As reported on Thursday, Democrats had a difficult time when trying to push for the anti-Second Amendment agenda in Congress. The House was discussing the Assault Weapons Ban Act of 2021.
House Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) not only acknowledged that he did not comprehend guns, but he made it evident that he was looking to prohibit commonly used guns. Guns in common use are protected by the Supreme Court decision in Heller. Therefore, he's admitting that the need to ban guns is in breach of the decision. If they are able to pass something and it is referred before the Supreme Court, the Court will review the case and determine the purpose was to avoid this case.
This wasn't the first time that Nadler intervened at the time of the hearings. Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) also took him to task when Nadler attempted to pull facts out of thin air regarding guns increasing the risk for women in domestic violence situations.
“The presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide by women by 500%,” Nadler stated. Nadler used this to argue the need for an exemption to the law to allow victims of domestic violence to be able to defend themselves. “So, pass this amendment, and you'll see an increase in domestic — in homicides of women by 500%.” They will try to make use of women whenever they can, but they can’t even define what a woman is, when they think it harms their agenda.
However, Chip Roy had the perfect response.
“I would note that the chairman just said that the existence of a firearm — I think you might have said in the household, I’m not sure — increases the likelihood of violence by 500% or something of that nature,” Roy responded.
“And I’d say, well, not if the woman holds it.”
Roy just made a very important point. A gun can be a powerful equalizer, particularly when a woman who in a domestic setting might be confronted by a physically stronger male. Nadler wouldn’t allow them that right. He would also argue that it was for their benefit.
Roy added that the most logical outcome what Nadler was proposing was to ban all firearms. Nadler did not restrict the scope of his “facts” to only “assault weapons.”
“If you’re saying firearms generally, then the next step for the chairman is to limit all firearms—which, let’s get to the heart of it, we know that that is where our colleagues wish to go,” Roy said.
Exactly. They'll say it even though they claim this isn't what they intend to communicate.