Biden Told Voters Second Amendment, DOES NOT Protect Individual Right

H/T AmmoLand.

Joe Pee Pads Biden will be a disaster for gun owners and the Second Amendment.

Kamala Knee Pads Harris is as bad if not worse.



U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- During a September 2019 “town hall” hosted by New Hampshire ABC affiliate WMUR, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden made clear that he does not believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller was incorrect.

During the event, Biden was asked, “Do you agree with the D.C. v. Heller decision in regards to protecting the individual right to bear arms that are in common use and which are utilized for lawful purposes?”

Biden responded in part, “If I were on the court I wouldn’t have made the same ruling. OK, that’s number one.”

Later, the noted resume padder and law school plagiarist boasted,

 

And I taught for years Constitutional law and separation of powers, I taught the Second Amendment. And the Second Amendment is not absolute. And we can argue, the fundamental argument is well-regulated militia and all those things, I won’t get into that. I think that the fundamental argument is the reason that was given as a right because we needed to be able to muster people to deal with an enemy called Great Britain we were fighting in a war.

Aside from his denunciation of Heller and denial that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, Biden also displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was not “given as a right” by the U.S. Constitution. Rather, as the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in Heller, the Second Amendment protects a right that pre-existed the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Biden’s position on Heller and the Second Amendment is in line with that of his running mate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.).

As District Attorney of San Francisco, Harris signed on to an amicus curiae brief in Heller that argued the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Advocating against the individual right to keep and bear arms, the brief argued,

courts have consistently sustained criminal firearms laws against Second Amendment challenges by holding that, inter alia, (i) the Second Amendment provides only a militia-related right to bear arms, (ii) the Second Amendment does not apply to legislation passed by state or local governments,

According to the document, the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, but rather, the lower court in Heller “create[d]” this right. The brief stated,

The lower court’s decision, however, creates a broad private right to possess any firearm that is a “lineal descendant” of a founding-era weapon and that is in “common use” with a “military application” today.

Biden’s position on the Second Amendment is also in alignment with recent versions of the Democratic Party Platform. The 2004, 2008, and 2012 editions of the party platform recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Such recognition of the Second Amendment was conspicuously absent from the 2016 and 2020 versions of the platform.

The Democratic presidential ticket’s rejection of the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment helps to explain the pair’s advocacy for blatantly unconstitutional gun control measures. Both Biden and Harris have called to ban and confiscate commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. Biden has made clear that his desired ban would extend to arguably the most popular firearms in America – 9mm pistols. The Heller decision made clear that the Second Amendment protects the right to own firearms “in common use” for lawful purposes like self-defense.

It is hard to overemphasize the extremism of the Democratic presidential ticket’s position on the Second Amendment. A February 2008 USA Today/Gallup poll conducted prior to the Heller decision, asked those surveyed, “Do you believe the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns, or do you believe it only guarantees members of state militias such as National Guard units the right to own guns?”

The response was unambiguous; 73-percent responded that the Second Amendment guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns, while a mere 20-percent limited that right to state militia members.

A Quinnipiac University poll conducted shortly after the Heller decision, in July 2008, mirrored these results. This poll asked respondents, “Would you support or oppose amending the United States Constitution to ban individual gun ownership?”78-percent opposed such a measure, while only 17-percent were found to be in favor.

And in May 2009, CNN and ORC conducted a similar poll that asked “Which of the following comes closer to your interpretation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? In addition to addressing the need for citizen-militias, it was intended to give individual Americans the right to keep and bear arms for their own defense. It was only intended to preserve the existence of citizen-militias, and does not give individual Americans the right to keep and bear arms for their own defense.” Once again, the American public made their position clear; with 77-percent choosing “individual gun ownership” to 21-percent answering “only citizen-militias.”

Knowing that Biden’s true position on the Second Amendment is political poison, the Biden campaign and its surrogates have done their best to hide the candidate’s views.

In March, when a pro-gun Michigan autoworker accurately confronted Biden about the candidate’s attacks on the Second Amendment, a visibly defensive Biden responded that the worker was “full of s***.”Biden went on to falsely claim “I support the Second Amendment.”

More recently, longtime gun control activist John Rosenthal made the ludicrous claim that “a vote for Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress will…protect gun rights for law-abiding gun owners…” Rosenthal didn’t address how Biden will go about protecting a right that the candidate does not acknowledge exists.

The importance of Biden’s radical view of the Second Amendment cannot be overstated. The fate of the Second Amendment literally hangs in the balance of this election.

Why Biden Can’t Be Trusted To Stop At “Assault Rifles”

H/T Bearing Arms.

Joe Pee Pads Biden like all gun grabbers you give him an inch he will take a mile.

Former Vice President Joe Biden has a long history in politics. Through most of that time, he’s been pretty anti-gun. In fact, one of his legislative “accomplishments” has been the passage of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban. He’s pretty proud of that.

As president, he says he’ll resurrect the ban. That would be the same ban that has been shown to have had zero impact on crime, for the record.

 

That ban is a problem for most of us in the gun rights community. Further, I’m of the opinion that following the Heller decision, it wouldn’t even be constitutional. Yet he’s still going to push for it.

