We must remember always: When the Democrats talk a big game about repealing, rescinding, or abolishing the Second Amendment, they don’t mean it. They can’t mean it.
They know as well as the rest of us that any attempt to go door-to-door to confiscate firearms, (of any kind), is going to lead to the sort of horror that would end their political party outright. The Second Amendment is its own insurance policy, and was built into our nation’s DNA in such a way as to never be fully removed.
And so, instead of going after the amendment itself, the liberal left seeks to increase the complexity, cost, and confusion surrounding the right to bear arms. They are battling constitutional rights with bureaucracy, essentially, and it’s just as offensive as it sounds.
The latest lurch in this battle for liberty comes to us, almost predictably, from California.
A California city has approved liability insurance for gun owners, the first such measure in the US, as it seeks to lower gun violence through stricter rules.Trending:
The San Jose City Council held a final vote on Tuesday to turn a proposal it previously passed into law requiring gun owners in the city to carry the insurance and pay a fee, the Associated Press reported. The previous vote was held on June 30, 2021.
“The proposals include two requirements for gun owners that no city or state in the U.S. has ever implemented: the purchase of liability insurance and the payment of annual fees to fund violence-reduction initiatives,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo wrote in an op-ed with the Los Angeles Times last week.
The logic here was liberal lunacy at its most potent:
The mayor also predicted an ensuing legal storm from pro-gun advocates.
“Why should any city subject itself to litigation? Because now-common horrific reports of shootings throughout the nation do little more than elicit a performative parade of prayers and platitudes from Congress. Because problem-solving must be elevated over political posturing,” he added.
On Monday, Liccardo explained at a news conference that the proposal intends to better compensate shooting victims and their familes, as well as make it harder for people who aren’t willing to follow the rules to own a firearm, KTVU reported.
“While gun rights advocates argue that gun owners should not have to pay a fee to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms,” Liccardo said, via the report, the “2nd Amendment does not require the taxpayers to subsidize folks to own guns.”
At some point soon, the left will likely be faced with the litigious reality that all of this impedance is no different from infringement.