Connect with us

Guns

Dick’s CEO Says They Destroyed $5M Worth Of Assault Rifles

This is an absolute failure of fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.

Published

on

Dick's CEO Says They Destroyed $5M Worth Of Assault Rifles

Dick’s Sporting Goods CEO Ed Stack told CBS News that his company destroyed $5 million worth of “assault-style rifles” to keep them out of private hands.

Ed Stack told CBS News during an interview that the millions of dollars worth of inventory was turned into scrap metal. “I said, ‘You know what? If we really think these things should be off the street, we need to destroy them.”

The Hill:

The CEO of Dick’s Sporting Goods says that after the company made the decision to no longer sell assault-style rifles, more than $5 million worth of the weapons were destroyed.

In an interview with CBS News that aired Sunday, Ed Stack said following the decision last year to stop offering assault-style rifles, the question of what to with the remaining inventory lingered.

“I said, ‘You know what? If we really think these things should be off the street, we need to destroy them,'” Stack said, adding that the company turned $5 million worth of the weapons into scrap metal.

Dick’s made the decision to stop carrying the rifles following the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., which left 17 dead and reignited the national conversation surrounding gun control.

“We found out that we sold this kid a shotgun,” Stack said. “That’s when I said, ‘We’re done.'” More

This is an absolute failure of fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. Now, if I was a stockholder of Dick’s Sporting Goods, I would be suing them for destroying profitable products for no good reason.

In November 2016, Dick’s stock was selling at just over $60/share. Today, it’s at $38/share, a huge loss. When companies start jumping on the SJW bandwagon, it’s time for investors to start walking.

Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Advertisement

Guns

Virginia Democrats Want Law to Use Credit Card Records for Stealth Registration of Guns

Virginia Democrats want to force banks and credit card companies to turn over data on gun purchases so that Democrats can track gun owners.

Published

on

In yet another unconstitutional attack on the Second Amendment, Virginia Democrats want to force banks and credit card companies to turn over data on gun and ammunition purchases so that Democrats can illegally track gun owners.

Rep. Jennifer Wexton, D-10th, has filed a bill that she claims is only necessary to stop mass shooting, but would instead serve as a way to track all gun owners.

Wexton’s bill would require the state Treasury Department to use credit card data to track sales of things she claims will give clues to money laundering, fentanyl trafficking and human smuggling.

She also claims that the data could be used to predict future gun violence.

Critics, though, lambasted the plan saying that the state has no such expertise to use that kind of data to predict anything. There is no infrastructure, processes, or personnel to analyze the data.

Wexton disagreed.

According to the Richmond Dispatch:

“Banks, credit card companies and retailers have unique insight into the behavior and purchasing patterns that can help identify and prevent mass shootings,” said Wexton, whose plan has the backing of Everytown for Gun Safety, a national gun-control organization. “The red flags are there — someone just needs to be paying attention.”

The result of this folderol, of course, would only be to track legal gun owners who innocently use credit cards to buy their firearms and supplies.

After all, if such a law were to be enacted, criminals would simply stop using credit cards.

What the state would end up with would be an unconstitutional gun registry on the sly where gun owners would be identified, tracked, and harassed by the government or engaging in their Constitutional rights to bear arms.

Such a registry would also lead to gun confiscation. And this is the true goal of Wexton’s bill.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Guns

Virginia Democrats Seek Law to Outlaw Self-Defense Lessons, Militia Training

Virginia’s Democrats are making their moves to undermine the Second Amendment and outlaw hobbies, and training connected to firearms.

Published

on

Now that a self-professed gun hater has entered Virginia’s governor’s office, the state’s Democrats are making their moves to undermine the Second Amendment and outlaw hobbies, and training connected to firearms.

Virginia’s Senate Bill No. 64 makes tactical training illegal, but it can also be interpreted to fit any sort of self-defense or hobbies having to do with firearms, calling such training an act of terrorism.

Before we get to the meat of this bill, Virginia’s own Thomas Jefferson already noted that laws like this meant to quash a right through a backdoor bout of regulation is already illegal and unconstitutional in and of itself.

