China: U.S. Is a ‘Failed State,’ Trump May Drop ‘Atomic Bomb’ on Rioters

H/T Breitbart.

The ChiComs are nuttier than a squrriel turd.

China’s state-run Global Times propaganda newspaper fretted on Tuesday that President Donald Trump may use a nuclear weapon against rioters destroying neighborhoods in the nation’s biggest cities, declaring America a “failed state.”

The Chinese Communist Party has used its propaganda arms in the past week to denounce not just President Trump, but American democracy as an inferior system to Chinese authoritarianism and promote the claim that only iron-fisted one-party rule will result in racial harmony in the United States. None of the articles on racism in state media have mentioned that Chinese businesses in Guangzhou, one of the country’s largest cities, banned black-skinned people from hotels, restaurants, and other locales last month after the Communist Party perpetuated the claim that only foreigners could infect people with Chinese coronavirus.

Instead, the Global Times claimed in one article that the riots throughout America “expose a ‘failed state’” under the “weak, irresponsible, and incompetent leadership of President Trump. Riots have targeted impoverished neighborhoods in many cities, beginning in Minneapolis, after a police offered killed Minnesota resident George Floyd on video. Floyd was unarmed and did not appear to be resisting arrest, instead pleading with the officer to let him breathe. The officer has been charged with third-degree murder.

“The protests exposed long-standing issues in the US, including racial inequality, discrimination and a polarized society, which have been amplified under the Trump administration, some Chinese and U.S. observers said,” the propaganda outlet, which has published multiple bigoted columns against Americans and others in the Western Hemisphere, asserted. It went on to blame Trump for “using the racial problem to polarize American society.”

The article also claimed that Chinese people witnessing the riots from afar “were shocked, not ‘satisfied,’ because the U.S. image in their minds has been ruined.” That claim directly contradicts the Global Times‘ coverage from Monday, where it proclaimed that Chinese “netizens” were “cheering” in response to the riots, celebrating them as retribution for American officials supporting peaceful pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

Another column published Tuesday by the Times unfavorably compared China’s reaction to peaceful protests in Hong Kong – including widespread, filmed violence and accusations of racism and murder – to police action in the United States, which has largely allowed unchecked rioting and looting in many cities. Despite the reality of this contrast, the propaganda magazine asserted the Americans were “ruthless” compared to the communist state.

“As we all know, no violent protesters were killed on the spot during riots that have engulfed Hong Kong since summer of 2019,” the newspaper claimed, falsely referring to the peaceful protests as riots and not acknowledging deaths that protesters have accused police of perpetrating, as well as rape and torture. “But demonstrator [sic] has been killed only one week after the unrest began in the U.S.”

“How ruthless these U.S. politicians are! They talk about humanity, justice, and morality all the time. They condemned Hong Kong police simply for the latter’s use of tear gas and water cannon against violent rioters. The U.S. unrest just began a few days ago, but police already fired shots at protesters before efforts for peaceful dialogue were even made,” the newspaper continued.

“Where are the human rights? Where is their respect for life? The US politicians show zero tolerance to unrest, but they launched countless attacks on other countries’ efforts to safeguard the rule of law,” the column concluded. “If this was organized subversion, what would they do? Will they drop an atomic bomb?”

Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement returned to the streets after a brief Chinese coronavirus-triggered hiatus last month. In protests last week, Hong Kong police arrested over 300 people, among them about 100 children. Images of the arrests showed police forcing protesters, previously socially distancing peacefully while marching, to huddle together on the ground in close quarters, potentially exacerbating the spread of the coronavirus.

In other violent incidents in the city through the past year, protesters have said that some among them have died mysterious deaths that the police has chosen not to investigate. An unnamed woman accused the police force of gang rape, resulting in police seeking her arrest but not investigating the claims.

