Archive for the ‘Gun Grabbers’ Category

Whether he’ll admit it or not, Mini Mike Bloomberg is a special interest group unto himself. It isn’t likely that he’ll admit that but he’s the Democrats’ biggest special interest group. In 2018, Mr. Bloomberg contributed at least $80,000,000 to Democrats running for the U.S. House of Representatives.

It isn’t likely that Bloomberg contributed to Democrats running in “rural, conservative-leaning districts where his views on guns and other issues could stir an uproar, according to people briefed on his plans, some of whom spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.” The people who accepted Mini Mike’s campaign contributions are beholden to him. The first logical question to ask is this: what does a candidate sign up for when they accept Mini Mike’s campaign contribution? This statement tells us:

In the last election, for example, I spent nearly ten million dollars to help a Republican, Pat Toomey, get re-elected in Pennsylvania. I disagree with him on many issues. But after the Newtown, Connecticut shooting, he broke with the NRA and co-wrote a bipartisan bill to close the background check loophole. At the same time, I spent roughly the same amount to help successfully elect a Democrat in New Hampshire – Maggie Hassan – who was running to defeat a Republican incumbent who had voted against Toomey’s bill.

This year, I’m supporting both Republican and Democratic gubernatorial candidates who have shown strong leadership on gun safety, the environment, education, and other critical issues facing the country.

In other words, Mini Mike supports liberals from both parties. If they’re spineless and controllable, Mini Mike will consider contributing to them. That statement doesn’t tell the whole truth, though. In this video, though, Mini Mike slipped:

This paragraph says everything:

In fairness, some Republicans have taken their constitutional and legislative responsibilities seriously, like my friend John McCain. But too many have been absolutely feckless, including – most disappointingly – the House leadership.

Unified Republican leadership of government produced the Trump-GOP tax cuts that’ve lit a fire under the economy. Unified GOP government allowed Republicans to use the Congressional Review Act, which was used to revitalize the fossil fuel energy industry. That, in turn, allowed the U.S. to become energy independent while crippling Russia’s economy, and helped build the strongest economy in decades. If that’s Mini Mike’s definition of feckless leadership, give me tons of that type of leadership.

Compare that with Nancy Pelosi’s leadership. During this session, Pelosi’s puppets have spent tens of millions of dollars to impeach a president based on hearsay evidence testimony. My bad. I meant testimony because, except in rare cases, hearsay isn’t proof. The other thing of note that this Congress has accomplished is ratifying the USMCA trade agreement. That’s it in eighteen months.

If you want the next congress to march to the Resistance Movement/Bloomberg drum, ignore the Bloomberg/Democrat special interest syndicate. If you want Congress to work for you, there’s only this simple choice: Vote for unified Republican government.

While President Trump was implementing a travel ban to and from China, Democrats accused President Trump of being xenophobic and a racist. This weekend, medical members of the coronavirus task force praised President Trump’s decision. Democrats, including Mini Mike, have twisted President Trump’s words. Democrats said that President Trump called the coronavirus a hoax. Here’s what President Trump actually said:

President Trump jeered Democrats Friday night for criticizing his response to the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak, saying that it was a “new hoax” after a failed attempt to remove him from office over Ukraine.

“They tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia — that didn’t work out too well,” Trump told a cheering crowd in South Carolina. “They tried the impeachment hoax. That was a perfect conversation. And this is the new hoax,” Trump declared.
***
“Let’s get this right: A virus starts in China, makes its way into various countries all around the world, doesn’t spread widely at all in the United States because of the early actions that myself and my administration took against a lot of other wishes. And the Democrats’ single talking point and you see it is that it’s Donald Trump’s fault,” he said.

If you want a congress that’s controlled by a narcissistic, egotistical elitist that things that farming is what stupid people do and that thinks it’s ok to control your lives while decrying money in politics, vote Democrat. If you’re sane, though, it’s time to vote GOP. If you want to vote for a one-man special interest group, vote Democrat.

Money won’t erase the memory of Mini Mike’s evasive answer when Elizabeth Warren prosecuted Mini Mike about lawsuits. CNN pundit Van Jones said that Bloomberg looked like the Titanic while Sen. Warren looked like the iceberg. That sums it up pretty nicely. Watch this and decide for yourself:

Obviously, this was a great moment for Sen. Elizabeth Warren. This was likely Sen. Warren’s finest debate performance. Bloomberg’s reply was entirely defensive and evasive. While Sen. Warren demanded specifics, Bloomberg spoke about statistics and awards that his organization had won.

The question that remains is whether this temporarily hurts Bloomberg or whether it sinks his ship. Will he organize a press conference and surround himself with women as character witnesses? Or will voters agree with Sen. Warren that voting for Bloomberg is voting for an out-of-touch billionaire? I suspect that we won’t know the answer to that until Super Tuesday.

Considering the fact that the Democrats’ establishment is frightened to death of Bernie, another thing to watch is whether the Democrats’ establishment will try to resuscitate Bloomberg’s campaign. Prior to last night’s debate, Bloomberg had moved up in the polls by running a pretty decent campaign. The campaign got high marks for their commercials.

