Maybe Republicans could consider not compromising our Second Amendment rights

We are once again held hostage to the 24/7 leftist "mainstream" media onslaught regarding the Second Amendment natural right to self-defense versus leftists' definition of "commonsense" gun laws.  Typically, Republicans are discussing a compromise on the Democrat-preferred approach to determining how much of our natural right to self-defense to surrender. 

Are the Republicans asking for any concession?

  • Are the Republicans asking for nationwide constitutional concealed carry, which has already been adopted in half of the states as a deterrent to criminal activity?
  • Are the Republicans asking for the elimination of the illusionary gun-free zones, better known as the locations of many or most mass killings?
  • Are the Republicans asking to harden the schools, almost as if protecting our kids is equivalent to how we protect our money in banks or government officials?
  • Are the Republicans asking for penalties or proposing remedies for simply not enforcing the 10,000+ laws already on the books regarding gun regulation that seem to fail consistently?
  • Are the Republicans asking for the elimination of former President Obama's school-to-prison pipeline guidance idiocy that allowed, for example, the Parkland school shooting to occur because the minority killer, Nikolas Cruz, was a known risk to everyone who knew him or about him?

Perhaps even tangentially, the Republicans could ask for other concessions to save lives, since that is the stated goal.

  • Are the Republicans asking for the border with Mexico to be controlled with the funnel-and-gate technology consisting of a physical barrier with narrower access points to aggressively monitor in order to eliminate the flood of illegal drug-caused overdoses in our country, human-trafficking, rapes, and robbery, not to mention influx of diseases, including the dreaded China virus?

The list is almost endless.  However, it appears beyond the useless Republicans' ability to think outside the agenda of the Democrats.  Meet the Democrats halfway to what they want...wash, rinse, repeat.

Within the military and the firearm manufacturing industry, an assault rifle has been defined as an automatic rifle.  In classic Democrat style, where words have no meaning or are evolving, the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 changed this definition and added features to re-define certain firearms as assault weapons. 

The 1994 ban redefined an assault weapon (rifle) to be a semi-automatic rifle (one bullet per trigger pull), no longer an automatic rifle (multiple bullets per trigger pull), plus have a detachable magazine.  This definition fit a huge number of semi-automatic sporting rifles, which was problematic when attempting to disguise the underlying Democrat objective of banning all guns from citizens.  There were additional definitions for pistol assault weapons that were similarly applied.

Consequently, a little tweaking was put in place to include other features as an assault weapon at this step in the full banning process.  In addition, to be considered an assault weapon, the rifle had to have two or more of the following features: flash suppressor or threaded barrel, bayonet mount, grenade launcher mount, pistol grip, folding or telescoping stock.  These features have no relevance to the ability of a semi-automatic, detachable magazine rifle to fire every time the trigger is pulled, coincidentally (?) just like every gun.

We hear the daily rant about banning assault weapons, weapons of war.  Who needs an AR-like gun?  But there is no better personal protection device than that style of weapon to dissuade a group or mob from harming innocents.  As evidence of this fact is the tidal wave of new AR-type gun-owners following the Democrat rallies of burning, looting, assaults, and murders in Minneapolis, Kenosha, St. Louis, and other liberal big cities in the past years.  The semi-automatic rifle is the best tool for protection when the police are busy hiding out or abandoning their own precincts, with a nod "to serve and protect" altered a bit to "good luck you're on your own."  A lot of new "assault weapon"–owners were born as a result of the Democrat-advocated mayhem.

Is it any wonder that in the recent confirmation hearings for Ketanji Brown Jackson, she could not agree that we the people have natural rights, the cornerstone of our Constitution, rights that exist outside government dictate?  The Second Amendment is considered natural law, the right to self-defense that exists outside government and, ergo, shall not be infringed.

I understand the command-and-control Democrat's interest in destroying the notion of natural rights, but what about the worthless Republicans, who seem interested in compromising our rights? 

Image via Pxhere.

If you experience technical problems, please write to