Gun Control

Don't Be Deceived: Democrats' Gun Control Push Is Not Limited to Those on No-Fly List

Feinstein's bill would affect hundreds of thousands of people, not just suspected terrorists.

|

Twitter
Hillary Clinton / Twitter

The latest attempts to legislatively restrict gun rights failed last night, but we know this legislation is not truly dead. It will be used by Democrats to get out the vote against Republicans who opposed the legislation (keep in mind the American Civil Liberties Union also objected). Though Donald Trump is apparently friendly to the idea of restricting gun rights based on inclusion on federal watch lists (for Trump's current position on gun rights or gun control, consult your closest Magic 8-Ball), Hillary Clinton will nevertheless be campaigning on this attempt at restrictions. And she, like many supporters, are deliberately misleading about what Sen. Dianne Feinstein's legislation does. Note the graphic on the right from Clinton's Twitter account.

Last night when Feinstein was arguing for gun control law she said that the no-fly list contains only 81,000 names, and fewer than 1,000 of those names are those of Americans. She mentioned a second TSA screening list that contains fewer than 2,000 American names.

It is very important to understand—given that this debate is likely to continue up until the election at least—that Feinstein's legislation is not restricted to prohibiting gun purchases from those on the no-fly list. Yesterday Jacob Sullum explained how far-reaching Feinstein's proposal actually was:

Feinstein
Nicole Albee/Us Government Work/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Under Feinstein's 2015 bill, the attorney general can stop the transfer of a firearm if he "1) determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism" and "(2) has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism." The amendment Feinstein introduced last Wednesday, by contrast, lets the attorney general block a sale if he "determines, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the transferee represents a threat to public safety based on a reasonable suspicion that the transferee is engaged, or has been engaged, in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources thereof."

In the revised version, there is no additional requirement that the attorney general have reason to believe the weapon the suspect is trying to buy will be used in a terrorist attack. Hence an old lady who cut a check to a Hamas-affiliated charity (thereby "providing material support" to terrorism and arguably threatening public safety) could be stopped from buying a handgun for self-defense even if there was no evidence that she planned any sort of attack with it. Feinstein's amendment also expands the dragnet beyond the FBI's so-called Terrorist Watchlist, which is believed to include more than 1 million people, to cover anyone who was under investigation for "conduct related to a federal crime of terrorism" during the previous five years. The Justice Department would be notified of attempted gun purchases by people who fit that description, giving it a chance to block the sales.

There's a very deliberate effort here to misstate to Americans what Feinstein's law does. Part of that is undoubtedly because a recent poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly support denying gun sales to people on the "no-fly" list. Perhaps if Americans understood that what Feinstein is proposing is affecting hundreds of thousands of more people than she's claiming they'd be less likely to give it a thumbs up. But when people think the list is actually very limited, they're probably more likely to accept it, due process violations notwithstanding.

But proponents of the law don't particularly care about the distinctions because of their generalized stance against gun ownership. That more people will be denied guns is a feature, not a bug, even if these people are innocent of any sort of disqualifying behavior. If you perceive all gun ownership outside of the state as a threat, then the broader hidden consequences are actually beneficial to your goal.

The fact that supporters of Feinstein's legislation are deliberately misleading us about how broadly it impacts should make it clear that this is not "common sense" public safety and it's not about closing "loopholes." It is about reducing the number of people who can exert their right to gun ownership by any circumstances necessary.

Advertisement

NEXT: Unfounded Fears of Pedophile Rings, Stranger Danger, and Satanists

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If we have enough of a case against these people to deprive them of a Constitutional right, certainly we have enough to arrest and try them. Right? Right??

    1. The 5th and 7th amdentment are outdated.

      1. The Constitution 5th and 7th amdentment are is outdated.

        1. Due process is killing us!

          1. The constitution requires trial by a jury of your peers. Is that outdated? The constitution allows for amendments, of which there have been 27 ratified. These include the prohibition of slavery and voting rights for women. Are they outdated?

            We could always just turn our government over to the whim of political parties and hope for the best. Oh, wait….We have!

      2. Slaveholders wrote them, therefore invalid.

    2. Exactly.

    3. Gun control folks refuse to see their push for restrictions as a deprivation of civil rights that will often fall on the innocent. I guess many people don’t think there is an innate right to self defense, and you’re supposed to wait patiently for an authority to show up while getting you’re ass kicked (or worse).

