Can “infringement” be defined? Of course it can—and that’s the problem.
One political party—the Democrats’ party—is champing at the bit to win the election, so they can go about outlawing firearms they don’t like, which is basically all the good guns we already have. The ones police and the public prefer because they’re the best for everyday decent legal use.
Outlawing firearms that are legal is infringement.
There, it’s out in the open.
You can’t declare property Americans have and can own, and just get away with it. It doesn’t matter how much you justify it and rationalize it or lie and call it common sense or safety. It is none of that.
No matter how much you want to reduce crime or rid the world of hate, banning the public’s property, when it comes to guns, is infringement by its very nature, and won’t work. It’s what King George tried to do that set off the American Revolution. Do Democrats really want to go there?
In Hillary’s election plan, it’s what one political party can’t wait to do. Yet it’s a revolutionary idea, one you cannot do in a free country like America. It attacks the foundation upon which this nation is founded. Politicians lack legitimate power to make legal arms illegal.
Making legal guns illegal is infringement.
Politicians only govern (legally) with the consent of the governed. Getting elected is not consent of the governed. That’s what you get in a mob democracy. Getting elected means you are granted limited delegated power, described in the Constitution, in a republic—which is what we are. The “news” media, politicians themselves and useful idiots can call the United States a democracy all they want, but it doesn’t make it so. Getting elected just means you get to exercise the delegated powers.
The powers and rules are cast in stone—The Constitution—that is the consent of we the people. The power to infringe on arms we own is banned at the highest level. For a reason. We anticipated your arrival, Ms. Rodham-Clinton. Every free society faces oncoming despots whose greatest—or at least loudest—goal, is to disarm or subarm the public, “for their own good.” The disarmers remain heavily armed of course. You the peons don’t.
Hillary will be surrounded by firepower you can’t even dream of, right down to helicopter gunships. Your one-shot-at-a-time rifles will become contraband, along with too many bullets, or even cartridges, if she has her way. Oh, the irony, in this river of iron.
What the candidate plans, applauds, whips her admirers into frenzied adulation over, violates the oath she plans to take to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
Some pundits trifle with what a packed Supreme Court might concoct, and the nefarious quakes the new boss might initiate in the halls of bureaucracy, now more influential and certainly quicker than Congress. Those gnats hardly matter on a playing field where $400 million in cash can be spent at night in converted foreign currency directly to jihadi terrorists, and no one goes to prison. Which bank tellers assembled the palettes of cash? Can you say, “Providing Material Support to Terrorists”? (18 USC §2339A) But I digress.
The top of the list of guns to be infringed is the finest rifle made in the world today, the one preferred by every police force in America, by our own military, and by the public in overwhelming numbers, the AR-15, America’s Rifle.
The excuses for infringing on our most mainstream household single-shot firearm are most often blamed on the Muslim jihad, the very situation where the gun could be most useful. Referred to by the politically correct infringement class as “workplace violence” or “gun violence” instead of “crime” or “war,” that’s an abomination of propaganda, yet it is embraced by the “news” media, which tells you something about them.
In fact, every decent firearm is on the Democrat’s infringement list—California Sen. Diane Feinstein’s list, from when she lacked power to enact it. So here’s the question to ask every politician who seeks power:
What guns do you believe the American public should be allowed to have?
That seemingly lightweight question is as benignly rich as all the “neutral” ones they ask of political partisans, starting with, “Why does anyone need an AR-15?” After all these years as reporters they still don’t know. Imagine that, and they call themselves professionals. Everyone else knows. Americans buy the finest rifle made in the world today, by the millions, for the exact same reasons police do, and reporters still ask that grade-school question.
It almost demands those reporters face mandatory government-run training, testing and get licensed and registered before they can call themselves reporters, get approval cards and registered writing tools to practice what they do. But that would be infringement and would never be tolerated.