Dissecting Biden's Plans to Attack Gun Rights
And fighting his evil philosophy, immorality, and unconstitutional arrogance...
His Majesty, Joe Biden, has told us what he plans, and by hook, or by crook (obviously a redundant term, when the subject is the state, since the polis only exists via stolen tax cash), or by “Executive Order”, he will enact many of his plans.
On Thursday, June 2, Amtrak Joe appeared at the tax-funded White House, and parroted what his Twitter feed and tax-funded speechwriters prepared for him, and each time he opened his ice-cream-baptized mouth, he revealed more perfidy and contempt for Natural Rights.
He began on an unsound philosophical basis and reopened a jurisprudential wound that many libertarians, including this writer, have noted as potentially problematic since 2008.
Said The Big Guy:
“The Second Amendment, like all other rights, is not absolute. It was Justice Scalia who wrote, and I quote, ‘Like most rights, the right – Second Amendment – the rights granted by the Second Amendment are not unlimited.’”
Which, working start to end, indicates that Mr. Biden not only has no grasp of, or respect for, the philosophical and etymological origin of the word “right,” but also reveals that he doesn’t care for logical consistency, and, as I and others predicted, he is using Scalia’s error in a 2008 Supreme Court decision to back him up.
Rights, Mr. Biden, are, by definition supposed to be unattenuable by the state. That’s the point behind the very term. It means “hands-off,” and is universal for all people, meaning that each of us has an equal right to be left alone. Rights, thus, are negative, in nature, not positive. The idea of a “positive right” to something provided by another person is not a right, it’s an immoral claim, “posited” by agents of the state.
In other words, it is an attempt to enslave.
The term “right” has its origins in Old English (Saxon), Middle Dutch, and Medieval German. It pertains to “proper”, which, in those days, was associated with “right-handedness” and stemmed from both the belief at the time that people who were “left-handed” were not functioning properly, and from the Biblical observation of the Messiah being the “right hand of God.”
So, Joe, it’s not up to you to define “rights.” They preexist you and so does the inherent, God-given liberty of each man.
Likewise, rights are not “granted” by the Second Amendment. They preexist the Second Amendment, and the Amendment is supposed to protect us from people like YOU encroaching on our right to self-defense with firearms.
That’s obvious, even to many middle-grade students in tax-funded schools.
But one of the things Biden mentions, that being the comment about Scalia, is not incorrect in the mention; it leverages the error Scalia made.
Or should I say, the sellout of rights in which Scalia engaged.
You’ll find it in Scalia’s majority decision for the 2007-2008 Heller v DC case. And, specifically, you’ll find it at the end. The case dealt with DC resident Richard Heller, who worked in the policing field and wanted to be able to keep a firearm in his DC home. But that peaceful act was prohibited by federal statute applied to DC, so, along with five co-plaintiffs, in 2003, Dick Heller sued.
The feds took the tack that the right to keep and bear arms (supposedly) protected by the Second Amendment is a “group right” – which, of course, is fantasy, because the word “group” is simply a term to describe more than two individuals, and, as I previously have noted on my Substack, individuals never lose their inherent individuality, regardless of how the government wants to label or “group” them. Additionally, the Second Amendment is emphatic: “the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
Even IF one were to errantly pretend that rights could be “group rights,” the Second Amendment negates considering that any infringement of any kind would be permissible.
And, in his majority opinion, Scalia agreed, devoting over 60 pages in his decision to contemporaneous citations from the Founding Era definitively showing that the Founders believed it was an individual right.
Scalia didn’t need to spend that much time and space on it, because the Founders understood – and WE CAN UNDERSTAND — that the meaning of RIGHTS pertains to INDIVIDUALS, and Scalia could have used the logic I mentioned above, and could’ve finished his opinion in about a half of a page.
But he committed a larger error – or, as I noted, committed a larger offense.
Because at the end of his opinion, Scalia DID write what Biden claims. Scalia said that “…rights are not unlimited.”
