The Republican Party needs to get with the program here. Of course, after a mass shooting, we're going to be blamed for it. The National Rifle Association is going to be blamed. We're going to be smeared as domestic terrorists for being pro-Bill of Rights. The liberal media will be up to their usual tricks. They will peddle inaccurate anti-gun stories. The anti-gun activist wing will be out in full force. We've been here before. We've weathered the storm before. It's always rocky in the aftermath, but in the end—we win. Who cares what Democrats think? Who cares what liberals think? Who cares what the media thinks? They all hate us, and trying to cater to their emotional needs is always a fool's errand. It's also political suicide.
Rep. Chris Jacobs (R-NY) announced he would be open to a ban on commonly owned firearm magazines and modern sporting rifles. He's now no longer running for re-election. His anti-gun stance cost him his seat. We're acting as if we're dealing with people on the other side who are committed to upholding the Constitution. They're not. Shredding the Second Amendment makes you a forever enemy. We all know the Democrats' long game here, so why do we have Republicans trying to get a gun-control package done?
Bipartisanship is always something that makes me uneasy on these issues. "Bipartisan gun control package" are words that should raise the alarms. What Democrats want is always scary. What the GOP sacrifices to get that agreement done could be even scarier. These aren't good faith negotiations.
A ban on sporting rifles is unconstitutional. A ban on magazines that hold ten rounds or more is also unconstitutional. It's a backdoor ban. Also, there are untold millions already in circulation. What's the use? A ban on AR-15s didn't do anything to curb violent crime or enhance public safety after 1994. It did help the GOP retake Congress during the Republican Revolution.
The repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is a legal backdoor to shredding gun rights. If allowed, liberal lawyers would sue the gun industry out of existence. That's their plan. Abolishment is their goal. Confiscation is their dream. We all know the moves. We all know their intentions. Why are we playing games with the devil here?
From the looks of it, a new ban on sporting rifles is not going to happen. What could happen is a change in the law on the age to purchase long guns. It's long been established law that you need to be 21 to buy a handgun, but 18 to buy long guns. This isn't new. Yet, Florida changed its laws after Marjory Stoneman Douglas. It could happen here. Red flag laws could also be in the mix.
The latter sounds great on paper, but what about guardrails against overreach? What about aftercare for those who do exhibit mental illness under this order? Often, the cops take the guns, but there's no follow-through on treatment. And do we realize that this law will undoubtedly impact veterans at a disproportionate rate?
The age requirement would mean that law-abiding Americans between the ages of 18-20 cannot fully exercise their Second Amendment rights. What if they need a rifle for protection against a stalker or an abusive significant other? What are they going to use—strong language? I can see constitutional issues here, but this wouldn't be an issue if the GOP killed this effort from the start.
This is a key midterm election year, and the GOP is acting like these little talks won't have much impact on their base. It could derail things big-league down-ticket if they go along with the Democrats' gun-grabbing agenda. That's at the heart of the Democratic Party's position, guys. Hello? Anyone home?