Staff Reports
In the wake of the recent horrific shooting incident in Uvalde, Texas, Democrats in the House are eagerly awaiting the opportunity to begin chipping away at the Second Amendment.
Liberals have been on the lookout for a justification to restrict citizens’ right to bear arms in the United States, and they are patiently awaiting the chance to do so via newly introduced legislation. A obvious reminder that these individuals should not be trusted is provided by the fact that they take a corrupt approach to the regulation of firearms, are willing to wring every last drop of profit-making potential out of a senseless act of violence, and are overly partisan in their efforts to amend the United States Constitution.
This week, the House of Representatives, which is controlled by Democrats, approved a spate of gun control bills, along with a bill that would increase the minimum age to buy “assault weapons” like the AR-15 and AK-47. Liberals refer to these types of firearms as “assault rifles.” These proposals are going to have a difficult time gaining traction in the Senate, and it is quite probable that they will not be enacted.
Within hours after the shooting in Uvalde, Democratic legislators started putting together a legislative package to restrict access to firearms. Shortly after, Democratic Representative Jerrold Nadler sponsored The Protecting Our Kids Act, which was later approved on Tuesday along party lines following its introduction.
The package not only brings the minimum age for buying a handgun up to 21, but it also extends bump stock laws and mandates that gun owners keep their weapons in safes (or anywhere outside the house). Many Republicans have said that the measure violates the Constitution in its entirety, and considering that many courts have previously struck down similar anti-gun restrictions, it is very doubtful that the Act would be enforced.
In the run-up to the vote, Nadler, along with all other Democrats, relied heavily on graphic and graphically graphic details of the killing in Uvalde. It is impossible for a liberal to ever talk openly and frankly about their intention to limit the Second Amendment; instead, they are required to cloak their argument in a dramatic and overly emotional appeal for social justice.
The law was approved along party lines, as was to be anticipated (218-197), however 10 Republicans did vote in support of increasing the age at which individuals may purchase semi-automatic firearms. The leadership of the Democratic Party gave in to a request from 21 of its party members and agreed to conduct separate votes on various aspects of the package. These representatives had the expectation that by modifying the bill in this way, they might keep the support of both parties.
“All of us in this Chamber were shaken by the images of parents in Uvalde standing in line to match their DNA to the remains of their nine- and ten-year-old children — parents who should be picking their children up from school right now but who, instead, are picking up the pieces of their lives, shattered by this unimaginable loss,” said Representative Nadler during a floor speech.
If the anti-gun legislation that the Democrats want to pass is so pressing and important, why does it consist of six distinct bills? This is the most pressing issue that was brought up by Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who also spoke on the floor of the House.
There is a low probability that the Senate will consider this legislative bundle.
The Senate is now engaged in discussions with members of both parties. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) are now in negotiations about a potential gun control bill that would provide financial incentives to states that would legislate “red flag” laws.
Let’s be clear about something: any effort at bipartisanship in regards to gun regulation will achieve nothing – nothing – to halt the bloodshed caused by firearms. There is no way ahead that involves Republicans and Democrats working together on a proposal to limit the Second Amendment in any way. It is a proclamation of war.
The preceding is a summary of an article that originally appeared on American Examiner News.
2 Comments