      1. As I keep asking “Who do you think is going to go on that list?”
        Sure all the muslims will, and the boss will say “Hey, their are 5million Muhammads here. At least look like you read the SPLC’s website.” And they’ll add a couple KKKers and few black radicals.

        1. And anyone who reads “patriot” websites, or comments about woodchippers, or who donates to pro-Constitution right wing groups.

          Step 1: Make a list of bad people, or people who might be bad but you can’t prove it yet.
          Step 2: Deny them a basic human right like freedom of travel.
          Step 3: Deny them an additional basic human right like self defense.
          Step 4: Get Hillary elected.
          Step 5: Start adding names to the list.

          1. Clinton’s list will make Nixon’s enemy list look like a small shopping list.

          2. Step 6: Send in the jackboots, door-to-door, to disappear named persons.
            Step 7: After enough political opposition has been disappeared, declare regime change.

      2. They really don’t.

        An innate right to self-defense runs counter to the redistributionist tendencies that are ‘common sense’ nowadays.

        1. The right to self defense would mean you are your own person who can own things like property but once you do not have a right self defense you no longer even own yourself, you are then the subject and subject to whatever the government wishes.

          thats a good one worth saving

          1. but once you do not have a right self defense you no longer even own yourself, you are then the subject and subject to whatever the government wishes.

            …and that’s exactly what the authoritarians want.

            1. Authoritarians on both the right and the left.

              1. While true… at least generally speaking the right keeps trying to protect my right to make their attempt at statism a fair fight between us and them. The left is trying to take away our weapons THEN control us. The right just tries to control us meaning with them we have a much better shot (pun not intended… or is it?) at keeping our liberty.

                I hate the way all that is worded but I’m too lazy to fix it.

      3. People keep trying to see some sort of good intention in these attempts. Don’t
        This certainly a power grab and nothing more. They just found a good excuse.

        People must understand that even if these animals aren’t hitler yet, they still want guns confiscated ultimately because it is the last check to their power abuse.

        If you have ever been to a tea party rally or ever commented on this site, I’ll bet your appeal to your danger listing will take a lot longer and you won’t get a gun. That is how they can dismiss it as a bureaucratic delay.

    4. Gun rights don’t count.

      (That’s the obvious explanation, since in every other !@% context I’ve never heard the Democratic Party Line be “merely having been investigated is reason to curtail a civil right”.

      I mean, imagine trying to curtail the franchise for having been investigated for a felony! They’d be – rightfully – up in arms about it.

      But an enumerated right? Meh, not important, because guns are something The Cultural Other cares about, and they’re bad and scary.)

      1. They don’t even agree with curtailing the franchise of people who have been convicted of a felony…

  2. Politics aside, you have to admit that she’s one handsome woman.

    1. The ghoul or the raider behind the ghoul?

      1. At that range, your VATS shots would be guaranteed.

    2. She really has a knack for optics, standing in behind a sign that says “enough”.

      1. DAMN YOUR NIMBLE FINGERS

        1. Mwahaha. One of them is even in a splint.

    3. Politics aside, you have to admit that she’s one handsome woman.

      That’s her Title IX face. Yes means no.

      1. Nevertheless, Crusty would.

  3. In a sane world, HRC’s Twitter post would be enough to disqualify her from the presidency.

    If she wins, the start of her first term is going to be like the start of Nixon’s second: find those who opposed me and make them pay.

  4. I love seeing loathsome politicians like Feinstein standing atop a podium with the word ENOUGH below her face. It creates a wonderful suggestion that I can only hope works subliminally in the minds of voters.

  5. >Last night when Feinstein was arguing for gun control law she said that the no-fly list contains only 81,000 names, and fewer than 1,000 of those names are those of Americans. She mentioned a second TSA screening list that contains fewer than 2,000 American names.

    The lists contain those numbers *now*. When it becomes politically expedient to puff that list up with anyone the government wants to deny Constitutional rights to, that list will definitely grow by leaps and bounds.

    In a normal scenario, one might caution against expanding government power like this because what is expedient when you get your way now can quickly turn against you when the other guy gets his. In this case, Feinstein doesn’t care. She wants to prohibit guns entirely, so if her political rivals add a different group of people to the list then all the better. From her point of view, there is no way that her legislation can be abused because disarming the entire public is her grandest goal.

    1. I’d vote for anyone who promised to use the power of the presidency to automatically add any of Feinstein’s (and her) to the No Fly list for the reason of “just because”.

      It would be great watching her squawk about not being able to get the protection she “deserves”.

