Wednesday, July 27, 2022

A Nation of Fools

Why my friends and I had more wisdom when we were 12 than college students and faculty have today.


The average 12-year-old student at a yeshiva has more wisdom than almost any student at Harvard or most other universities. (A yeshiva is an Orthodox Jewish school with an emphasis on religious studies. About half the school day is devoted to religious studies—taught from the original Hebrew sources.)

This is probably true for many 12-year-olds in traditional Christian schools as well.

College students do have more knowledge than almost any 12-year-old in religious school. But they have much less wisdom.

I know this because I was a yeshiva student from the age of 5 until 19. To appreciate how much wisdom I was taught is to appreciate the root of our society’s present crisis: Secular life doesn’t teach wisdom (nor, it should be noted, do many schools that call themselves “Christian” or “Jewish”). Generations of Americans have not been taught wisdom; instead, they have been told that it is sufficient to rely on their feelings to understand life and to determine right from wrong.

Here are just three examples of basic insights into life that most 12-year-old yeshiva students know and that few secular students—or, for that matter, secular professors—know.

1) I knew well before age 12 that people are not basically good. Any young person who studies the Bible—and believes in it—knows that God says, “The will of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” (Genesis 8:21).

Aside from the question of God’s existence, this is probably the most important issue in life. It might be said that wisdom begins with this realization about human nature. It is hard to imagine any person who believes human nature is good attaining wisdom.

To be clear, the message of the Bible is not that human nature is basically bad. What matters is that we acknowledge the reality, noted in the Bible and affirmed by all of human history, that human nature is not inherently good.

2) Precisely because human nature isn’t good, the preoccupation of my religious education was how to work on myself to make me a better person. Every yeshiva student in the world memorizes the Talmudic aphorism, “Who is the strong man? The one who conquers his urge(s).”

The great difference between a religious and secular education can be summarized thus: I was taught that the greatest problem in my life is me. In the secular world, students are taught that the greatest problems in their lives are others.

That is the genesis of the current American tragedy. Vast numbers of young people blame others—and/or America generally—for their problems and overall unhappiness. Few are taught to struggle with their own nature. Blacks are told to struggle with whites, America, and systemic racism. Women are not taught to first work on themselves but to blame men and fight misogyny, patriarchy, and America for their unhappiness.

3) People are to be judged by the standards and behavior of the generation in which they lived.

Ask any yeshiva student—even one in elementary school—to explain the verse in Genesis, “And Noah was a righteous man in his generations” (6:9). He or she will tell you what I first learned in fourth grade: that the ancient rabbis debated what the words “in his generations” were meant to teach. Some rabbis argued that they were inserted to teach that Noah was a particularly righteous man only in comparison to the (awful) generations in which he lived. Other rabbis argued that these words were there to make the point that if Noah was a righteous man in the awful generation in which he lived, he must have been a particularly righteous man, since it is very difficult to be good when all those around you are bad.

Whichever interpretation one agreed with, it was clear that people are to be judged according to the time in which they lived, not by the present time.

In the present Age of No Wisdom, the best educated—usually the same people who most lack wisdom—dismiss the unique moral accomplishment of America’s founders because most of them owned slaves. Fools—the term for people who lack wisdom—judge the founders by our time, not by their time—a time when slavery was universal.

Wisdom can sometimes be a product of aging, but given how many old fools there are and how many young people have some degree of wisdom, it should be clear that wisdom, like math, a foreign language, or any other discipline, must be taught. Only then is one likely to become wiser with age. Otherwise, a young person without wisdom is most likely to become an old person without wisdom.

When America was more religious, wisdom was taught to young people. This is another reason to fear a thoroughly secularized America—we are producing a nation of fools. The proof lies in our universities. The most secularized institution in America is the most foolish institution in America.



X22, On the Fringe, and more- July 27

 



Evening. Here's tonight's news:


Making ‘The Switch’

Tanking poll numbers and obvious lack of enthusiasm for the Biden Administration have forced the Democrats to confront a series of hard choices.


