, , , , , , , , ,

credit: babylonbee

Have you, gentle readers, thought of buying that gun—or guns—you’ve had your eye on, and stocking up on ammunition, since Ruth Bader Ginsburg died?  If not, you will, or at the very least, you should.

I’ve often written that the Second Amendment hangs on a single vote in the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice John Roberts is, at best, wobbly on such things these days.  The Court hasn’t taken up a Second Amendment case in 10 years, and circa September, 2020, the Second Amendment is still the rented mule of the Bill of Rights, a second class right at best, more like a privilege.

If President Trump is reelected, and particularly if he can seat a judge who will honor and act on their oath of office, who will decide cases on the Constitution and the law rather than on the whims of any political party, honest Americans can breath a cautious sigh of relief.  With a 6-3 tentative majority of constitutionalist justices, the Second Amendment will potentially be a bit safer than it is today, and Chief Justice Roberts can indulge his inner leftist to his heart’s content.  Rather than being the supreme legislator of the supreme legislature who decides for all Americans, he’ll have to make do with being merely the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Common AR-15 Carbine Variant

As with the years following Mr. Trump’s first inauguration, common ammunition will once again be widely available, as will common handguns and rifles.  Prices will once again fall to pre-constitutional panic levels, and Democrats/Socialists/Communists will be focused on destroying Mr. Trump in any way possible to a degree that far surpasses the resistance/coup insanity of his first term.  They’ll always want to disarm the law-abiding, but their national efforts will be, temporarily, on the back burner.

But if the Harris/Biden ticket should prevail, it will be the whole new day in the People’s Republic Of Antifa/BLM.  As I’m sure you’re aware, among the first things President Harris will do is pack the Supreme Court—they’re admitting it openly–to ensure the Constitution forever takes a backseat to D/S/C policy.  Let’s visit a few articles, beginning with Stephen Gutowski at The Free Beacon, for a taste of the ticket’s intentions:

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has done something unprecedented with his pick of Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) as his running mate: put a candidate on the presidential ticket who publicly supports gun confiscation.

During her failed primary campaign, Harris was one of only a handful of candidates to explicitly advocate for the confiscation of what she estimated to be tens of millions of legally owned firearms.

‘We have to have a buyback program and I support a mandatory gun buyback program,’ she said during an October policy forum hosted by the gun-control group March for Our Lives. ‘It’s got to be smart. We’ve got to do it the right way but there are five million [assault weapons] at least, some estimate as many as 10 million, and we’re going to have to have smart public policy that’s about taking those off the streets but doing it the right way.’

But what about the lower half—Gropin’ Joe Biden—of the ticket?

credit: babylonbee

And though Joe Biden has advocated for even more stringent gun-control policies than Clinton—including a ban on all guns without ‘smart’ features—he told CNN’s Anderson Cooper last year there is ‘no legal way’ to confiscate guns Americans already own.

The Biden campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Right.  Joe is also for fracking, when he’s not against fracking, when he’s not for or against fracking, when he knows who he is, where he is, for which office he is running or what might be happening around him.  There is no doubt the Harris/Biden ticket is the most anti-liberty/gun of any in the modern era—perhaps in history–and the most overt about their gun banning and confiscation intentions.

‘I think you’re dealing with a guy who’s got a complete and total anti-gun platform,’ Jason Ouimet, head of the NRA’s political action committee, told the Washington Free Beacon in a recent interview. ‘And for that little bit of modera[tion] that he wanted to purport, I think that went out the window.’

Mark Oliva, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said Harris’s track record in Congress and on the campaign trail indicates she would push Biden even further to the left on the issue.

‘During her short-lived presidential campaign, she demanded gun-control legislation within 100 days and threatened executive action if Congress didn’t deliver,’ Oliva told the Free Beacon. ‘Senator Harris was clear when she said gun control would be an administration priority. Her platform included entertaining forced confiscation of lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles, redefining ‘sporting purpose’ for lawful firearm possession, criminalizing private firearm transfers and repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In fact, she supports politicizing the Department of Justice and using the weight of the federal government to harass a constitutionally protected industry in a series of frivolous lawsuits to bankrupt manufacturers.’

But, but, all that would be unconstitutional!  Indeed, which is why court packing will be enacted simultaneously.  Under a D/S/C court, the Constitution says what they say it says from day to day, and the actual words don’t matter.  That’s the point of a “living constitution”: the super legislature gives D/S/Cs the policies they can’t get through the legitimate legislative process.

Let’s visit Dr. John R. Lott Jr. at Real Clear Politics for another look at the Harris/Biden tickets “also starring, Joe Biden”:

After two Los Angeles sheriff’s deputies were shot and critically wounded on Saturday, Joe Biden warned, ‘Weapons of war have no place in our communities.’ And within just hours of the attack, Biden tweeted in praise of the original bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, which lasted from 1994 to 2004. “These bans saved lives, and Congress should never have let them expire,” he wrote.

handgun, not an assault rifle, was used to shoot the deputies. But it seems that Biden never misses an opportunity to deceptively complain about ‘weapons of war.’

Let us give poor Biden the benefit of the doubt and assume he is not merely reading from the teleprompter.  It’s easy to do as he has been saying the same things for decades.

If the ban had any effect, one would think that it would reduce the number of murders committed with rifles. But the percentage of firearm murders that were committed with rifles was at 4.8% prior to the ban starting in September 1994, and averaged 4.9% from 1995 to 2004. In the 10 years after the ban, the figure averaged just 3.9%. This pattern is the opposite of what gun control advocates predicted.

Many academic studies have examined the original federal assault weapons ban.  They consistently found no statistically significant impact on mass public shootings or any other type of crime. Clinton administration-funded research by criminology professors Chris Koper and Jeff Roth confirmed as much in a 1997 report for the National Institute of Justice. ‘The evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero),’ they wrote.  Koper and Roth suggested at the time that it might be possible to find a benefit after the ban had been in effect for more years. In 2004, they published a follow-up NIJ study with fellow criminologist Dan Woods. ‘We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence,’ they concluded. ‘And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.’

Notice the “suggestion” the ban might be effective if they had only another decade or so for it to work its wonders.  D/S/Cs cannot admit error.  Their policies are perfect, infallible, because they are intellectually and morally superior to everyone else.  So when one of their non-falsifiable policies appears to fail, this is only because not enough money has been spent, the policy wasn’t sufficiently harsh and unconstitutional, it wasn’t given to the peasants good and hard enough, not enough time has been allotted for its wonders to fully manifest, and Normal Americans have been allowed to exist and/or retain their rights and thus oppose the policy, which for these exceptions, would be working magnificently and paving the way to D/S/C utopia

The fact is that when the ban sunset, D/S/Cs dropped the issue, recognizing political suicide when they saw it.  They never gave up their dream of disarming the law-abiding, but became much more covert about their intentions.  And for the first time since, they’re being very upfront about those intentions.

They’re threatening Americans, and they’re not being subtle about it.  You think we’ve got rioting now?  Just wait until Trump dares to fulfill his constitutional duty and nominate a Supreme Court justice.  Just want until the Senate confirms one before or shortly after the election—if Trump finds some way to overcome the massive fraud that’s already in the pipes.  Just wait until Trump is inaugurated.  Just wait until the police really are abolished and replaced with “Ministries of Peace.”  Just wait until all bail is abolished, and all prisons are shuttered, shuttered that is until they can be filled with Americans made instant felons for possession of previously legal firearms.  Vote for anyone but Harris/Biden, you missing-toothed, smelly, cousin-marrying, bad-dressing, uneducated, unsophisticated WalMart-shopping Deplorables, and D/S/Cs will make Portland, Seattle and Minneapolis look like Girl Scout cookie sales.

Think I’m exaggerating?  These are all D/S/C policies already in effect, and promised, by D/S/Cs nationwide, should they seize total political power.  Google away.

And with a packed Supreme Legislature—er, Court, I mean Court…