Then came last night. No amount of slick ads can eliminate last night’s performance. Further, Bloomberg had gotten hit with one opposition research dump after another that made him look elitist and out-of-touch. His demeaning talk about farmers was particularly disgusting, especially after watching Paul Harvey’s ‘So God made a farmer”:

The farmer in Paul Harvey’s story is strong, virtuous, compassionate, hard-working and the type of man that others look up to. Mini Mike is none of those things. He’s an elitist city slicker who’s hiding something.

The Intercept is a lefty publication but it isn’t afraid of exposing corrupt lefties. Lee Fang’s article is a timely example of that. In the article, Fang writes about the second-worst NYC mayor in recent history, aka Mike Bloomberg.

In the article, it quotes Bloomberg, a Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-independent-turned-Democrat, as saying “I inherited the police practice of stop-and-frisk, and as part of our effort to stop gun violence it was overused. By the time I left office, I cut it back by 95%, but I should’ve done it faster and sooner. I regret that and I have apologized — and I have taken responsibility for taking too long to understand the impact it had on Black and Latino communities.”

That halfhearted apology would be respected more if he didn’t omit important information. Fang wrote this:

The statement drew immediate backlash over its twisting of history. In 2001, New York City maintained an aggressive program of stopping and searching people throughout the city, with an overwhelming focus on young African American and Latino men. But, under the Bloomberg administration, the program vastly expanded, from around 97,296 stops in 2002 to a height of 685,724 in 2011, a more than sevenfold increase during the former mayor’s tenure.

That paints quite the different picture. That different picture gets even more different in light of this information:

Far from changing course over the mayor’s focus on “racial equity,” as he has since claimed, the practice was clawed back by several lawsuits, which charged that the law enforcement program violated the basic constitutional rights of residents. U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, in a scathing decision, noted that over the course of 2.3 million frisks, weapons were found only 1.5 percent of the time. The decision pointed out that over half of the stops included African Americans and about third Latino, with less than 10 percent targeting white people.

Bloomberg’s apology is halfhearted because he’s attempting to hide the whole truth from voters. He’s just another career politician trying to con the people. It’s difficult to trust him. That’s the personification of the Swamp. That’s the personification of the Democrat establishment, too.

Bloomberg didn’t stop the policy of Stop, Question and Frisk. A judge ruled the technique unconstitutional. That’s what stopped the program. It didn’t happen because of Bloomberg’s enlightenment. This NYTimes article quotes Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, as saying “What the statement fails to capture is the magnitude of stop-and-frisk and the several years-long period during which stop-and-frisk was through the roof.”

I’m betting that people wouldn’t have a problem with a well-run program that wasn’t this racist. I’m betting that people were disturbed when they heard this:

Throwing kids against the wall to get guns off the streets? What part of that sounds like a well-run, disciplined, well-supervised plan? It’s wrong to let the MSM off the hook for calling the program Stop-And-Frisk. That isn’t its proper name. Its real name is Stop, Question and Frisk.

The bottom line is this: Mayor Bloomberg abused a legitimate program that reduced violent crime. Then he compounded the problem by making these exceptionally racist statements. The more we learn about him, the less appealing Bloomberg is. Let’s remember, too, that establishment Democrats are looking to him as their political savior.

The opposition research dump against Mike Bloomberg isn’t relenting. By now, everyone has heard about Bloomberg’s statement about Stop-Question-And-Frisk in which Bloomberg talks about getting guns off the street by throwing kids against the wall. He said that in the context of minority neighborhoods:


Saying that this isn’t a positive day for the Bloomberg campaign is understatement. Ed Morrissey’s post highlights something much worse:


Bloomberg actually says on the radio that “I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little.” I don’t think that Bloomberg is a racist, though it’s clear he isn’t connecting with minority communities. When he first got into the race, he went to an African-American church and essentially pandered to the congregation.

The other thing that’s disgusting is how CNN tried defending Bloomberg. Each day, there’s additional proof that CNN is the propaganda machine of the DNC.

On the day voting happens in Vermont, we still don’t have the final vote totals from Iowa. That’s because the Sanders campaign and Buttigieg campaign have each asked for partial recanvasses of the results. At this rate, we might have Iowa’s totals verified before the Convention in Milwaukee. I’m not betting the ranch on that but it might happen.

With that crisis still unresolved, Democrats are facing a somewhat similar crisis in Nevada:

Frustrated. Concerned. Nervous. Those are some of the words aides are using to describe the mood within some of the top Democratic presidential campaigns in Nevada with only five days until early voting is set to begin for the state’s first in the West presidential caucus and still no details on how exactly it’s supposed to work.
Campaigns here in the Silver State have been told that the Nevada State Democratic Party won’t be using the same app and vendor that were in part responsible for bungling the results of Iowa’s caucus last week, that the party won’t be using any app at all, and that what the party does plan to use is best described as a “tool” or “calculator.” Beyond that, aides aren’t really sure what’s in store for the state’s Feb. 22 Democratic caucus.

