Can Gun Nuts Please Stop Saying You Need Guns to Protect Yourself From A Potential Tyrannical Government!!!

[M14 Shooter]

It abolished the second step, which was used in Heller, which is the 'intermediate test', which, what, is the same thing as the 'means-end test, right?

It abolishes all means-end testing
-Rational Basis
-Intermediate Scrutiny
-Strict Scrutiny

That is, it negates -any- argument where the right to keep and bear arms must be balanced against the needs / function, real or imagined, of the state.
The enshrinement of constitutional rights, necessarily and intentionally, takes certain policy choices off the table.

After Bruen, the constitutionality of gun laws will be based on whether the plain text of the Second Amendment protects the activities the laws are regulating. If it does, then “the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition” to set boundaries on gun use, but, this is vague, in my opinion.

It shouldn't be - Thomas was pretty clear.

This new test encroaches on the duties of state legislatures (not to mention Congress). Instead of allowing the legislative process to unfold, with elected lawmakers looking at on-the-ground realities and deciding the best ways to balance rights and restrictions, the Court said the balance has already been “struck by the traditions of the American people.” But it’s worth asking, what traditions? Traditions made by whom? And who struck the balance between Second Amendment rights and firearm restrictions? Who was, as they say, in the room where it happened?
Good points, I would say.

All negated by the holding in Bruen.
As such, they mean nothing.

These recent rulings on the second amendment have been 6-3 rulings, conservative/liberal. That's not a very strong precedent, in my view, a vote should have at least one from the other side, in my view, to be a strong precedent. The day will come when the court will become more liberal than conservative, and we shall reverse these rulings, which, in my view, make America less safe.

Until the, Bruen stands, and you don't get to ignore it.
Or the rulings that wiil sure follow from it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The state governments can regulate arms within constraints set by the court in various rulings, Heller, Bruen, etc.

This has nothing to do with your unsupportable claim that the 9th amendments protects the right to drive on pubblic roads.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Gun registration was indirectly addressed in United States v. Miller (1939).

Moving the goalpost, eh?

You claimed Miller UPHELD gun registration
Your claim is false.
Gun registration was not a question before the court in Miller, and so the court could not have upheld it.
Disagree?
Copy/paste the text from the ruling to that effect.

The claim that all firearm regulations heard by the court since Miller have been struck is not accurate. While the Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement in Heller, it did not invalidate all firearm regulations.

Heller stuck every regulation question before the court.
Every decision since Miller has resulted in the court striking every regulation before the court.
You cannot cite ONE instance of the court upholding a regulation in question before it since Miller.
My claim stands.

 

[Rumpole]

Moving the goalpost, eh?

You claimed Miller UPHELD gun registration
Your claim is false.
Gun registration was not a question before the court in Miller, and so the court could not have upheld it.
Disagree?

Well, understand that anyone can express something less than perfectly articulated.
While, in reflection, if I had the moment to do over again, I would have articulated my point with more precision.
All you have to do is adjust the not perfectly worded comment to align with it being 'indirect'.
On that point, now with more precision, which you are spinning as 'moving the goalpost', which you will do if your purpose is to not find the truth, but only to prove people wrong, nitpicking on a detail, aka 'pettifogging', which doesn't really change my point, since the outcome is almost the same. Indirect isn't as strong as direct, but note that the entire legal doctrine of penumbra reasoning is aligned with the fact that there are many things not written in the constitution, which are ruled constitutional, under that doctrine. Surely that would leave enough room to accommodate 'indirect'. But the question then becomes, are you capable of that kind of discernment? That kind of discernment would be required of any judge, of that I'm certain.

Heller stuck every regulation question before the court.
Every decision since Miller has resulted in the court striking every regulation before the court.
You cannot cite ONE instance of the court upholding a regulation in question before it since Miller.
My claim stands.

If the Supreme Court hasn't specifically repealed a regulation, or a lower courts upholding of a regulation, then the ruling and/or the law is still in effect in a given state until it is challenged and ruled on, or the state's legislature repeals and/or replaces the law. I'm not certain that this idea that a Supreme Court ruling strikes down laws it doesn't mention is correct, I mean, what legal doctrine is that idea based on? Is that what you are asserting? Now then, if the Supreme Court renders a ruling, and the ruling appears to affect enacted laws, but does not mention them, if those laws in those states someone does challenge them, the attorneys, before the Supreme Court, will have a much easier time persuading the court, and I will accept that premise. But until then, those unmentioned laws stand in effect. That is my understanding of the status quo on rulings. I believe that the reason this is true is that every case has it's own circumstances, which could vary just enough where there simply cannot be 'blanket rulings repealing blocks of laws'. Take the Roe ruling. I didn't shoot down state laws banning abortions, but states were now free to enact new laws banning them. That's how it works, as I understand the law. In the mean time, there are many laws regulating firearms that have been enacted at the federal and state levels that have not been struck down, as I understand the law, by the Supreme Court since the Miller decision in 1939. Here are some examples:

1. National Firearms Act (NFA): The NFA is a federal law that regulates the manufacture, sale, and possession of certain firearms, including machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, and suppressors. The Supreme Court upheld the NFA in United States v. Miller (1939), which held that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms that are "in common use" and have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." The Court found that sawed-off shotguns did not meet this standard and thus were not protected by the Second Amendment.
2. Gun Control Act (GCA): The GCA is a federal law that regulates firearms dealers and prohibits the sale of firearms to certain categories of people, including convicted felons, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill. The Supreme Court upheld the GCA's restrictions on felons and the mentally ill in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), finding that these restrictions were "presumptively lawful" and consistent with the Second Amendment.
3. Assault Weapons Ban: Several states have enacted laws that ban the sale or possession of assault weapons, which are defined as firearms with certain military-style features. These laws have generally been upheld by the lower courts. However, the Supreme Court has not yet addressed the constitutionality of assault weapons bans.
4. Concealed Carry Restrictions: Many states require individuals to obtain a permit or license to carry a concealed firearm in public. These laws have generally been upheld by the courts as consistent with the Second Amendment, although some states have been challenged for imposing strict requirements for obtaining a concealed carry permit.

State assault weapons regulations since Miller which Heller has not struck down; Several states have enacted laws regulating assault weapons, including bans on their sale or possession. Here are some examples:

1. California: California has a law banning the sale, transfer, and possession of certain types of assault weapons, including rifles with detachable magazines and certain military-style features. This law has been upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Duncan v. Becerra, 9th Cir. 2019. The court held that the law did not substantially burden the core Second Amendment right of individuals to possess firearms for self-defense in the home, and that it served a substantial government interest in promoting public safety.
2. Maryland: Maryland has a law banning the sale, transfer, and possession of certain types of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. This law has been upheld by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017). The court held that the law was a reasonable regulation of the Second Amendment right and did not impose a substantial burden on the right of self-defense.
3. Connecticut: Connecticut has a law banning the sale and possession of certain types of assault weapons, including firearms with certain military-style features. This law has not been directly addressed by the federal courts, but it was upheld by the Connecticut Supreme Court in State v. Miller, 326 Conn. 749 (2017). The court held that the law did not violate the Second Amendment and was a reasonable regulation of firearms that served a substantial government interest in promoting public safety.
4. New Jersey: New Jersey has a law banning the sale, transfer, and possession of certain types of assault weapons, including firearms with certain military-style features. This law has been upheld by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General of New Jersey, 910 F.3d 106 (3d Cir. 2018). The court held that the law did not substantially burden the core Second Amendment right of individuals to possess firearms for self-defense in the home, and that it served a substantial government interest in promoting public safety.

These are just a few examples of firearms regulations that have been enacted and upheld by the courts since the Miller decision. It is important to note that the constitutionality of any particular firearms regulation will depend on the specific facts and legal issues involved in each case, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment has evolved over time.

I write the above with this caveat: The above is based on my layman's understanding of the law. Feel free to prove me wrong. I am learning as I go, and acknowledge that I can be wrong, but this is my current understanding.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, understand that anyone can express something less than perfectly articulated.
While, in reflection, if I had the moment to do over again, I would have articulated my point with more precision.
All you have to do is adjust the not perfectly worded comment to align with it being 'indirect'.

And so you agree:
The USSC did -not- uphold firearms registration in Miller.
Thank you

On that point, now with more precision, which you are spinning as 'moving the goalpost', which you will do if your purpose is to not find the truth, but only to prove people wrong, nitpicking on a detail, aka 'pettifogging', which doesn't really change my point,...

Why should I not point out that a claim you make is false/wrong?
How else will you learn?
That's what you want to do, right?
And... proving your point wrong -should- change your point.

If the Supreme Court hasn't specifically repealed a regulation, or a lower courts upholding of a regulation, then the ruling and/or the law is still in effect.

True.
This, however does not mean the USSC has upheld any given regulation

There are many laws regulating firearms that have been enacted at the federal and state levels that have not been struck down by the Supreme Court since the Miller decision in 1939. Here are some examples:

None of regulations you list here have been upheld by the court.
Disagree ?
Cite the case and copy/paste the text to that effect.
Until you do, my statement stands:
You cannot cite ONE instance of the court upholding a regulation in question before it since Miller.

At what point do you take what I say at face value and admit your premise is unsupportable/?

 

[Rumpole]

And so you agree:
The USSC did -not- uphold firearms registration in Miller.
Thank you

Why should I not point out that a claim you make is false/wrong?
How else will you learn?
That's what you want to do, right?
And... proving your point wrong -should- change your point.

No, you pettifogged the point. "Indirect' (if the logic is solid) can be used by attorneys in their arguments. Not as strong as direct, but it's a valid argument. All i did was qualify the inarticulate language, a mistake anyone can make. Anyway, the source of this line of discussion was really a minor point, Why all the fuss? Oh, all you want to do is score points. No matter how trivial. right?

True.
This, however does not mean the USSC has upheld any given regulation

None of regulations you list here have been upheld by the court.
Disagree ?
Cite the case and copy/paste the text to that effect.
Until you do, my statement stands:
You cannot cite ONE instance of the court upholding a regulation in question before it since Miller.

Unless a reg is specifically struck down by a court, which many are not, it remains in effect. Thus your point is moot.
Correct?

At what point do you take what I say at face value and admit your premise is unsupportable/?

But, as my previous comment demonstrated, Heller didn't strike down all the regs since Miller, that was your claim, remember?

You wrote:

Every decision since Miller has resulted in the court striking every regulation before the court.

You implied that it was Heller that did that, right?

I believe that is a false statement. see previous comment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, you pettifogged the point. "Indirect' (if the logic is solid) can be used by attorneys in their arguments. Not as strong as direct, but it's a valid argument.

Why do you think this?
What rational, factual, and precedential basis do you have for this?

And if you present this idea in court, what is your response to opposing counsel making note that the court, in Miller did not in any way consider the constitutional question of registration, and did not in any war make a ruling on it-- especially not to uphold the registration requirement.

"Your honor, the court in Miller did not consider the registration requirement - it was not a question brought before the court, nothing in the holding refers to the constitutionality of the registration requirement -- and therefore cannot beheld as precedent. Counsel may as well be arguing that because Miller didn't overturn the Social Security Act, it upheld it."
Because that's exactly what will happen.

If you're lucky, you wont get fired -- or disbarred

All i did was qualify the inarticulate language, a mistake anyone can make. Anyway, the source of this line of discussion was really a minor point,

Funny how whenever something you present is reversed on the facts, you make a statement such as this.
Advice: Make fewer mistakes.
Or offer less BS.

Unless a reg is specifically struck down by a court, which many are not, it remains in effect. Thus your point is moot.
Correct?

Hardly.
You want to claim that because the court did not strike a regulation that was not in question before the court, it UPHELD that regulation.
This indicates an ignorance so deep, it almost has to be willful.

But, as my previous comment demonstrated, Heller didn't strike down all the regs since Miller, that was your claim, remember?

Irrelevant to my claim:
You cannot cite ONE instance of the court upholding a regulation in question before it since Miller.
Until you do, my claim stands.

You wrote:
Every decision since Miller has resulted in the court striking every regulation before the court.
You implied that it was Heller that did that, right?
I believe that is a false statement. see previous comment.

You have no rational or factual basis for this belief -- see "hardly", above.

At what point do you take what I say at face value and admit your premise is unsupportable/?

 

[2aguy]

Well, understand that anyone can express something less than perfectly articulated.
While, in reflection, if I had the moment to do over again, I would have articulated my point with more precision.
All you have to do is adjust the not perfectly worded comment to align with it being 'indirect'.
On that point, now with more precision, which you are spinning as 'moving the goalpost', which you will do if your purpose is to not find the truth, but only to prove people wrong, nitpicking on a detail, aka 'pettifogging', which doesn't really change my point, since the outcome is almost the same. Indirect isn't as strong as direct, but note that the entire legal doctrine of penumbra reasoning is aligned with the fact that there are many things not written in the constitution, which are ruled constitutional, under that doctrine. Surely that would leave enough room to accommodate 'indirect'. But the question then becomes, are you capable of that kind of discernment? That kind of discernment would be required of any judge, of that I'm certain.


If the Supreme Court hasn't specifically repealed a regulation, or a lower courts upholding of a regulation, then the ruling and/or the law is still in effect in a given state until it is challenged and ruled on, or the state's legislature repeals and/or replaces the law. I'm not certain that this idea that a Supreme Court ruling strikes down laws it doesn't mention is correct, I mean, what legal doctrine is that idea based on? Is that what you are asserting? Now then, if the Supreme Court renders a ruling, and the ruling appears to affect enacted laws, but does not mention them, if those laws in those states someone does challenge them, the attorneys, before the Supreme Court, will have a much easier time persuading the court, and I will accept that premise. But until then, those unmentioned laws stand in effect. That is my understanding of the status quo on rulings. I believe that the reason this is true is that every case has it's own circumstances, which could vary just enough where there simply cannot be 'blanket rulings repealing blocks of laws'. Take the Roe ruling. I didn't shoot down state laws banning abortions, but states were now free to enact new laws banning them. That's how it works, as I understand the law. In the mean time, there are many laws regulating firearms that have been enacted at the federal and state levels that have not been struck down, as I understand the law, by the Supreme Court since the Miller decision in 1939. Here are some examples:

1. National Firearms Act (NFA): The NFA is a federal law that regulates the manufacture, sale, and possession of certain firearms, including machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, and suppressors. The Supreme Court upheld the NFA in United States v. Miller (1939), which held that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms that are "in common use" and have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." The Court found that sawed-off shotguns did not meet this standard and thus were not protected by the Second Amendment.
2. Gun Control Act (GCA): The GCA is a federal law that regulates firearms dealers and prohibits the sale of firearms to certain categories of people, including convicted felons, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill. The Supreme Court upheld the GCA's restrictions on felons and the mentally ill in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), finding that these restrictions were "presumptively lawful" and consistent with the Second Amendment.
3. Assault Weapons Ban: Several states have enacted laws that ban the sale or possession of assault weapons, which are defined as firearms with certain military-style features. These laws have generally been upheld by the lower courts. However, the Supreme Court has not yet addressed the constitutionality of assault weapons bans.
4. Concealed Carry Restrictions: Many states require individuals to obtain a permit or license to carry a concealed firearm in public. These laws have generally been upheld by the courts as consistent with the Second Amendment, although some states have been challenged for imposing strict requirements for obtaining a concealed carry permit.

State assault weapons regulations since Miller which Heller has not struck down; Several states have enacted laws regulating assault weapons, including bans on their sale or possession. Here are some examples:

1. California: California has a law banning the sale, transfer, and possession of certain types of assault weapons, including rifles with detachable magazines and certain military-style features. This law has been upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Duncan v. Becerra, 9th Cir. 2019. The court held that the law did not substantially burden the core Second Amendment right of individuals to possess firearms for self-defense in the home, and that it served a substantial government interest in promoting public safety.
2. Maryland: Maryland has a law banning the sale, transfer, and possession of certain types of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. This law has been upheld by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017). The court held that the law was a reasonable regulation of the Second Amendment right and did not impose a substantial burden on the right of self-defense.
3. Connecticut: Connecticut has a law banning the sale and possession of certain types of assault weapons, including firearms with certain military-style features. This law has not been directly addressed by the federal courts, but it was upheld by the Connecticut Supreme Court in State v. Miller, 326 Conn. 749 (2017). The court held that the law did not violate the Second Amendment and was a reasonable regulation of firearms that served a substantial government interest in promoting public safety.
4. New Jersey: New Jersey has a law banning the sale, transfer, and possession of certain types of assault weapons, including firearms with certain military-style features. This law has been upheld by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General of New Jersey, 910 F.3d 106 (3d Cir. 2018). The court held that the law did not substantially burden the core Second Amendment right of individuals to possess firearms for self-defense in the home, and that it served a substantial government interest in promoting public safety.

These are just a few examples of firearms regulations that have been enacted and upheld by the courts since the Miller decision. It is important to note that the constitutionality of any particular firearms regulation will depend on the specific facts and legal issues involved in each case, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment has evolved over time.

I write the above with this caveat: The above is based on my layman's understanding of the law. Feel free to prove me wrong. I am learning as I go, and acknowledge that I can be wrong, but this is my current understanding.

State assault weapons regulations since Miller which Heller has not struck down; Several states have enacted laws regulating assault weapons, including bans on their sale or possession. Here are some examples:
And they are all unConstitutional as per Heller.....
Separate but equal had not been struck down by the court....until it was.....
Bruen is now going to make those laws go away........
Heller, and Caetano.....now Bruen.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------


Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

And as to the Dangerous and Unusual portion....from Miller......Justice Alito Addresses that in Caetano v. Massachusetts as he confirms that Heller protects these weapons....

....these rifles are protected and those bans are unConstitutional...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]

Ihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis

---

 

[Rumpole]

Why do you think this?
What rational, factual, and precedential basis do you have for this?

And if you present this idea in court, what is your response to opposing counsel making note that the court, in Miller did not in any way consider the constitutional question of registration, and did not in any war make a ruling on it-- especially not to uphold the registration requirement.

"Your honor, the court in Miller did not consider the registration requirement - it was not a question brought before the court, nothing in the holding refers to the constitutionality of the registration requirement -- and therefore cannot beheld as precedent. Counsel may as well be arguing that because Miller didn't overturn the Social Security Act, it upheld it."
Because that's exactly what will happen.

If you're lucky, you wont get fired -- or disbarred

First off, what you are implying, is an argument I don't think I made (quote me, if you think I'm wrong)

Secondly, A lawyer can present any argument, as long as it is accordance with facts and law (court rulings, etc) and he doesn't misrepresent the facts, as I understand it. I'm no lawyer, so don't hold me to a lawyer's standard, if you don't mind.

Funny how whenever something you present is reversed on the facts, you make a statement such as this.
Advice: Make fewer mistakes.
Or offer less BS.

Okay, the next time your comment is not precise, I won't give you an inch, I'll just call it BS. You okay with that?

Hardly.
You want to claim that because the court did not strike a regulation that was not in question before the court, it UPHELD that regulation.

This indicates an ignorance so deep, it almost has to be willful.

I don't believe I actually made that claim. I wrote that if a court didn't strike a reg, it remains in effect.
That's not the same thing as equating that fact with a court upholding the reg because it didn't mention it, a claim I didn't make. .

Ignorance is unwillingness to learn. I don't see evidence to support that claim, not yet. Quote me, if I'm wrong.

Irrelevant to my claim:
You cannot cite ONE instance of the court upholding a regulation in question before it since Miller.
Until you do, my claim stands.

Lewis v. United States (1980): The Supreme Court upheld a federal law that prohibited the possession of firearms by felons.

You have no rational or factual basis for this belief -- see "hardly", above.

At what point do you take what I say at face value and admit your premise is unsupportable/?

See above.

 

[Rumpole]

State assault weapons regulations since Miller which Heller has not struck down; Several states have enacted laws regulating assault weapons, including bans on their sale or possession. Here are some examples:
And they are all unConstitutional as per Heller.....

But, isn't it true that, if a reg on the books is not specifically mentioned by heller, and heller's ruling, or any other ruling, on the face, appears to affect laws on the books in various state, until someone challenges those laws in those states, and the court upholds or strikes those laws, they remain in effect, do they not? The reason I believe this is true because each case has it's own set of facts,which may, or may not, comport to Heller (or any case in question), they have to be brought to a court an ruled on, based on the facts of each case, before they are considered 'unconstitutional' and struck down.

Correct?

 

[M14 Shooter]

First off, what you are implying, is an argument I don't think I made (quote me, if you think I'm wrong)

It's clear you are unwilling or unable to argue with any degree of intellectual honesty.
Thus, I shan't waste any more time on you.

 

[Rumpole]

It's clear you are unwilling or unable to argue with any degree of intellectual honesty.
Thus, I shan't waste any more time on you.

I asked you to quote me to prove your allegation. Nothing can be more honest than that.

Your allegation is therefore vacuous and, ironically, disingenuous.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Well, like people with a modicum of wisdom will say....

Fascists and morons will never understand the value of common sense.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Dear Americans who value your freedom,

It is abundantly evident that the true fascists are determined to disarm you. And they are making progress.
Unfortunately, it will ultimately take more than your words to defend your freedom and rights from these tyrants.
It may take massive protests in the streets like in France right now. It may take running for office. It may take boycotts.
Or it may take something else.

No matter how right you are, they have an agenda and are determined to achieve it at all costs.
You have to be prepared for that because it is coming.