In the “Seinfeld” episode, “The Switch,” Jerry debates with George about the best way to end a relationship with a woman while starting a new one with her roommate. After considerable debate and strategizing, a plan is developed and the effort made, with a wonderfully comic denouement. Today, dominant figures in the Democratic Party are contemplating how to make a switch of their own. Tanking poll numbers and an obvious lack of enthusiasm for the Biden Administration have forced the Democrats to confront a series of hard choices. 

However difficult, these choices are subordinate to the fundamental necessity of keeping power—the unifying threat of their political calculus—and thus the requirement to hold the presidency. Given that Joe Biden is tanking, former President Obama and his agents in the White House—Ron Klain, Susan Rice, et al.—must find a way to make the switch from Biden and Harris to more popular figures who will allow them to win in 2024 and 2028. 

But as Jerry and George discovered, making the switch is nearly impossible to do. Obama and company face three difficult decisions. 

First, they must consider when to replace Biden with another candidate before 2024 and whether they can ride him out through the upcoming midterm election. If they ride him out, then the Democratic primary begins when polls close on November 8. 

Obama and company can do little to prevent a primary challenge to Biden from across the Democratic field, however, so they will have to back a candidate early and forcefully to avoid any internecine bloodbath. Of course, Biden would be a lame duck with no political capital and will be a sitting president rejected by his party. He would be ignored and held in contempt as he fades into history.

If Biden is going to be replaced, however, which appears likely given his physical frailties and mental disintegration are increasingly hard to disguise, ideally this should be done after the midterms. His replacement would then be eligible to serve a full 10 years as permitted under the Constitution and it would place the Democrats on the path to victory in 2024. That is the best way to sustain the Obama agenda. Circumstances—whether lingering ill-effects of COVID or something else—may compel his replacement sooner. But would be poor timing for the Obama agenda. 

A necessary condition for replacing Biden requires first replacing Vice President Kamala Harris, as she is clearly not up to the job she has, let alone the presidency. She consistently polls lower than Biden. Putting her in office would be like adding pure hydrogen to the Hindenburg explosion that is the Biden Administration. Given that they have Harris, the Democrats must make not one switch, but two. 

The second hard choice is when to replace her. There’s a strong argument for doing it immediately. Doing so before the midterms ensures that it is possible and it is the path of least resistance. To do so with Republican control of Congress guarantees a fight and the possibility that Obama and company don’t get their first choice. 

At the same time, no obvious replacement is guaranteed to be as pliable as Harris. Obama and his people may find that Biden’s replacement has a mind of his own as Lyndon Johnson did after Kennedy’s assassination. Once in power, the new president could clean shop and end Obama’s influence. But that is a risk they will have to take.

Once Harris is replaced by the necessary figure, however—say California Governor Gavin Newsom or perhaps even former First Lady Michelle Obama—then the push is on to evict Biden just as soon as possible, likely early in 2023. It would be impossible to have a young vice president like Newsom to contrast with Biden. Biden is likely to go willingly as the good foot soldier he always was. There would be some grumbling as Justice Breyer did when he was pushed out, but he will leave just the same. If Biden fights, it will get ugly. 

What are now whispers of the 25th Amendment will become a Vienna Boys Choir. Most likely he would resign due to his health, which is a choice most Americans could accept and support, even if they were rightfully angry at Biden’s handlers for masking this in 2020. Fundamentally, the outcome has never been in doubt, at the point Biden is no longer needed and is an impediment to advancement of the Obama agenda, he will go. 

Once a President Newsom or other pick is in power, then the third hard choice surfaces. “No more Kamala Harrises” will be the guiding principle. There will have to be a stable, loyal, competent selection for the new vice president, less a Stacey Abrams and more like former Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos or New York Governor Kathy Hochul. Having done “the switch” once, unless essential, they would be loath to do it again so soon. Of course, if a Bezos or Hochul doesn’t play ball, anything is possible.  