Protests began again after a year of Hong Kong residents accusing the Communist Party of breaking with the “One Country, Two Systems” policy Beijing agreed to when it took over Hong Kong in 1997. In May, the Communist Party’s National People’s Congress (NPC), its lawmaking body, passed a “national security” law that would enable the arrest and punishment of anyone present in Hong Kong if considered to be engaging in “secession” or acts against the national security of the Communist Party. Protesters contend that this effectively nullifies Hong Kong laws that prevent violations of freedom of expression and assembly, and thus violates “One Country, Two Systems.”

Protests throughout the past year objected to a proposed law in Hong Kong that would allow the extradition of anyone in the city if accused of violating Chinese law. Hong Kong tabled the bill, but the NPC law effectively imposes the same police action it would have permitted.


As Rioting Rocks US, BET Founder Pushes for Staggering Amount Paid in Reparations

H/T Western Journal.

With 500,000 + dead in the Civil War has paid that debt in full.

There were white slaves the only difference we got a fancy label calling us indentured servants.

We are not able to leave our owners.


In a country deluged with images of looters stealing untold millions of goods from law-abiding store owners, “wealth transfer” is probably not what Americans want to talk about.

But that didn’t stop Robert Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television and one of the wealthiest African-Americans in the country, from taking to CNBC on Monday to propose the government pay a breathtaking $14 trillion in reparations to the “descendants of slaves” — more than 150 years after the institution of slavery was abolished.

And Johnson made clear he wasn’t referring to some new, namby-pamby feel-good liberal program. He means hard money — the kind that taxpayers earn every day.

“I’m talking about cash,” Johnson told the program “Squawk Box,” according to CNBC. “We are a society based on wealth. That’s the foundation of capitalism.”

Actually, as an astonishingly successful entrepreneur himself, Johnson should know full well that the foundation of capitalism is creation, not cash.

It takes brains to create an idea — say, like Black Entertainment Television. And it takes hard work and determination to bring that idea to a profitable fruition, as Johnson proved when Viacom purchased BET for $3 billion in 2001.

The sale made Johnson the first black billionaire in the United States, according to CNBC. His net worth is reportedly much lower now — about $550 million — but considerably more than the average American.

His own first-hand knowledge of the benefits of American capitalism hasn’t stopped Johnson from calling for reparations before (he told CNBC he’s advocated for it since at least year), but the current climate of crisis after the case of George Floyd, the black man who died May 25 in Minneapolis after a police officer knelt on his neck for roughly nine minutes during an arrest, has provided a new spur.

“The questions being asked today, in light of the alleged inexplicable murder of George Floyd, are how do we bring unity to this nation and how do we provide justice on behalf of Mr. Floyd and his family,” Johnson wrote in an RLJ Companies statement published by PR Newswire.

Justice for Floyd will come through the court system, Johnson wrote. The man accused in his death, now-former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin, is charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.

But “unity to this nation” is a different matter, according to Johnson. And that’s going to take money — a lot of it. According to the financial website The Balance, $14 trillion is about two-thirds the current gross domestic product of the United States.

It would also require the consent of the American people — and judging by the opposition the idea of reparations has generated before (including among black conservatives), and the fact that Republican members of Congress, at least, can be counted on to stand against it, the chance of Johnson’s call being answered in the affirmative is pretty close to zero.

That hasn’t stopped it from generating a heated response on social media, of course. It’s safe to say the idea is not popular with the majority of the country:



BET founder Robert Johnson calls for $14 trillion of reparations for slavery 

BET founder Robert Johnson calls for $14 trillion of reparations for slavery

Businessman Robert Johnson told CNBC the U.S. government should provide $14 trillion of reparations for slavery to blacks to help reduce racial inequality.

Dan Pollak@PollakDan

The reparations were paid in blood by the Union dead and maimed at Gettysburg and the Wilderness.

See Dan Pollak’s other Tweets

Dennis  Whitworth@WhittyPics

Nobody alive today has ever owned slaves or been a slave. What the hell has the last 50 freaking years of welfare and affirmative action have been. I don’t owe them a damn thing

54 people are talking about this

Mike Ross@mrossfinancial

Is Squawk Box a business show or a comedy show?

See Mike Ross’s other Tweets

Mike Jones@makeitrain18018

I never owned any slaves, so don’t ask me to pay into it…

See Mike Jones’s other Tweets

That last tweet, “I never owned any slaves, so don’t ask me to pay into it,” is no doubt where most sane Americans would stand on the subject.

Leave aside the question of who would be on the receiving end of reparations for slavery (would a man with Johnson’s net worth qualify?), and whether any human being is owed some sort of recompense of the sufferings of the ancestors. There’s no moral or practical argument to be made for charging living Americans for the sins of those who lived in the country before them.

When most Americans last heard from Johnson, he was criticizing former Vice President Joe Biden for the presumptive Democratic candidate’s statement that if a black person couldn’t decide whether to support Biden or Trump, “you ain’t black.”

“He should spend the rest of his campaign apologizing to every Black person he meets,”  Johnson said in a statement reported by Fox News on May 22.

That and his previously publicized praise for President Donald Trump might have made Johnson sound like one of the good guys in the current culture war leading up to November’s election. His “Squawk Box” statement about reparations had exactly the opposite effect.

And it’s the kind of statement that will reach middle Americans, who might not be Trump supporters but also aren’t sure they trust Democrats (the party of leftist lunatics like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, among others). And it will push those middle Americans more firmly into the president’s corner as the vote nears.

The fact that Johnson’s call is coming at the exact time Americans are watching on television as looting runs wild in the streets, giving a first-hand look at what the forcible transfer of wealth actually looks like, pretty much dooms it from the get-go.

It’s an idea that deserves to die — and die fast.


AOC Advises ‘Protesters’ To Hide Their Identity, Leave Drugs at Home in Case of Arrest

H/T Western Journal.

To call Alexandria Occasional-Cortex a disgrace to the House of Representatives.

As the country reels from the damage caused by continued civil unrest, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York is apparently attempting to aid those who wish to rip apart the fabric of our society.

The freshman lawmaker, known for her far-left radicalism, took to social media over the weekend to provide helpful tips to those taking to the streets in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death while in police custody in Minneapolis.

In a post cloaked as a cheat sheet for “protesting safely,” AOC advised her followers on what to wear and bring (or not bring) to demonstrations, some of it dealing with evading arrest.

“BE SAFE. Here’s our guide on being prepared for safe protests,” she wrote alongside a guide on Instagram.

Ocasio-Cortez’s guide advised so-called protesters to wear “nondescript” and “layered” clothing and to hide identifying tattoos.

She also advised them to bring along “heat resistant gloves” — for safely setting fires? — and to secure their hair and wear goggles and a mask.

These items are necessary for safe demonstrations, according to AOC.

Peacefully protesting must be a tiring activity, as she further advised her followers to bring water and snacks.

The water is also useful to combat the effects of “tear gas,” the Democrat’s tip sheet notes.

View this post on Instagram

BE SAFE. Here’s our guide on being prepared for safe protests. PLEASE READ ⬇️ . 1. LOOK OUT FOR THINGS THAT DON’T SEEM RIGHT. There are increasing reports and investigations that white supremacists may be infiltrating these protests, breaking windows and destroying property. If anything seems off to you, DOCUMENT IT. Always check who is organizing. . 2. FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS OF GRASSROOTS BLACK ORGANIZERS. They have been at this a long time and are disciplined in the ropes of community organizing and demonstration. It IS a discipline. Follow trusted leaders whose goal has been the focused pursuit of justice. If they just showed up, that’s a red flag. . 3. HAVE A BUDDY. Make sure someone is keeping an eye on you and check in on them. . 4. STAY SAFE and take care of each other. 💜

A post shared by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@aoc) on

Ocasio-Cortez also suggested that demonstrators leave “anything you don’t want to be arrested with” at home.