When gun rights people claim that Biden is going to take our guns, though, fact-checkers love step in and claim he’s said no such thing.

Sure…but there’s a problem. See, there’s no reason to believe he’d stop at assault weapons, even if we didn’t care about those guns. He doesn’t see the Second Amendment as an individual right.

During a September 2019 “townhall” hosted by New Hampshire ABC affiliate WMUR, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden made clear that he does not believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller was incorrect.

During the event, Biden was asked, “Do you agree with the D.C. v. Heller decision in regards to protecting the individual right to bear arms that are in common use and which are utilized for lawful purposes?”

Biden responded in part, “If I were on the court I wouldn’t have made the same ruling. OK, that’s number one.”

Later, the noted resume padder and law school plagiarist boasted,

And I taught for years Constitutional law and separation of powers, I taught the Second Amendment. And the Second Amendment is not absolute. And we can argue, the fundamental argument is well regulated militia and all those things, I won’t get into that. I think that the fundamental argument is the reason that was given as a right because we needed to be able to muster people to deal with an enemy called Great Britain we were fighting in a war.

Aside from his denunciation of Heller and denial that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, Biden also displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was not “given as a right”by the U.S. Constitution. Rather, as the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in Heller, the Second Amendment protects a right that pre-existed the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In other words, he doesn’t believe that you, as an individual, has a right to keep and bear arms. That tells us he thinks the Second Amendment prevents the government from barring states from having guns. He doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with completely disarming you or me.

Now, with that view firmly in mind, I’d love for someone to tell me how anyone could trust Biden to just stop at assault weapons? Don’t get me wrong, his position on any gun control firmly rules him unfit for public office, but the fact that he rejects the idea that the Second Amendment protects an individual right is especially problematic.

If the right to keep and bear arms isn’t an individual one, then what’s to stop him from next coming after bolt-action rifles that he’d likely deem “sniper rifles” or something similar? What about him coming after handguns? After all, handguns are the weapon of choice for most criminals. If you think gun control will stop criminals, you’re going to have to come to the conclusion that handguns are a problem sooner or later.

The truth of the matter is that the moment Biden would take office, all of our Second Amendment rights are up for grabs. He won’t stop at assault weapons.

That’s just his starting position.

Biden Stumbles Over His Words, His Notes, and His Facts

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Joe Pee Pads Biden is not mentally fit to be a dog catcher.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has insisted he’s not slowing down, but this week he struggled to read his notes and speak clearly, and he even repeated one of the falsehoods about his college career that sunk his 1988 presidential campaign.

President Trump: If I Wasn’t Here You Would not Have a Second Amendment Right Now

H/T AmmoLand.

Truer words have never been spoken.

Hillary and her goons would have destroyed the Second Amendment just like Joe Pee Pads Biden will do.

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- On 9 September 2020 in an interview on the Shawn Hannity show on Fox news.com, President Trump made a bold assertion. He said if he were not in the office, the Second Amendment would have become essentially meaningless, because of the different judges who would have been appointed. From the transcript:

And also, Supreme Court judges or justices.

And you — the whole country, it depends on these decisions, which way you go, whether you have a Second Amendment or not. I mean, the Second Amendment would be under siege.

If I wasn’t here, you wouldn’t have a Second Amendment right now. You wouldn’t have a right to guns. You would — whether you had it or it was just almost totally obliterated, but it would be in a very different form than you have right now.

I’ve kept it totally as it was, and it’s, you know, something I’m very proud of, and people — I think it’s a real voting issue, Second Amendment.

Life, you look at that. So these judges are going to be making massive decisions. And the next president is going to get one, two, three, or four justices of the Supreme Court.

The President is correct in his statement. If Hillary would have become President, the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights would have been interpreted out of any significance. We already have several circuit courts who are working hard to interpret the Second Amendment as of little consequence. If a President Hillary would have appointed replacements for Justice Scalia and Kennedy, the ten Second Amendment cases the Supreme Court has refused to hear, would have been granted writs of certiorari at the Supreme Court. Second Amendment supporters would not have liked the results.

 

Very likely, the Supreme Court would have confirmed the Second Amendment does not apply outside the home; that bans on semi-automatic rifles are permissible; that ammunition bans are permissible; that bans on magazines are permissible; that not all commonly available handguns are protected by the Second Amendment, or, they may be covered by the Second Amendment, but the state can still regulate them out of existence.

The ban on butterfly knives in a Hawaii District Court, or the ban on semi-automatic rifles and magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds in the New York Rifle and Pistol Association, are templates for that “interpretation” of a toothless Second Amendment.

President Trump has appointed about 200 judges to the lower federal courts. Without Trump appointees, it is likely the three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit would have held the California magazine ban to be constitutional.

President Trump has appointed ten judges to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit has 29 active judges.

President Trump is correct in saying that next to war and peace, the appointment of federal judges is the most consequential act a president can perform. President Trump has been appointing judges who respect the Constitution as written.

President Trump has done better in this regard than any other president since Calvin Coolidge. It is one of the reasons the Left in this country fear him so much. The judges he is appointing are showing a willingness to reverse decades of unconstitutional decisions by Progressive judges who have worked hard to undermine the Constitution and the rule of law.

Nolte: National Poll — Donald Trump 47%, Joe Biden 46%

H/T Breitbart.

President Trump will beat Joe Pee Pads Biden by a landslide come November.

President Donald Trump has taken a 47 to 46 percent national lead from the aging and enfeebled Joe Biden in the latest polling from Rasmussen.

“The survey of 2,500 Likely Voters was conducted September 9-10 and 13-15,” per the polling firm, and this is more proof of Trump’s momentum. In this same poll last week, Biden was up 48 to 46 percent. The week prior Biden was up 49 to 45 percent. That is a steady five point total shift in Trump’s direction over two weeks.

 

In Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll, Trump now enjoys a 52 percent job approval rating, compared to just 46 percent who disapprove. That puts him six points above water after a dismal summer that saw those numbers reversed (and worse) at times.

A good faith search of Trump’s disapproval rating, shows that 46 percent number might he his lowest yet in this particular poll.

At this same time during his failed presidency, Barack Obama only had a 50 percent approval rating.

While Rasmussen is a bit of an outlier, there’s no question the momentum is with the president. Ever since the conventions, not even the national political media’s fake attack on Trump using lies about the president demeaning dead Marines has slowed his momentum in the state and national polling.

According to the RealClearPolitics poll of polls, the president’s overall job approval rating is now at a fairly healthy 45.1 percent, a four point jump in two months. His average disapproval rating is still too high at 53.4 percent, but is trending down.

In the average of the polls in a general election match-up, Biden still leads 49.2 to 43 percent against Trump, but that 6.2 point lead is down from a ten point deficit in late June.

Biden leads in most of the swing states, but the overall race is now within the margin of error in most of those states.

If you’re looking at the polls, you want to be Biden.

If you’re looking at momentum and enthusiasm, you want to be Trump.

There are still 48 days until Election Day and three presidential debates. A lot can happen between now and then, and a lot will.

This Rasmussen poll is the first national poll to show Trump in the lead since February.

Has Billionaire Bloomberg ‘Bought’ Biden with $100M Florida Effort?

H/T AmmoLand.

Joe Pee Pads Biden is owned body and soul by Bloomberg.

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s weekend revelation that he will spend $100 million in Florida to secure a win for Democrat Joe Biden has set off alarm bells in the gun rights community, especially after the former vice president went full-bore with a gun control push in reaction to the vicious ambush of two Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies.

Biden’s Twitter rant demanding a ban on so-called “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines”—neither of which were apparently used in the Compton attack—is already taking heavy criticism.

 

And now the founder of one of the nation’s leading gun rights organizations is raising red flags about Bloomberg’s massive spending threat.

“Joe Biden is a perennial gun prohibitionist, and Michael Bloomberg is opening his wallet to essentially buy the Sunshine State vote on Biden’s behalf,” said Alan M. Gottlieb, founder and Executive Vice President of the Second Amendment Foundation. “It is clear to us the former New York mayor thinks the former vice president will do his bidding, otherwise he wouldn’t be making such an expensive investment.”

But Gottlieb threw down the gauntlet, promising “to challenge in court all of their unconstitutional anti-gun schemes” should Biden win in November.

SAF has become a powerhouse organization in the legal field. Its stated mission is to “win firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time.” It has won several court victories, including the landmark 2010 Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, which nullified that city’s 30-year-old handgun ban and incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment.

The threat of a Biden presidency, especially one beholden to Bloomberg, is more than worrisome. If Bloomberg—the former New York City mayor-turned-gun prohibitionist, who launched Everytown for Gun Safety and supports the Moms Demand Action gun control lobbying group—is willing to spend a fortune just in Florida, conservatives and gun rights advocates wonder what he might be willing to spend on votes in other states?

“Biden and Bloomberg are anti-gun elitists who have always enjoyed armed protection while dismissing the needs of average citizens to protect themselves and their families,” Gottlieb said in a prepared statement. “Biden better get used to dancing on the ends of Bloomberg’s strings, because for this amount of money, the Delaware Democrat is going to be the Big Apple billionaire’s puppet. Biden plans to change the Bill of Rights, and Bloomberg plans to buy it.”

Biden’s rush to exploit the Los Angeles ambush that left two deputies wounded was not lost on the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. That group called Biden’s push for an “assault weapon” ban when a video of the attack clearly shows the would-be killer armed with a handgun a “disgusting attempt” to capitalize on a “cowardly act.”

Gottlieb, who also chairs CCRKBA, said Biden’s effort “illustrates the bankruptcy of the gun prohibition movement. They’ll use a horrific tragedy as a starting point to push their own agenda, which typically has no factual relation to the incident they’re exploiting.”

Although Biden initially called for prosecution of the perpetrator, his subsequent focus on gun control left Gottlieb suggesting the Democrat nominee “seems more interested in how he might use this tragedy to advance his anti-gun-rights agenda than he is about the lives of the two wounded deputies. We’re not sure what to call that, but it’s not moral leadership.”

One of the wounded deputies has been identified as Claudia Apolinar, 31. She was shot in the jaw yet in the aftermath images show her trying to help her 24-year-old male partner, who had not yet been identified. According to Fox News, Apolinar is a former librarian and mother of a 6-year-old. She applied for a job with the sheriff’s department in 2017. She is being called a “hero” for her actions.

As reported by the New York Times, Bloomberg’s big bucks promise “came as new polls showed a particularly tight race between Mr. Biden and President Trump in Florida, a key battleground state that carries 29 electoral votes.”

Electoral College votes gained a new importance for Democrats in 2016 when several key states went to Trump because he campaigned there and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton seemed to take those votes for granted. That’s not going to happen this year.

Bloomberg spent a fortune on his own short-lived campaign for the presidency, and when it failed, he quickly threw his financial support to Biden.

The former vice president has made no secret of his gun control agenda, which may be studied here. SAF calls the Biden plan “a repackaging of every cockeyed gun control scheme to come along during the past two decades.”

Biden’s running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris of California, is also a devoted anti-gunner, and months ago during an event in Texas, Biden promised to make former Congressman Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke his point man on gun policy if he wins the presidency. O’Rourke infamously declared during a 2019 debate in Houston, “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR15, your AK-47.”

“Considering Biden’s gun control agenda and his promise to pursue a restrictive gun grabbing crusade if he wins in November,” Gottlieb asserted, “there should be no doubt Joe is a 100 percent certified shill for Bloomberg and his gun prohibition lobbying groups, Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action.”

Banning so-called “assault rifles” has been on the gun control wish list for several years, yet Gottlieb and other rights activists challenge the motive, since rifles of any kind are used in a fraction of all homicides in any given year, according to the annual FBI Uniform Crime Report. The agency’s report for 2019 should be released later this month.

Gun Controllers Try to Hide Joe Biden’s Anti-gun Extremism

H/T AmmoLand.

The left know that if the truth about Joe Pee Pads Biden gun grab extremism he could not be elected dog catcher.

Kalama Knee Pads Biden is as extreme as Joe is on gun grabbing.

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- With Fall 2020 upon us it is time again for gun control advocates’ quadrennial tradition – dishonestly attempting to convince voters that a brazenly anti-gun presidential ticket does not pose a threat to gun owners. This year the deception is again being backed by longtime Massachusetts anti-gun advocate and wealthy businessman John Rosenthal. Despite both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’s advocacy for gun confiscation and a host of other draconian gun measures, in a piece for Newsweek with the farcical title, “Individual Gun Ownership Is Not at Stake in This Election,” Rosenthal claimed “[p]rivate gun ownership for responsible citizens will remain unchanged” during a Biden presidency. The piece is in the same vein as others that have lied about the ticket’s anti-gun aims.

First, a little background is instructive. Rosenthal is the founder of Massachusetts-based gun control group Stop Handgun Violence. Founded in 1994, the group has worked to make the Bay State’s onerous gun control laws even more oppressive.

 

The organization is best known to the rest of the country for its billboard along a stretch of the Massachusetts Turnpike frequented by those who use Boston’s Logan Airport. At various times the billboard has called for the criminalization of private firearm transfers, a federal ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, and attacked NRA.

Aimed at an out-of-state audience, the billboard has been used to chastise neighboring New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont for a perceived lack of gun control and to laud Massachusetts for its comparatively draconian measures. This tactic is peculiar, as FBI data shows that Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire have the lowest violent crime rates in the U.S. These states have enjoyed their peaceful existence without the gun controls Rosenthal demands and while recognizing their residents’ Right-to-Carry a firearm for self-defense without a permit (Vermont did criminalize private transfers and impose magazine restrictions in 2018, but enjoyed a similarly low crime rate prior to these laws). In contrast, Massachusetts has nearly double the violent crime rate of New Hampshire and Vermont and more than triple that of Maine.

Not content to harass the Bay State and its visitors, in 2005 Rosenthal helped found the American Hunters and Shooters Association. The now-defunct organization claimed that it was a group of gun owners “countering years of polarized debate and restoring pride in America’s hunting and shooting heritage.” In truth, the organization was a disguise for gun control activists seeking to undermine support for grassroots pro-gun groups like NRA and pro-gun candidates going into the 2006 and 2008 elections. When asked whether the AHSA was a front for the gun control lobby, fellow founder and paid expert for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Bob Ricker replied, “That perception would be out there, yes.”

Despite AHSA’s call for a less “polarized debate,” Rosenthal let his true feelings about NRA and the five million law-abiding gun owners it represents during a January 14, 2013 interview on the Ed Shultz Radio Show. Long before a certain state attorney general and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors made such smears fashionable, Rosenthal told Shultz that NRA “in my mind is a terrorist organization as far as I’m concerned.”

Rosenthal’s Newsweek item is merely the latest effort in his decades-long campaign to dupe gun owners.

As noted, in the piece Rosenthal claimed that “Private gun ownership for responsible citizens will remain unchanged” during a Biden presidency. The anti-gun advocate also contended that “a vote for Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress will… protect gun rights for law-abiding gun owners.” These are easily disprovable lies.

Biden has made clear that he intends to confiscate commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms.

During an August 5, 2019 CNN interview, Biden had the following exchange with host Anderson Cooper when asked about firearm confiscation:

Cooper: So, to gun owners out there who say well a Biden administration means they are going to come for my guns. 

Biden: Bingo! You’re right if you have an assault weapon.

Given Biden’s repeated boasts about authoring the 1994 federal ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, it can be concluded that Biden’s definition of an “assault weapon” encompasses firearms covered under that legislation – including the AR-15. However, Biden has also made clear that he wants to ban 9mm pistols.

According to an article from the Seattle Times, during a November 2019 private fundraiser in Washington, Biden asked attendees “Why should we allow people to have military-style weapons including pistols with 9mm bullets and can hold 10 or more rounds?”

Harris also advocates gun confiscation.

At a campaign event in Londonderry, N.H. in early September, then-presidential candidate Harris told reporters that confiscation of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms was “a good idea.” Elaborating on her support for a compulsory “buyback” program, the senator added, “We have to work out the details — there are a lot of details — but I do…We have to take those guns off the streets.”

On the September 16 edition of “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,” Harris reiterated her support for gun confiscation. During a question and answer session, an audience member asked Harris “Do you believe in the mandatory buyback of quote-unquote assault weapons and whether or not you do, how does that idea not go against fundamentally the Second Amendment?

The candidate responded “I do believe that we need to do buybacks.” Making clear that she believes Americans’ Second Amendment rights are for sale, the senator added “A buyback program is a good idea. Now we need to do it the right way. And part of that has to be, you know, buyback and give people their value, the financial value.”

Further demonstrating Harris’s commitment to gun confiscation, the candidate called for a “mandatory buyback program” during an October 3 MSNBC gun control forum and again during a November interview with NBC Nightly News.

Contrary to what Rosenthal claimed, banning and confiscating commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms would be a major change for responsible citizens. Underscoring the severity of the change is the fact that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. Moreover, in targeting 9mm pistols, Biden has called for a ban on one of the most popular firearms in America. In its annual report on the U.S. firearms industry, Shooting Industry reported that 9mm caliber pistols are the most commonly produced pistol and have been for many years. In 2017 alone, there were more than 1.7 million 9mm pistols produced in the U.S. Cumulatively there are tens of millions of 9mm pistols in the hands of law-abiding Americans.

Rosenthal also deceived readers about the state of the U.S. Supreme Court and Second Amendment jurisprudence to push the Biden ticket.

Rosenthal wrote, “enacting gun safety laws, such as… military-style assault weapon and large-capacity magazine bans, police discretion for licensing and consumer safety manufacturing regulations have been considered reasonable and legal by the U.S. Supreme Court.” In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to directly address these gun controls.

In an effort to suppress legitimate pro-gun concerns about the U.S. Supreme Court, the anti-gun advocate also claimed: “It is well-settled law that private firearm ownership is a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”

Sitting Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn’t share this view.

Consider this passage from a July 2016 interview Ginsburg gave to the New York Times:

[Ginsburg] mulled whether the court could revisit its 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act. She said she did not see how that could be done. 

The court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, establishing an individual right to own guns, may be another matter, she said. 

“I thought Heller was “a very bad decision,” she said, adding that a chance to reconsider it could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.

This was not the first time that Ginsburg shared her desire to overturn Heller. On December 17, 2009, Ginsburg delivered a lecture titled “The Role of Dissenting Opinions” to the Harvard Club of Washington, D.C., a version of which was later published in the Minnesota Law Review. In the lecture, Ginsburg described Stevens and Breyer’s dissents in Heller as “appealing to the intelligence of a future day.” Insultingly, Ginsburg listed the – in her view incorrect – Heller decision, which recognized a fundamental right, alongside the notorious Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, which extinguished the rights of African Americans.

Take Ginsburg’s word for it – the U.S. Supreme Court and the individual right to keep and bear arms are on the ballot in 2020.

Rosenthal’s piece is so at odds with reality that more is gained from contemplating the reason it was written than its content. Consider why a presidential ticket and its surrogates would advance such falsehoods.

Attempts to conceal and lie about Biden and Harris’s gun control positions are a tacit admission that the public does not want the gun control these candidates pursue. If such measures have the popularity their backers often pretend they do, there would be no need to obscure their goals. Rather, gun control advocates and politicians understand that they cannot succeed if they are forthright with the electorate about their extreme positions.

NRA members and other gun rights advocates are likely already aware of Biden and Harris’s radical plans for the Second Amendment and no amount of deception from gun control advocates or the press will divert them from the truth. However, Second Amendment advocates should work to inform more casual political observers of the singular danger the 2020 Democratic presidential ticket poses to their rights. Knowledgeable gun owners have a responsibility to ensure their family, friends, and other liberty-minded individuals do not succumb to Rosenthal and others’ flagrant misinformation.

Biden Demands Gun Ban After LA Deputies Shot

H/T Bearing Arms.

After two L.A.County deputies get shot Joe Pee Pads Biden is doubling down on gun control and gun bans that never work.

The two Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies shot in an ambush attack over the weekend are out of surgery and are thankfully expected to recover, according to Sheriff Alex Villanueva, and while the manhunt for the man who shot them at point blank range continues, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is using the attack to push his plan to ban so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines across the country.

 

 

According to surveillance footage released by the LA County Sheriff, the assailant in the attack used a handgun and only fired a few shots at the officer, so Biden’s call to ban “weapons of war” wouldn’t have prevented this attack. In fact, California has already banned so-called assault weapons and ammunition magazines that can hold more than ten rounds. Those laws had absolutely no impact on the ability of the shooter in Los Angeles to target deputies. Just like California’s laws, Biden’s own gun control plan cracks down on legal gun ownership in the hope that there’ll be some sort of trickle-down effect on criminals.

Of course, Biden’s “weapons of war” comment also ignores the fact that he’s actually calling for a ban on the most commonly sold rifles and magazines in the country, and doing so at a time when millions of Americans are purchasing firearms for the very first time. Biden’s plan to ban semi-automatic rifles and ammunition magazines would turn many of those new gun owners into criminals overnight if they didn’t hand over their firearms or pay a hefty fee to register them with the government.

Meanwhile, the media continues to provide cover for Biden’s gun control agenda through misleading “fact checks” like this one responding to an ad by the NRA that says Biden will take away our Second Amendment rights.

The voiceover says, “She’s got two kids and two jobs, but tonight she may not make it home. Every woman has a right to self-defense, a gun for protection.But Joe Biden would take her rights away.”

Biden has not said he wants to take away anyone’s Second Amendment right to own a gun, so this claim is false.

The ad also states, “For decades, Joe Biden has opposed your gun rights.”

This statement is misleading because Biden is not opposed to gun ownership. He claims he owns several weapons.

What nonsense. According to these fact-checkers, Joe Biden would actually have to announce “I’m taking away your Second Amendment rights” in order for it to be true that Biden would take our rights away. No candidate is stupid enough to do that, not even Biden. Instead, Biden’s own website declares that he believes the Second Amendment is “limited,” though he doesn’t go so far as to say what he thinks those limits are.

It’s also true and uncontroversial that Biden has opposed pro-Second Amendment legislation for decades. He was the primary author of the 1994 semi-auto ban and hasn’t backed any significant piece of pro-2A legislation since his vote in favor of the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. Even then, Biden only voted for the bill after helping to water it down. It’s worth noting what he said back then, as reported by NBC News.

“During my 12 and a half years as a member of this body, I have never believed that additional gun control or federal registration of guns would reduce crime. I am convinced that a criminal who wants a firearm can get one through illegal, nontraceable, unregistered sources, with or without gun control,” he continued.

To say that the 2020 version of Joe Biden doesn’t agree with 1986’s Joe Biden is putting it mildly. Today’s Joe Biden has embraced gun control; from his ban on commonly-owned rifles and magazines to his push for red-flag laws, state-level gun licensing laws, an end to online sales of ammunition, universal background checks, and more.

Now that Biden has brought up his gun ban, it would be great if someone in the press would ask a critical question or two to the candidate on the issue. Instead, I suspect his supporters in the media will continue to argue that “there is no evidence, and subsequently no truth… that he wants to take away gun ownership rights,” even as some on the Left acknowledge that Biden’s agenda, if enacted, would reduce our Second Amendment rights into a privilege. The media is happy to provide cover for Biden on this issue. It’s up to gun owners to point out the truth about what Biden’s plans mean for our right to keep and bear arms.

 

 

Trump Will Be Reelected In A Landslide, But Then… VIDEOS

H/T AmmoLand.

A scary prospect of what could happen when Joe Pee pads Biden loses.

 

USA –  -(AmmoLand.com)- We are hounded daily that war is peace. Rioters and arsonists are peaceful protesters. Freedom is slavery. Covid-19 is a deadly pandemic. Face masks are for our health. We should trust the media. Ignorance is strength. The Marxist-styled-governance and draconian policies of Democratic politicians in America today can easily be found in the writings of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” and in George Orwell’s “1984”.

#WhiteHouseSiege in Lafayette Square, Washington, DC

A 50-day #WhiteHouseSiege in Lafayette Square, Washington, DC is scheduled to begin on Thursday, September 17th, 2020, for the main purpose of ramping up the visual anarchy and unrest in our Nation’s Capital, for all the world to witness, as the 2020 presidential election grows closer. But, ostensibly, it is more about getting people used to the concept that President Trump plans to ‘steal’ the election, which is a well-known Alinsky tactic of ‘accusing the other side of what you are, in fact, doing’.

Pursuant to Orwell’s ‘1984’ they apply the ‘Ministry of Truth’ to rewrite historical records to conform to the state’s ever-changing version of what is true and what is not—broadcasted 24/7 to an ignorant populous by a complicit, propaganda-driven-media. It becomes nearly impossible for righteous men to argue against their pompous-high-ground-truisms such as, “We would rather be morally correct than factually correct.”

One thing that is ‘factually correct’ is that more of us are coming to realize Covid-19 is a media-hyped pandemic created solely for political purposes. The coronavirus is a scam—a swindle. It is high time we come to understand that we are in the midst of a global crime of horrific proportions. According to the New World Order planners, stated in a Rockefeller Foundation report, a global pandemic must result in increased controls, where people will gladly surrender their freedoms in order to feel safe.

The Democrats used Covid-19 as a double-edged sword by first taking a sledgehammer to Trump’s MAGA economy, and then used the quarantines, face masks, and social distancing to generate enough pent-up anger amongst the people, after being locked down for three-four months, to justify the next phase of their assault easily. And so, waiting in the wings for the scripted-director’s-call to center stage, came Black Lives Matter and Antifa to create the crucial violence in the streets. Then their lawless anarchy was purposely staged to divide and separate the races, identifying all whites as racist, as stipulated in the 1619 project.

BLM Movement Stirred The Demands For Reparations And Violence Against Their Abstract White Racism

The BLM movement stirred the demands for reparations and violence against their abstract white racism, which became acceptable and, therefore, impossible for the Democrats to stop the violence. And, for this reason, in the demented minds of the Democrats, having planned these actions will, therefore, not arrest or make any negative allegations against the out-of-control-mobs. In the eyes of the cultural Marxist BLM, police and their enforcement of laws are seen as white privilege, which in turn becomes white racism, concluding that the white man’s laws are in the way of true justice.

Meanwhile, working or middle-class white Americans have been threatened into a near-deafening silence.

And so, with the Democrat’s planned insurrection and treason running in the background, we work our way cautiously toward the November 3rd, 2020 presidential election, where massive chaos and mayhem will rule the day. And, on that day, there are many who believe President Donald Trump will easily be reelected in a landslide, in what some are referring to as a ‘Red Mirage.’ And, therefore, under normal circumstances, President Trump would, on that very night, claim victory.

But, because this Election Night will be anything but under-normal-circumstances, we come to the aforementioned, But Then…

Firstly, the Democrats, the Never-Trump-Republicans, along with all of Washington’s bureaucratic-Obama-loyalists, find themselves again in a most desperate position knowing that the polls with Joe Biden in the lead are fake and know that it will be a physical impossibility for Biden to win—legitimately that is… And, therefore, any and all, even deadly tactics, will be acceptably in-play to make Joe Biden their new president-elect.

Meanwhile, their slow-thinking-candidate, Joe Biden, who absentmindedly included in a recent speech the type written words, “End of Quote” from his teleprompter, has been told by his handlers, ‘You will not concede the election under any circumstances—got it Joe?’

80 Million Mail-In Ballots Have Been Sent Out to Who Knows Where?

Which brings us to the reason why all demonic democratic governors have demanded mail-in ballots, which have absolutely nothing to do with Covid-19 safety. No, mail-in ballots are being used in almost all democratic states for the sole purpose of controlling the outcome, aka: stealing, the presidential election. PERIOD!

Historically, a large percentage of Republicans will vote in person while, just like clockwork, an even larger percentage of fearful-Covid-minded-Democrats, will vote by mail-in ballots. In his Labor Day speech, President Trump said that nearly 80 million mail-in ballots have been sent out, making this the largest magnitude of mail-in ballots ever tried in any country before.

Although all states permit mail-in ballots to be received/date-stamped before Election Day, no ballot cast/received/date stamped after November 3rd can be considered constitutionally valid. Which also implies that counting harvested, or un-postmarked ballots, that arrive (un-date-stamped) or are suddenly found after Election Day, would also be unconstitutional.

The question becomes: At the typical polling place, there is a curtain or screen for the purpose of making each vote confidential or giving each the right to a secret ballot, but we lose that right of confidentially where another person opens our mail-in ballot with our name and will know for whom each of us voted, and then potentially posting our names and vote onto a list—which is wrong and should be entirely illegal.

But, even if all mail-in ballots were to be considered completely legit if received before Election Day, there are three swing states—Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—where no mail-in vote can be counted until after the polls close on Election Day, which based on the potential volume, could take days/weeks to count and certify. A quick look at the mail-in ballot requests of just one of these states may give you even more indigestion.

Will This Massive Mail-In Vote Cheating Scheme By The Democrats Work?

In just the state of Pennsylvania, Democrats have so far requested over 900,000 mail-in ballots, while the Republicans have asked for only 350,000, giving the Dems a 39% advantage. It has been said that both political parties will cheat—the Democrats are just better at it. And, therefore, there will be an untold number of ways in which the better-at-it-Democrats plan to ‘count’ the mail-in vote of this entirely-eccentric-election.

And, as if by design, even after all the mail-in ballots are counted, half the country will not accept the results, leading to a contested election in order to fuel a massive coup attempt, already in play by the ongoing #White House Siege. The violence in the lead up to the election will only become more amplified. Attacks by the BLM on whites will escalate as they are continually encouraged by the likes of Pelosi, Harris, Obama, and others to strike out at anyone who resists them.

So, where does this leave us? In a civil war? No! Not even close. Will this massive mail-in vote cheating scheme by the Democrats work? Doubtfully! But, will President Trump accept their fraudulent results? No! Never! We must keep in mind that Donald J. Trump is a street-fighter and he will not go down or leave the office without using every legal option and power of the Presidency to prove their fraudulent counts/results.

Trump supporters, however, need to realize the danger, always mindful of situational awareness of their surroundings, and be prepared to act accordingly. But, know this too will eventually pass.

You, and your prayers to the Good Lord, are the only ones who can stop the Democrats. You must commit now to do whatever you can (work phone banks, go door-to-door, call your state GOP office to volunteer) to make sure that President Trump is reelected by such a wide majority that Biden will be forced to concede. It will not be easy. Roll up your sleeves. Get to work. Plan to survive and we will. And, with your help, America will not only survive but courageously push through to the other side, where once again we will be One Nation under God, with Liberty and Justice for all.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum – If you desire peace, prepare for war.

Questions the Media Should Ask Joe Biden

H/T Town Hall.

The drive by media will not ask Joe Pee Pads Biden any tough question as they he is not all there mentally.

Democratic Party presidential nominee Joe Biden finally held what was billed as a press conference with journalists recently — something of a rarity in a campaign that’s relied on staged question-and-answer sessions. It was a truly embarrassing display of hackery from the media.

 

Here’s a quick sampling of some of the queries Biden faced from supposedly dispassionate journalists:

A reporter asked Biden about anonymously sourced claims (published last week in The Atlantic) that Trump had made belittled remarks about veterans: “When you hear these remarks … what does it tell you about Trump’s soul and the life he leads?”

Follow-up: What would Biden “say to supporters of QAnon” and to Trump for “not rejecting that conspiracy?”

“We also know that Russia has been trying to sow doubt about the system. Are you concerned at all that this messaging may be working, that your supporters may give up on voting by mail because they’re concerned that it may be rigged?”

“You said today is the angriest you’ve been as a presidential candidate, but you said you’re trying to restrain yourself. Aren’t there a lot of people out there who are supporting you or inclined to not vote for the president, who would say, ‘Why isn’t Joe Biden, angrier about all of this?'”

And so on.

The questions largely gauged Biden’s disappointment regarding the presidency of Donald Trump, a completely legitimate topic for the candidate to bring up, but not one that allegedly independent media should be prompting him on. Surely, there are important queries. They could, for example, ask Biden:

After 45 years, you recently dropped your support for the Hyde Amendment, which barred taxpayer funding of abortions. Does your position now comport with the Democratic Party establishment, which backs abortion on demanded funded by the state until the ninth month of pregnancy? If not, can you point to a single restriction that a Biden administration would support?

You recently talked about how your Catholic faith had inspired your run for the presidency. You’ve also recently promised to reinstate Obama-era policies rolling back conscience protections for religious groups. Will a Biden administration renew efforts to sue charitable orders like the Little Sisters of the Poor in an effort to force them to pay for birth control in violation of their religious beliefs?

You once promised to put Beto O’Rourke — who said, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your guns” — in charge of gun control efforts in a Biden administration. Will you keep that promise? Your running mate Kamala Harris also supports the confiscation of “assault weapons.” Will your gun ban also be retroactive?

During the campaign, you publicly supported the “defund the police” movement — using the definition laid out by advocates of that cause. Now you say you no longer back redirecting funds from police departments. What changed your mind?

During the Democratic Party primaries, you supported a carbon tax and renewable mandates. Even the liberal Tax Policy Center says you will raise taxes on the middle class and small businesses. So how can you claim that you won’t raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 when the burden for those programs and hikes are borne by everyone?

You have embraced Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal, which proposes banning cars and air travel, as a framework for your energy policy. On numerous occasions, you’ve stated support for a fracking ban. You’ve since walked back that claim. What changed your mind, and how will you achieve your promised goal of “a 100 percent clean energy economy and net-zero emissions no later than 2050” without restricting affordable fossil fuels?

You have promised to return to the Obama administration’s directives on Title IX, which have denied due process to college students accused of sexual misconduct, preventing them from questioning their accusers, presenting exculpatory evidence and calling witnesses. Why don’t college students deserve the same presumption of innocence that you enjoyed after Tara Reade accused you of sexual assault?

You’ve said you’re not a fan of charter schools because they “siphon off money for our public schools, which are already in enough trouble.” How do you plan on imposing the federal government on localities and stopping them from offering more choices to parents and kids

 

You have changed your position on the 1994 Crime Bill, a bill you authored, as well as on the Defense of Marriage Act, the Iraq War, spending freezes for Social Security, NAFTA, busing and so on. Can you name any major bill you supported as a senator that you still support today?

A majority of Democratic Party voters believe that Russia altered votes to win the 2016 election for Donald Trump. Are you concerned that this popular conspiracy theory delegitimizes the presidential election? What do you say to these members of your party?

We’ve now seen more than one report that Democratic Party leaders and allied organizations are may challenge the results of the election if you lose the Electoral College. Do you support this effort, or will you accept the constitutional prescribed election results?

Those are just some of the topics that come to mind. Biden has been getting away with flat-out lying about a lot of these issues for months. After an eight-year vacation during Obama’s terms, we’ve seen lots of aggressive questioning of the president over the past four years. Nothing wrong with that. It would be nice, however, to see even a scintilla of that investigative zeal in the Biden coverage.