Tag Archives: Gun Control

Of Course You Realize This means war.

Yesterday I watched a clip of Joe Biden saying, “look, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t say you can’t restrict the kinds of weapons people can own.” It’s the same interview where he said, “Bingo!” to people who say a Biden administration means they’re going to come for their guns. I’d like to add that apparently the 1st Amendment doesn’t say you can’t restrict the kind of things people can say or write on their blogs or Facebook page (such as expressing the belief that the 2020 election was fraudulent). The 1st Amendment doesn’t mean you can’t tell people what kind of news they can watch or report (such as Fox News). The 1st Amendment doesn’t mean you can’t tell people what kind of religious beliefs they can hold (such as believing that taking the life of an unborn child is murder). Next I suppose we will discover that the 4th Amendment doesn’t say that the police can’t break into your house and look for evidence of something for which to convict you, or that the 5th Amendment doesn’t say the police can’t beat a confession out of you if they’re pretty sure you’re guilty.

H.R. 127 is the Democrat’s new gun control bill now before congress. You have to give them this: they go big or they go home–and they don’t intend to go home. When I write something like this, I don’t like to rely on what other people say about the issue, so I looked it up. I don’t want you to (a) take my word for it, or (b) accuse me of making stuff up and go away shaking your head, so I am linking to a copy of H.R. 127 here on my site. My review of it may not be as thorough as that of other “experts” on the subject, because I don’t speak “legalese” and I haven’t got all day to go through this monstrosity, but for what it’s worth, here it is:

  1. Universal Registration: It will establish a universal registration system for all firearms and ammunition in the United States. This registry will be administered by the Attorney General.
  2. Deadline to Register: Firearms owned before the law is passed must be registered within 3 months. After passage, firearms must be registered on the date the firearm is acquired.
  3. Database: The database must be accessible to all law enforcement, all branches of the Armed Forces,[**] all state and local governments, and all members of the public. [That’s right! They want criminals who need a gun to know where exactly they can steal one close by!]
  4. Universal Licensing: It will establish a licensing system for owning firearms and ammunition. You can get a license after a background check; a psychological evaluation that complies with standards set by the Attorney General, is conducted by a psychologist approved by the Attorney General, includes an interview with spouse/former spouse/and at least 2 other persons who are family members or associates; mandatory training; and after obtaining an insurance policy that will cost $800 per year. It will be unlawful to possess a firearm or ammunition unless licensed and compliant with all the other requirements.
  5. Licensing for Antique Firearms: Require licensing in order to display an antique firearm in your home.
  6. “Military-type” weapons are defined as all models, variants and copies of the AK-47, AR-15, TEC-9, Uzi, Galil, Beretta AR70, FN/FAL, M-10 (and other variants), Steyr AUG, any revolving cylinder shotguns, any semiautomatic rifle or handgun that has at least 2 mostly cosmetic characteristics that I wont’ go into here. All of these are added to the list of weapons required to be licensed and registered under the National Firearms Act (NFA) just like machineguns, which includes a $200 tax per firearm.
  7. Penalties for violations of above vary as follows:
    • Violations of 922(aa) [unlicensed possession of a firearm]: fines not less than $75,000 and not more than $150,000, imprisonment not less than 15 years and not more than 25 years, or both.
    • Violations of 922(bb)(1) [transfer a firearm to an unlicensed person]: fines not less than $50,000 and not more than $75,000, imprisonment not less than 10 years and not more than 15 years, or both.
    • Violations of 922(bb)(2) [transfer to another person without notifying the Attorney General]: fines not less than $30,000 and not more than $50,000, imprisonment not less than 5 years and not more than 10 years, or both.
    • Violations of 922(bb)(3) [loaning a firearm to a person without notifying the Attorney General ]: fines not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000. (No prison! How generous!}
    • Violations of 922(bb)(4) [a person holding a valid license transferring a firearm to a person who is not 18. Note that apparently it is not unlawful for an unlicensed person!]: fines not less than $75,000 and not more than $100,000, imprisonment not less than 15 years and not more than 25 years, or bothunless the transferee possesses or uses the firearm during a crime in which case it’s $100,000 to $150,000 and not less than 25 or more than 40 years.
    • Violations of 922(cc) [failure to have an insurance policy in effect as specified above]: fines not less than $50,000 and not more than $100,000, imprisonment not less than 10 years and not more than 20 years, or both.
  8. “Certain Ammunition:” It will be unlawful to:
    • Possess ammunition .50 caliber or greater
    • Possess a “Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device.”
    • Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices are defined as any feeding device that can hold more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition.
  9. Penalties for violations of above vary as follows:
    • Violations of 922(dd)(1) [possession of ammunition .50 caliber or greater ]: fines not less than $50,000 and not more than $100,000, imprisonment not less than 10 years and not more than 20 years, or both.
    • Violations of 922(dd)(2) [possession of a “large capacity ammunition feeding device]: fines not less than $10,000 and not more than $25,000, imprisonment not less than 1 years and not more than 5 years, or both.

They cannot possibly expect you to believe that all of this is about preventing crime. This is about disarming America’s law-abiding citizens so that they will no longer pose a threat to the agenda of an out of control government. This is about control.

In a previous post I have tried to explain that our rights (including the right to keep and bear arms) are not granted to us by the United States Constitution. Our rights were given to us by God and the government has no legal authority to take them away. They cannot be voted away by a majority of our misguided fellow citizens, they cannot be outlawed by Congress, they cannot be abrogated by Executive Order, and they cannot even be declared “unconstitutional” by a lawless Supreme Court. Our fundamental rights can only be striped from us by lawless, unconstitutional government power wielded by a tyrant. And it can only do so if we allow it.

Please understand this: if the government can do this (see above) to your right to keep and bear arms then they can and eventually will do similar things to all of your other rights, until your “rights” are nothing more than privileges allowed by your government when (and if) it sees fit. Do not accuse me of declaring war on America or even on the lawless federal government. H.R. 127 is nothing less than a declaration of war by our government upon us. Why has our nation’s capital been turned into an armed military encampment? Why does H.R. 127 specifically provide for the United States Military to have access to the database of those licensed to have firearms? [See ** above.] Why are the Democrats, who have for this moment achieved complete control over the legislative and executive branches, so frightened of an armed American citizenry?

“A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
— 2nd Amendment, U.S. Bill of Rights

Does H.R. 127 look like “infringement” to you? As I wrote before, the Second Amendment does not describe a right to hunt, target shoot or even protect yourself from criminals. The Second Amendment describes the right of American citizens to “alter or abolish” their government should it become “destructive of these ends” [securing our unalienable rights]. “Military-type” weapons are exactly the type of arms that the Second Amendment described a right for us to possess and laws like H.R. 127 established by governments like the one now in power in Washington, D.C. are exactly why the right to keep and bear arms is so vital to the “security of a free state.”

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
— U.S. Declaration of Independence

I ask, does H.R. 127 evince a design to reduce us under absolute Despotism?

Signed copies of Up in Arms: Clinging to Freedom in the Shadow of Tyranny, are now available directly from the author for $9. For details contact authorcopies@rkpaden.com.

One a Month…

Real quickly, let’s establish once and for all that in Virginia Democrats are either ignorant of both the Virginia and United States Constitutions and the principles of limited government–or just don’t care. Virginia’s Democrat-controlled senate just passed SB 69 which establishes a “one gun a month” policy limiting Virginia citizens to purchasing only one handgun in a 30-day period. Assuming that it is passed by the Virginia House of Delegates, Governor Northam is expected to sign it into law. (This will reinstate a previous VA law placing such a limit on handgun purchases.)

For those who may not be familiar with Virginia’s Constitution, take a minute to Google it and read Article I, Sections 2 and 13. Like the United States Constitution, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia also explicitly recognizes that the source of all government power is the consent of the people. It also recognizes the right of all the people to be armed for the defense of their liberty just as clearly as the 2nd Amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights–if not more so.

So, just thinking clearly for a second, where do you suppose that the Democrats currently in control of Virginia’s State Government believe that they derive the authority to limit Virginia citizens to one handgun a month, or to place any limit on how many guns of whatever type and capacity Virginia citizens may purchase? The Constitutions (US and VA) are limits on the power of government, not the rights of the people. Among the enumerated powers granted to the governments (US and VA) I am unable to identify any section that grants those governments the power to limit the lawful, clearly described rights of their citizens to keep and bear arms.

But logically, if the government does have the power to limit citizens to only one handgun a month, then doesn’t that mean that the government also has the power to limit them to only one handgun a year or only one handgun in their lifetime?

Or no guns of any kind at all?

Remember, in our nation and our states, we do not derive our rights from the consent of government. On the contrary, our governments derive their just powers (only their just powers) from the consent of the governed–us. In other words, if we choose, we the people have the power to limit our government to only one law a month, but our governments do not have the power to limit us to only one anything a month.

My Response To Beto

My sincere thanks to Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke, who finally admitted what most of us have known all along. Hell yes, they want to take our AR-15s and AK-47s!

And when that doesn’t work and the violence continues, they will be back for our other semi-automatics, pump-actions, bolt-actions, revolvers and anything else that goes bang and could put a hole in a would-be tyrant.

You cannot compromise with someone whose end goal is diametrically opposed to yours. You can only defeat them, or be defeated by them. So here is my response to Mr. O’Rourke:

The Third Thing About the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that TOO MANY Americans Simply Do Not Understand

“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.”

The Purpose of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Even many who admit to the original meaning and intent of the Second Amendment declare that it is an anachronism, a throw-back to an earlier time and no longer relevant today. We live in an enlightened civilization and the notion of tyranny in America is silly! And besides, the idea of the people standing up to a despot is ludicrous. One democratic lawmaker (Eric Swalwell) even suggested that the people would be hopelessly outgunned since the government has nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. Recent events should convince us that now more than ever before in our nation’s history, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is indispensable to maintaining our free state. It is only the millions of arms in private ownership in America that have kept the forces of tyranny at bay to this point. An armed population is the last line of defense for liberty, and when our government succeeds in disarming us our days of freedom will be numbered.

Imagine a government-required license before starting a church or holding a prayer-meeting. Imagine a government-required background check before being allowed to speak at a public rally. Imagine certain types of unpopular political speech being banned by government and we’re just about there. Why have we tolerated so many restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms when we would never (and should not) tolerate the like when it comes to freedom of speech, assembly, religion or any of our other fundamental rights granted by God? Because “…all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” But to continue quoting the Declaration of Independence, “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

We’re not quite there yet, but when our government determines to finally destroy that last line of defense, “a design to reduce [us] under absolute Despotism” will be evident. Freedom-loving Americans will never surrender their arms. Doing so will be surrendering our children and grandchildren to slavery.

The Second Thing About the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that TOO MANY Americans Simply Do Not Understand

“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.”

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not about hunting, target shooting or even defending your life or your home. Although these pursuits are certainly protected by that same right, they are not what the founding fathers had in mind when they talked about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Now we are constantly hearing about “military assault-type weapons” and “weapons of war,” and too often I hear gun owners and self-proclaimed supporters of the Second Amendment declare that “no one needs an AR-15 or AK-47!” And one democratic candidate for president finally just admitted it: “hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47!”

The intent of the Second Amendment’s writers is clearly demonstrated in the use of the phrase: A well-regulated militia. The word “militia” comes from the same roots as military and militant and that means fighting wars. Of course, many have tried to define the term “well regulated militia” as the equivalent of today’s National Guard, but both history and just a little thought will inform even the most casual reader that this argument is spurious. The founders clearly wrote “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and nowhere in the constitution or any founders’ writings was the phrase the people used to describe anything other than the people. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is nothing less than the right of American citizens to retain the means of overthrowing their government should it become necessary. Therefore, “military assault-type weapons” and “weapons of war” are exactly the kind of “arms” that the Second Amendment is talking about.

The First Thing About the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that TOO MANY Americans Simply Do Not Understand

“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.”

The Second Amendment does not create a right to keep and bear arms. I thought that would get your attention. The fact is, none of the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution (the “Bill of Rights”) create any rights. All of our rights are bestowed upon us by our Creator. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This is the foundation of government in the United States of America, and what sets it apart from virtually every other nation in the history of the world. The powers that our government holds are granted to it by the people, and the people retain all of their God-given rights that are not specifically yielded to the government in our founding documents.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was not established by the Second Amendment, and it does not rely on those words for its survival. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was not created by the political process, and it cannot be withdrawn by the political process. It cannot be abrogated by executive order, by act of congress or decree of the United States Supreme Court. It cannot even be withdrawn by repealing the Second Amendment, any more than the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion can be withdrawn by repealing the First Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is not up for a vote. Government cannot withdraw any of our rights through the legal process. It can only take them from us by force—if we allow it to do so.