MA Leftist Pushes 'Red Flag' Bill to Strip Citizens of Gun Rights

P. Gardner Goldsmith | June 4, 2018
Font Size

It’s clear that history is not taught well in government-run schools, so perhaps it should come as no surprise that a politician who attended public indoctrination camps would overlook a jagged mountain range of ironically important points when introducing a bill to smother the right to keep and bear arms.

Indeed, it isn’t surprising, but, perhaps of the locale, this one is even more toweringly offensive.

In this case, the politician is named Marjorie Decker. She introduced a “Red Flag” bill to allow the government to “separate” a private citizen from a personally owned firearm, and she is a state representative from, get this, Massachusetts.

That would be the state where the American Revolution began at the battles of Lexington and Concord, battles that were fought when the British government marched into the towns to… Take private firearms.

Irony level achieved! Continue playing the Irony Game, now available on most platforms, including the Massachusetts State Legislature game device, by reading Rep. Decker’s lingua confuserata! Take a looksee. Says. Rep. Decker, confused pronouns and all:

If you think someone in your home is going to kill themselves with a gun that they own or they’re going to go out and hurt other people, you have the opportunity to go straight to a judge, show the evidence and ask them to separate them from their gun and ammunition.

‘Cause, you know, that someone is plural. They might hurt people, or themselves.

Apart from the tiresome grammatical cluelessness of political correctness she displays – the kind of numbskullery that shifts pronouns into the plural so as to not use the normative “one” and “he”, or even the half-step of “he or she” -- this kind of thinking reflects not just a sad mental block about history, it overlooks some pretty important principles and constitutional strictures.

On this list, in no specific order are:

The specific wording of the Second Amendment, which clearly prohibits any government from infringing on the individual right to keep and bear arms.

The right to a speedy and fair trial by peers, as supposedly protected by the Sixth Amendment.

The right to due process before punishment, as supposedly protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

And the very concept of self-ownership is at stake, for if one does not have a fundamental right to defend one’s life, one cannot be said to own one’s life.

And consider this… Notice how Ms. Decker uses the euphemism that, the judge and state can “separate" a person from his guns and ammunition, rather than the straightforward and plain English of “can confiscate guns and ammunition”?

It’s not “confiscation”. It’s “separation”.

You’re not being killed by a murderer; you’re being “separated from your life.”

You’re not being robbed. It’s “separation from your belongings”.

And make no mistake about it, this is robbery if the law passes and is enforced. First, the law would require the confiscation of tax money to enforce it anyway, and taxation is legalized theft. But this added insult to the tax thievery would also include new injury, for it allows the state to take a firearm from someone merely for being accused of being “dangerous”. No conviction of criminal threatening or verbal assault, no trial. Just the opinion of a judge.

Didn’t the Massachusetts citizens of old stand up against that?

At, oh, places like Lexington and Concord?

Is this gentile political terrorism something “up with which” the Massachusetts people will put, as they might’ve phrased it in Edwardian England?

Only time will tell.

One thing is sure. Her Highness, Representative Decker didn’t learn her history when she attended public school in Cambridge, MA.

Either that, or she doesn’t care about history, or the rights of her neighbors.