Democrats have tried round about laws to eliminate the Second Amendment before. Microstamping on ammunition, confiscatory taxes on ammunition, wildly elaborate storage laws, and so-called “smart gun” rules, are all meant to make it harder, even prohibitively impossible, to own a gun. These rules are meant to destroy the Second Amendment without actually repealing our constitutional right.

Jefferson, though, already addressed the illegitimacy of laws like this.

In his Report on Navigation of the Mississippi, published in 1792, Jefferson wrote: “It is a principle that the right to a thing gives a right to the means without which it could not be used, that is to say, that the means follow their end.”

In other words, if government outlaws the tools necessary to exercise a right, you have outlawed that right by stealth.

That is what the Democrats in Jefferson’s home state now what to do to the Second Amendment with Sen. Bill 64.

The bill makes training people in tactics and the use of firearms an offense deserving of jail time:

“Paramilitary activity prohibited; penalty,” the law reads.

A person shall be is guilty of unlawful paramilitary activity, punishable as a Class 5 felony if he:

1. Teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that such training will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or

2. Assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, intending to employ such training for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or

3. Assembles with one or more persons with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons by drilling, parading, or marching with any firearm, any explosive or incendiary device, or any components or combination thereof.

2. That the provisions of this act may result in a net increase in periods of imprisonment or commitment. Pursuant to § 30-19.1:4 of the Code of Virginia, the estimated amount of the necessary appropriation cannot be determined for periods of imprisonment in state adult correctional facilities; therefore, Chapter 854 of the Acts of Assembly of 2019 requires the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission to assign a minimum fiscal impact of $50,000. Pursuant to § 30-19.1:4 of the Code of Virginia, the estimated amount of the necessary appropriation cannot be determined for periods of commitment to the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice.

This bill states outright that tactics training, military training, self-defense training, and anything that *might* be used to oppose government is a crime.

This could easily include Karate, Judo, or martial arts training, Civil War or Revolutionary War reenacting, firearms training, historic study of the military…. anything at all that *could* be used in “civil unrest.” All of that is a crime, if this obscene law passes.

That means you, too, Antifa.

But one thing is refreshing, here. The mask has been completely torn off the Democrat Party.

One of the main retorts that leftists have always thrown at supporters of the Second Amendment, one they use to debunk America’s right to self defense is that the Constitution is somehow limited to “the militia.” This, they say, means that only if Americans gather in a militia, are they legally following the Constitution. There is no personal right to firearms. But, go on, gun-lovers, start a militia.

Well, with this new bill, Democrats also want to outlaw any possibility that one might even be able to start a militia. Ergo, all gun rights are cancelled.

Democrats are un-American liars and this bill proves it 100 percent.

I will close this with a great list of quotes from the founders that show how Virginia’s law is anti-American:

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
– George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

“I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
– Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
– George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
– William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
– Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
– St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”
– Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
– Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
– Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

“For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
– Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Follow Warner Todd Huston on facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Guns

Gaffe-Prone Joe Utters Pure Gibberish on Gun Control in New Hampshire

Biden’s comments infer some hidden meaning in the Second Amendment that just isn’t there.

Published

on

If you’re going to speak on a subject as powerful and divisive as the Second Amendment, it would behoove you to do so eloquently and accurately.  After all, the language of the amendment itself is in no way unclear.

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. 

Those last four words seem to be the most troubling for Democrats, who have spent decades honing their infringement of the right to bear arms as a sort of backdoor-repeal of the amendment itself.  They fully understand that, in order to neuter the Second Amendment would bring great unrest and bloodshed to our nation, so, instead, they are working to make the ownership of a firearm as annoying and difficult as possible.

Former Vice President and current 2020 candidate Joe Biden understands this explicitly.  His latest attack on this inalienable right has the former Senator implying a whole lot about what the amendment doesn’t say, as opposed to what it does say.

During a Concord, New Hampshire, campaign stop Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden criticized the ownership of magazines that hold “100 clips.”

Ironically, leftists often refer to ammunition feeding devices as “clips” instead of magazines, but Biden used the word “clips” in place of bullets. He realized his mistake and corrected himself.

CSPAN published video from the campaign stop, where Biden said, “I believe in the Second Amendment, but nobody says you can have a magazine with 100 clips in it.” He quickly added, “100 bullets in it.”

