In an email directed to their members, the American Firearms Coalition reported that they met with members of White House legislative staff to voice concerns about “Red Flag Gun Seizure” legislation.
They informed the White House staffers that “red flag” laws are a “a danger to gun owners and the Second Amendment rights of all Americans, but also a political danger to the President in 2020, who made disturbing comments about this subject in the days after last year’s Parkland shooting.”
The no compromise gun rights group left the meeting urging White House staff to pass their letter to President.
AFC promises to deliver 100,000 petitions against “red flags” to the White House in the upcoming weeks.
Read the petition here.
The gun rights group claims that while they were in meetings with White House staff, “the National Rifle Association was working overtime on Capitol Hill to cut a deal on this issue.”
According to AFC and their sources in DC, “Senator Lindsey Graham and anti-gun radical Senator Dick Blumenthal of Connecticut are doing everything they can to present a “bipartisan” piece of legislation that the President could sign.”
They also highlighted how Senator Marco Rubio’s “Red Flag Gun Seizure” bill “was draconian to say the least.”
Going back to the Graham-Blumenthal bill, AFC claims that this red flag iteration would “pay states tens of millions of your taxpayer dollars if they pass “Red Flag Gun Seizure” bills in their respective states.”
In the no compromise group’s view, “red flag” legislation is unacceptable. They argue that “if we gun owners give an inch on this, one day the anti-gunners on Capitol Hill will take an entire mile, leaving our Second Amendment rights on the chopping block of a liberal judge.”
AFC plans on unleashing a massive petition campaign against this bill and will also visit White House staff again to reiterate their opposition.
Red flag laws allow judges to confiscate an individual’s guns for simply being perceived as a “threat”, in complete disregard to due process.
During the last year, red flag laws have been enacted in states like Colorado and Florida.
Red flag laws have considerable bipartisan support.
With a divided congress, most gun control legislation will have a hard time moving forward.
However, red flags may have found a new home in Washington, D.C.
Bypass Tech Censorship!
Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
Did Bernie Sanders Just Endorse a Neocon Regime Change Foreign Policy?
Is Bernie Sanders the anti-war candidate that many non-interventionists are making him out to be?
Journalists Jacob Crosse and Barry Grey presented some interesting observations about Sanders’ foreign policy views.
Sanders criticized the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani in January and also stressed his opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
During the Iowa presidential debate, Sanders loudly boasted, “I not only voted against that war, I helped lead the effort against that war.”
However, Sanders changed his tune when chatting with the New York Times.
The answers the Sanders campaign gave the Times showed its flexibility when it comes to foreign policy.
In other words, the Sanders campaign signaled to the military and intelligence apparatus that Sanders won’t present a threat to their interests and may actually carry out their interventionist agenda.
One question in the survey that the Times sent the Sanders campaign stuck out above the rest.
The third survey question asked, “Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test?”
The Sanders campaign responded, “Yes.”
Based on this response, Sanders’ is signaling that he’s willing to continue Bush-era policies of “preemptive war.”
Like Obama, Sanders’ opposition to the Iraq War was a matter of politics rather than a principled opposition to regime change wars.
His campaign was also asked, “Would you consider military force for a humanitarian intervention?”
Sanders responded, “Yes.”
Some of the wars that the U.S. carried out in the name of “human rights” have been the Bosnian war and the bombing of Serbia in the 1990s along with the aerial campaign against Libya in 2011 and the Civil War launched in Syria.
All in all, Sanders’ pro-peace/non-interventionist image is at best window dressing.
Under a Sanders presidency, the interventionist status quo will likely stay in place.
News4 days ago
Bernie Sanders 2020 ‘Win’ in NH Netted a LOSS OF 80,000 VOTES from 2016
News4 days ago
Virginia State Police are Silent About Door-to-Door Enforcement of Suppressor Ban
Violent Left3 days ago
New Mexico Bureaucrat Arrested for Vandalizing State GOP Headquarters
News3 days ago
MS-13 Thug Gets Life Sentence in Virginia for Rape and Abduction
Tech4 days ago
More Censorship: Controversial Right-Wing YouTuber Nick Fuentes is Booted From Platform, Even Ben Shapiro Says It’s Too Far
Violent Left4 days ago
New Hampshire Thug Arrested After Assaulting ‘MAGA’ Hat-Wearing 15-Year Old at Polling Site
Deep State4 days ago
Bill Barr Pushes Back Against Trump, Criticizes President’s Comments on Stone, Drops Case Against McCabe
Culture3 days ago
How Vulture Capitalists Use Their Ill-Gotten Gains to Push Transgenderism Onto Children
Violent Left4 days ago
Wife of ‘Proud Boys’ Member Imprisoned for Self-Defense Pleads for Help for Their Three Children
The Swamp2 days ago
SWAMP: FBI Press Officer Accepted Baseball Tickets From CNN Reporter
News4 days ago
GUILTY: Creepy Porn Lawyer Michael Avenatti Convicted in Extortion Trial
Politics4 days ago
MIT Warns That Voting App Used in Several States is Vulnerable for Hackers to ‘Alter, Stop or Expose’ Votes