And, that day, a few hours later, I was on the radio discussing how Scalia’s claim suddenly undercut the very definition of rights.
Few people discussed this problem and its implication: Scalia was leaving room for future courts and politicians to attack the right to keep and bear arms AND EVERY OTHER FACET OF NATURAL RIGHTS.
But Glenn Jacobs, then WWE star “Kane” and now the Mayor of Knox County, TN, and Ann Coulter saw the problem that day. In fact, Glenn was listening to my show online, and, unprompted, he called to talk about it. That’s how savvy Glenn is, and how much he cares about liberty.
Later, I spoke with Dick Heller, off-air, and he explained to me that the last bit of Scalia’s majority opinion was added after Scalia made A DEAL with one other Justice to get that judge to change positions on the case, giving a victory to the plaintiffs and Scalia, and a defeat for the concept of rights, itself.
Your rights, dear reader, were dealt away by tax-funded men in black robes.
Now, let’s look at more from the King of Government Bling, Joe B:
“We need to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. And if we can’t ban assault weapons, then we should raise the age to purchase them from 18 to 21.”
What does he mean by assault weapons? Does he mean the kinds of weapons the Obama Admin sent to Mexico in Fast and Furious, or the kinds of weapons they gave to radical rebels in Syria (rebels like al Nusra ?) or the kinds of weapons the US sells to places like Israel and Egypt? Or does he mean the kinds of weapons his Admin is selling to Ukraine?
“The clarion call is to ‘ban assault weapons. Pay no attention to the fact that it is literally a made-up term, with some pols seeking to ban guns based on how they look. That bears repeating. Some actually believe that if certain weapons are banned based on aesthetics, then all will be well and mass shootings will stop. That misguided mindset, especially from those charged with making our laws, is mindboggling.”
And do Biden and his ilk really believe that banning “high-capacity magazines” will stop people with criminal intent from acquiring them?
He might want to ask someone related to a victim of a shooting in Chicago, where, supposedly, it’s very difficult to buy a gun without being 21 and highly vetted by the government.
Yet homicides and violent crime are rampant, some of the highest in the western world, and, as CBS recently noted, it has “the highest number of MASS SHOOTINGS” in the US.
That sure is odd. Because everyone knows that people with criminal intent make sure they abide by the statutes forbidding them from engaging in crimes…
Biden’s strident affront to logic (not to mention rights), is reminiscent of his 2019 brilliance when he said that he wanted to ban ammo mags that held “multiple rounds.”
And then there’s his age of 21 thing…
The right to self-defense does not have an upper or lower age limit. Likewise, actually POLICING such prohibitions ipso facto requires force itself – force threatened by armed agents of the state against taxpayers to pay for the policing of this exclusion.
That, unto itself, is coercive and immoral.
Curiously, killers aged 18 and younger break statutes against killing, so breaking statutes against lesser offenses, like owning guns likely isn’t a big worry on their list.
“Here are the numbers: There are at least 20 million AR-15 style rifles in America. Take 1000th of 1 percent, and you still wouldn’t get down to the annual number of mass shootings by such a rifle. So in other words, we should penalize 19,999,995 law abiding citizens — peaceful people who have passed criminal background checks — by banning/confiscating their firearms because fewer than five people use the same type of rifle in a nefarious mass shooting? Of course, forgotten in the conversation is that the Sandy Hook killer didn’t even own an AR-15, but murdered his mother and stole her gun to commit his massacre. On top of that, there are nearly 500 million firearms in America, almost all of which are used legally. Do we ban them, too, so that only the criminals have guns?”
Indeed, as I noted last week for MRCTV, gun bans in Australia and UK did not – as their advocates claim – reduce violent crime. In Australia, so many people who turned in their guns in a “mandatory buy-back” two decades ago saw the violent crime rate (including the gun-related crime rate) INCREASE for years following the government mandate, they eventually entered the black market to buy new guns, and so the Aussie government recently has tried ANOTHER gun buy-back.
Because… the first was so successful, it got rid of all the guns – QED.
