United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Media Happily Lends Republicans Its Megaphone to Sell Out Gun Owners
Source:
Ammoland
URL Source: https://www.ammoland.com/2019/09/me ... -out-gun-owners/#axzz5zok9HumR
Published: Sep 16, 2019
Author: David Codrea
Post Date: 2019-09-18 06:45:34 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 583
Comments: 5
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “A red flag law will reduce bloodshed and respect the rights of gun owners,” Florida “Republican” Senator Marco Rubio disingenuously promises in a Thursday promo piece for universal harassment of the “law-abiding,” happily hosted by The New York Times. “The laws do not infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners,” Rubio lies. Sure they will. American citizens will have their guns taken away without being convicted of anything or diagnosed beyond any reasonable doubt as a danger to themselves and others. And if it turns out they really are dangerous, they’ll still be out there posing a threat to themselves and others. But Rubio’s getting cover from “red flag” supporters like fellow “Do Something” Republicans and supposedly “staunch Second Amendment supporters” Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn. He’s also getting it from so-called “conservative” influencers like Heritage Foundation and National Review, and, disappointingly, from the National Rifle Association itself, all repeating the “due process” mantra. The fix, it would seem, is in for “Take the guns first, due process second” President Trump to sign a “bipartisan compromise” and get away with it. Even the “libertarian think tank” Independence Institute’s resident research director, attorney David Kopel, is defending “kinder, gentler” ERPOs, Denver’s Westwood tells us. The presumption is they will pass “legal” muster (and with the composition of the courts today, that’s a given), if not alleviate our due process concerns. “Senator Graham's proposal was to provide funding for states that adopt red flag rules,” Kopel explains of his role in advising the effort co-led by avowed Democrat gun-grabber Sen. Richard Blumenthal. “My point of view is that the funding should encourage best practices and not subsidize the worst.” Some might substitute “infringements” for “practices,” but let’s hear the man out. What might “best” confiscations look like? “I think anybody should be able to express their concerns to law enforcement officers. But it should be law enforcement officers only who should initiate a petition,” Kopel advises. That and he recommends a “middle ground,” where no ex parte orders can be issued without the person being disarmed present to defend himself. That is unless the petitioner can present “good reason” why that would be dangerous. “Nancy VanDeMark, then the interim president and CEO of Mental Health Colorado, argued that letting suicidal individuals know in advance that their firearms might be confiscated can actually trigger tragedy,” the Westwood article notes. Does Nancy not think they’re going to have a meltdown when SWAT shows up to take the guns by surprise? If someone is demonstrably suicidal, it’s inhumane to do anything other than take them in for observation and necessary treatment. And ditto, if they have engaged in behavior threatening others, that too is actionable. We’ve seen time and again, anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. If you take the guns but leave the threat, what makes anyone think they can’t get other guns (just look at your average weekend in Chicago), or use something else to do in themselves or someone else? On top of that, once you’re demanding a burden of proof necessary to take in and hold a human being, there’s now a vested interest throughout all of society, rather than just an increasingly marginalized, disfavored subset of “gun extremists” that some in power are equating with terrorists. Expect the ACLU, at that point, to get vigorous about giving a damn. Besides, to trust that what Republicans give up today will define the extent of infringements tomorrow is not only foolish, it is a denial of reality and what has happened before — every time concessions are made. What more do the Democrats need to do to show us when it comes to guns, they want it all but they’ll take what they can get today. Give it to them and they’ll be back tomorrow demanding more, and accusing anyone who balks of being an extremist who refuses to “compromise” on “commonsense gun safety.” It’s like, in lieu of repelling them, throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and thinking that will make them go away satisfied. You know, instead of taking that as a sign of weakness and an invitation to move in closer… So Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham are going to put limitations on how the states can administer federally-funded “red flag” programs? See how long that lasts if the Democrats take it all in 2020, as remains a distinct possibility thanks to GOP fecklessness and betrayals. What will they do if a state that has its funds withheld sues and an activist federal judge sides with them? Anyone who tells you either of these likelihoods can’t or won’t happen is a liar. And the perverse “win” for Republicans is they’ll get plausible deniability that should work on the ill-informed, meaning everyone who relies on the DSM for “news”: “Hey, that’s not what we voted for. The Democrats did it.” We should see what “the plan” is when the White House announces its “gun control” agenda later this week. In the meantime, just to soften everybody up and show us how “reasonable” such edicts are, we get a low-hanging fruit story about a New York man who “will give up his firearms in the first case to be resolved through New York's ‘red flag’ law, which took effect last month.” Whew! No tragedy. The guy didn’t oppose the complaint. The cop who made it was commended. All’s well that ends well. See? We told you. There’s no need for all this paranoid alarmism! Except those guns will be gone for longer than the year the story says the law allows if that felony charge sticks. And come on, the guy is allegedly out there firing his pistol into a neighbor’s car and then threatening suicide? Of course circumstances like that warrant taking in more than just the guns and extending more than “Due Process Lite.” About David Codrea:
Why would any gun owner who cares about the right to keep and bear arms stand with preemptive surrender infringements that will only put Democrats one step closer to their goal of confiscation? (Marco Rubio/Facebook) What kind of “good reason”?
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Tooconservative (#0)
This is how Trump wins re-election but the Republicans lose Congress. Trump is Trump. People will vote for him because he's NOT the GOP and everyone knows that. But THIS is the GOP: the party of the country club, always pandering to various fringe constituencies (pro-lifers, the "moral 'majority'", gun nuts, Border bots) but, when the chips are down, always siding with their owners and masters: the super rich, 100% of the time. Those other issues? Boob bait for Bubbas, to get the votes. But in the end, they always legislate what the rich want, and the rich want abortion, gun control, cheap exploitable labor (and open border), gay marriage, low taxes on dividends, trade with China no matter what, and deregulation of business. Trump's one single legislative achievement was to cut taxes on the rich. Everything else he has done, he has had to do IN SPITE OF a Republican Congress and a Republican judiciary. Republicans, like Democrats, are the bad guys. Trump's the good guy.
The media is only too happy to give big microphones and fawning coverage to any GOPe who will sell out on gun control. They realize that they have tried and failed so many times that people don't even want to hear the words 'gun control' any more than they want to hear the word 'amnesty', a similar cause which has been defeated many times even with the media helping GOPe's sell out the party base completely. Trump will almost certainly lose if he signs anything resembling the House Dem bill. No matter how much fanfare the Dems and libmedia give him for drinking hemlock at their bidding. Those other issues? Boob bait for Bubbas, to get the votes. But in the end, they always legislate what the rich want, and the rich want abortion, gun control, cheap exploitable labor (and open border), gay marriage, low taxes on dividends, trade with China no matter what, and deregulation of business. The Dems remain the donor's choice for Wall Street and Silicon Valley. The Dems represent far more concentrated and generational wealth interests than do the GOP. The GOP has been the party of small business interests, religious people, the gun and outdoorsy folk, and above all as champions of property rights and funding the military. I hate to tell you but your constantly peddled ideas of the modern GOP as the party of railroad barons and cattle barons is so nineteenth century that it's laughable. The House Dem gun control bill goes way too far. Trump won't back it and says so. McConnell will not even allow a bill to come to the floor of the Senate unless Trump spells out specifically what he will and will not sign as a law. And Trump is getting cold feet over the 2020 election if he passes anything that can be called gun control. There's no reason for the GOP to give Dems a win on gun control. All the advantages go to the Dems, the negatives all to the GOP and Trump. I'm not worried about any gun control coming out of Congress. People should worry more about states and federal agencies enacting various red flag measures. I think the Congress will remain deadlocked and Trump will remain too worried about the 2020 election for there to be any new federal laws coming from Congress. It was the Senate who confirmed all those Trump judges. It was the House that brought the bill to repeal ObamaCare (again) and it was only the lack of the spiteful McCain's vote that caused it to fail to pass the Senate so Trump could sign it. Considering that Trump isn't really a Republican and that he knows it and that the Republicans know it, I'd say Trump has been pretty well treated by a party on which he conducted a hostile takeover successfully. He certainly has been better treated by them than he has treated them.
If Trump caves on gun control, the gun nut lobby will abandon him and he'll lose the election. So he won't cave.
Pretty much. And everyone has already realized it.
Sooner or later, the public will catch on to the #DeepState. There is no longer an R vs D, it's Globalist/NWO vs. Constitutional MAGA. This is why we send them to DC and they betray us every time. Vote these bums OUT. They are not on our side. As for the NRA, it isn't the first time they have been willing to cede ground to the grabbers. GOA doesn't do that. “Do Something” means re-open the asylums. Put them where they are not a threat to the public. They should not be in our schools and communities. Instead, they want to saddle the public with yet one more law which will do nothing about the problem, but potentially cost the citizenry their freedoms. NO. Just hell NO.
#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
(Edited)
This is how Trump wins re-election but the Republicans lose Congress.
But THIS is the GOP: the party of the country club, always pandering to various fringe constituencies (pro-lifers, the "moral 'majority'", gun nuts, Border bots) but, when the chips are down, always siding with their owners and masters: the super rich, 100% of the time.
Trump's one single legislative achievement was to cut taxes on the rich. Everything else he has done, he has had to do IN SPITE OF a Republican Congress and a Republican judiciary.
#3. To: Tooconservative (#2)
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
#5. To: Deckard (#0)
So Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham are going to put limitations on how the states can administer federally-funded “red flag” programs? See how long that lasts if the Democrats take it all in 2020, as remains a distinct possibility thanks to GOP fecklessness and betrayals.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]