U.S. PRESIDENTIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES SEEK TO DESTROY NATION'S BILL OF RIGHTS AND TO UNLEASH A SOCIALIST REVOLUTION

PART TWELVE

The Democratic Party is in a bind. This is the inference to be drawn after the first two recently aired Democratic Party Debates. And no less a source of Radical Left, Marxist hate-filled proselytizing and propaganda-filled garbage than The New York Times newspaper recognizes this indisputable fact; and, recognizing it, laments it, but for a very specific reason--one that may not be apparent to the casual reader.In two recent stories—one, an Op-Ed, appearing in the Saturday, June 29, 2019 edition of the newspaper, and the other, a news story appearing on the front page of the Sunday, June 30, 2019 edition of the newspaper—two NY Times reporters in a news story, and one NY Times columnist in an Op-Ed, express concern, even consternation over the style, tone and mood of the two recent Democratic Party debates. Several of the candidate hopefuls were falling all over themselves in their call for radical change for the Nation—calling for no less than a Marxist Revolution. Their exuberance was on clear display for all to see. The problem was that these Radical Left candidates for the Democratic Party nomination were much too exuberant; much too honest in setting forth their agenda for our Nation in the 21st Century. For, what they are calling for, what they are pushing for, what they seek to accomplish is the dissolution of our Country as an independent Sovereign Nation.President Trump has made clear, consistent with his policy objectives, that our Nation is not to be  beholding to or subordinated to any other Nation, Group of Nations, or any new social and political transnational Governmental world order. The Country had been in danger of losing its National Sovereignty and independence during the Administration of Barack Obama, through his duplicitous, seditious machinations.And work toward accomplishing that awful, horrific, nefarious objective would have continued under the Administration of Hillary Clinton. That is what the Radical Left wants, and the Democratic Party hopefuls were delivering that message to their base during the recent debates. They would attempt to accomplish immediately what Obama and Clinton had sought to accomplish slowly, incrementally. That's what the Radical Left wanted to hear, and hear that message, they did.Well, the message delivered at the Debates may be all well and good for the Radical Left base. It never tires of hearing how the United States Constitution ought to be shredded, commencing with the Bill of Rights; getting rid of the Second Amendment outright, and restraining and constraining the right of free speech of the First Amendment, on the other. And, the Radical Left never tires of hearing how our unique history, traditions, culture, and ethos are to be relegated unceremoniously to the dustbin.Yet, the message of the Radical Left means something patently horrific to everyone else—the vast majority of Americans, the silent majority in our Nation that happened to tune in on the debates. The silent majority does not ascribe to a new international world order, predicated on open borders, mass surveillance, loss of fundamental, natural, and unalienable rights and liberties, and who do not place their confidence in the firm and callous hand of Government, that seeks to control all action, thought and conduct of the American populace.The plans expressed by these Democratic Party U.S. Presidential candidate hopefuls may sound appealing to Progressives, to Marxists, and to Antifia anarchists and nihilists who seek to tear this Nation apart; who seek to create an entirely new system of Governance, one predicated on Socialist, Communist, and Marxist principles. And, the Democratic-Socialist agenda will, of course, certainly sound appealing to the millions of uneducated, or, at best, poorly educated, unskilled illegal aliens (who have no legal right to be in our Country in the first place). For, what it is that these functionally illiterate illegal aliens find most appealing about our Country has nothing to do with our natural, fundamental, unalienable rights and liberties; and it has nothing to do with the Governing principles and precepts upon which our Constitutional Republic rests and which they know little if anything about, and care not at all to know about.What these functionally illiterate illegal aliens find most appealing about our Country, what it is they are really looking for, and what it is that brought them here and which continues to bring, in droves, hundreds of thousands more of their ilk to our Nation, is the promise of U.S. Government and tax-payer assisted largess: free housing; free medical care; free education for their offspring, of which they have a multitude; and access to abundant welfare aid and programs and massive public assistance. These aliens and hundreds of thousands more of them—waves of them—illegally crossing our borders every month, have no concept of our fundamental rights and liberties and they have no desire of exercising such rights anyway because of the attendant personal responsibility attached. Yet, Americans are expected to obliterate their Constitution and dismantle a free Republic and to do so to cater to the riffraff of the world and to cater to the proponents and zealots of Marxist Collectivist ideology and Marxist social engineering who bemoan the very existence of sovereign, independent Nation States, and who seek not the preservation of, but the utter annihilation of our rich and unique national history and heritage* and ethos.The fact of the matter is that for millions of Americans who tuned in to hear the recent Democratic Party “Debates” and who listened to the Radical Dead Souls, calling for nothing less than a Marxist Revolution, were less than enthralled with the message delivered. In fact, the majority of Americans were positively alarmed at the tone, mood, and bravado of these individuals who would have the audacity to serve as U.S. President, seemingly on behalf of a Nation and its citizenry whom they really couldn’t care less about, as they seek to destroy the one and to reduce the other to servitude, penury, and misery, serving their lives out in a Socialist Collectivist nightmare of reality.Whether the Democratic Party candidates are cocksure that one of them—whoever it may be—will prevail over Donald Trump in the coming U.S. Presidential General Election, or they are are simply misguided in presuming that a Socialist or “Democratic-Socialist” will occupy the White House in 2020, they behaved, in the Debates, as if the success of their Political Party is assured and that a Marxist Collectivist Revolution is at hand and, that the implementation of their vision for a one-world Government is a foregone conclusion.They certainly didn’t restrain themselves in projecting the most outrageous social and political policy positions and in providing the American public with their prospects for our Country. In that, these Democratic Party U.S. Presidential candidate hopefuls, were clear and categorical about the agenda they are hell-bent on setting for the Nation: a transitional path forward to ultimate subsumption of our Country, our Nation, into a transnational, trans-global political, financial, economic, social, cultural, and legal system of governance. That would indeed mark the end of our rights and liberties; the end of the supremacy of our laws; an end to our history; an end to the very idea of a United States existing as a distinct Nation State as it is subordinated to and subsumed into a new transnational Political, Social, Economic, Legal, and Cultural construct.A disaster in the making is, apparently, what these Radical Leftists of the new Democratic Party want, indeed, what they are banking on; what, in fact, they are calling for: reducing the Nation’s citizenry to abject poverty and servitude, to the point where the citizenry cannot ably resist the dismantling of their Nation’s Constitution and subsumption of the Nation into a new international system of governance, where our Nation’s laws are no longer the supreme Law of the Land; where the United States can no longer reasonably, rationally be considered an independent sovereign Nation; and where the people of the United States are no longer deemed citizens but, rather, subjects within a new and vast world order.But, unlike the Democratic Party candidates, who demonstrated remarkable, if bizarre, exuberance and giddiness at the thought of seeing their vision of a Collectivist Marxist World realized, The New York Times, no less a proponent for the Marxist overthrow of the natural order of things, exhibited a note of caution and wariness over the alacrity with which the Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President laid bare their plans for the Country if any one of them were able to defeat Trump and actually assume the Office of Chief Executive of the Nation.In the June 30 article, the NY Times reporters made this comment in the opening paragraph of their news account:“The Democratic debates this past week provided the clearest evidence yet that many of the leading presidential candidates are breaking with the incremental politics of the Clinton and Obama eras, and are embracing seeping liberal policy changes on some of the most charged public issues in American life, even at the risk of a political backlash. Vowing to eliminate private health insurance, decriminalize illegal immigration and provide government health care benefits to undocumented migrants, high profile contenders like Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris are wagering that they can energize voters eager to dismantle President Trump’s hard line policies.”Donald Trump’s hard line policies? Since when has it become hard line for a U.S. President to seek to protect and maintain the integrity of our Nation’s geographical borders; to work toward preservation of our Capitalist, free market economy; to faithfully execute the laws of our Nation—and that means, all of our laws—including, then, our immigration laws; and how is a U.S. President to help “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” if that means squandering our Nations limited funds and resources on government health care benefits and welfare to millions of illegal aliens? The New York Times’ sentiments are clearly in line with the most radical of Democratic-Socialist goals, and always have been; but, obviously, the Times, unlike the Democratic Party Candidates vying for their Party's nomination in the run-up to the General Election, is not convinced the American public is itself behind the Democrats, ready to jump on their bandwagon. In fact, the vast majority of Americans, the silent majority, couldn’t agree less with the aims and wishes of this neo-Democratic-Socialist Party. For the Party’s agenda and policy goals are a recipe for National disaster.In a June 29, 2019 Op-Ed, the NY Times Columnist Brett Stephens, seemingly grudgingly acknowledges that the Democratic Party agenda is well beyond the pale of anything acceptable to the vast majority of Americans, as he tellingly recounts the message of the Democratic Party candidates, as perceived by the vast majority of Americans. Stephens’ asserts, in pertinent part:“In this week’s Democratic debates, it wasn’t just individual candidates who presented themselves to the public. It was also the party itself. What conclusions should ordinary people draw about what Democrats stand for, other than a thunderous repudiation of Donald Trump, and how they see America, other than as a land of unscrupulous profiteers and hapless victims?Here’s what: a party that makes too many Americans feel like strangers in their own country. A party that puts more of its faith, and invests most of its efforts, in them instead of us.They speak Spanish. We don’t. They are not U.S. citizens or legal residents. We are. They broke the rules to get into this country. We didn’t. They pay few or no taxes. We already pay most of those taxes. They willingly got themselves into debt. We’re asked to write it off. They don’t pay the premiums for private health insurance. We’re supposed to give up ours in exchange for some V.A.-type nightmare. They didn’t start enterprises that create employment and drive innovation. We’re expected to join the candidates in demonizing the job-creators, breaking up their businesses and taxing them to the hilt.That was the broad gist of the Democratic message, in which the only honorable exceptions, like Maryland’s John Delaney and Colorado’s John Hickenlooper, came across as square dancers at a rave.On closer inspection, the message got even worse.Promising access to health insurance for north of 11 million undocumented immigrants at a time when there’s a migration crisis at the southern border? Every candidate at Thursday’s debate raised a hand for that one, in what was surely the evening’s best moment for the Trump campaign.Calling for the decriminalization of border crossings (while opposing a wall)? That was a major theme of Wednesday’s debate, underlining the Republican contention that Democrats are a party of open borders, limitless amnesty and, in time, the Third World-ization of America.Switching to Spanish? Memo to Beto O’Rourke and Cory Booker: If you can’t speak the language without a heavy American accent, don’t bother. It just reminds those of us who can that the only thing worse than an obnoxious gringo is a pandering one.Eliminating private health insurance, an industry that employs more than 500,000 workers and insures 150 million? Elizabeth Warren, Bill de Blasio, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris support it (though the California senator later recanted the position). Since Democrats are already committed to destroying the coal industry and seem inclined to turn Silicon Valley into a regulated utility, it’s worth asking: Just how much of the private economy are they even willing to keep?”Keep in mind Brett Stephen’s account of what he perceives as the fears of “ordinary Americans” does hit the mark. It isn’t really hyperbole even if his intention was to be sarcastic. For, the fears of a Collectivist-Marxist Revolution in this Country are for us "ordinary Americans" very real, and we do in fact have good and justifiable reason to dread such a Revolution even if Brett Stephen and other New York Times contributors, reporters, editors, and the Times' publisher do not and are, in fact, active proponents of just such a Revolution, seeing it as a positive thing, as do the Progressive elements and the Radical Left in this society.So the sentiments expressed by the Democratic Party candidate hopefuls are those exulted by The New York Times and by other mainstream media organizations. Brett Stephens' concern and that of The New York Times staff is not that a true Collectivist-Marxist vision cannot be realized--for they fervently wish for it to happen--but that it will not transpire if the Democratic Party U.S. Presidential Candidates are too vocal about their plans for our Country, as they certainly were during the first two Debates. Far from alleviating the fears of the vast majority of Americans the candidates exacerbated those fears; and that would only ensure Trump's reelection to a Second Term in Office.Of course, the Democratic Party and The New York Times, along with the rest of the mainstream media have been articulating the goals and desires of the Democratic Party for a long time—in fact, ever since Donald Trump took the Oath of Office.What the NY Times finds objectionable, apparently, is that the Democratic Party U.S. Presidential candidates have, for the first time, in the Debates, articulated their message directly and forcefully to the American people--too forcefully; thereby threatening to lose, not gain or buttress a substantial portion of the Electorate to their cause, approving of a Collectivist-Marxist vision for the Nation.The Radical Left base certainly agrees with the creation of a Marxist regime, as do the millions of illegal aliens. The vast majority of the American citizenry, however, does not. The Radical Left base hopes for an end to the United States as an independent Sovereign Nation State, thereby finally realizing the Communist aim of a one-world Government. And the millions of illiterate, ignorant, and uneducated or poorly educated illegal aliens, for their part, are simply hoping that, with a Democratic-Socialist in Office, they can remain in the U.S.; even gain citizenship, and then be assured of a constant, consistent supply of handouts, subsidized by the American taxpayer. 

THE BILL OF RIGHTS WOULD BE IN SERIOUS JEOPARDY IF A DEMOCRAT DOES DEFEAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE GENERAL ELECTION

The vast majority of Americans do not wish to see their Bill of Rights constrained or abrogated. The vast majority of Americans do not wish to see their history rewritten; nor the founders slandered. The vast majority of Americans do not wish to see their legal system subordinated to foreign laws and tribunals, and their Nation subsumed into transnational system of governance. Brett Stephens and Andrew Cuomo, and Eric Swalwell are not those people.What people like Stephens, Cuomo, and Swalwell fear is an armed citizenry that through its very existence would fight to prevent and would be fully capable of preventing a Marxist-Collectivist takeover of the Country. Thus, they seek to disarm the public. Recall that Cuomo and his henchmen were the architects of the New York Safe Act that places a ban on the very firearms with which the American people can ward off the inception of tyranny. And Recall Swalwell's intention to confiscate all semiautomatic firearms in the hands of law-abiding, rational, average Americans.And, recall that NY Times Columnist Brett Stephens, on two occasions, has called for repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In an October 5, 2017 Times Op-Ed, published a few days after the psychotic killer, Stephen Paddock, went on a shooting rampage, Brett Stephens didn’t mince words as he went about viciously attacking guns and gun ownership  and possession, making clear what it is he wants. The very title of his Op-Ed made clear his fervent wish: “Repeal the Second Amendment.”  He said, in part:“I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment. . . . the more closely one looks at what passes for ‘common sense’ gun laws, the more feckless they appear. Americans who claim to be outraged by gun crimes should want to do something more than tinker at the margins of a legal regime that most of the developed world rightly considers nuts. They should want to change it fundamentally and permanently.There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment.Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn’t outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didn’t need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that “Red Dawn”** is the fate that soon awaits us.”And, if Americans didn’t get the message in Stephen’s first Times Op-Ed, he reiterated the message in a second Op-Ed, titled, “To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment,” that was published in The New York Times on February 16, 2018, after the Parkland High School tragedy.Stephen’s argument against gun ownership and possession is nothing new. Americans have heard the same tiresome message  countless times before, albeit delivered with more sense of urgency and ferocity, immediately after a tragedy involving firearms in the hands of psychotic or psychopathic killers: namely that society must get rid of guns, but that those Americans who wish to own and possess firearms need not fear, because it isn’t the intention of Stephens, and Cuomo, and Swalwell, and any of the other Radical Left elements in our Nation to take away all guns from citizens. They just want to take away some of them--and they want to add a little more scrutiny on those who really wish to possess them. And, eventually, these people want to confiscate most firearms from the American citizenry; and, eventually, they seek to confiscate all firearms, so that no one may own or possess a firearm lawfully without first obtaining a valid license, issued by the appropriate Government authority--rendering the Second Amendment de facto repealed, as gun ownership and possession would devolve into mere privilege; no longer a right. And those who possess them--the wealthy, powerful, "Elite" of society would--then, alone, have lawful access to firearms, rendering firearms' ownership a "status" symbol, like owning a Ferrari, but even rarer, as money alone would not be sufficient to own and possess firearms. Since a person would need to acquire a valid license, one would have to show that he has the appropriate Marxist political connections.So, we go back to the Radical Left's desire to effectively repeal the Second Amendment,  which Brett Stephens would like to do outright, as he expressly, blatantly calls for, and that Cuomo, Swalwell, and other antigun zealots at the moment themselves call for, but tacitly.In other words, no American citizen, according to people like Stephens, Cuomo and Swalwell, should own or possess firearms as a matter of right, but only as a matter of Government license and Government beneficience (granted to a very few) to the wealthy and powerful “elites” in society who have the correct attitude. Americans’ autonomy and self-determination comes to end once Government restrains the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is not conjecture. That is ice-cold fact._____________________________*It should come as little surprise, if at all, to anyone, that the Radical Left's push to remove the Statues and emblems of the Confederacy and their desecration of war memorials and symbols--all of which are a important component of our Nation's rich cultural history and heritage, and deserving of our respect--would not stop at that point.Now, it has come to light, on the eve of our sacred July 4 Holiday, celebrating our Nation's Declaration of Independence from tyranny, that further symbols of our heritage are denounced and denigrated. The footwear Company, Nike, that had  sought to honor our Nation by manufacturing a tennis shoe with a historical American Flag, consisting of Thirteen Stars, representing the original Thirteen American colonies, has scrubbed that effort.Why? The Company has done so because Colin Kaepernick--yes, that Colin Kaepernick who took a knee while our National Anthem was played just before commencement of the Super Bowl in January 2012--told the Company to do so, and Kaepernick who is on the Company payroll, doing Advertisements for Nike, apparently has the clout to compel Nike to do his bidding. Kaepernick claims that the Thirteen Starred Flag represents racism. It does?One may find evil in the most innocuous of things if one has the mind to do so. According to a spokeswoman for Nike, as reported by The New York Times, in its Wednesday, July 3, 2019 newspaper:"Nike had made the decision to 'halt distribution' of the [commemorative Fourth of July] sneaker 'based on concerns that it could unintentionally offend and detract from the nation's patriotic holiday.'"That is an incredibly odd and duplicitous remark. How can an emblem of our Nation's history possibly detract from the "nation's patriotic holiday." There is obviously much more at play here. The Marxists and Anarchists among us slowly but incessantly and inexorably chisel away at our Nation's sacred symbols, emblems, and memorabilia. And, they attack honorable men, not just General Robert E. Lee and others who happened to represent the South during the American Civil War, but also our Nation's founders, not least of which include the Nation's First U.S. President, George Washington, and the Nation's Third U.S. President, Thomas Jefferson.Ostensibly, the attack on people and symbols of our Nation's history is grounded on issues of morality. That may sound plausible to some, if at first and cursory glance, but, there is something much more sinister taking place here. For the Radical Left and the Anarchists have a sordid, devious, and diabolical game plan that rests at the heart of their actions and antics, well beyond the stated concern of forcing "political correctness" on the public merely for its own sake.By denigrating historical personages, symbols and emblems and successfully seeking their removal from public spaces and eradication from our history books, these reprobates seek to induce amnesia in the mind and psyche of the American public, erasing all memory of our Nation's rich cultural history and heritage. Thus, they mean to destroy our Nation and its Constitution. The U.S is to become, then, to be perceived, not as an independent and Sovereign Nation State, but as little more than a geographical region of space, subsumed into a vast transnational, trans-global political, social, economic, cultural, and legal sphere of governance and influence. That goal becomes easier to accomplish once a Nation loses its National identity and ancestral memory. The overseers of the EU are attempting to exert control of the populations of the quasi-independent member Nation States, deliberately, diabolically attempting to undermine National identity, along with a Nation's sense of culture and history, unique to itself; substituting National identity with an amorphous identity with the EU, notwithstanding differences in language and historicity, going back centuries. And Brussels is suffering a backlash as a result. The Radical Left is copying the EU's playbook, by attempting to scrub clean our ancestral memory, inducing collective amnesia on the Nation. One major problem for the Radical Left is the existence of our Nation's unique Bill of Rights. A Marxist Revolution cannot succeed unless the Bill of Rights is destroyed. Thus, the Radical Left attacks it, sometimes subtly, sometimes not.It is, for example, much easier to constrain free speech if one forgets that, once upon a time, people were able to speak their minds, freely, openly, without threat of physical attack and verbal condemnation. And, it is easier to disarm the public if the public is induced to forget that, once upon a time, the right of the people to keep and bear arms was not and could not be infringed. The Progressives, Socialists, Communists, Marxists, and Anarchists, intend to reduce the sum total of our Nation's history and rich cultural heritage to mere legend. In time, that legend will become myth; eventually fairy tale, and ultimately completely erased from all memory. That is what they want. That is the real import and purport of their desire to destroy symbols, artifacts, emblems, and accounts of our Nation's great founders, leaders, and military officers. For, once erased, their vision of a New World Order can finally take shape and be realized. If a people cannot recall what they once were, they cannot fret over and dwell over what they have lost. And, they become more amenable to change, believing whatever it is that they are told to believe--and accepting their new world as right, and just, and proper. This becomes far, far easier to accomplish with children, as they need not be induced to forget a past they had never known. Their heads can be filled with the dry rot of Collectivist precepts at the get-go of their primary school education. **The original movie, titled, “Red Dawn,” released in 1984, and starring Patrick Swayse, Charlie Sheen, and Lea Thompson, concerns an invasion of the U.S. by Soviet forces, supported by unnamed Central and/or South American and possibly Mexican Communist military forces. The protagonists are high school students in some generic area of rural America, who, operating as a well-armed partisan, guerrilla force, attack the invaders. It is odd, though, that Brett Stephens would refer to the 1984 movie as some sort of fantasy wish. Why would any American in their right mind look forward to the invasion of our Nation simply so they have an opportunity to engage in warfare on the home front. That would hardly amount to play acting.Actually, the greater threat to this Nation, as the Arbalest Quarrel, has made patently clear, as a central theme in its articles, is not the threat of Russian, or even Chinese interference in our elections. The true threat derives from within the Nation, and through a seditious Press, and through political and Grassroots elements taking their cue from and monies from wealthy, powerful Globalists within the EU (our Allies?) who seek to weaken our Constitution and to destroy our National Sovereignty, in order to drive us into the throes of a Global Conglomerate, controlled, politically, economically, socially, culturally and legally by a hidden power elite. What we face is a new world order; what the writer Sheldon S. Wolin, in his in his sociological and political science work on  titled,“Democracy, Inc.,” refers to as “Inverted Totalitarianism” which, as he says, consists of a “blend of powers,” wielded by a small group of “elite” forces; at once impenetrable, secluded, unapproachable, faceless and omnipotent, answerable to no one but themselves; operating in accordance with their own personal trans-global, neoliberal economic interests and in support of their own inscrutable and pathological supranational political, social, cultural, and militaristic goals; altogether at odds with the precepts of our Constitutional Republic, and oblivious to the concerns and interests of the American citizenry.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS UNDER FIRE

“It’s like déjà vu all over again.” ~ Yogi BerraIf you asked your fellow Americans to point to one defining moment in our Nation’s recent history, many would likely mention the attack on our soil in 2001, for obvious reason. Some Americans might point to Barack Obama as U.S. President, but not for anything he carried out—if he carried out anything of benefit to this Nation and its people—but because he served as the Nation’s first African-American President. Some people might mention the recession of 2008, and the bailout of major banks. Still others might point to the result of the general U.S. Presidential election in 2016. Depending on one’s political bent, that result is shocking and dreadful, or surprising and hopeful.But, for those who cherish our natural, fundamental, unalienable rights, the watershed moment came in 2008, with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637. The high Court held, in principal part, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, asserts an individual right, unconnected with one’s service in a militia. One would think a lengthy Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment would be unnecessary. The text of the Amendment is clear, concise, precise, and categorical.But the high Court’s affirmation does serve a purpose. It lays to rest any pretension the Second Amendment means other, or less, than it says. Sadly, the pretension lingers among many, despite this seminal Second Amendment case.Many defy and denigrate the high Court’s imprimatur: politicians, the mainstream news; entertainers; billionaire globalists both here and abroad; antigun coalitions; myriad Leftist groups; academicians; and jurists. They detest the Second Amendment, and wish to rid the Nation of it.It should not come as a surprise to Americans that the Democratic Party’s leadership, holding most seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, plans to introduce a flurry of antigun bills in the coming months. The most ambitious concerns a ban on those semiautomatic firearms, referred to by the negative expression, “assault weapons.”But this push to ban an entire category of semiautomatic firearms in common use is nothing new. The late U.S Senator, Howard Metzenbaum, a Democrat from Ohio, who died in 2008, introduced a bill to control the sale and use of assault weapons in 1989. That Senate bill, 101 S. 386, failed.The House introduced similar bills that year. They, too, failed.However, in 1994, Congress did enact a semiautomatic firearms' ban, as part of The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The “Assault Weapons Ban” provision was codified in federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922 (v)(1). The law expired in 2004. It wasn’t reauthorized. The House then tried, in 2007, to resurrect a ban on semiautomatic firearms, introducing the “Assault Weapons Ban And Law Enforcement Protection Act Of 2007, 110 H.R. 1022.” That bill failed.After a lull, Democrats ramped up efforts. The 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy served as the pretext to ban an entire category of firearms, once again.Congress, though, often acts slowly. That’s a good thing when proposed legislation impinges on or infringes Constitutional rights and liberties. But, Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, unlike Congress, doesn’t act slowly. He doesn’t have to, and, he doesn’t want to, especially when an opportunity arises to further constrain the right of the people to keep and bear arms.New York’s Constitution provides a Governor the means to push the State Legislature to act quickly if he deems a matter an emergency. Article I, § 14 of the New York State Constitution sets forth:“No bill shall be passed or become a law unless it shall have been printed and upon the desks of the members, in its final form, at least three calendar legislative days prior to its final passage, unless the governor, or the acting governor, shall have certified, under his or her hand and the seal of the state, the facts which in his or her opinion necessitate an immediate vote thereon, in which case it must nevertheless be upon the desks of the members in final form, not necessarily printed, before its final passage. . . .”Governor Cuomo intended to act quickly to further restrict New York’s already draconian gun laws. He pushed for an immediate vote on the New York Safe Act of 2013. His statement to support emergency passage of the NY Safe Act, reads:“Some weapons are so dangerous, and some ammunition devices are so lethal, that New York State must act without delay to prohibit their continued sale and possession in the state in order to protect its children, first responders and citizens as soon as possible. This bill, if enacted, would do so by immediately banning the ownership, purchase and sale of assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices. For this reason, in addition to enacting a comprehensive package of measures that further protects the public, immediate action by the Legislature is imperative.”With the clout he wields in Albany, the measure passed, and the Governor signed the Safe Act into law on January 15, 2013. To herald enactment, he created a web page, devoted to glorifying his achievement.Then, on January 24, 2013, hardly a week after Governor Cuomo signed the NY Safe Act into law, Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-California, introduced a federal assault weapons ban, modeled on the Safe Act. Senator Feinstein expected Senator Harry Reid to include the assault weapons ban in the broad Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act Of 2013, 159 Cong Rec S 2699. That didn’t happen. Senator Reid felt its inclusion would reduce chance of passage of the broader gun control act. Senator Feinstein was livid. But, the Act failed on a Floor vote, 40-60, even without Feinstein’s assault weapons provision.Senator Feinstein then released a statement to the Press, barely restraining her anger:“I’m disappointed by today’s vote, but I always knew this was an uphill battle. I believe the American people are far ahead of their elected officials on this issue, and I will continue to fight for a renewed ban on assault weapons.The very fact that we’re debating gun violence on the Senate floor is a step in the right direction, and I hope my colleagues vote their conscience and approve the underlying bill. But I’m certain that in the coming months and years, we will be forced to confront other incidents like Newtown, where innocents are murdered with one of these weapons of war.I will carry on this fight against military-style assault weapons, and I ask of the American people that they continue to pressure their elected officials to take action. It’s long overdue that we take serious steps to remove these dangerous firearms and high-capacity ammunition magazines from society.”In later years, Democrats, in the House and Senate, ever undeterred, tenaciously, rapaciously introduced semiautomatic firearms’ bans, one after the other, despite repeated failures—ever determined to rein in the Second Amendment. these bills included:The Assault Weapons Ban of 2015, 114 H.R. 4269  Imported Assault Weapons Ban of 2016, 114 H.R. 4748The Assault Weapons Ban of 2017, 115 S. 2095The Assault Weapons Ban of 2018, 115 H.R. 5077They all failed. But, the antigun politicians remain undeterred. They aim to destroy the right of the people to keep and bear arms, however long it takes. The recent roll-out is drearily the same: same title, later date. This one is the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019. Many of the usual cast of characters have signed on as co-sponsors. Some are considering a run as Democratic Party nominee for U.S. President in 2020.Not surprisingly, Senator Feinstein is the principal sponsor on this latest “assault weapons” bill, directed to an attack on semiautomatic firearms. Destroying our most sacred right has always been a high priority for Senator Feinstein and she is a prominent figure in all antigun legislation emanating from the U.S. Senate.According to Feinstein’s Press Release, issued January 9, 2019, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 is an “updated bill to ban the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.”  The Press Release then lays out the details. The House will likely release the bill shortly. The Arbalest Quarrel will analyze it when the House does release it.

A NATION-WIDE BAN ON SOME SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS IMPERILS ALL SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS.

Antigun zealots desire nothing less than an end to firearms ownership and possession in America. This is not an exaggerated concern for those who cherish the Second Amendment.New York Times contributing columnist commentator, Brett Stephens has called for outright repeal of the Second Amendment. We may dismiss an excessive, incendiary remark from a news commentator. But, when a retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice echoes that sentiment, Americans must take notice. Consider the remarks of retired Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens, as reported in The New York Times:“Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.”Retired Associate Justice Stevens always tied the right of the people to keep and bear arms to the militia. Read his dissenting opinion in Heller. But, the majority in Heller rejected Stevens’ premise.Americans should take antithetical remarks attacking the sanctity of the Second Amendment, seriously, especially when coming from powerful and influential people. The attorney, Christopher Keleher, in an academic article, titled, “The Impending Storm: The Supreme Court’s Foray into the Second Amendment Debate,” 69 Mont. L. Rev. 113, 154, (Winter 2008), published just months before the high Court’s decision in Heller, recited a litany of disturbing comments from members of Congress.“United States Senator Dianne Feinstein, commenting on an assault weapons ban, stated  ‘if I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it.’ Former United States Senator Howard Metzenbaum complained that the same ban was insufficient, exclaiming, ‘until you ban them all, you might as well ban none. . . . [But, it] will be a major step in achieving the objective that we have in mind.’ United States Congressman William L. Clay proclaimed the 1993 Brady Bill was a ‘minimum step’ that Congress should take in its efforts to restrict firearms. Congressman Clay professed, ‘we need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases.’ A fellow member of the House of Representatives, Congressman Bobby Rush, was also forthright in his strategy: ‘Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame.’ Senator Lincoln Chafee was no less bashful when he asserted, ‘I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns. . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!’ The recent tragedy at Virginia Tech prompted Congressman Dennis Kucinich to draft legislation ‘that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians.’ While such views have not garnered a majority of lawmakers, these statements are notable for their stridency and frankness.”Americans should not brush aside these candid remarks as simple bluster. These politicians support their words with direct attacks on the Second Amendment. Anti-Second Amendment politicians despise the Second Amendment. They find it not merely inconvenient and irrelevant, but also unconscionable. They see our Second Amendment as incompatible with an ethical system predicated on utilitarian consequentialism they espouse, but which our founders did not. Antigun politicians find the mere thought of firearms both aesthetically distasteful and morally objectionable.These politicians consider the Second Amendment inconsistent with international legal rules and standards, and incompatible with societal norms of conduct. One or the other must go. For them, it’s the Second Amendment that must go. They feel we, Americans, should adopt and adhere to the new international liberal democratic order they, and those in the European Union, ascribe to.The mainstream media conveys the message of the antigun zealots incessantly, obstreperously, and passionately. The false message delivered to Americans is plain enough: for the welfare of society  you must comply with and adapt to the conventions of the global, liberal, democratic order; and this requires you to forsake the archaic and degenerate desire to own and possess firearms.________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.