    2. You’re right Zero. This just opens the door to classifying everyone as a terrorist. it’s the same thing as the patriot act’s broad strokes.
      Almost everyone that has ever commented on this site is an enemy of the state in the felt’s eyes anyway.
      The fact that it is not subject number one behind the imploding economy is good indication that a restrictive law of some sort is coming soon.

      1. >This just opens the door to classifying everyone as a terrorist.

        The left has been working hard at redefining the word “terrorist” so it can be as broad as they need it to be. The next edition of the Newspeak dictionary will be out soon. Reserve your copy now! Recall that they were falling all over themselves to call that group of protesters/militiamen who took over the wildlife refuge building in Oregon “terrorists.” They were armed, so that instantly got the gun grabbers into a huge tizzy. The very existence of firearms evokes great fear in them, so they felt “terrorized” by people far from them who had done no harm to anyone. Schools vaguely near the area shut down for… reasons.

        Taking over government property is not terrorism, nor is it treason. It’s sedition at worst. Had it been done by leftists, it would have been classed as a sit-in protest.

        1. look up the grain terminal seizure by the ILWU back in 2011 I think it was. I think it was in Washington State. They raided a DHS secure port site facility and took it over in protest to non-ILWU workers operating the port. They took hostages of the security guards in a DHS port security zone. All ports are ultimately under their control.

          It was called a protest. There were a few arrests. Fascinating story.
          Also, the head of the ILA said he wanted to throw hand grenades into an automated terminal tower in Antwerp being run by 5 guys because the port is automated.

          1. Here’s a link from the LA times, of all places:
            http://articles.latimes.com/20…..t-20110909

  6. The Corbyn bill the Democrats voted against last night exposed them. It would have paused a purchase for anyone on the list for 3 days while the FBI investigated. At that point the Feds could have taken action or let the purchase go.

    Democrats rejected it because they want to grab guns.

    1. Gotta love voting down shit that furthers your alleged cause just because you don’t want the other side to score brownie points.

      1. Or because it attempts to do EXACTLY what you say you mean… but doesn’t let you do what you ACTUALLY mean.

        His bill would have ended the debate, caused the issue to fizzle, and would have left a lot of freedom in the hands of the people (although not enough… but I believe it was a fair attempt at “compromise” and wasn’t the worst gun control bill as it required the state to either piss or get off the pot with regards to whoever they were watching). Had his bill passed, their Trojan Horse (control guns for safety) would be gone while their goal (confiscation across the board) would still be incomplete.

  7. “I’ve got you on my no fly list,” Diane slurred, her drink spilling on the floor as she pointed at the erect AR-15.

    “You’re no good. You’re a bad boy.” She trailed a finger down the handguard to the ejection port dust cover and then lingered on the shell deflector. She finished her drink and let the empty glass fall to the thick shag carpet of the hotel room.

    “You always felt bigger than .223 when I have you inside me,” she whispered then licked the ridged nubbin of the magazine release frantically. She ran a thumb over the front iron sight post and groaned.

    “You’re my weapon of choice. I want you to declare jihad on my pussy.” Diane grabbed up the assault-style military-type autodeath rifle and ran her dry face lips over the cold muzzle brake as she applied exquisite pressure to the rear takedown pin.

    “Oh, you like that? You like in in the rear pin? You soldier boys are all the same.” She rammed the buttstock buffer tube into her pubic mound and jerked the rifle in a rough up and down, the charging handle battering her pleasure raisin. She suckled the barrel gently and probed every accessory rail mounting hole with a moistened pinkie.

    There was a soft knock on her hotel room room that broken her out of her reverie.

    “What?” she screamed.

    “Ith thyme thoo vo-tib,” Nancy said through the door.

    “Goddamit! I was almost there!”

    1. My eyes.

    2. the charging handle battering her pleasure raisin

      Fucking poetry.

    3. WOW! Reason just got another subpoena.

    4. Damn. It’s lunchtime.

      You magnificent bastard.

      1. The SugarFree weight loss plan has nothing to do with cutting sugar from your diet. It’s about inducing vomiting with eloquent, but horrific prose.

    5. You are a sick sick man.

      God I love this place!

    6. I think I saw this movie. Rosie O’Donnell as Feinstein and Sean Penn as the AR15 were brilliant, but the mostly-sober Spuds MacKenzie as Pelosi was Oscar-worthy!

    7. Well, I suppose it could have been worse.

    8. battering her pleasure raisin

      You are a national fucking treasure!