The tip sheet item included images of a knife and what appears to be marijuana.

As for the violence being unleashed on Americans and their businesses, the self-proclaimed democratic socialist blamed that on “white supremacists.”

“There are increasing reports and investigations that white supremacists may be infiltrating these protests, breaking windows and destroying property. If anything seems off to you, DOCUMENT IT. Always check who is organizing,” AOC wrote on Instagram.

Ocasio-Cortez did not specifically ask protesters to refrain from smashing up small or minority-owned businesses, which are being demolished now on a nightly basis.

Perhaps she could have used her social media presence to encourage people to avoid actions that could get them arrested in the first place.

Then again, for the most part, the movement overtaking America’s cities is not a protest but anarchy and lawlessness, and those responsible for the rioting and looting seem to be AOC’s target audience.

The radical leftist also made no mention of social distancing in the protest guide, which is curious. Ocasio-Cortez has been on the frontlines of dragging the country’s Republican leadership for the response to the coronavirus.

Mere weeks ago, AOC criticized President Donald Trump and his advisers for pushing to reopen the economy.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez


The Trump admin is now projecting 3,000 daily deaths by June, and they are STILL pushing to “reopen.”

We are now careening towards one 9/11-scale death event *per day.* This was all preventable w/ tests, tracing,& policy.

Instead the GOP showered their friends w/ bailout money.

29.7K people are talking about this

Perhaps she doesn’t believe that the coronavirus can spread to people engaging in arson, vandalism and violent assaults.

Or perhaps she and other Democrats are being disingenuous and have ulterior motives as they posture to keep America’s robust economy restrained with their lockdowns.

Having Sex With Someone You Don’t Already Live With Now Illegal In Britain Under Coronavirus Laws

H/T Breitbart.

How do our cousins across the pond plan on enforcing this law?

The government has effectively made it illegal for people who don’t already live together to have sex, as that would be considered a “gathering”, and against the coronavirus lockdown social distancing laws.

New amendments to the lockdown law loosen most of the major restrictions than had been put in place in March, including easing restrictions on senior citizens and those with underlying health conditions. Schools can reopen on Monday, and people can gather outside, including in gardens, in numbers of up to six as long as social distancing is still maintained.

But a new line to the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Bill adds on Monday: “No person may participate in a gathering which takes place in a public or private place indoors, and consists of two or more persons.”

It says elsewhere, according to The Mirror, that “no person may, without reasonable excuse, stay overnight at any place other than the place where they are living”.

The law means that both the person visiting and the person whose house is being visited could be fined £100, or £50 if paid within 14 days.

Lawyers went to work on Twitter to discuss the interpretation of the law, with Human rights barrister Adam Wagner writing on Sunday: “I can’t believe I’m about to tweet this. From tomorrow sex between two (or more) people in a private place who do not live in the same household is a ‘gathering’ between 2 or more people and is therefore illegal.”

However, George Pertez QC put forth that if the visitor was a prostitute, then that might be permissible “as that is reasonably necessary for work purposes”.

Breitbart London@BreitbartLondon

Professor Lockdown Resigns After Breaking Own Lockdown Rules to Meet Left-Wing ‘Open Marriage’ Lover: Report 

Professor Lockdown Quits After Breaking Own Rules to Meet Lover

The UK scientist whose predictions triggered the lockdown has resigned his govt position after he broke his own rules meet his married lover.

36 people are talking about this

Police, however, will not have the power to forcibly enter your home to stop you having intercourse with a lover from another address. A spokesman for Prime Minister Boris Johnson told the Metro that police could only enter a property “where they suspect serious criminal activity is taking place under separate and existing laws”. The spokesman added that police would continue “exercising their common sense and engaging with the public”.