Have Democrats run anything beyond a lemonade stand? Here in Minnesota, examples of DFL competence in running things are rarities. MNLARS will (hopefully) be a distant memory soon after being a nightmare for 2+ years. MNsure was a disaster for a year. The Minnesota Human Services fiascoes happened over a period of years before being discovered. People remember the disaster that Healthcare.gov was.

“It’s a little bit of a damper for our volunteers who are more hesitant to step up and say, ‘Yes, I will confirm I will be precinct leadership on Feb. 22,’ when they don’t feel entirely certain about what’s going to happen,” one aide said. “Never mind the campaign, but with four days until early voting begins, the people who are going to participate feel like they need to have a credible explanation of how the early voting and caucus process are going to work.”

Here we go again? Only a Democrat could turn simple arithmetic into this convoluted mess. This isn’t how this should work. The only top-tier Democrats who’ve run anything are Pete Buttigieg and Mike Bloomberg. Everyone else is a senator. They talk for a living.

Both mayors are far outside the mainstream on the issues, which is why few people outside the Democratic Party take either of them seriously. Meanwhile, the nation keeps humming along under President Trump’s leadership. He’s actually run something and holds mainstream views. The economy is strong. We’re safer than we were under President Obama. Emergencies are handled efficiently.

That’s quite the contrast from the Party that can’t even do basic math, aka the Democrats. Bernie hasn’t run anything. Ditto with Biden, Klobuchar, Warren or what’s his name that still hasn’t dropped out (Michael Bennet).

Things are running well. People are making money. Income inequality is shrinking. People’s 401(k)s are getting healthier. If it isn’t broke, don’t tinker with it. That’s what Democrats did with the Iowa Caucuses. How’d that turn out? This is how that worked:

The KISS method (Keep It Simple Stupid) still works best. I’m a huge fan of trailing edge technology. I love things that work and that have worked for years. There’s nothing wrong with the Iowa Caucuses that a little uncomplicating can’t fix.

On a national scale, the lesson to be learned is that Democrats don’t run things. It isn’t part of their DNA. Bill Clinton is the lone exception. Berniecrats think that he’s too conservative. I guess they didn’t like the prosperity.

Anyone that thinks that a Bloomberg administration would keep the economy humming is kidding themselves. Bloomberg’s economic blueprint, which was outlined in this article, would be catastrophic. According to the article, the Bloomberg blueprint says “The 2020 presidential candidate unveiled $5 trillion in proposed new taxes Saturday as part of his sweeping domestic program. They would pay for infrastructure projects, as well as investments in green energy, affordable housing, education and health care, the billionaire Democratic candidate said.”

It continues with a quote from Bloomberg, which says “[the] plan I am releasing today raises rates on wealthy individuals and corporations, closes loopholes, cracks down on tax avoidance, expands the estate tax, and reduces the tax advantages that investors have over workers.” Finally, there’s this:

Among the proposals: rolling back President Trump’s corporate tax cuts; a new 5% surtax on incomes above $5 million a year; taxes on capital gains; lowering the threshold for the estate tax; and restoring top rates back to the Obama-era 39.6%.

In other words, Bloomberg’s plan would incentivize manufacturers to leave the US for places like Mexico, China and other foreign nations. Further, it would incentivize companies to not invest their money but rather to sit their cash on the sidelines. That’s the fastest way to slow job growth.

Then there’s this part of Bloomberg’s plan for economic justice for African Americans:

Black Americans have been disproportionately incarcerated, politically disenfranchised and subject to systematic discrimination. The enduring legacy of discrimination is reflected in the fact that the typical Black family has one-tenth the wealth of the typical white family.

Bill Clinton signed the bill that started mass incarcerations. President Trump signed the First Step Act that’s starting to reverse that incarceration trend. Democrats have taken African-Americans for granted. Democrats want their votes. They haven’t done anything to warrant the previously monolithic vote, though. Third, Ben Carson and Tim Scott have led the GOP’s efforts to create wealth for African-Americans through enterprise zones. President Trump signed significant increases in Historically Black Colleges and Universities, aka HSBU. Now, President Trump and his team are working on the Second Step Act to improve African-Americans’ lives.

Whatever Bloomberg promises to do, President Trump has already started doing. Bloomberg’s immigration policies are open border policies:

  1. Mike formed the pro-immigration organization New American Economy, representing more than 500 mayors and CEOs from all 50 states who are highlighting the contributions of immigrants.
  2. Mike ensured confidentiality of immigration status for all people who interacted with New York City government.
  3. Mike made New York City’s 311 government services hotline available in 170 languages and required city service agencies to provide translation and interpretation.

If you want the Democrat’s counterproductive policies on steroids, vote Bloomberg. Here’s a preview of Bloomberg’s TV ad that will air during the Super Bowl:

This won’t stop gun violence. It will only take guns out of law-abiding citizens. That’s the definition of counterproductive.

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.

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.

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.

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.