Proposed 2nd Amendment Legislation A Danger To Us All

Proposed 2nd Amendment Legislation A Danger To Us All

Proposed 2nd Amendment Legislation A Danger To Us All

It comes as no surprise that the Democrats are once again attempting to limit our rights under the 2nd Amendment. We’ve watched them erode the amendment for years. Rarely, however, have we seen a piece of proposed legislation that presents as much danger not only to the Amendment itself but to each gun owner in the nation as is present in the current proposal to create a PUBLIC registry of gun owners.

Think about that. The Democrats, the so-called party of the people want to create a public registry that anyone can access listing who owns a gun. You know as well as I do that registry will also include identifiers like the type of gun or guns owned by John Q. Citizen, where those guns are stored, and quite possibly other important information like date of birth, driver’s license number and who knows what else.

Kevin Hassett, president of the Retired Police Association of the State of New York, states such a law is a “gross intrusion on your rights and your protections.” If anything, he’s not stressing the danger strongly enough. Those who obey the laws and who are responsible gun owners go to licensed dealers for their weapons and ammo. But what about those who don’t want to follow the law about waiting periods or those who want a gun for nefarious reasons? This public registry would basically act as the weekly flyer, telling them where to “shop” for their weapon of choice. That’s especially true of the registry includes the type of weapon registered by John Q. Citizen.

But Hassett points out something else I’m sure the Dems would prefer us not to think about too much. Calling the proposed legislation anti-police, he makes this important observation:

What good is it for someone who I may have arrested to finally find where I live, see how many guns I have? To what end?” Hassett asked. “How does that stop illegal firearms? How does that stop shootings?”

Three very important questions, questions that aren’t answered by the wording of the proposed legislation and certainly not by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, the author of the bill. Not that anyone from Texas, her home state, are surprised by her silence on these concerns. She’s notorious for trying to limit our rights under the 2nd Amendment but this is going too far, even from her.

If I were a cop, I’d stand firmly against this legislation. Every day, good cops walk out of their homes, intent on doing their best to protect the public and come home safely that night. Every day, someone vilifies them, hates them, targets them and this is done all too often with the tacit approval from the media and certain politicians. Now consider you’re a cop and your name and address, as well as the type and number of guns you own, is suddenly public record where every perp you ever busted can access it.

How long before a cop or their family is injured–or worse–as a result?

But it goes beyond that. Consider the woman who has been stalked or has escaped from an abusive relationship. That woman has done what she can to protect herself and, if applicable, her children. One of the things she’s done is learn to shoot, taken courses to become profficient with her weapon and now she has peace of mind, at least to a degree, that she is safe.

Except her name is now in a public database that her stalker or her abuser can search. They can see where she lives–so much for being able to safely disappear from their sphere–and see what sort of weapon she has to protect herself.

Can you say “bad idea”? Or how about “a death waiting to happen”?

Yet the Dems continue to press the issue of taking away our right to bear arms, not to mention our right to be safe in our own homes.

And what happens if this legislation is passed and those states threatening to create Second Amendment Sanctuaries actually do so?

One thing that will happen is people will flock to those states because they can feel safe. Unfortunately, the Dems will continue to look for ways to not only further limit our rights under the 2nd Amendment but to punish those states for not falling into lockstep with the Democratic platform.

So much for our basic freedoms.

If–and that’s far from settled–but if we must have a registry of any sort, why not have an encrypted one? Here is one possibility if such a registry was created:

. . . a platform that can be deployed nationally while also being fully encrypted and decentralized. Rather than a consolidated federal repository, each county would control its residents’ firearm data. Yet officials anywhere in the country could still query the system, as they would a regular centralized database, for information about people or guns located elsewhere.

I don’t know about you, but this is a lot more palatable, not that that’s saying much, than what Jackson Lee proposed. It is still too much of an attack on the 2nd Amendment, but at least it isn’t public and it is a nationwide registry.

As Hassett noted, a registry probably won’t do a thing to curb gun violence. Not that the Dems or organizations like Giffords Law Center agree. In fact, Giffords puts this right at the top of their page on registration:

Firearm registration systems are a useful method of curbing illegal gun activity and encouraging responsible gun practices.

I don’t know what they were smoking when they wrote that, but I want some. How will it curb illegal gun activity? Gun owners who are likely to register a weapon aren’t going to go crusing the neighborhood firing at houses. Conversely, those who want a gun to conduct illegal activities aren’t very likely to go to a registered and licensed gun dealer for their guns and ammo. No, they’re going to use that public registry to find a gun to steal or they’ll by it off the street, etc.

Face it, this legislation, like every other piece before it, doesn’t have the aim of preventing gun violence or stopping illegal activities. Far from it. What it wants to is outlaw what is a cornerstone of our nation’s foundation.

And that, my friends, is something we can’t allow to happen. Ask yourselves this: what sort of government wants to disarm its citizens? The answer is simple and chilling. The government that wants to disarm its citizens is one afraid its tyranny will no longer be tolerate. So it takes steps to make sure the public isn’t in any position to stand up against them.

Our forefathers knew what it was like to live under a ruler that believed the only good citizen was a subject firmly under the royal thumb. The Dems in Congress are doing their best imitations of that long dead monarch. Nancy Pelosi already acts like an empress, keeping the House out of the hallowed halls of the Capitol until time to make sure she is re-elected as Speaker of the House and she’s not the worst of them, not by far.

It is time to let your representatives know you do NOT support any kind of federal gun registry and certainly not one that is public. It is time to put the heat on the representatives and their counterparts in the Senate to make sure they know how much each of us value the 2nd Amendment. It is time to stand up, speak out and let our voices–and votes–be counted. Otherwise we might as well just post a sign in our front yard inviting theives and others inside to take our guns and use them on us or someone else.

Featured Image: Second Amendment to the US Constitution to permit possession of weapons. Vector illustration on white by Maxim P. Licensed through Adobe Stock.

Written by

12 Comments
  • Michele Delo says:

    A registry accessible only to government officials isn’t any better than one open to anyone. Look at all the cooperation given to Antifa, to criminal illegal aliens, to criminal friends and families of the powerful. Consider all the Soros-backed District Attorneys.

    Those allegedly encrypted registries would be doxed in a heartbeat by the usual suspects, and all gun owning households would be open targets for cancelation, theft, and physical assault. Advocates for nation gun registries are declaring war against liberty, and we must take them seriously.

    • Amanda Green says:

      I absolutely agree. I don’t want the govenment anyywhere near my guns or ammo. I don’t want to go onto any registry, no matter how supposedly secure it is. But this public registry BS is nothing but an attempt to intimidate legal gun owners into giving up their weapons to keep from having their IDs, addresses, etc., listed and broadcast far and wide.

  • tom says:

    “If–and that’s far from settled–but if we must have a registry of any sort …”
    No.
    The only purpose of a gun registry is to facilitate confiscation.
    That is the only purpose.
    Change my mind.

    • Amanda Green says:

      Not gonna try to change your mind because I, personally, am against any registry. The statement you excerpted was one of evil and slightly lesser evil, neither of which are acceptable to me. As I said upthread, I don’t want a registry of any kind but the public one is beyond the pale. It is, as I noted, a means to blackmail law-abiding gun owners into giving up their guns to keep from having their information spread far and wide–not to mention making them a target to those not adverse to breaking the law and who want that particular type of gun (or any gun for that matter).

  • Cameron says:

    Unfortunately, I was out on the lake and the boat tipped.

  • NTSOG says:

    My shooting licence was renewed here in Victoria, Australia late last year. The actual licence card used to have my address on it, but no longer lest I lose the small plastic card and some criminal find it and decide to pay my house a visit knowing I have firearms. I understand the Registry that oversees licensing is ‘restricted’. That is, access is limited to certain government officials and the Police of necessity. There is, of course, no guarantee that a corrupt official will not breach confidentiality. Since the massacre of 35 people in Tasmania in 1996 gun owners here are made to feel like criminals and hide their ownership of firearms to the point that they must be carefully hidden out of sight even when one is driving in one’s car. The criminal element still accesses guns with ease while law-abiding registered shooters can be severely penalised for even minor transgressions relating to any part of gun ownership so that the majority make it their business to study the subtleties of gun laws in detail lest they be caught out. The sight of a rifle being carried without being in a case in public is enough for some ‘concerned citizen’ to ring the Police, yet when a teenager [1960s] I used to carry a .303 Lee Enfield rifle, issued to me as a member of my school’s military cadet program on public transport. However all the senior adults in my life then had been through WW II and were used to the sight of troops carrying weapons and did not suffer collective paranoia. Many had experienced active service.

  • LoL No says:

    My rights are no mans, nor womans to bestow, deny nor dictate conditions upon. Period. I wont even feel bad if I’m forced by the corrupt criminal vermin masquerading as our representative government to defend my rights and/or my person from the slack-jawed tin star wearing lackeys they task with our oppression. Fuck them ALL. Start sending people to our homes and see how long it takes for people to start visiting theirs. Fear died a long time ago. It’s been replaced by resignation. I’ll be damned if I’ll dishonor the efforts and sacrifices made on my behalf by the folks who’ve fought, bled and in many cases died for these rights I cherish. I may not see the backside of this shit but I PROMISE, I’ll go down swingin.

  • GWB says:

    questions that aren’t answered by the wording of the proposed legislation
    Because they are irrelevant. The legislation is about controlling the citizens of the US and making sure their betters can come find and arrest them whenever they want. CONTROL.

    why not have an encrypted one?
    F*** NO. I don’t worry nearly as much about someone trying to break into my house as I do the armored and armed cops coming to my door. ABSOLUTELY NO to ANY registration.

    this is a lot more palatable
    In the sense that hemlock is a lot more palatable than cyanide. IOW, not palatable AT ALL.

    a registry probably won’t will not ever do a thing to curb gun violence
    FIFY. (Literally, the only way it will “curb gun violence” is after the fact when they can arrest the one shooter in a million who uses his legally acquired and registered firearm to illegally shoot someone.)

    those who want a gun to conduct illegal activities aren’t very likely to go to a registered and licensed gun dealer for their guns and ammo.
    And many who want a gun for legal purposes will use illegal means to acquire them if this goes into effect.

    What it wants to is outlaw what is a cornerstone of our nation’s foundation.
    What it wants to outlaw is our means of individual sovereignty. What it intends to achieve the ability to subjugate Americans at a moment’s notice.

    The Dems in Congress are doing their best imitations
    FIFY

    It’s time for tar and feathers, at the least.

  • […] Victory Girls Blog: Proposed 2nd Amendment Legislation A Danger To Us All. […]

  • John in Indy says:

    Another major negative for these types of aggressively totalitarian “laws” is that they break down respect and compliance with laws in general.
    It used to be acknowledged that for a law to function, 95% of the people to whom it would apply must already be in compliance voluntarilly.
    Essentially, the legal equivalent of the military adage “never give an order that will not, or can not, be obeyed, as it will contribute to the breakdown in discipline generally.”
    The Left is trying to make outlaws. They may succeed.
    John in Indy

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead