Share This Article with a Friend!

When Will The Media Ask Democrats The Hard Questions About Gun Control?

Dem Debate
Last night’s Democrat “debate” moderators failed to ask the candidates the really tough questions on guns. The “debate” turned out to be more of an opportunity for them to show their ignorance of guns and firearms law than it was an event where the pros and cons of the candidates’ differences on policy were presented and discussed.

Senator Warren’s claim that the passage of the National Firearms Act equated to a voluntary “buy back” program for machine guns was one of the more stellar examples of that phenomenon, since it did no such thing.

However, we can’t honestly fault the Democrat candidates for that because the media, who were running the debates and setting the agenda, seem to accept the idea that their radical gun control and confiscation plans will just happen should a Democrat be elected President.

In a recent edition of Ammoland Shooting Sports News, Dave Workman, the author of multiple books on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, listed about a half-dozen questions that should be posed to the Democrat presidential candidates, but were certainly not posed to them last night.

We think Mr. Workman’s list of questions would be a good starting point for an honest "debate" on the Democrats' gun control and confiscation proposals.

Among the questions Mr. Workman said should be posed were these:

What other constitutionally-enumerated fundamental right requires obtaining a license before it can be exercised by a U.S. citizen?

Since criminals do not bother with background checks, “universal” or otherwise, doesn’t this amount to a back-door registration system?

Is it constitutional to place a burdensome tax on the exercise of a fundamental right? There is nothing in the Bill of Rights about smoking, making wine or flying on an airplane. There is something there about the right to keep and bear arms.

What other constitutionally-protected right requires a waiting period before it may be exercised? Should there be waiting periods on “breaking news” reports? How about voting? Perhaps abortion? Maybe on being able to speak to an attorney if you’re charged with a crime?

What other rights may be exercised only once each month?

Aren’t there already laws against trafficking in firearms? What would a new law do that an existing law doesn’t already accomplish?

If someone can vote at age 18, join the military and be issued a firearm by the government, buy a car, get married, start a business and be considered mature enough to make those decisions, why shouldn’t they be considered mature enough to buy a firearm?

During the debate Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke reiterated his radical gun confiscation scheme, and went largely unchallenged by the moderators and other candidates. Beto called modern sporting rifles, such as the AR-15, “weapons of war” that are “too dangerous to sell.” Beto said they are also “too dangerous to own” because every single one of them is a “potential instrument of terror.” Beto said if someone does not turn in their “weapons of war” and “brandishes” it in public, that weapon “will be taken from them.”

So, to Mr. Workman’s extensive list, we would add one more: Who is going to enforce these laws and go out and confiscate the guns if you pronounce your gun confiscation scheme by executive fiat or succeed in getting Congress to pass such a law?

No one in the establishment media seems to take note of the fact that local sheriffs and other local government entities across the country are saying they will refuse to enforce such laws or that that their communities are now “Second Amendment sanctuary cities.”

Hudspeth County in Texas and Effingham County and Iroquois County in gun control crazy Illinois have declared themselves sanctuaries for the Second Amendment.  Ogle, Boone and LaSalle counties in Illinois have also passed such resolutions, and proponents think as many as half of Illinois counties will ultimately do so. Even Plainfield Township, in Will County, Illinois, right next to highly gun-controlled Chicago (the burgeoning murder capital of America) adopted its own “Second Amendment sanctuary” resolution.

Counties in Oregon and elsewhere are likewise passing ordnances and resolutions against stricter gun laws.

In the state of Washington, at least 20 county sheriffs – more than half of the state’s total, have announced they will not enforce a voter approved package of firearms restrictions. "As an elected sheriff and a constitutional sheriff, I believe it violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," says Klickitat County Sheriff Bob Songer, "and, more specifically, violates the Washington state Constitution."

In New Mexico sheriffs are also refusing to enforce new gun control legislation.

More ominously for Democrats, hundreds of thousands of Americans are refusing to obey administrative orders purporting to outlaw and confiscate so-called bump stocks.

Despite administration estimates that 280,000 to 520,000 bump-stock-type devices were in circulation, the federal government collected fewer than 1,000 bump stocks from private owners during the run-up to the new ban that began in March of 2019.

Meaning otherwise law-abiding gun owners simply refused to comply with the administrative rules that purported to confiscate their property.

Which brings us back to our addition to Dave Workman’s original list of hard questions on gun control that the establishment media refuses to ask Democrats: Who is going to enforce these laws and go out and confiscate the guns if you pronounce your gun confiscation scheme by executive fiat or succeed in getting Congress to pass such a law?

CHQ Editor George Rasley is a certified rifle and pistol instructor, a Glock ® certified pistol armorer and a veteran of over 300 political campaigns, including every Republican presidential campaign from 1976 to 2008. He served as lead advance representative for Governor Sarah Palin in 2008 and has served as a staff member, consultant or advance representative for some of America's most recognized conservative Republican political figures, including President Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp. He served in policy and communications positions on the House and Senate staff, and during the George H.W. Bush administration he served on the White House staff of Vice President Dan Quayle.

Share this

gun control

it's not about guns, Stupid, it's about MENTAL HEALTH ! Get with the Program, George Rasley !

William Fortune, for NH Governor

Founder, 1971, NH Fathers United For Equal Justice

I must politely, but vigorously, disagree with Mr. Fortune

The debate about gun control is not about mental health as Mr. Fortune so passionately advocates - there are already plenty of laws on the books providing for involuntary mental health detainers, such as the Baker Act in Florida. This debate is about the Constitution. The Constitution protects the unalienable right to keep and bear arms, it also provides for the right to counsel and the opportunity to be heard in cases where the government wishes to deprive a person of their liberty or property. None of the Democrats' gun control plans meet those constitutional tests and no one in the media is asking the Democrats the tough questions about how they plan pass those contitutional hurdles.