As Ryan Cleckner years ago wrote for Rocket FFL, the so-called logic of “gun bans” never holds:
“In every case where an illegal act occurred, a law failed to adequately deter the crime. In cases of mass-shootings (which instigate the biggest calls for more gun laws), the murderer wasn’t stopped by our law with the single highest penalty: murder. Notice I called the perpetrator a “murderer” and not a “shooter.” This is because the tool is irrelevant. As I’ll discuss below, guns may be associated with “gun-violence” but they aren’t associated with all violence.
If we are going to create a new law that will stop a mass shooter, then the penalty for the law must be higher/steeper than the penalty for murder. Why? Well, if the penalty for murder didn’t stop them, then something higher/steeper would surely be needed.
I’m not sure about you, but I’m not for creating a law that has a higher/steeper penalty than murder for merely possessing an inanimate object (a gun). Therein lies a truth of gun laws – they really only work if they are based on the possession of an object because the illegal use of that object is already…well…illegal.”
And Cleckner adds:
“Here’s an example: Currently, it is illegal for a certain class of persons to possess firearms or ammunition. This class of people are called “Prohibited Persons” and they include felons, those convicted of crimes of domestic violence, those who are dishonorably discharged from the military, and more. If you’d like to learn more about this class of people, check out our article on Prohibited Persons. However, the recent church shooting in Texas and the shooting in California were both committed by “prohibited persons” – this means that they were breaking a federal law by merely possessing the firearms and ammunition (well before they actually committed murder).”
Then there’s Biden’s evil statement:
“Repeal the immunity that protects gun manufacturers from liability…”
This completely undermines due-process, switching liability from the nutter who kills, to the maker of the OBJECT that the nutter USES to kill. It opens the liability to those who have committed no wrong, and logically can be applied to any physical object a whack-job could use to kill.
And the fact is that people use firearms far more often to prevent crimes than criminally-minded people use them to commit crimes (and more often than police can prevent crimes). As the saying goes, when seconds count, police are just minutes away (and sometimes they stand outside the “gun-free school zone” while a gun-wielding killer kills more unarmed people.) Yeah… Sometimes cops just stay outside.
But Biden has one more BRILLIANT idea:
“We should also have national Red Flag laws, so that a parent, a teacher, a councilor, can flag for a court that a child, a student, a patient is exhibiting violent tendencies, threatening classmates, or experiencing suicidal thoughts.”
Secret complaints filed with a judge, secret warrants. No due process, breaching 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments. And “NATIONAL?”
Since when was the worry that a child, a student, a patient might be exhibiting “violent tendencies” or threatening classmates, or experiencing suicidal thoughts (who defines that?) – since when were any of those supposed to be FEDERAL MATTERS ACCORDING TO THEIR US CONSTITUTION?
How about this.
None of this is JOE BIDEN’S PLACE to prohibit. AND it’s not the place of any politician to prohibit the possession of an inanimate object. The possession of an object is not an aggressive act. The reason for possessing it is subjective, and, even if one were to assume why someone owned a firearm, it’s more likely that the firearm will be used to STOP violent crime than to engage in it.
The people backing violent gun threats are people like Biden and those who support government statutes against firearm possession or trade.
The inherent right is precisely that: a right.
Biden’s threats to send gun-carrying government agents after innocent people should alarm those leftists who supposedly are “against gun violence,” but, of course, many favor gun violence, as long as it is threatened and conducted by agents of the state, and funded through the violence of taxation.
Just ask some of them if they support sending arms to Ukraine…
Thank you for reading! My current novellas are available at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. I recommend “Fishing” as a dark, well-composed crime tale with some unusual turns…
…but feel free to check out “Bite” for a different take on vampirism, and “Wall” for a cryptoarcheological adventure set in 1960s China. And I have three novels and two more novellas that are on their way! Feel free to check out the Liberty Conspiracy channels on Odysee, Bitchute, and Rumble for non-fiction video content, and my work at MRCTV.org and their YouTube and Rumble channels! Be Seeing You!