Newsmax Article- Apr 3, 2019
A modern-day philosopher once said “it’s déjà vu all over again.”
A modern-day philosopher once said, “it’s déjà vu, all over again.”
Once again, an overly-complicated, legalese-filled bill is being introduced that could be used as a weapon by anti-gun government officials to strip away an individual’s Second Amendment Rights.
Democrats in Congress are attempting to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act that was passed in 1994 and ultimately expired in February of this year.
This is a law that allows the firearms of anyone convicted of domestic abuse to be taken away. While this sounds like a common-sense measure that everyone should support, it’s vagueness and loosely worded text has prompted the National Rifle Association to oppose it.
There are two reasons why this is the appropriate stance.
First and foremost, the NRA is a civil rights organization (America’s longest standing) whose sole purpose is to support our Second Amendment rights from any infringement.
The National Rifle Association is supported by 5 million Americans primarily because of the constant barrage of attempted or successful laws proposed by liberals and Democrats that continuously erode the Constitutionally-protected right of Americans to keep and bear arms.
Bump stocks have been banned federally.
Magazines with more than 10 rounds have been banned in many states.
The term “assault rifle” has been created as scare tactic propaganda to describe semiautomatic rifles that merely resemble the M-16 or other truly “military grade” weapons. Many of these have been banned in many states.
Many more firearm laws are introduced at local, city, state, and federal levels. Most are redundant at other levels, but all try to chip away at a right that our Founding Fathers told us “shall not be infringed.” Enough holes in the dam will eventually cause it to fail. The NRA is merely trying to protect that continuously attacked Right.
Mere laws cannot and will not protect anyone. Laws just provide an instrument for the government to punish those who violate them. For example, homicide is already illegal on both federal and state levels, but 15,129 Americans were murdered in 2017.
The second reason that this act should be opposed is that liberals who wrote and support it have proven untrustworthy, hypocritical, and almost incapable of abiding by laws. The vagueness of the V.A.W. Act provides ample opportunity for anti-gun activists and politicians to unconstitutionally strip away someone’s civil rights, in regard to the Second Amendment.
By merely scrolling down to the second section of the act, I found this text, “Technological abuse may include– “(A) unwanted, repeated telephone calls, text messages, instant messages, or social media posts;”.
While reading, I realized that a mere text message or social media post from someone with a broken heart could lead to them and their property being searched, and their weapons confiscated.
NRA spokesperson Jennifer Baker stated, “How it’s written right now, you could be convicted for a misdemeanor stalking offense for a tweet that causes someone emotional distress and then you would be prohibited from owning a firearm.”
David Keck, Director of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence responded to that quote with, “A single tweet or Facebook message, without significant other conduct, would ordinarily not be enough.” Ordinarily is the qualifying phrase here. It would not be impossible to envision overreach by anti-gun officials.
After watching the FBI and Department of Justice being weaponized by Democratic politicians and bureaucrats against candidate, and then President Trump, it scares me to think that such simple acts as tweeting or texting could justify confiscation and removal of a person’s constitutionally-protected Second Amendment rights.
One question not asked: “Is this bill even necessary?” For those convicted of domestic violence or other violent, felonious acts, it is already illegal to own firearms, with a few, rare exceptions. Can we make an act “more illegaler” (sic)?
Do I oppose violence against women?
Do I support the Second Amendment protected right to keep and bear arms?
Are those two-facts contradictory to each other?
Can the NRA oppose a loosely-worded law that potentially threatens that for which it exists to protect, without being “anti-woman” or “pro-stalker”?
Yes. It is the very basic mission of the NRA to do so.
That is the reason over 5 million Americans who support the Second Amendment join and financially support them.