No, Joe’s right:  The Second Amendment doesn’t have any language in it restricting Americans’ right to gun ownership whatsoever.  Instead, the Democrats have taken it upon themselves to interject these ideas into the conversation again in hopes to making gun ownership far too frustrating to gain popularity.

 

Continue Reading

Guns

Police Chief in Detroit Issues Irrefutable Defense of Concealed Carry

Chief Craig’s message was simple, but stern.

Published

on

The Second Amendment has been consistently downgraded by decades of Democratic policy all across the country, and proponents of the inalienable right are now taking a stand.

In a world as wild as ours, in a time as uncertain as we are experiencing now, the ability to defend oneself from the evils of the world at large is paramount.  Politically, our nation is being torn asunder by egomaniacal infotainment barons and their quest for conflict.  Criminals in Democratically-ravaged locales such as Chicago are targeting law-abiding citizens at a record clip.

For the people of Detroit, their neighborhoods feel more the wild west than the rust belt.  That’s why one of the city’s most prominent authorities has come out in favor of the Second Amendment and, more specifically, the right to concealed carry.

Detroit Police Chief James Craig suggested concealed carry by law-abiding citizens “is about staying alive” during an October 30, 2019, interview on Tucker Carlson Tonight.

Craig, a vocal advocate of concealed carry for self-defense, said, “There’s been research that shows criminals fear armed citizens more than they fear police.”

He explained police are not ever-present, thus they usually arrive after a crime not during one: “By the time we’re called it’s usually after the fact, so we’re reacting to the crime.” But armed, law-abiding citizens can be present to act as the crime is unfolding.

The Police Chief broke it down sternly and succinctly.

Craig added, “I’m not advocating [vigilantism], but I’m also advocating not becoming a victim. This is about staying alive.”

Chief Craig has long been a vocal supporter of the right to bear arms and its effect on criminality, citing in 2015 his belief that concealed carry is also an important deterrent when it comes to terrorism.

 

Continue Reading

Guns

Police Groups Slam Beto O’Rourke for His Claims Police Will Confiscate Guns

Several police groups say Beto O’Rourke’s gun confiscation plan is “ridiculous,” and unconstitutional, and even say he is a hypocrite over the plan.

Published

on

Several police groups say Beto O’Rourke’s gun confiscation plan is “ridiculous,” and unconstitutional, and even say he is a hypocrite over the plan.

Texas Democrat Robert “Beto” O’Rourke has made a very big splash in the Democrat race for president by exclaiming that if he were to become president, he would send police door-to-door to confiscate America’s guns.

But now police organizations are finally speaking out and bashing O’Rourke in no uncertain terms for his policy idea.

As recently as Wednesday, O’Rourke insisted that he felt most Americans would “do the right thing” and freely hand over their guns to him if he were to become president. But he also said that his plan would include law enforcement actions for those who refused to do so. Police would be sent door-to-door to confiscate America’s guns.

But leaders from the National Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs’ Association, and the National Association of Police Organizations, among others, told the Washington Free Beacon that O’Rourke’s plan is both unlawful and dangerous.

Jim Pasco, executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police, told the Beacon that no president could even order local police to go door-to-door to confiscate guns because local cities govern their movements, not presidents.

“Further, any such legislation, if it passed, would no doubt be vigorously litigated with a view to its apparent inconsistency with the Second Amendment,” Pasco added.

AJ Louderback, the sheriff of Jackson County, Texas, said that O’Rourke’s order would not even be followed by many.

“I think he’s seriously misjudging the law enforcement response to what he wants to do,” Louderback said. “Many sheriffs would not comply with his plan.”

Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, agreed, and slammed O’Rourke’s lack of knowledge of the U.S. Constitution.

“It’s ironic that Beto O’Rourke, who was slamming police as ‘the new Jim Crow’ just a year ago, now finds a need for police when he wants to disarm individuals,” Johnson said. “Maybe poor Beto should spend less time live-streaming his visits to the dentist and attend a basics civics class instead. He’d be reminded that the very first law every police officer swears to uphold is the Constitution.”

Another police official who declined to be identified because he was not authorized to speak for his police organization slammed O’Rourke as a “hypocrite.”

“I find it really telling now that someone who attacked law enforcement, even calling them Jim Crow, for his convenience is perfectly fine with sending them off into harm’s way to collect AR-15s,” the representative said.

Looks like many police officers would refuse to go door-to-door to collect people’s guns, no matter who a president might think he is.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.

Continue Reading

Guns

Korean War Vet has Guns Confiscated when Someone Claims He Made ‘Threat’

If you want a perfect example of why anti-gun, so-called “Red Flag” laws are a bad idea, the case of Korean War veteran Stephen Nichols fits the bill.

Published

on

If you want a perfect example of why anti-gun, so-called “Red Flag” laws are a bad idea, the case of Korean War veteran Stephen Nichols fits the bill.

On September 20, the 84-year-old school crossing guard who had a career in law enforcement and fought in the Korean War was overheard in a restaurant by a nosy waitress who claimed Nichols “made a threat” to a school.

This ignorant woman reported Nichols to the police. The police then immediately swept in, arrested the man, took away all his personal firearms, and then got him fired by the school he was working for.

It was ultimately determined that the nosy waitress misheard what Nichols said and he was released, and the school reversed its firing on October 11. However, he was not allowed to have his personal property back despite being guilty until proven innocent.

So, what happened?

A waitress at Linda Jean’s Restaurant in Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts, “thought” she heard Nichols threaten to shoot up the school he worked for, according to the Martha’s Vineyard Times.

What police determined was that while sitting with a friend in the restaurant, Nichols had said that his school’s resource officer (a security guard) often leaves his post and that someone could shoot up the school when he was absent. Nichols was not saying HE wanted to shoot up the school. He was saying that the security guard’s absence might beg someone to perpetrate such a crime.

In other words, no threat at all was made.

Yet, police swept in and deprived Mr. Nichols of his freedom, his property, his rights, and even his employment. All without any trials or investigations.

Note what happened here:

1). An American citizen was falsely accused.

2). He was incarcerated, had his home raided, had his personal property summarily confiscated, and he lost his job. All BEFORE any trials or investigations were conducted.

3). Only AFTER all this was he proven innocent.

4). And yet, the government still kept his property and demanded it be sold away from him!

Mr. Nichols was guilty until proven innocent and still had his rights violated.

THIS IS NOT AMERICA!

This is why “red flag” laws are dangerous, and un-American.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.

Continue Reading

Guns

Beto Admits, If People Don’t Turn in Their Guns, He’ll Send Police to Take Them

Texan Beto O’Rourke admitted that if Americans don’t turn in their guns, he will send law enforcement door-to-door to confiscate them by force.

Published

on

During Tuesday night’s Democrat debates, Texan Beto O’Rourke admitted that if Americans don’t turn in their guns, he will send law enforcement door-to-door to confiscate them by force.

During the debate held in the battleground state of Ohio, 2020 democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke admitted that there would be “consequences from law enforcement” if Americans did not turn in their guns after his election to the White House.

O’Rourke’s admission came just after he insisted that once he is elected president, Americans would suddenly “do the right thing” and hand in their firearms all because he is such a great and caring guy.

However, O’Rourke has also admitted that there has to be teeth to his plan to eliminate the Second Amendment.

“There have to be consequences,” O’Rourke said Wednesday after MSNBC host Joe Scarborough pressed him on his policy. “In that case, I think there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm and to make sure that it is purchased, bought back, so that it cannot potentially be used against somebody else.”

O’Rourke has pushed his gun ban for months, and in last month’s debate he loudly exclaimed, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”

For years Democrats have claimed that they would never go door-to-door to confiscate America’s guns, but this election has shattered that wink-and-nod claim liberals have always hidden behind.

At last a major Democrat candidate is openly admitted that, yes, Democrats want to confiscate our firearms.

Some may say that this is just O’Rourke’s blather and that Democrats still don’t support this extreme, anti-Constitutional effort. However, the lie to that is that no Democrats are forcefully denouncing O’Rourke’s policy plans.

No Democrats are assuring the country that O’Rourke’s idea is a crazy, outlier. Instead, they are silent.

Their silence speaks volumes.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider


Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend