Privileges, Not Rights

The world’s most famous victim of elder abuse recently mumbled to a global television audience a half-remembered story he made up 30 years ago about talking to an ER doctor. In this story, the dementia sufferer probably doesn’t even know it is a lie anymore, a “doctor” told him a 9mm will blow someone’s lung out of their body. Why was he muttering about this, you may ask? Unlike most of the things this poor man talks about with invisible friends who have been dead for decades, this time it was at least somewhat tangentially related to what was happening in reality. A reporter asked Sleepy Joe about one of the recent mass shootings (at least one of which we now know for certain had some level of FBI involvement in the planning of).

While that story isn’t particularly relevant to the rest of the post, it’s always fun to remind the people in your life who voted for Joe Biden that he is, in fact, a doddering old man who is being abused by a cruel and inhumane entourage of power-hungry sociopaths who would rather rule over a pile of ashes than govern like a sane people. Not necessarily to “own the libs,” but to remind them of their bad choice because these people should be made to be unhappy at every opportunity. Build back better, remember.

The bill, inaccurately called the “Protect Our Kids Act,” passed in the House along partisan lines with five Yankees in the Republican Party joining, showing yet again the dichotomy of the two-party system is slightly more fake than Bruce Jenner’s status as a woman. It is obvious to the point of insult that the GOP only cares about our rights during the two weeks before an election and, even then, it’s perfunctory at best. A similar bill passed the same day called the “Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2022,” it passed with five Republican votes.  As I’m sure you’ve guessed, it’s the same five Yankees. 

It is useful to take a look at each bill, but going into the weeds of every detail is best left to legal types. What you’ll get, my brave reader, is the usual brilliance you’ve come to expect from an article with “Right of Atilla” in the byline.

The Protecting Our Kids Act is broken up into seven titles. The fourth title, “Safe Storage,” spends very little time discussing the requirements of safely storing a firearm so a child can’t get to it and the overwhelming preponderance of it is focused on what really matters: bribery, nepotism and money laundering in the form of “safe storage awareness program funding.” Expect some poorly made pamphlets to be distributed, at best. Of note is the fact that every violation of the vaguely worded safe storage rules can result in confiscation of the gun in question and a fine. No doubt the ATF will be sweeping through Section 8 housing to ensure felons are keeping their guns safely out of the hands of the tikes running around. Or, more likely, it will be used to stack charges on whomever has drawn the federal government’s wrath for having yucky thoughts.

The rest is a mishmash of old gun grabber fantasies, like restricting 18-21 year olds from buying certain types of rifles (unless they’re active-duty military or a cop). The irony of this is palpable when one considers how often we are warned about the dangerous potential of White male veterans to become extremist badthinkers. The only possible reason for this carve out is to ensure the ruling class doesn’t have to deal with the argument for raising the age of enlistment to 21. Another bit reiterates long standing laws making straw purchases and gun trafficking illegal. Anonymous sources familiar with the event that I didn’t just make up assure me it was the Speaker of the House, who’s mind is so addled from her rampant alcoholism and advanced age that she forgot those laws were passed decades ago.

It also restricts magazine capacity to an arbitrary and ridiculous 15 rounds. Of course, there is a carveout for this part as well – not for those scary veterans or people who have retired from the military in good standing. Oh no, dear reader. It’s for retired “law enforcement” agents. They can still buy normal capacity magazines. What might the difference be? One set of retired people may have actually used a standard capacity magazine in a fire fight of some kind, participating in a war for the ruling class. The other has also made a career of obedience to the ruling class, but in a much more direct way. That second group enforces illegitimate laws and obeys illegal orders with no hesitation. No act of humiliation is below them to chase the all mighty retirement, and no pile of dead children is large enough to violate “procedure” and risk not going home that night. These cowards in matching outfits are less likely to put a standard capacity magazine to use than a manatee. Only the brave dog shooters in blue are more docile towards their masters.

There’s some claptrap about “ghost guns,” essentially making it illegal for someone to make a gun using an “80%” kit for their own private use. Beyond that, more parts will now be serialized, making it more complicated to buy a slide for more popular semiautomatic handguns and equally more difficult to buy an upper receiver for an AR or similar platform rifle. Not only must the lower receiver and upper receiver have a serial number, you, average American, are not allowed to give it one. If you have such a firearm before the law goes into effect, you will have to take it to a state agency, which will likely not be the same in each state and they will have to give it a serial number.  This is what we call a “firearm registry” and is allegedly “illegal.”

Trump’s completely illegal and unsurprisingly traitorous ban on bump stocks would essentially be undone, putting these stupid range toys into the same category of suppressors. This means it will require a $200 tax stamp and an extra background check to have something that makes your rifle less accurate and is no faster than a quick finger on the trigger without substantial practice. Having such onerous burdens on what amounts to a car muffler is also absurd, but Congress was also stupid in 1934 when they saw “silencers” in gangster movies and decided regulating them would be a good use of the now purposeless revenuers.  

The other bill, what amounts to Federal Red Flag Laws, is probably the more concerning of the two bills. This one says, in short, that if someone signs an affidavit saying a person is an imminent threat, the police will come to the second person’s home and confiscate their firearms. There is, of course, money shoved down the throat of local police departments to ensure they are more loyal to a federal judge than their own citizens. This will come in the form of “grants for training,” and if a department receives such a grant, they will be required to perform these seizures. As with many federal programs, this will not be optional in order to ensure the few sheriffs who don’t like the taste of DOJ boot leather will be compliant.

Since we’re taking the guns first and giving people due process later, the onus of proving innocence is on the person whose guns were stolen at the whim of a judge and one person’s word, if that much. Otherwise, the judge has two weeks to add another order to keep your firearms locked up. That longer order can last until the aforementioned kritarch decides you, the lowly peasant, proves you deserve to get your firearms back.

Our overlords in Congress are seeking to cancel the Second Amendment. When something can be taken away without due process, that thing is not a right. When the burden of proof is on the person and not the State, that person does not have rights. They have privileges. Is it unlikely any normal person will be arrested for violating anything in the Protect Our Kids Act. Most of that is totally unenforceable and is only there to ensure years can be added to the sentence of those the Cloud People find scary or worse, not of fashionable opinions. The Red Flag laws will be used and abused by angry ex’s, political opponents, and in some cases by stalkers or ne’er do wells who would rather their victims be unarmed. 

Identity Dixie does not recommend breaking the law, but we highly encourage people become familiar with them in order to better navigate an ever more complex legal environment.