>
Global Energy Crisis Or Iranian Surrender In Five Weeks?
Lieutenant General Leonard F. Anderson IV, commander of Marine Forces Reserve,...
Your bones are NOT supposed to get weaker as you age.
UBS has recently halted withdrawals from a $469 million real estate fund...
The Secret Spy Tech Inside Every Credit Card
Red light therapy boosts retinal health in early macular degeneration
Hydrogen-powered business jet edges closer to certification
This House Is 10 Feet Underground and Costs $0 to Cool. Why Is It Banned in 30 States?
Cold Tolerant Lithium Battery?? Without Heaters!? Ecoworthy Cubix 100 Pro!
DLR Tests Hydrogen Fuel for Aviation at -253°C
Watch: China Claims Cyborg Breakthrough To Build An "Army Of Centaurs"
Instant, real-time video AI is now upon us, for better and worse
We Build and Test Microwave Blocking Panels - Invisible to Radar
Man Successfully Designs mRNA Vaccine To Treat His Dog's Cancer

Joe Biden's White House released a statement demanding these additional infringements upon Americans' Second Amendment rights: "Universal background checks. A national red flag law. A ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines." (The president conveniently ignored reports that the teenaged attacker used a 9mm pistol.) Democrat Congressman Mark Pocan insists that gun manufacturers be held responsible for the school shooter's violence. Disgraced former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe (who was rewarded for leaking classified information and lying to federal agents) wants "legislation that changes the context of gun ownership" in the United States and new requirements that "eliminate the ability" of Americans "to purchase guns without a background check."
So the departing president wants executive authority to determine which Americans enjoy Second Amendment protections. The congressman from Wisconsin wants to hold manufacturers criminally and civilly liable for the misdeeds of others. And the former acting director of the FBI wants to fundamentally transform the "context of gun ownership." What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?
If we were still a country that took loyalty oaths seriously, it would be worth noting that all three of these men raised their hands and solemnly swore to protect and defend the Bill of Rights. As retired FBI supervisory special agent Arthur P. Meister once wrote, "all public office oaths require true faith and allegiance to principles of lawful authority derived from the Constitution." An official's "deference" to the Bill of Rights "must trump all other promises and commitments" precisely because "the public elects, empowers, and allows a select few to govern many." The U.S. government cannot expect public trust if its officers regularly violate their oaths to the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, if faith in the U.S. government is historically weak, then government officials should consider their disregard for the Bill of Rights the proximate cause.
Unconstitutional attempts to confiscate Americans' firearms have become such a regular reaction to mass shootings that lawmakers act as if erasing the Second Amendment were no big deal. "Oh, what's the harm?" they dismissively suggest on cable television. "It's just an annoying little right. It was written, like, three centuries ago…by white supremacists! And if it saves even one child, it's worth it!"