As the election heats up, political pundits and Republican establishment candidates are doing everything they can to convince you that they are staunch supporters of the 2nd amendment. But one look at these people’s voting records, and past statements, shows how full of crap they are really are.
But, but… the NRA, Glenn Beck, and the so-called conservative talk show hosts told me that the Republicans supported the 2nd amendment…
Time to burst a couple bubbles, and offend the sycophants who hang on every word that comes out of the mouths of talk show hosts like Glenn Beck and Mark Levin; believing everything they say is somehow conservative gospel that can’t be questioned.
Republicans have Caused Nearly as Much Damage to our 2nd Amendment Rights as Democrats!
The truth about many of this year’s candidates, and many of the Republicans who have been written into the history books as pro-gun conservatives, is very few of them actually support the 2nd amendment. Oh they talk a good game, and some of them may even be pro-gun; but pro-gun doesn’t always mean pro 2nd amendment. In fact, when some of these guys say they are pro-gun, it usually doesn’t extend very far past “sporting purposes.”
When choosing a candidate, we need to be extremely careful who we choose; we need to remember our history, and remember what past so-called pro-gun, Republicans Presidents have brought us.
Word of the day: Prepare! And do it the old fashion way, like our fore-fathers did it and succeed long before us, because what lies ahead of us will require all the help we can get. Watch this video and learn the 3 skills that ensured our ancestors survival in hard times of famine and war.
Let’s start with someone who seems to be off limits; a president who for some reason has become the face of conservatism. You know; the guy who was once a Democrat until he became the savior of the Republican Party….
Ronald Reagan: The truth about Reagan’s Anti-Gun Agenda
Ok, here is where the people who believe everything they here on The Glenn Beck and Mark Levin show start to lose it… “How dare you say anything about the great Conservative Ronald Reagan!”
Well, let’s take a look at the real Ronald Reagan and his record on guns.
Also read: A Few Simple Survival Tips You Wish You Knew Sooner
Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986
While the NRA likes to pretend the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 was “the most sweeping rollback of gun control laws in history,” the facts don’t really support that claim.
On May 19th, 1986 Ronald Reagan signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act. Sounds great until you realize the bill actually banned the sale of all full-auto firearms to civilians, which eventually opened the door to restricting civilian access to semiautomatic firearms.
Reagan Helped Push the Brady Bill & Mandatory Background Checks
Two years after he left office, Reagan helped push through one of the biggest attacks on the second amendment to be signed into law, the Brady Bill. In 1991, he wrote an op-ed for The New York Times, which helped galvanize Republican support for the bill. Without his efforts, the bill would have never passed
Helping to Ban Semi-Auto Rifles – or so-called “assault weapons”
While this law was passed well after his time in office, Reagan played a critical role in pushing through the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. He used his power and influence as a former President to lobby Republican Congressmen and Senators into supporting the bill.
“The vote on the assault weapon ban was contentious and barely passed the House of Representatives,”notes Andrew Kaczynski. “At least two members of the House of Representatives credited Reagan with influencing their votes. The bill passed 216-214, a margin of two votes.”
Conveniently, Levin, Beck, and Limbaugh always seem to leave these facts out when talking about the so-called “great one.”
Richard Nixon: Another Anti-Gun Republican
In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. “Guns are an abomination,” Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, “Free from fear of gun owners’ retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles.”
In remarks recorded in the Oval office on May 16, 1972 Nixon showed his hatred for the 2nd amendment.
“I don’t know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house,” Nixon said in a taped conversation with aides. “The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth.” He asked why “can’t we go after handguns, period?”
Nixon went on: “I know the rifle association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it.” But “people should not have handguns.”
Related article: Are We Living In A Police State? If Someone Broke Into Your House Are You Just Going To Sit There If You Have The Means To Protect Your Family?
George Bush Sr. – The first Disastrous Bush Presidency
Not to be outdone by his predecessor, Bush is responsible for banning more guns than any other President before him.
It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of so-called “assault weapons” in 1989, and promoted the nonsensical – and very unconstitutional — view that Americans should only be allowed to own firearms suitable for “sporting purposes.”
In March of 1989, Bush banned the import of foreign-made, semiautomatic assault rifles deemed not to have “a legitimate sporting use.” This helped pave the way for the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.
George W: Like Father like Son
When he ran for office in 2000, President George W. Bush campaigned on extending the Assault Weapons ban, first passed by his father in 1989 and then expanded under President Clinton in 1993.
While the bill never made it to his deck, Bush was praised by Congressional Democrats for vowing to reauthorize the 1994 assault-weapons ban. He stated that should congress reauthorize the bill, he would sign it and make it permanent.
Gun Control Measures that Bush Supported throughout his Political Career.
- Banning Importation of Large Magazines
- Gun Free Zones – Banning Guns within 300 ft. of Schools
- Changing Gun Ownership Age from 18 to 21
- Requiring Instant Background checks at Gun Shows
- Requiring Trigger Locks
Those of us who believe in our Second Amendment rights need to pay close attention to what’s going on here. With one deciding vote on the Supreme Court being the only thing keeping the wolves at bay, this coming election could have dire consequences for gun owners.
by: Robert Richardson, Off Grid Survival
In light of the recent ruling (6/3/21 ) by Federal judge Roger Benitez overturning a California firearms ban on assault weapons where he ruled it violates the Constitutional right to bear arms, his words, referring to the Second Amendment, I have a suggestion. In my thesis regarding the Second Amendment I think it will prove his ruling right to bear arms” has everything to do with a “militia” and nothing to do with a “person” or individual, which the following will suggest..
Justice Amy Coney Barrett Second Amendment dilemma
In some 225 years neither law professors, academic scholars, teachers, students, lawyers or congressional legislators after much debate have not been able to satisfactorily explain or demonstrate the Framers intended purpose of Second Amendment of the Constitution. I had taken up that challenge allowing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s dilemma to understand the true intent of the Second Amendment.
I will relate further by demonstration, the intent of the Framers, my understanding using the associated wording to explain. The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Militia, a body of citizens organized for military service.
If, as some may argue, the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms, the only way to describe ones right as a private individual is not as a “militia” but as a “person.” (The individual personality of a human being: self)
The 4th Amendment reminds us, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons….”
The Article of Confederation lists eleven (11) references to“person/s.” The Constitution lists “person” or “persons” 49 times to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a constitutional legal standing as to a “person” his or her constitutional duty and rights, what he or she can do or not do.
It’s not enough to just say “person/s” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times, but to see it for yourself (forgo listing), and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every person be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person.”
Whereas, in the Second Amendment any reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there a reason? Which leaves the obvious question, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey the same legal standard in defining an individual “persons” right to bear arms as a person?
Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissent in Barr v Kanter (2019) Second Amendment argument acquiesced to 42 references to “person/s, of which 13 characterize either a gun or firearm. Her Second Amendment, “textualism” approach having zero reference to “person/s. Justice Barrett’s view only recognizes “person/s” in Barr, as well in her many other 7th circuit rulings. It is her refusal to acknowledge, recognize or connect the U.S. Constitution benchmark legislative interpretive precept language of “person/s,” mandated in our Constitution 49 times, to the Second Amendment.
Leaving Supreme Court Justice Barrett’s judgment in question.
In the entire U.S. Constitution “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of “person” or “persons.” One reference to “people” in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons in describing militia.
Now comes the word “shall” mentioned in the Constitution 100 times. SHALL; ought to, must ..
And interestingly, the word “shall” appears in the Second Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and shall not be infringed.”
“[S]hall not be infringed.” Adding another word “infringed” to clarify any misunderstanding as to the intent of the Second Amendment. Infringe. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another;
The condition “Infringe” has put a stop as to any counter thoughts regarding the Second Amendment, as you shall not infringe or encroach on beliefs other to what is evident as to the subject “Militia.”
Clarifying “..the right of the people to keep and bear arms…
People. Human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest.
I am not against guns, everybody has them. I’m against using the Second Amendment illogically as a crutch. If it makes those feel better so be it. Just what it deserves, use it with a wink.
William Heino Sr
Actually, the ’86 bill didn’t ban the sale of full auto weapons to civilians. Only full auto weapons made after 1986. Someone needs to get their facts straight. This is one reason I doubt anything I read in the blogosphere.
Banning guns at near schools got a lot of kids killed they say. Though Sandy Hoax was not one of them.
The rest of what you listed in the last part is just to give the phony pheds time to SHOOT you instead.
GET ON THE INTERNET,take a look at what life was like in the 1840’s,no steel,no tools,very few nails and screws,no glass,NO GLASSES TO LOOK THROUGH TO READ OR SEE,and the list is BIG,of things that didn’t exist or weren’t in the hands of the poor working class,thats a long list all by its self,RIGHT NOW,america is on the verge of the 1840’s again,ALL it will take is the LOST OF THE GUNS,and every one will be SLAVES to those who have them,care to guess who they might be….THIS IS SOMETHING everyone should seriously think about,YOU let them take the GUNS and it won’t be long and you will learn what life was like for the serfs in the middle ages,when the KING OWNED IT ALL………..
scumbag liars each and every one of them, New WORLD ORDER satanists and they are all deserving of hanging.
Four words………………COME AND GET THEM ! MOLON LABE !