The Police Federation of England and Wales had said in April that it wanted increased powers to forcibly enter private houses to see if there were illegal gatherings.

Constabularies and police forces across the country had come under criticism for their tyrannical approach to enforcing the lockdown. Such examples have included pouring black dye into a body of water in a beauty spot to deter swimmers, using a drone to follow dog-walkers, and shaming people for going for a drive out of boredom or families who walked to the shops together.

Last month, the Crown Prosecution Service said that it was going to review every fine and prosecution made under the coronavirus legislation after it was found that the law had been applied either incorrectly or in a heavy-handed manner.

The government’s scientific adviser Neil Ferguson, the author of the UK’s lockdown measures, resigned from his post after it was revealed that he had broken lockdown to have at least two liaisons with his married lover. Police said at the time that they would not be investigating further Mr Ferguson’s lockdown breach.

Breitbart London@BreitbartLondon

Police Hunt Man Dressing as ‘Plague Doctor’ as Lockdown Fines Soar 

Police Hunt Man Dressing as ‘Plague Doctor’ as Lockdown Fines Soar

UK police are on the hunt for a man who goes walking dressed as a 17th-century plague doctor, as lockdown measure fines reaches 9,000.

28 people are talking about this


Left Slams New York Times over Front Page; ‘Full-on Endorsement of Fascism’ UPDATE: Times Caves

Jim Campbell's

Comment by Jim Campbell

June 3rd, 2020

In the video below from a stationary surveillance camera, George Floyd was not manhandled at all.

New York, NY, USA - July 11, 2016: Headquarters of The New York Times in night
Getty Images

Breitbart News Service

Joel B. Pollak

June 3rd, 2020.

Critics on the left are furious at the New York Times for a banner headline on the front page of its Tuesday edition that declares: “AS CHAOS SPREADS, TRUMP VOWS TO ‘END IT NOW’.”

The original headline, perhaps written to suggest that President Donald Trump had not, in fact, brought nationwide riots under control, offended the left because it suggested that the “protests” that had led to looting and riots across America were indeed “chaotic” and needed to end.

For example, former Democratic Party presidential candidate Julián Castro, who served in President Barack Obama’s cabinet, called the Times‘ headline a “fail” because it failed to describe Trump as a “budding dictator”:

Former Obama White House…

View original post 480 more words

Supreme Court and the Second Amendment: Our Best Hope or Worst Nightmare?

H/T AmmoLand.

The Supreme Court is a nightmare at this time for the Second Amendment.

U.S. Supreme Court Image NRA-ILA
U.S. Supreme Court Image NRA-ILA

U.S.A. –-( Of the three branches of the Federal Government in our federal system, the U.S. Supreme Court is either our best hope for preserving the U.S. Constitution and strengthening the Bill of Rights, or it’s our worst fear realized, if the court endangers the Constitution and weakens the Bill of Rights, abandoning the American citizenry to an awful fate.

In his concurring opinion in the New York City gun transport case, Justice Kavanaugh asserts, inter alia, “I share Justice Alito’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.”

If Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion is meant to give Americans a modicum of hope, he failed miserably. He has merely raised suspicion as to his true motivations and jurisprudential leanings apropos of the Bill of Rights generally, and of the Second Amendment, particularly.

The word, ‘should,’ that Kavanaugh uses, in his concurring, doesn’t mean ‘shall,’ nor does it even mean ‘may.’

Given the reluctance of the High Court hearing any Second Amendment case, even and especially those infringing the very core of it, the prospect of the Court actually taking up another Second Amendment case in the near future is more improbable than likely. Why is that?

The U.S. Supreme Court Reviews Very Few Cases

First, the Court has limited time, given the number of cases that come before it during any term. As set forth in the SCOTUS Blog:

“In most circumstances, the Supreme Court has discretion whether or not to grant review of a particular case. Of the 7,000 to 8,000 cert petitions filed each term, the court grants certiorari and hears oral argument in only about 80. Granting a cert petition requires the votes of four justices.”

