Dan Ross, at the American Thinker points to The hidden issues in Hunter Biden's crime conviction. The first issue, of course, is not so hidden. It is the schadenfreude we all probably feel. But keep in mind that Biden's case is also a sad one. Yes, he is a spoiled, entitled brat. But it is probably not entirely his fault that he is that way. Still...
Hunter Biden was recently convicted of three felony gun charges. As conservatives, it’s hard not to enjoy this for a moment. The entitlement that he’s felt all his life, his reckless behavior in all areas of his life, his spoiled rich frat-boy attitude — it’s very easy to feel the schadenfreude. Honestly, it’s impossible not to feel it.
And the fact that he broke the law is so obvious that I’m surprised that it took the jury ten minutes, much less three hours, to convict. But his conviction obscures the deeper issues in this case.
Ross then brings up the issue of the Form 4473
First, let’s talk about Form 4473, the ATF form Hunter signed, that clearly spells out the illegality and penalties for knowingly submitting false information. Joe Biden is on record and on video claiming he was instrumental in creating that form, for which he has bragged about wanting more severe penalties for false answers. The MSM, including Fox, have ignored that aspect of this story, but the aspect is a key element of the important story.
...snip...
There is another important and interesting element to this story. Hunter’s legal team have already signaled that they intend to invoke the 2nd Amendment on appeal. That’s right: they’re going to argue the NRA position that Form 4473 violates the Constitution. I happen to agree with this argument. The one right recognized in the Bill of Rights contingent on anything at all is the 2nd Amendment. I believe this to be unconstitutional. You don’t lose your right to free speech if you’re a drug addict. You don’t lose your right to freedom from searches and seizures. Why should you lose the right to defend yourself?
If his legal team uses the argument that the Form 4473 is Unconstitutional, it will thus be doubly rich. We may find people like the NRA who are normally on the other side of the gun control debate submitting amicus briefs in Hunter Biden's favor. What would Joe say?
The last point is unbelievably disturbing. Joe Biden has made the threat a number of times that if we want to defend against a tyrannous government, we would need F-15 fighter aircraft. He is thus claiming that we have already lost, which I dispute. Joe may find his military in a quagmire not unlike Afghanistan or Vietnam. As Ross wrote:
Finally, the third and most important issue. Once again, Joe doubled down on his argument that having guns to protect yourself from a tyrannical government is silly because “you’d need an F-15.” Many have pointed out the obvious threat in this argument, and they are correct. It’s clearly a threat. But there’s something more subtle at play here. Without realizing the implications, he’s actually arguing that fully armed F-15s owned by private citizens are protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Think about it. If you agree that the 2nd Amendment is to protect you from a tyrannical government — and I’d argue that we’re watching that tyranny progress in real time — then logically, F-15s and tanks, and whatever else citizens need to defend themselves against that threat, are protected arms. I don’t want to live in a world like that, but then, I haven’t threatened the American people several times with the use of fighter-bomber aircraft. I’m not making that argument; I’m just pointing out that Joe Biden has been making it unintentionally.
It is an argument that the founders would have understood.
No comments:
Post a Comment