    9. I blame my mother for teaching me how to read.

  8. 1. Even if its restricted to people on the ‘No-Fly List’, that’s still a broad swathe of people, none of who have ever been convicted of a crime and many who fall in the ‘pissed off the local PD/politician/complained about the administration’s policies’.

    2. If you’re too dangerous to fly, then there’s a track record, right? A pattern of behavior? There are standards for reporting and listing, right? So you’d be willing to release those standards so we can vet them? You’d be willing to release the full list so we can vet your adherence to those standards, right? After all, if you are genuinely interested in maintaining my safety then you have nothing you need to hide from me. And if you have nothing to hide . . .

  9. One more mass shooting and it’s on. we get closer by the month.
    There will be a mega-bureaucratic rule voted into law that makes getting a gun a complete hassle.

    It will be that simple and then they will start working on confiscation.

    Anyone who believes this is a well intentioned mistake is a complete moron.

  10. Another thing – there may be 81,000 names on the list, and only 2,000 American names, but how many people have the same or similar names as those people? We’ve all heard stories of innocent people having trouble flying due to that, why would it be any different with guns?

    1. You can say that again.

      No objective criteria for being added to the list(s). No clearly identified person or persons that will be deciding based on a “reasonable suspicion” (try to disprove that) as to whether the criteria, that doesn’t exist, have been met. No clearly defined process for challenging ones presence on the list.

      What could possibly go wrong?

      Bonus: all this Progressive nonsense makes me motion sick. For example, they are all outraged by Trump’s call for a moratorium on accepting refugees until we can determine what is going on, and then they propose to deny Constitutional rights to a list of people that haven’t been convicted of, nor even accused of doing, anything wrong.

  11. As a Californian, I find Feinstein’s hashtag in the photo quite appropriate.

  12. Only 1000 Americans on the list? Wow, then I guess it was just a weird coincidence that my then 7 year old son was on the list.

    1. Clearly, you raised the boy wrong. Shame on you.

      1. Well, he is a TERROR…it’s the IST part I have a problem with.

        1. He is, I presume from your word choice, male (never can be too sure these days). Why is his being on the list hard for you to comprehend? Isn’t that enough of a crime or do you want him to actually break a law before we protect society from him? Why do you hate society?

  13. The No Fly List is just one of the lists the government maintains. the lists contain people who had the wrong box checked on a form by a fed, toddlers who have a name similar to someone else and my personal favorite, a woman who was placed on a list by her husband while she was overseas so she couldn’t return to the US.

  14. There’s a very deliberate effort here to misstate to Americans what Feinstein’s law does.

    Gee, where’s my shocked face?

    …it’s not about closing “loopholes.” It is about reducing the number of people who can exert their right to gun ownership by any circumstances necessary.

    To gun grabbing shitstains like Feinstein, any law that allows anyone to legally buy a gun is a “loophole.”

    1. There is no law that legally allows me to buy a gun. Any that attempt to do so are merely restating the reality of naturall rights. There are only rights-violating laws that attempt to carve out reasons for preventing me from buying a gun.

  15. determines, based on the totality of the circumstances

    Dunphy?

  16. I nominate this for Alt-Text of the Year Award.

  17. Why are Americans destined to be forcefully disarmed in the near future?

    1) Controlling the thoughts, actions and property of citizens in a well armed armed society is difficult at best.

    2) Laws enforcing Individual rights and those laws enforcing collective rights cannot exist together. They cancel each other out.

    3) Successful maintenance of our current welfare system requires the removal of legal limits placed placed on Federal / State power.

    4) America is a Democracy in which the majority has recently acquired a taste and appetite for unearned wealth.

  18. Are the airlines in on this? More people on the list, more overbooked flights, more people stiffed for being on the list, lighter loads and fuel savings, etc.

  19. No one with a brain has ever been deceived by democrats. I always knew they were simply marxists idiots.

    I have been deceived by republicans though. I used to think they were not marxist idiots. Turns out they are all fascists instead. Who knew?

    Why does spell check capitalize marxism and not capitalism?

    That creeps me out a little.

    1. To be clear, democrats are Strasserians, republicans are Hitlerians. Both are fascist. Blue City State Fascists against Red Rural Fascists. Nobody is talking of a revolution by the proletariat to unseat the real holders of power. Both are now simply “all within the State, nothing outside the State” but preserving the current order at the upper end. The simple comparison of the accrual basis debt of this country to the individually held wealth of everyone in it tells that tale. Granted there’s a few in each party who operate outside of the total State, but they are fewer and further between as each election cycle goes by. The establishment republicans revealed their true stripes with their shabby treatment of Ron Paul a few years ago, and the populist portion of the republicans have shown their proclivity to support a cast off of the democrats who demagogically pushes their buttons. Of course, as a reader of history – ancient, Medieval, and modern, I saw all this coming a decade and a half ago. Anyone who thinks we’re experiencing a strange period that will soon pass are kidding themselves. We are simply seeing the tip of the iceberg.

      1. cont.

        We’ve had a century if of socialism, converting from a more benign Fabianism into our current corpora-fascism (still a softer touch thus far) but the inevitable balancing of accounts is now upon us. People can sense it, and everyone is scrambling to find as big a stick as they can as the settlement for a century of socialism comes due. The “softline” is transitioning to the inevitable “hardline”. Of course, individualists lose whichever hardline wins the day.

        1. Who do you consider to be “the real holders of power”?

  20. So I’m just trying make sure I’ve got this.

    The narrative from the beginning is that this was NOT terrorism, at least not Islamic international terrorism, but a domestic incident that was completely due to the availability of guns. Yet, this is the perfect opportunity to use this No-Fly List, which is a list of suspected, yet uncharged or prosecuted, “terrorists” who should be banned from flying and therefore guns. Even though this person, who was investigated a few times and installed on the list, was not seen to be enough of a threat to actually do anything about. just like the Boston Bombers.

    Makes a lot of sense. So much so, that by all this combined “logic” I’ll concede the No-Fly List transfers over to gun restrictions if only that means everyone NOT on the list can carry a gun onto a plane. If “there’s smoke, there’s fire” is true, then where “there’s no smoke, there’s no fire” is as well.

    Deal?

    Didn’t think so.

    So, it’s just one big concentration camp with armed guards who can pirate at their pleasure, beat whomever they want. Taking away “privileges” if you act uppity. Endless monitoring and surveil. The “freedom” to move about from your home to a salt mine to have an ever increasing levy on your productivity is about it. Say something “wrong” or make a wrong turn, and you’re on The List.

    But “trees in Brazil” and what not. A veritable optimism-fest for everyone.

    1. Good point about “Orlando wasn’t terrorism! Ban guns from terrorists because of Orlando!”

      Hadn’t seen that yet. Thanks!

  21. It will turn out that the desire to purchase a gun alone creates a reasonable suspicion that you would pose a danger to public safety.

    1. Maryland States Attorney Glen Neubauer prosecuted a guy who shot an intruder who kicked down his door saying that having a gun is “bizarre behavior in itself” and using it in self defense “shows intent to commit murder”. Prepare to be listed!

    2. Only those who do not seek the power are worthy to possess it… unless you work for Top Men but never mind that.

  22. They told me when I objected to taking guns from people with restraining orders for domestic violence or misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, or of “mentally ill” people that have never committed a crime, that slippery slopes weren’t a real thing, then the other day, an LA Times columnist was using those examples as justifications for infringing the second amendment rights of people on the no-fly and terrorist watch lists.

    Oops.

  23. So, as Obama sees it, one on the no fly list is too dangerous to sit next to you on an airplane, but makes an acceptable seat mate in a movie theatre, baseball game or finds it OK for the listed one to mingle with us and our children at the local shopping mall. No, Barry doesn’t care about terrorist attacks (look how many have occurred in America on his watch) he just wants the guns.

  24. America has too much gun violence. No one disputes that.

    There are five partial solutions to gun violence that do not require taking away guns from the public. Those five partial solutions are discussed here. They are solutions even NRA members would support.

    These partial solutions are discussed here: https://goo.gl/rtnVTa

    1. I’ll just save you guys the effort of clicking and reading that crap:

      “1. Interpret the Constitution properly … Even gun enthusiasts would be first to admit that the public should be prevented, by regulation from “keeping and bearing” certain “arms”: 50 caliber machine guns or bazookas or cannons or poison gas, or surface to air missiles , or atomic arms, etc.”

      Can you show me how many full-auto .50 BMG firearms are actually used in crimes?

      “2. Federalize gun manufacture and importation.”

      tl;dr: This writer believes that supply creates demand.

      “3. Apply the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations)laws to gangs.”

      Last I heard, violence of all kinds and even participating in a criminal gang are already illegal. Also, isn’t it these gun-free paradise neighborhoods of Chicago that are most ravaged by “gun violence”?

