BRIEFING ROOM: The Gloves Are Off

The cry by liberal politicians has been, “We don’t want to take your guns. We only want ‘sensible’ gun regulations.”

Lately, however, they have become more brazen and admitted they don’t want to take some guns, they want to take all guns.

In March of this year, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens called for a repeal of the Second Amendment, saying, “A concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment,” adding, “today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.”

Stevens, although a Republican, voted as a liberal more often than not. He opposed the ruling of District of Columbia V. Heller, which confirmed the Right of The People To Keep and Bear Arms is an individual—not a collective—right and cast a dissenting vote.

I’m actually amazed that a former Justice made such a preposterous statement, because in our nation’s history, only one Amendment has been repealed.

The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) prohibited the manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcohol. The main products of the 18th were an increase in organized crime and a huge black market for alcohol. It was repealed by the 21st Amendment.

Those who believe that repealing any Amendment is as easy as recalling a local small-town mayor are either very naïve or attempting to deceive themselves and others.

To repeal an Amendment requires a two-thirds vote by both houses of Congress. Alternatively, two-thirds of the states can compel Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments.

Not a simple majority, but two thirds! And this has to be done by politicians who can’t agree on how many genders there are.

No, I don’t believe there is any reason to think the Second Amendment will be repealed in our lifetime. What is more probable is that the enemies of liberty will try to deprive us of our rights using the same method of eating an elephant—one bite at a time.

An excellent example of this is the DOJ asking BATFE to reclassify a “bump stock”—essentially just a piece of plastic—to fall under the definition of a machinegun.

While I personally think a bump stock is simply a way of turning perfectly good money into noise, there is no way in hell it is a machinegun!

Do you see the danger? Let’s take the collapsible stock on your modern sporting rifle. How much longer before some flakey activists decide these stocks are only suitable for military use as they can be shortened, thus making them easier to conceal, and they have no use by private citizens. Pressure is put on the powers that be. Presto! BATFE reclassifies them under the National Firearms Act.

And all this is done by bypassing Congress.


In the June issue, I evaluated the Mossberg 590M Tri-Rail box-magazine-fed shotgun. The shotgun reviewed was a pre-production sample for a launch event I attended at Gunsite, and SHOT Show introduction.

Going into full production, the shotgun will use Mossberg’s cob-style forend instead of the forend with rails and will be called the 590M Heat Shield. All other features will remain the same as the shotgun reviewed.

Until next time, stay low and watch your back.

Discussion
  • (will not be published)

No Comments