When faced with a relatively easy question about President Joe Biden’s position on gun confiscation policies, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre wouldn’t give a straight answer.
Invoking repeatedly failed candidate Robert Francis O’Rourke’s 2019 presidential debate promise that “hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” a reporter asked Jean-Pierre, “Does the president support not just banning the sale and manufacture of semi-automatic weapons but further than that, confiscation?”
It’s a straightforward question: Does President Biden think legally owned firearms should be confiscated by the federal government? But Jean-Pierre wouldn’t say “yes” or “no” in what should be an easy answer.
Instead, Jean-Pierre ignored the question and retreated to the usual Democrat talking points about “weapons of war” that “should not be on the streets across the country in our communities, they should not be in schools, they should not be in grocery stores, they should not be in churches — that’s what the president believes.”
REPORTER: "Does the president support, not just banning the sale and manufacture of semi-automatic weapons, but further than that, confiscation?"
KJP: "They are weapons of war and they should not be on the streets." pic.twitter.com/BdyrjF91oz
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) March 29, 2023
Jean-Pierre went on to claim Biden “has done more than any other president the first two years” to address what Democrats say is a crisis of “weapons of war” in America. “Now it’s time for Congress to do the work,” Jean-Pierre said. “And he’s happy to sign, once that happens, he’s happy to sign that legislation that says, ‘ok we’re going to remove assault weapons, we’re going to have an assault weapons ban.'”
Even though Karine Jean-Pierre wouldn’t say whether Biden supports gun confiscation for “assault weapons,” President Biden’s record on the subject is not a winning one, nor is Democrats’ obsession with eradicating “assault weapons” — a purposefully non-specific term usually paired with other buzzwords such as “military style” — a policy goal that’s been shown to limit instances of violence in which the perpetrator uses a firearm.
As we at Townhall have repeatedly noted, Biden’s frequent claim that the “assault weapons” ban he worked on as a U.S. senator was effective just doesn’t pass muster. Biden and his administration’s claim that it’s possible to get the specter of “assault weapons” off America’s streets is one this administration employs frequently while attempting to take advantage of tragedies. “But according to data provided by the Department of Justice, the ban cannot be credited with reducing violence or mass shootings,” Katie noted after Biden repeated the claim last May. Here’s what the DOJ found:
A 2004 Department of Justice funded study from the University of Pennsylvania Center of Criminology concluded the ban cannot be credited with a decrease in violence carried out with firearms. The report is titled “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003.”
“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury,” the summary of the report on the study’s findings states. “The ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs [assault weapons] were used in no more than 8% of gun crimes even before the ban.”
If banning “assault weapons” didn’t reduce gun violence, nor reduce the lethality of gun violence, then passing a new ban or going as far as confiscating such firearms — something Karine Jean-Pierre wouldn’t rule out this week — won’t make a difference either and will only further infringe on the rights of Americans.
The 2nd Amendment was the result of a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to self-preservation and the continuation of life. It is a by-product, secondary to this right given to every man, woman, and child of the United States of America. There is NO federal or state law, NO County or City ordinance, NO Township bylaw, no company or government ‘policy’, nor door signs or other limitations/barriers of any kind, nor ANY person in ‘authority’, (including local, state, and/or federal officials, [and which also includes the President of the United States]), who/which can infringe upon this right of AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, to own and/or carry ANY type, or amount of weapon(s), anywhere – PERIOD.
That’s what ‘SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED’ means.
It is not an implied suggestion. It’s not an inferred advisement. It is a mandated INALIENABLE right, given by God, and inspired to those who conceived, approved, and facilitated the 2nd Amendment. Therefore, according to the LETTER OF THE LAW, MANDATED IN THE CONSTITUTION, it is a CONSTITUTIONALLY ILLEGAL act to deter or deny this GOD-GIVEN right to ANY American citizen.
Anyone who doesn’t understand this needs to get educated in fundamental Constitutional Law (101)…
Therefore, if/when I want to procure a firearm, I will procure a firearm. I will NOT need a license. I will NOT need a registration, I will NOT need a permit, and I certainly will NOT need anyone’s permission. If/when they come for me – they better be prepared to die…
Point 1). The 2nd amendment was established for citizens of this republic to protect themselves, their families, and property from criminals or, worse, protect us from a government that has been established with the intent of subverting the freedoms guaranteed to this republic by our constitution.
Point 2). Vigilantism was born as the original peace-keeping authority in a newly-settled area. Departments may not like it, but they are the children and grandchildren of Town Vigilance Committees. Any town who doesn’t like their cabal of bullies with badges should get rid of them, and form their own vigilance, self-defense force! “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ….” Vigilance committees, in and of themselves, are CONSTITUTIONAL!
Point 3). Vigilantism will be our only saving grace for protection if this current ILLEGITIMATE ‘Administration’ is allowed to continue on the path they’re on. It’s one of the reasons they want your guns. BTW, 250 years ago – they were called Minuteman.
Self-defense and vigilantism both begin when law enforcement fails…
To be most effective, the criminals masquerading as politicians must first to be ELIMINATED by those who are being effected by the politicians actions, (i.e. defunding of police, non-enforcement of laws on the books to jail felons, ‘no cash’ bail policies, and other tools being facilitated to create chaos.
Point 4). We armed all of Ukraine and gave the Taliban military-grade weaponry, vehicles, and an embassy built to withstand a nuclear attack. Least we could do is arm Americans, a gun for every year you paid federal withholding taxes plus ammo – we sure couldn’t do a worse job defending this country than every 3 letter agency responsible today! And I tell you what, the Trumpers are more likely to aim straight & hit on the first shot so as to not waste ammo.
Point 5). Here’s an interesting fact: The people who push for gun control are the same people who cause the violent crime rate to increase – therefore creating more legal gun owners…think about it. No wonder the people who push ‘gun control’ get angrier and angrier…they just don’t get it!
Point 6). The Left declared war on Republicans and America many years ago. The sooner the Right realizes that and takes the gloves off and understands that there’s no rules in a street fight…the better. WE are in a struggle for the very heart and soul of this nation—-FIGHT back for your children’s future and the future of Lady Liberty.