      “4. Additional penalties for gun carry during a felony Enact a law that essentially says: If you carry a gun while committing a felony, twenty years automatically will be added to the term of the felony itself.”

      So if you are concealed carrying and you happen to commit one of the hundreds of simple crimes that can become felonies, you’re in the slammer for two decades?

      “5. Tax gun ownership … Place a heavy, annual tax on guns. Make gun ownership expensive”

      So only the rich should be able to defend themselves? Cool!

      1. “one of the hundreds of simple crimes that can become felonies”

        EDIT: I probably should have typed “simple acts” instead of “simple crimes”.

      2. The preamble of the Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”, clarifies the particular type of arms (military grade) being referred to in the next portion – “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

        Therefore, a .50 caliber fully automatic rifle is far more protected than a single shot .22 caliber rifle.

        The founders envisioned future generations always having the ability to repel slave masters and collectivist tyranny.

        One more thing, the Second Amendment does not state “the right of the militia”, or “the right of the military”, it states “the right of THE PEOPLE”.

    2. Are you kidding me. That is the most absurd website I have EVER visited. Solutions to what? Curing a case of VD in our lifetime? Heavy taxes on gun ownership? Just one of the tidbits that are offered up. If you examine further the site advocates paying kids for going to school. Pure extreme left leaning BS.

    3. rodger,
      1) Promoting Marxism on this website is absurd.

      2) The world is dotted with mass graves resulting from centrally planned “solutions” like those you are promoting.

      3) Go slither back to your “safe place”, maybe take a few more hits of acid….

    4. Everyone in attendance here is dumber for having been exposed to that.

    5. They are solutions even NRA members would support.

      Only especially idiotic NRA members.

  25. Next time a police officer tells me to get on the ground because they have reasonable suspicion that I might be radical with a gun, I’ll remember to kiss his boots in gratitude.

    “You right wingers simmer down! This police officer is keeping us safe by racially profiling me!”

  26. Is posting on Reason.com alone cause for being placed on a watch list or is adding the word woodchipper required?

    One has to wonder, why the across the board full court press on due process?

    1. Phreet Bharara says “Yes!”

  27. I have to point out a few things that need to be considered before they let this latest incident lead to the typical knee jerk reaction. This list idea is wrong. This will give the liberal administration the ability to place anyone on a list and deny them the right to own firearms arbitrarily. Early in Bath House Barry’s presidency his director of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano identified returning veterans, constitutionalist, Christians, Oath Keepers, NRA members, TEA Party folks and most recently Social Security recipients as dangerous and possible terrorists and unworthy of practicing/ exersizing their 2nd Amendment rights . How easily they disregard due proccess and label entire segments of the population as dangerous. Yet refuse to thoroughly vet refugees, illegal immigrants and people who have terrorist ties thru local mosques or travel to countries that are sponsors of terror. Their goal is obvious, disarm everyone that may disagree with the progressive/ socialist agenda. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

    1. Your God, my god, my neighbor three doors down’s god, Donald Trump’s god, who’s god in particular?

  28. I really don’t get the whole “We’re not trying to take your guns away!” bullshit.

    They know they’re trying to take guns away. We know they’re trying to take guns away.

    But, for some reason, when they’re trying to maximize what guns they can take away around the 2nd amendment, while maximizing how hard it is to get a gun around the 2nd amendment, while trying their hardest to convince everyone that the 2nd amendment is completely meaningless, while chalking up its interpretation as an individual right to “judicial activism” warranting repeal of the 2nd amendment, while they’re doing all those things, they’re simultaneously rolling their eyes, saying “No, silly: no one wants to take your guns away!”

    Who buys that? Do they buy it?

    They just come across as maximally pretentious while they’re maximally retarded.

  29. I have a little rule of thumb that has served me well over the years; if Feinstein is sponsering something, it is safe to assume a) she’s lying about significant parts of it and b) the proposal itself is toxic. Exceptions are not frequent enought to be a consideration.

  30. Progressivism 101: Create a catchy phrase (if you like your doctor, freedom through work) and blast it out. Write a nebulous, indeterminate law that allows appointed (unelected) regime members to dictate new policies and directive. Abuse people’s constitution right and natural law.

  31. But, neither DiFi, or her armed escorts, will be required to relinquish their arms.

  32. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  33. before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

    Please click the link below
    ==========
    http://www.selfcash10.com

  34. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.