Since the High Court reviews only a fraction of the cases brought to it in any given term, and since the High Court is averse to hearing Second Amendment cases, it will only be on a wing and a prayer that the Supreme Court is likely to take up any Second Amendment case, given the Court’s present composition. And, if it does so at all, it will likely deny cert on any further Second Amendment case this Term because the Supreme Court Term is effectively over in late June, hardly more than one month from now as of the posting of this article.

Note, “A Term of the Supreme Court begins, by statute, on the first Monday in October. . . . The Term is divided between ‘sittings,’ when the Justices hear cases and deliver opinions, and intervening ‘recesses,’ when they consider the business before the Court and write opinions. Sittings and recesses alternate at approximately two-week intervals.”

Moreover, “The Court is, typically, in recess from late June/early July until the first Monday in October. . . . The Court hears oral arguments in cases from October through April [and] All opinions of the Court are, typically, handed down by the last day of the Court’s term (the day in late June/early July when the Court recesses for the summer). With the exception of this deadline, there are no rules concerning when decisions must be released. Typically, decisions that are unanimous are released sooner than those that have concurring and dissenting opinions. While some unanimous decisions are handed down as early as December, some controversial opinions, even if heard in October, may not be handed down until the last day of the term.”

Suppose The High Court Does Secure Four Votes Necessary To Review A Second Amendment Case, What Then?

Second, even if, by some strange happenstance the Supreme Court does grant review in one of the pending Second Amendment cases, in the next few weeks, especially given the impact of the Communist Chinese Coronavirus, one may justifiably ask when will that case be briefed; when will it be argued in oral hearing before the Court; and when might the case be decided? And, most significantly: how will that case be decided?

Given that Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kavanaugh both sided with the liberal wing of the High Court on the New York City gun transport case, that fact alone is a matter for deep concern.

In any event, all of this—from voting to hear a case, to the releasing of a decision in that case—takes an inordinate amount of time and, with a General U.S. Presidential election coming up in November 2020, an election just around the corner, both the liberal wing and conservative wing of the High Court may have their own good reasons for not taking up another Second Amendment case this Term.

Consider the ramifications of the results of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, both on the eventual composition of the Supreme Court and on the manner in which a Second Amendment case would be decided.

Supreme Court Justices, no less than average citizens, do surely manifest deep concern over the outcome of the upcoming U.S. Presidential election. And whom it is that wins the election will be able to actuate one or the other of two alternate, incompatible, radically distinct visions for the Nation.

One vision is grounded on the political and social philosophy of Individualism, championed by the Founders of our Free Republic, and actualized in the Constitution that the States, in existence at the time, had ratified. That Constitution is the blueprint of the structure of our Nation, where the people themselves are sovereign: a notion manifest in no other nation in the world despite talk, for example, by the rulers of the EU, holed up in Brussels, who govern the nations comprising the EU. These “elites” talk endlessly, and disingenuously, and deceptively of the EU’s liberal democratic values. But that is nothing more than flimflam and flummery.

The second vision is grounded on the political and social philosophy of Collectivism—a term that is wending its way more frequently into political discourse, as the Radical Left talks carefully, non-critically, and often glowingly, about the benefits of life in both the EU and in the Autocratic, Communist Collectivist regime of Xi Jinping of China. See Arbalest Quarrel Article, titled, “The Modern Civil War: A Clash of Ideologies, posted October 6, 2018.” Note: In that article, we point to Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, which, at the time of the posting of the article, had just occurred.

Would that we knew then what we know now, having seen Justice Kavanaugh’s insipid, seemingly groveling, duplicitous Concurring Opinion in the New York City Gun Transport case. We said, at the time:

“With Brett Kavanaugh now on the high Court, the Individualists’ vision for this Country is now more likely to prevail in the decades ahead than is the vision of the Collectivists. Had Hillary Clinton prevailed in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, and thereupon nominated individuals to the high Court who view the Constitution of the United States as a “Living Document,” susceptible to massive judicial and legislative revision, the direction of this Country would have continued along the path created for it by the Bush and Clinton clans, and by Barack Obama. Americans would have seen the eventual loss of this Country’s independence and sovereignty, and, concomitantly, Americans would have seen the loss of the fundamental, unalienable rights guaranteed to them, as codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights. The losses would have been drastic, and those losses would have been assured. Thankfully, a dire future for this Nation and its people is less likely to happen now, as the election of Trump has enabled the Nation to pivot back to the path laid out for us by the founders of the Nation. But there is still much work ahead for the American people. We must remain ever vigilant.”

The Most Important U.S. Presidential Election Of The Last Two Centuries Is Upon Us

The principles of Collectivism were anathema to the founders of our Nation; and those principles are wholly incompatible with the Constitution the framers designed, predicated on the tenets of Individualism, the foundation of our Nation. The two political and social philosophies, Individualism and Collectivism, cannot be reconciled. And those who wish to implement the principles of Collectivism in our Nation know this. That is why they talk openly of major amendments to the Constitution.

Indeed, some Collectivists talk of doing away with the U.S. Constitution altogether, as it would be far easier to draft a new Constitution grounded on the principles of Collectivism than to try to reconfigure the original Constitution, grounded as it is on a completely different set of precepts: those of Individualism. And we will be headed in a very disturbing direction if the Collectivists do succeed in taking firm control over the reins of Government.

Below The Radar: Untraceable Firearms Act of 2019

H/T AmmoLand.

More DemocRat attempts to do an end-run around the Second Amendment.

Ghost Gunner Miniature CNC Machine
Ghost Gunner Miniature CNC Machine

U.S.A. –-( Second Amendment supporters should always remember the comments of Nelson “Pete” Shields – not only because it is a warning of what anti-Second Amendment extremists want, but because what Shields described is a multi-step solution.

The first problem was to slow down the number of firearms, which isn’t quite happening. In some cases, they are now trying to skip to the “second problem” Shields outlined, getting guns registered. One of the tools they are trying is HR 3553, the Untraceable Firearms Act of 2019, introduced by Representative David Cicilline (D-RI).

Cicilline has introduced a number of anti-Second Amendment bills, and we will undoubtedly go over more of them later. But this one merits attention, as it targets one growing hobby of Second Amendment supporters: Building their own guns.

This is particularly the case with AR-15-type modern multi-purpose semiautomatic rifles. What is known as 80 percent receivers are sold, and people can then build their own firearms. This has gone on since before the United States declared independence. The 80 percent receivers are just the latest iteration.

Of course, if you build a firearm for yourself, you don’t need a Federal Firearms License. You don’t have to put a serial number on the gun. In short, this is a gun that is very hard to confiscate, which doesn’t make anti-Second Amendment extremists happy.

Cicilline’s legislation intends to change that, by making this long-standing hobby illegal, and slaps the hobbyists with a potential five-year federal prison sentence. It’s not like there aren’t already laws that address providing any sort of firearm to bad guys. Oh, yeah, there are – 18 USC 922(d) and 18 USC 922(g), along with provisions in 18 USC 924.

Really, if you want to deal with the alleged “issues” of those who make guns with the intention of providing them to bad guys, the tools are already there. They just have to be used. This is where programs like Project Guardian can make a difference, not just in reducing the types of incidents used to whip up attacks on our rights, but also in pointing out that we don’t need new laws – we can use existing laws and not attack the Second Amendment.

This sort of logic is quite obvious, so we certainly have every right to wonder why Representative Cicilline wants to push a new law that won’t solve the problem. Second Amendment supporters should contact their Senators and Representative and politely urge them to oppose HR 3553, and to instead support efforts like Project Guardian.