Finally, as should be expected, these difficult choices will be made in bad faith. They will be made without reference to the American people, their political choices, and without regard to what is needed to sustain the health of the Republic. The cynicism of the Democratic Party is deep. Its contempt for the American people, political principles, culture, history, and institutions are absolute and profound. This is so because its positions mirror the beliefs of its leadership. 



Law Enforcement Exists To Protect The Vulnerable. The FBI Is Protecting Its Powerful Favorites

The FBI obstructed an investigation into political royalty while that same agency has been deployed against enemies of the regime.



An explosive announcement from Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa on Monday revealed whistleblower claims that the FBI had used a sham investigation to smear the mounting evidence of Hunter Biden’s compromised foreign entanglements as “disinformation” and forestall a legitimate probe ahead of the 2020 presidential election. It’s unthinkable that in America, federal law enforcement is obstructing an investigation into political royalty while that same agency is deployed against enemies of the regime — see Donald Trump in 2016, parents at school board meetings, and a cancer-patient grandmother who was sentenced to jail time for “parading” on Jan. 6, 2021.

Law enforcement, by design, must protect the innocent and vulnerable from the powerful. That protection is one of the chief purposes and benefits of society itself. Laws and their enforcement protect the helpless victim of abuse, the elderly man crossing the street, and the defenseless woman walking home from work. They do so by holding accountable anyone who would use strength, intimidation, or power to abuse the less powerful. Justice is blindfolded to strong-arming and nepotism.

It’s not hard to conclude, from crime statistics and even quieter sins we commit and witness, that a society ordered by might would be a hellish place for most. Such observations led philosophers like Thomas Hobbes to understand that men must submit to laws in return for protection against the lawlessness of others.

But what happens when law enforcement uses its delegated authority instead to protect the interests of the powerful, to excuse and cover up their lawlessness, and to silence the objections of those who point it out? It becomes no longer a check on the abuses of power but an accomplice. There are years of evidence of this sort of dereliction of duty at the FBI, but the whistleblower report of the scuttled Hunter Biden investigation still manages to be shocking.

The FBI, the whistleblowers alleged to Grassley, “sought to falsely portray as disinformation evidence acquired from multiple sources that provided the FBI derogatory information related to Hunter Biden’s financial and foreign business activities, even though some of that information had already been or could be verified.” One of the FBI officials involved, Grassley added, “also reportedly ordered the closure of a stream of information related to Hunter Biden and sought to improperly mark the matter within FBI systems in a way that would prevent it from being re-opened in the future.”

If those allegations are true, it appears that the supposedly nonpartisan FBI suppressed information potentially implicating the son of a presidential candidate in a foreign pay-to-play scheme — information the FBI was duty-bound to investigate — for the purpose of protecting the agency’s favored political candidate. That’s the kind of weaponization you might expect in a banana republic but hardly in the United States.

While the FBI protects now-President Joe Biden’s son from the consequences of his own actions, the federal law enforcement agency has been prolific in prosecuting its political enemies. The most outrageous is its involvement in the plot to spy on and smear political outsider Donald Trump as a Russian pawn.

But the corrupt agency has targeted less powerful people too, such as when Biden Education Secretary Miguel Cardona commissioned the now-infamous letter from the National School Boards Association to Attorney General Merrick Garland, who then used the letter as a pretext to sic the FBI on parents who were showing up to school board meetings to protest mask mandates and racist curriculum. There are also indications that the alleged plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer may have been an FBI-concocted scheme to entrap the men involved — indications that were compelling enough to convince a jury not to convict any of the four men on trial for the plot.

By covering up incriminating evidence against its powerful favorites while targeting ordinary citizens, the FBI is undermining its own purpose for existence as a law enforcement agency. It’s looking more and more like a corrupt Third World police department that pins crimes on innocent citizens while dealing under the table to protect an autocrat’s prodigal son. And as the DOJ continues its crusade to criminalize dissent via the Jan. 6 Committee’s politicized show trials, all signs suggest it’s going to get worse.



