And, the hits just keep on coming against the right of the people to keep and bear arms. A previous article covered President Trump's "open door" policy on all fronts when it comes to gun control. History has shown that nations implementing gun control laws ultimately leads to registration of firearms, confiscation of those firearms, then murder of the citizenry who oppose the regime in power. In his latest tweet on February 22, 2018, Donald Trump supported comprehensive background checks, which could open the door to a national gun registry.
President Trump opened the door Thursday morning to a national gun registry via his proposed “comprehensive background checks.”
He called for such checks via Twitter:
I will be strongly pushing Comprehensive Background Checks with an emphasis on Mental Health. Raise age to 21 and end sale of Bump Stocks! Congress is in a mood to finally do something on this issue – I hope!
I will be strongly pushing Comprehensive Background Checks with an emphasis on Mental Health. Raise age to 21 and end sale of Bump Stocks! Congress is in a mood to finally do something on this issue - I hope!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 22, 2018
Although there is a lack of clarity on what Trump means by “comprehensive background checks,” as to whether he is referencing an overhaul of our current system or is pushing the universal background checks lauded by Democrats, it is important to note that this represents a turning point which opens the door to a national gun registry.
This is so because universal background checks are not enforceable without a gun registry.
It has already been circulated the government may have some type of "stealth" national gun registry illegally and unconstitutionally obtained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Suggesting raising the age of gun ownership to 21 brings into question individuals graduating high school who want to serve in the military – the government would bar these individuals from private gun ownership, but allow the individuals access to firearms while serving in the military. Moreover, does anyone actually believe raising the age to 21 to purchase a firearm is going to stop any mass shooting? It won't.
Think about it this way. Government has no problem with young adults under 21 serving in the military and dying for their agendas. Government would allow individuals barred from owning guns privately to carry firearms while serving in the military to further their agenda. Remember, gun control leading to confiscation means unarmed private citizens, but the government, military and police hold all the firearms.
When determining the possibility of how "comprehensive background checks" might work, no one has to go back in history. One only needs to look at the State of California, today, to see it in operation.
For contemporary, real world proof of this danger just look at California, where universal background checks led to registration requirements which resulted in gun confiscation laws. This has all played out before our eyes and is evident to those who pay attention.
For evidence from law enforcement, just consider the way New Mexico Sheriff’s rallied to defeat universal background checks on the grounds that such checks would have led to a gun registry in that state. On February 9, 2017, Breitbart News reported that 32 of New Mexico’s 33 sheriffs signed a letter opposing the universal background checks that were being debated in the state legislature at that time. They described the checks as a “scheme” that “would be unenforceable without creating a gun registry.”
In addition to the contemporary evidence from California and the evidence from law enforcement, common sense proves that a gun registry is necessary if the government is to know who is selling a gun, when they are selling it, and to whom they are selling it. In other words, government officials cannot know that gun sales are being universally monitored unless they know the name of every gun owner and have identifying information about every gun possessed by those owners.
Would a gun registry prevent mass shootings? No, but it would set the stage for the kind of confiscatory actions seen in California. And it would be another step toward narrowing the means to acquire firearms, thereby empowering the government to more easily restrict the guns law-abiding citizens can or cannot own, as we have seen in California.
During the 20th century, approximately 200 million individuals were murdered by their own government. How? The governments disarmed the people: first came gun control laws, then a registry, and finally a confiscation. Once the people were disarmed, the government gained total control over the people to steal their property, starve the population, kill members of opposition groups, and indiscriminately kill individuals "authorities" termed uncooperative, dissidents, and exercising their individual God-given unalienable rights.
Interestingly, Hillary Clinton lobbied for "comprehensive background checks" in a Newsweek column on August 8, 2016. Is the comprehensive background check Trump is advocating the same as what Clinton supported, the implemented plan in place in California, or something totally different? No one knows since Trump did not elaborate. However, with his willingness to offer amnesty to criminals breaking immigration laws, it is possible President Trump is looking to urge Congress to violate the inherent God-given unalienable individual rights of the people where firearms are concerned.
When one thinks about how the lamestream enemedia, politicians and now the president is responding to children "demanding" the removal of the God-given individual unalienable rights of others, including their own parents, it makes sense since these "children" are spouting anti-constitutionalist talking points on firearms – supported by the lamestream enemedia and some politicians – and have been indoctrinated instead of educated to accept the government as the "nanny state." Moreover, these children should know that gun control leads to confiscation, if they are "activists" supporting these measures.
Yet, these "children" never think about what gun control leading to confiscation means: only criminals will have firearms; adults, particularly women, will not be able to adequately defend their home from criminals or resist tyrannical government; children will be less safe since only police, the government and the military would have firearms; and, other inherent God-given individual unalienable rights, such as peaceful assembly and petitioning government to redress grievances, will be lost.
And, what adult in their right mind acquiesces to demands made by children? Why do those who suffer a tragedy think they have the right to determine what rights others can hold? God is the giver of rights, not government, not the people and not those who have suffered tragedies. Where do some people get the idea that their experience of a tragedy qualifies them as "experts" to determine law and/or policy in violation of the Constitution?
President Trump has certainly disappointed in his waffling toward sensationalism when it comes to the law and the Constitution. It's been seen in illegal alien invaders in the illegal, unconstitutional DACA program and amnesty and now in the intent to infringe upon the Second Amendment. For a "politician" to campaign so heavily on "Make America Great Again," Trump is certainly leaning in the opposite direction, which is not going to sit well with the voter base, who refused to vote for eight more years of Democratic policies and the agenda of Hillary Clinton and the establishment Republicans who cave on every issue to Democrats and anti-constitutionalists.
Whatever instruments of policy/law Trump implements in his presidency regarding gun control leading to confiscation, he needs to remember his time in office is temporary. The next president could expand on his measures to destroy the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, regardless of what the Supreme Court rules. Remember, government only follows those rulings when it suits its agenda; when it doesn't, the ruling is ignored. So, while some may argue Trump's measures are nothing to worry about, all need to keep in mind Trump will eventually leave office. Then ask, "what will the next one do?"Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.