civil liberties (the Second Amendment and HIPAA protections) while attempting to protect people from suicidal maniacs. Trying to do that when everything is calm is difficult enough. Doing that while everyone is looking over our politicians’ shoulders expecting them to pull a miracle out of their hat at the snap of their fingers. Good luck with that. This video, mostly featuring Sleepy Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, exposes the Democrats:

In the video, Sen. Warren said “Today, if it’s an average day in America, 7 children and teenagers will die from gun violence. Won’t make headlines, most of them. It’ll happen in neighborhoods that won’t get covered in the news. It’ll fall particularly hard in neighborhoods of color.” Later in the video, she chalks this up to corruption. I’d agree with that. The Democrat media isn’t interested in highlighting gang violence in Chicago. It happens virtually every weekend. That doesn’t get covered. The Democrat MSM won’t cover it because it doesn’t fit the Democrats’ narrative.

It used to be that the TV motto was “If it bleeds, it leads.” That’s ancient history now. Today’s motto is more like ‘We don’t cover it if it doesn’t fit the Democrats’ narrative du jour’. It isn’t brief or catchy but it’s the truth. If a story blows the Democrats’ narrative apart, it won’t get covered. I didn’t mean it might not get covered. I said it won’t get covered. But I digress. Back to the Times’ Our View Editorial.

It’s disgusting that the Times says nothing has gotten done. They know that it’s a complex issue. The Times (and the Democrats) know that this is an issue that can’t be fixed through demagoguery.

The only thing that demagoguery will do is drive the 2 sides further apart. The Republicans, for the most part, have acted like adults. They’ve talked about the limitations Congress has thanks to the Second Amendment and the Heller Decision. You can’t wish those away. You can’t ignore HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) rules out of existence.

What can be done is make sure that shooters don’t get ignored like they were at Parkland. That was totally preventable but we don’t talk about that because that hurts the Democrats’ narrative. Also, the Democrats don’t want people to notice that deputies acted like cowards and the sheriff pinned the blame on the NRA instead of on himself and his deputies.

There are steps that will make us safer. Unfortunately, Democrats have insisted that they don’t work or they don’t like guns in schools.

This article highlights the difference between Democrats debating the Second Amendment and the GOP debating it. Rich Lowry highlights Amy Klobuchar’s statement that “I look at [gun legislation] and I always say, ‘Does this hurt Uncle Dick in his deer stand?'” Lowry then notes ” That’s not the question, though. The Second Amendment isn’t fundamentally about Uncle Dick bagging deer, but about his ability to defend himself and his family.”

As a Minnesotan, I’ve gotten tired of listening to the DFL yapping about being pro-Second Amendment, then backing it up by saying that they’ve been hunting ducks or deer for decades. My reflexive reaction has consistently been that the Second Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights to guarantee Uncle Dick the right to hunt deer or ducks.

The text of the Second Amendment is “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.” The exceptionally clear intent of the men who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to explicitly give people the right to protect their families and to explicitly tell militias that they had the right to secure our nation from invading nations and to provide for stopping tyrannical rulers.

If you think it’s insane to think that stopping tyrannical rulers is the stuff of conspiracy theories, think about this: during the last presidential election, the incumbent administration surveilled the opposition party’s nominee. That isn’t a theory. That’s a finding of fact in multiple congressional reports and the recent IG report.

It isn’t a stretch to think that the Deep State wouldn’t hesitate in undercutting an administration it didn’t like. Further, it isn’t a stretch to think that the Deep State would squash people that it thought was a threat to its way of conducting business.

As for the current debate about what to do about curbing gun violence, Sen. John Kennedy, (R-LA), has the right idea:

“Some of my colleagues argue that by further curtailing our Second Amendment rights, they can enhance public safety. Fine, the burden of proof is on them. I’m willing to have that debate, but I want the bacon without the sizzle — no speculation, no false comfort, no pulling stuff out of your orifices.”

This past week, Juan Williams’ statement was that the problem in the United States was the availability of guns. If that’s true, and I don’t think he is, then he’s got a major obstacle to pass. It’s called the Second Amendment. It’s one thing to rewrite a bill. It’s quite another to repeal a constitutional amendment and one of the cornerstones of the Bill of Rights. That requires 290 yes votes in the U.S. House of Representatives and 67 yes votes in the Senate. BTW, that only applies if the language is identical in both bills. If one sentence is different from one bill or the other, then a conference committee is required to eliminate the differences.

At that point, another daunting task faces the proposed repeal of the Second Amendment. After all that commotion in the U.S. House and Senate, it needs to be ratified by the state legislatures of 38 states. That means both houses of those state legislatures must vote to ratify the repeal of the Second Amendment. If the DFL House votes to ratify the repeal but the Republican Senate votes to stop the repeal, then that state wouldn’t ratify the repeal. If 12 other states did the same, the repeal of the Second Amendment fails.

It’s worth noting this from Rich Lowry’s article:

It is out of this historical soil that we got the Second Amendment. Guns would make it possible for Americans to defend themselves, and to defend their liberties. Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist of “the original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.” This right can be used if necessary, per Hamilton, “against the usurpations of the national rulers.”

Here is the video of Sen. Kennedy’s interview on the Second Amendment:

When I heard about Joe Biden talking about “magazines that hold multiple bullets”, I immediately recoiled at Mr. Biden’s stupidity on the subject of guns. How utterly stupid can Democrats get on this issue?

First, a person that doesn’t know that there’s a difference between a cartridge and a bullet shouldn’t have the right to lecture people about gun safety. A bullet is the projectile put in the neck of a shell casing after the gun powder and the primer. Put all these together and you have the potential for a lethal outcome. A bullet by itself isn’t lethal. Period.

Biden isn’t the only Democrat that doesn’t know the first thing about guns. Others that talk about banning assault weapons also show their ignorance. The term assault weapon is a euphemism used by gun-grabbing Democrats to instill fear into others. It’s been said before but I’ll repeat it again. An assault weapon is nothing more than a scary-looking semi-automatic rifle. It isn’t the least bit more lethal than any other semi-automatic rifle.

Banning assault weapons haven’t caused gun deaths to drop. Yes, I’ve seen the statistics of gun violence dropping during the assault weapons ban. It’s meaningless. When the assault weapons ban went into effect, the legislation specified which brands and models of rifles were considered assault weapons. By the time the ban went into effect, gun manufacturers changed the model numbers. The new models weren’t part of the ban so they were legal.

The problem with banning assault weapons based on physical characteristics is that it leads to a slippery slope that’s unconstitutional. For instance, it’s impossible to ban all semi-automatic rifles because, according to the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, which I wrote about here, states emphatically:

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

Here’s Biden trying to score political points while he doesn’t realize how foolish he sounds:

If we want to reduce gun violence, then it’s imperative that only people who know what they’re talking about should be allowed to pontificate on the matter. It’s time that we only let people who know what they’re talking about work on gun control and/or gun rights issues. Those that can only recite the lobbyists’ chanting points should be utterly ridiculed.

Beto O’Rourke’s biggest problem is that he wants to confiscate guns. That’s just plain foolish. Appearing on CNN’s State of the Union, O’Rourke “told CNN on Sunday that he supports stronger gun laws including a mandatory gun buyback. ‘We are going to speak as strongly and as defiantly as we can but we are also going to take action,’ O’Rourke said. ‘Universal background checks, red flag laws, and ending the sales of weapons of war and buying those AK-47s and AR-15s back so they cannot be used against our fellow Americans.'”

What he didn’t say is that his proposal would be shot down by the courts the minute the first AK-47 or AR-15 was confiscated by his administration. O’Rourke knows this. Despite his foolish antics on video, he isn’t that stupid. He knows that his plan doesn’t have a shot at becoming reality. He’s doing this to pander to Bloomberg/Moms Demand Action Democrats.

In the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller, the part that applies directly to banning AK-47s and AR-15s is found on page 3:

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

AR-15s and AK-47s certainly fit into the category of guns “in common use at the time.” O’Rourke knows that he couldn’t confiscate guns with this court being comprised the way it’s currently configured. This is pure pandering:

The truth is that people get it that O’Rourke is pandering, nothing more. He’s a waste of time. He isn’t anything except a pretender. Democrats could cut next week’s debate in half and it wouldn’t change the outcome whatsoever.

This is O’Rourke’s final political flourish. After this, his political career is over.

Saying that the Democrats have a candidate crisis this presidential election cycle is understatement. It isn’t just about the Democrats’ candidates, though that’s part of their problem. Part of their problem is that they’ve alienated their traditional base. Specifically, Democrats alienated blue collar workers and industrial unions. It’s more than interesting that Democrats have pushed aside unions like the UAW, Teamsters and United Mine Workers.

In this LTE, Rob Braun wrote “Middle America feels as if no one on the coast is taking their views and opinions seriously. The coastal liberal elites don’t want to hear that they aren’t happy with the moral and social re-engineering they promote. Or, calling Middle America bigots because they adhere to traditional sexual standards. And more importantly, the elites haven’t done a very good job at convincing middle America that their experiment in social and moral re-engineering is the best way of structuring a healthy and functional society.”

That’s certainly a significant part of why Democrats are pushing aside people of faith and rural America. When President Obama demonized people living in “small towns in Pennsylvania”, he criticized these people, saying that it isn’t “surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

That’s an invitation for rural voters to abandon Democrats. That’s what those voters did in 2016. President Trump capitalized on the situation, promising these voters that his policies would revive rural America’s economy. President Trump has delivered on that promise. Remember President Obama mocking then-Candidate Trump about promising to improve the US economy? I remember it because of this:

Longtime Democrat operative Mark Jaede responded to Braun:

It seems that the author thinks the Democratic Party should throw LGBT people and people of color under the bus in order to win votes from socially conservative rural white people.

I disagree. We won’t win by pandering to anti-gay people. We won’t win by dismissing the struggle against racism as “identity politics.” We won’t win by concerning ourselves with how many counties have GOP majorities. We will win by fielding a candidate who can offer Democrats in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia, and North Carolina a reason to turn out and vote.

As long as Joe Biden promises to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, as long as Bernie promises to spend $16,300,000,000,000 on his version of AOC’s Green New Deal, as long as the entire Democrat field promises to decriminalize illegal immigration and give illegal immigrants free health care, Democrats will continue losing those states cited by Prof. Jaede, with the possible exception of Pennsylvania and Virginia.

Democrats just threatened the US Supreme Court through a friend of the court brief.

Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to “heal” the court in the near future.

The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court’s conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied.

“The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” the brief said. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'”

The last part was quoting language from a Quinnipiac University poll, in which 51 percent favored such restructuring. In the same poll, 55 percent believed the Supreme Court was “motivated by politics” more than by the law.

Restructured? Packing the court by Democrats is what they’re threatening. In fact, I’d argue that these Democrats are telegraphing what they’ll do the next time they control the White House, House and Senate. Let’s remember what the courts are to Democrats.

Without the courts, many of the Democrats’ ‘victories’ (Roe v. Wade, gay marriage) would have happened. As the Supreme Court has gotten more conservative, Democrats have ‘won’ less and less.

Further, the Q poll reports that a majority of the people polled (55%) think that the Court was “motivated by politics.” Democrats haven’t explained how packing the courts with more far left politicians (think RBG, Sotomayor, Kagan) would make the court less “motivated by politics.”

The goal of these Democrats isn’t to make the courts less “motivated by politics.” It’s to pack the courts so the Court’s rulings are friendlier to Democrats. That’s what raw partisanship looks like. This is too:

The Democratic senators’ brief was filed in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, which dealt with legal limitations on where gun owners could transport their licensed, locked, and unloaded firearms. They are urging the court to stay out of the case brought by the NRA-backed group, claiming that because the city recently changed the law to ease restrictions, the push to the Supreme Court is part of an “industrial-strength influence campaign” to get the conservative majority to rule in favor of gun owners.

In New York, Democrats apparently think that you have the right to keep and bear arms but only in parts of the city that the government approves of. How does that comply with the text of the Second Amendment? Here’s that text:

Notice the final part of the Amendment, which says “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It’s indisputable that the NY law infringes on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that the Democrats’ goal is to threaten and intimidate Supreme Court justices. Larry Holmes could figure that out. That’s what Democrat machine politics looks like. It’s all about exercising raw political power. It doesn’t have anything to do with doing what’s right for the people.