Democrat Gun Grabbers Violate Oath of Office

 As Tucker Carlson said the other night, the government wants to disarm you and me because the government considers us an enemy.  Think about that.  While that statement should be all you need to know, there is more.  At the American Thinker today Stu Tarlowe has an article entitled Following Biden's Gim Control Speech, An Inconvienient Story Surfaces. Spoiler alert, the "inconvenient story" involves a tattooed Latino escaped killer who, unsurprising killed an entire family before himself being killed by the police. But before Tarlowe gets to this inconvenient story, he takes apart Biden's speech with a bit of the truth:

Thursday night’s news programs were dominated by the story of President Biden’s speech earlier in the evening, in which he pressed for more stringent gun control measures. If I were to pick apart his remarks—and, believe me, there is fertile ground on which to do so!—I might zero in on his claim that “...the Second Amendment...is not absolute. It was Justice Scalia who wrote, and I quote: ‘Like most rights, the right Second Amendment — the rights granted by the Second Amendment are not unlimited.’ Not unlimited. It never has been.”

Really? “The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” sounds pretty absolute to me. But that’s just me. What matters more is that Biden’s supposed quote from the late Antonin Scalia isn’t quite accurate. Indeed, it changes a word that is critical to understanding the nature of the rights that the Founders enumerated in our Bill of Rights.

It’s true that, in the Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the learned Justice Scalia did raise questions of limitations to the nature of weaponry covered. What Scalia wrote contrasts with remarks from Tench Coxe (1755-1824), a political economist and a delegate from Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress, who emphatically stated that the weaponry referred to by the Second Amendment comprised “every terrible implement of the soldier.” Nevertheless, on the core issue, Scalia got it right and Biden misquoted him. Thus, Scalia did not refer to the rights “granted” by the Second Amendment; rather, he referred to “the right secured by the Second Amendment....”

Exactly so. Biden relies on the idea that no right is unlimited, a statement that nearly everyone would agree with. For example, people who are convicted of a felony are prevented from owning a gun. Now, I personally think that only people convicted of violent felony such as murder, armed robbery, rape etc should be denied their Second Amendment rights. Congress and state legislatures have created too many "felonies" that aren't. Nevertheless, the fact that people convicted of a felony can be denied their rights shows that the Second Amendment is not unlimited. But at the same time, to deny anyone a right as absolute as the Second Amendment requires truly extraordinary proof. But he is proposing to take a person's guns through so-called "Red Flag Lows" with no proof at all.

Another inaccuracy Biden has stated repeatedly is that gun manufacturers are immune from liability suits. Absolutely false.

When it comes to inaccuracies, it’s also important to zero in on Biden’s call for “Repeal of the immunity that protects gun manufacturers from liability.” This repeats a theme he brought up in his State of the Union address, one that sees him advocating for the repeal of “the liability shield that makes gun manufacturers the only industry in America that cannot be sued. The only one.” That was wrong then and it was wrong Thursday night.

The truth is that the firearms industry is far from the only industry that enjoys liability protections. Those liability protections are the same ones that keep you from suing General Motors just because the driver who smashed into your car happened to be driving a Chevy. Manufacturers are liable for badly made products, not for well-made products that are used badly.

So, how to explain how our Congress can even think about so infringing on our rights? Another post at the American Thinker by Andrea Widburg has the answer. Widburg's post, entitled A Democrat finally says out loud what they all think about the Constitution explains it for us.

The Democrats have made it plenty clear over the years that they don’t like the Constitution as written. They hate free speech, a free press, religion that is free from government intervention and, most of all, the Second Amendment and its clear recognition of every citizen’s inherent right to bear arms. Unable to change these principles, they opt for imaginary rights (e.g., abortion, same-sex marriage) and dream of packing the Supreme Court to circumvent the intentionally cumbersome amendment process. But they always pay lip service to the Constitution. That is, until Rep. David Cicilline (D. R.I.) spoke openly about his contempt. He is to be praised for his honesty.

...snip...

In the trade-offs that life always demands, the deeply tragic, yet statistically inconsequential number of school shootings does not justify abandoning the Second Amendment. Instead, shootings should be met through different, lesser means—all of which the Democrats refuse to try. They want to seize your guns because, as is true for all political entities that want to control you, your guns stand in their way.

And Cicilline, with admirable honesty, said the quiet part out loud:

"Spare me the bullshit about Constitutional rights"

So there you have it.  The Democrats intend to violate their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States by violating your rights.  This used to be considered treason.  Why is it not now?  As I have said before, any government that doesn't trust you should not be trusted.