RFK Jr on banning "assault weapons"

YouTube Short
Posted June 29, 2023

Q: Would you ban assault weapons?

RFK JR: Well I'm not going to take away anybody's guns. If there was a consensus where Republicans and Democrats voted a majority to do that I would sign the bill.

I call this a deal breaker and eminently dangerous to our nation. It's clear that if he could be pushed to sign such a bill so easily, the list of banned weapons would explode and soon there would be nothing left of the Second Amendment.

He is offering no check and no balance, not even a fight against an attack upon a constitutional right by the legislature. I don't want to take away guns, but hey, if the DC establishment can put together a majority, sure, I'll sign that bill. Not acceptable.

The entire point of the Bill of Rights was to protect our rights against the tyranny of a ruler and the tyranny of the majority.

To infringe upon a God given right, part of our original Bill of Rights, based on a majority vote by Republicans and Democrats (meaning the DC uni-party, which has become adversarial to the People) is unconscionable.

If anyone has read some scholars like Amar or Halbrook, then you know there are nuances to the text of the Second Amendment that are often confused. Whether you interpret the amendment as favoring regulation or zero regulation, there is no reading that leads me to believe banning of a certain type of arm, especially one so often employed by the government (or very similar iterations) is a remotely plausible interpretation and course of action.

I am a liberal constitutionalist - I believe all of our rights are to be liberally interpreted and vigorously defended. There is certainly no liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment that leads to banning of so-called "assault weapons."

(liberally meaning with openness, broadly, and generously, favoring the liberty of the People and restraint of government, because that is aligned with the manifest tenor of the Constitution)