Senator Chuck Grassley Outlines “Systemic Institutional Corruption” Within Dept of Justice and FBI


Monday, Senator Chuck Grassley sent a letter [pdf HERE] to Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Chris Wray, notifying them of whistleblower allegations from within the FBI that senior leadership in both Main Justice and FBI are involved in a coordinated effort to cover-up criminal activity related to Hunter Biden.

The whistleblower allegations, in combination with the documented history of DOJ and FBI misconduct, culminate in Senator Grassley stating:

“If these allegations are true and accurate, the Justice Department and FBI are – and have been – institutionally corrupted to their very core to the point in which the United States Congress and the American people will have no confidence in the equal application of the law. Attorney General Garland and Director Wray, simply put, based on the allegations that I’ve received from numerous whistleblowers, you have systemic and existential problems within your agencies.” (LINK)

Unfortunately, what this amounts to, is Senator Grassley is telling Chris Wray and Merrick Garland, the leaders of the institutionally corrupt activity, that they are systemically corrupt. Which is akin to telling a criminal that he is engaged in unlawful conduct.

Our friend Techno Fog breaks down the outlined allegations succinctly HERE.  Absolutely none of the information contained in the allegations is surprising or new to anyone who has followed the details of Main Justice and FBI activity through the past several years.  What Grassley outlines is simply evidence, supportive evidence, of what has been transparently obvious to those who have reviewed the DOJ and FBI conduct.

The U.S. Dept of Justice and FBI are now political institutions that have abandoned their originating mission in order to become the domestic equivalent of the Soviet-era FSB. Their joint targeting mechanisms have been redesigned to support the interests of corrupt DC politicians, specifically the interests of democrats.  Grassley is admitting what has been visible for years.

Senator Grassley is telling the corrupt DOJ-FBI leadership that people in the organizations are outlining the detailed behavior of their corrupt leadership.  However, with zero oversight involved; and with democrats in charge of all committees that would be responsible for such oversight; and with institutional media in alignment and agreement with the corrupt institutional intents of the DOJ/FBI; the frustrating question becomes, “and“?

I mean, who are we kidding?…  If republicans were in charge of the Senate Judiciary, Reform/Oversight, or Intelligence committees, do we really believe that anything would be different?   Before responding to that cynicism remind yourself, they were, for four years, January 2015 through January 2019 republicans were in charge of oversight.

It was exactly when republicans were in charge of Main Justice and FBI oversight, that Main Justice and FBI were targeting political candidate Donald Trump.

The letter from Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley, despite the major allegations it contains, carries absolutely no pretense of a process for the systemic institutional corruption it outlines.  Instead, the letter asks AG Merrick Garland and FBI Director Chris Wray to review their own corrupt conduct and/or do a better job of hiding their corrupt activity.

This fundamental flaw in the oversight issue is the Edward Snowden conundrum.  When the intelligence agencies are corrupt, and the heads of the corrupt intelligence agencies are in direct alignment with the corrupt heads of the intelligence agency oversight, where exactly is the whistleblower with evidence of criminal corruption supposed to go?

This is why and how the Fourth Branch of U.S. Government is now the superseding apparatus above all other branches.  {GO DEEP} This is why and how Barack Obama, John Brennan and Eric Holder created it, cemented it, and made it impervious to any effort to remove it.

The Fourth Branch of Government is evil Sauron and Washington DC is Mordor. The J6 committee is creating and dispatching Orcs to defend it.  The corrupt media have aligned with it, and the institutions in/around it are self-aware and fully autonomous.  To mix metaphors and overlay their ability to monitor every single aspect of every life that might seek to challenge or destroy it, Skynet -the end game outlined by Snowden- has been activated.

Read Techno Fog for Details on the Grassley Letter ~

[SEE pdf Here]



Congress Can't Interpret the 12th Amendment

 Vice President-elect Mike Pence and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of Calif. prepare to speak to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 17, 2016, after meeting privately. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Article by Frank DeVito in The American Conservative


Congress Can't Interpret the 12th Amendment

 

Congress cannot attempt to solve ambiguities it does not like by overstepping and attempting to do the Court’s work.
 

In the wake of the 2020 election, many questions arose about the power of the vice president of the United States during the counting of the electoral votes. The 12th Amendment provides that, in the counting of electoral votes, the president of the Senate (the vice president) shall “in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.” The clause is ambiguous; clearly, the vice president is tasked with opening the certificates (the electoral votes certified by the states). But, it is not clear from the text alone that the vice president has the authority to count the votes, because of the use of the passive voice: it says “the votes shall then be counted,” rather than the vice president “shall count the votes.”

While a detailed analysis of the constitutional text goes beyond the scope of this essay, Professor John Eastman in his now-famous six-page memo on the January 6 situation explained that “[t]here is very solid legal authority, and historical precedent, for the view that the President of the Senate does the counting, including the resolution of disputed electoral votes (as Adams and Jefferson did while Vice President, regarding their own election as President), and all the Members of Congress can do is watch.” Professor Eastman also points out that Article II of the Constitution clearly states that presidential electors from each State shall be appointed “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct” (emphasis added).

Admittedly, even conservative scholars disagree with certain aspects of Professor Eastman’s memo. But the point is this: the authority to open the certified electoral votes from the states and count them, as well as the question of which state-level actor has the final authority to certify election results, are constitutional questions, not statutory ones.       

The Electoral Count Act interferes with both of these constitutional issues. The statute calls for each house of Congress to appoint two “tellers” to receive the certificates opened by the vice president and to record and count the votes. The vote totals would then be delivered to the vice president to “announce the state of the vote.” The statute also states that if there is more than one slate of presidential electors submitted by a state and there is disagreement between the two houses of Congress about which slate is to be counted, “the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State” shall be counted (emphasis added).

This is a problem. If the Constitution gives the vice president authority to count the electoral votes—and again, this section of the Constitution is ambiguous—Congress may not pass a law that several “tellers” will be appointed by Congress to count the electoral votes. If the Constitution provides that Congress shall meet in joint session to certify the electoral vote, Congress may not pass a law that each house shall meet separately. And if the Constitution requires that presidential electors be appointed in such a manner as the legislature of each State directs, Congress may not declare that the slate certified by a state’s executive shall be counted.

Yet a bipartisan group in Congress is very close to reaching an agreement, not that they should stop overstepping their authority by trying to interpret or limit the Constitution, but to overstep a bit further. The full language of this purported January 6 legislation has yet to be revealed, but Sen. Susan Collins assures us that the areas of consensus already reached include “amending the Electoral Count Act to restrain the vice president’s role.” As discussed above, the vice president is given certain constitutional authority in the electoral count process. It is not the legislature’s role to restrain constitutional authority.

The discussion of such a proposed law is not surprising in the current political climate. The title of the above-cited article reveals the fear behind the action: Congress’ continued fixation on the January 6 riot is purportedly an attempt to “prevent future coups.” Even if one accepts that the January 6 riot was an attempted coup rather than a haphazard protest-turned-riot, Democrats themselves agree that legal ambiguities concerning the counting of electoral votes “could lead to a real constitutional crisis.” A constitutional crisis must be fixed by amending or interpreting the Constitution, not by passing legislation that ultimately attempts to clarify or change the Constitution.

Such an exercise of congressional authority is not only inappropriate and unconstitutional, it is powerless. Imagine the scenario: there is a repeat of the 2020 presidential election in 2024. There are battleground states where the vote count is close. There are allegations not only of fraud but also of the breaking of state election laws. The vice president claims constitutional authority to count the votes, deems certain electoral votes unlawful, and those votes are either thrown out or sent back to the state. If Congress passes its law “to restrain the vice president’s role,” a lawsuit will be filed claiming that the statute contradicts the vice president’s constitutional authority. The vice president will claim that his authority comes from the Constitution, and that the legislation is therefore unconstitutional. The Court will then have to interpret the constitutional clause to determine whether the vice president has the power he claims. Thus, this legislation will not prevent the reality that the Court has to interpret the Constitution, and that it may not consider a statute that is inconsistent with the Constitution in its interpretation of the vice president’s authority.

The questions of whether the vice president has the sole power to count the electoral votes and whether a state’s legislature or executive has the final say in which slate of electoral votes is certified are constitutional questions. Of course Congress may fill in the gaps and provide details on the contours of the election process. But Congress has no authority to pass laws interpreting or changing provisions of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has the judicial power, which extends “to all cases…arising under this Constitution.” To prevent a “constitutional crisis,” the Supreme Court needs to interpret the relevant provisions of the Constitution. Separation of powers matters for the health and well-being of the republic. Congress cannot attempt to solve ambiguities it does not like by overstepping and attempting to do the Court’s work.

 

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/congress-cant-interpret-the-12th-amendment/ 

 







Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Based off the First New Hampshire Poll, Democrats Are in Trouble in 2024


Levon Satamian reporting for RedState 

A new 2024 poll shows Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg as the leader in New Hampshire. In 2020, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) finished first in New Hampshire, and Buttigieg came in second place.

As RedState’s Bonchie observed earlier today, the mainstream media is so focused on whether Trump will announce his White House bid and if it will be before or after the midterm elections — as well as Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL) potentially entering the race — that they have not really reported on the 2024 Democratic field.

The New Hampshire poll shows Buttigieg at 17 percent, President Biden at 16 percent, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and California Governor Gavin Newsom at 10 percent, Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) at nine percent, Sanders (I-VT) at eight percent, Vice President Harris at six percent, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) at five percent, as the rest of the candidates, including Hillary Clinton, failed to crack five percent.

So, Pete Buttigieg, who could not run a city with less than 105,000 residents in South Bend, Indiana, leads the Democratic field in New Hampshire. But it gets worse. Incompetent Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) is tied for third place in the second state that votes during the primaries.

If Democrats do not nominate a candidate like North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper or Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, they will likely lose every key state in 2024, including Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

Senator Klobuchar, along with her flaws as a prosecutor, would have a better chance in the General Election than Buttigieg and Newsom because she will win over moderates and independent voters, depending on who the GOP nominee is going to be.

As I reported yesterday, the Washington Post published a piece ranking the “top-ten” 2024 Democratic Presidential hopefuls. Only one candidate on that list will have a viable chance to win the General Election.

Having said that, the GOP must hone in on their message of being tough-on-crime, and focus on the economy, school choice, and empowering parents, among other important issues.

Gavin Newsom will be forced to defend his record as California Governor — which is not an easy thing to do due to his incompetent leadership. Meanwhile, AOC will tout her climate agenda and the Green New Deal that would bankrupt the United States and, as a report in 2020 said, would “destroy” the middle class.

For the most part, the GOP nominee is the winner of the Democratic New Hampshire poll. Sanders will likely sit out in 2024, passing the torch to AOC, which the GOP should welcome. Whether it’s Newsom, AOC, Warren, or Buttigieg, as long as the GOP nominee can win over independent voters, they will comfortably win in 2024.

The GOP base should be encouraged by this poll.




Yep, it's true! They're coming for your guns.

 

Article by D. Parker in The American Thinker


Yep, it's true! They're coming for your guns.


Democrat Rep. David N "Spare Me The B------- about Constitutional Rights" Cicilline and others have said the quiet part out loud: they want to ban almost all semi-automatic weapons in common use.

If you wondered why the nation's socialist news cabal American Pravda suddenly decided to drop the terms "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" from their propaganda lexicon, your answer was soon forthcoming in their triumphant announcement of their next onslaught against your sensible civil rights: "Democrats push for 1st semi-automatic gun ban in 20 years."

In a tyrannical two-for-one special, not only have the enemies of liberty of the fascist far left admitted that the whole point of this was to ban weapons in common use, but they're also tacitly defying the United States Supreme Court ruling District of Columbia v. Heller.

This video from pro-freedom patriot Colion Noir gives a good rundown on the facts in this case.

Most damning is this exchange between Dan Bishop (R) and chairman of the Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler (D) in a congressional committee meeting during the markup of the bill on July 20, 2022:

Bishop: Is there anyone on the other side that would dispute that this bill would ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today?

Nadler: Yeah, that's the point of the bill.

Bishop: To clarify, Mr. Chairman, you're saying it is the point of the bill to ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today?

Nadler: Yes, the problem is they are in common use.

 If we've heard it once, we've heard a thousand times: all they want is "commonsense," "sensible," or "reasonable" gun control.  Except they never define those terms — on purpose. 

Well, now we know what they mean.  They want to ban almost everything aside from a few "manually operated" firearms.

The most important section of the bill is section 2, the "Definitions," which sets out the scope of what the bill covers.  After wading through the text that modifies the relevant federal code, we get to this part:

(36) The term 'semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:

(A) A semiautomatic rifle that—

(i) has a magazine that is not a fixed magazine; and

(ii) does have any 1 of the following:

(I) A pistol grip.

(II) A forward grip.

(III) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of the weapon.

(IV) A grenade launcher.

(V) A barrel shroud.

(VI) A threaded barrel.

(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm but not convert the semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun.

(D) A semiautomatic pistol that—

(i) has a magazine that is not a fixed magazine; and

(ii) does have any 1 of the following:

(I) A threaded barrel.

(II) A second pistol grip.

(III) A barrel shroud.

(IV) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

(V) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

(VI) A manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when unloaded.

(VII) A stabilizing brace or similar component.

(E) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(F) A semiautomatic shotgun that—

(i) has the capacity to utilize a magazine that is not a fixed magazine; and

(ii) does have any 1 of the following:

(I) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.

(II) A pistol grip or bird's head grip.

(III) A fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds.

(IV) The ability to accept a detachable magazine.

(V) A forward grip.

(VI) A grenade launcher.

(G) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

(H) All of the following rifles, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof.

The bill then lists a number of firearms in mind-numbing detail, after which it sets forth some additional definitions, with two that are very important in determining the scope of this ban: 

(42) The term 'forward grip' means a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip. ...

(45) The term 'pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock or Thordsen-type grip or stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.

The bottom line is that if you have a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine with "any other characteristic that can function as a grip," or a semi-automatic pistol that has a magazine that is not a fixed magazine with one of the myriad features listed, then congratulations!  You're now the proud owner of an "assault weapon."

Does anyone want to wager that the phrase "function as a grip" is going to be subjectively interpreted in the same manner that a piece of plastic was deemed to be a "machine gun"?  Because that might be the only way of distinguishing between a gun that is "allowed" under this unconstitutional monstrosity and an "assault weapon."

Unlike the old ban, you need only one feature, not two, to be in the "assault weapon" club these days.  Plus, to sweeten the deal, they've decided to also ban standard-capacity magazines.  Because tyranny is never satisfied with halfway measures.

But not to worry: the anti-liberty left ever so graciously exempts — for now — certain types of firearms:

(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm that—

(A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action ...

So now we know why they are playing fast and loose with their words in this case.  Anti-liberty leftists are playing another game of bait and switch — scaring everyone over the scourge of "assault weapons" but then expanding their reach to just about everything else.

Such is the usual of authoritarian socialists, exploiting other people's pain for their political gain.

 https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/07/yep_its_true_theyre_coming_for_your_guns.html

 







Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage