Attorney General Pam Bondi has been better in that role than I actually expected. She took some anti-gun positions as AG of Florida, so I expected more of the same unless President Donald Trump kept her on a short leash.
Whether he has or she's just rolling down a relatively pro-gun path of her own isn't clear, but she hasn't sucked as attorney general.
But her latest suggestion isn't filling me with confidence.
Following the Minneapolis shooting, many have fixated on the killer identifying as transgender, even changing his name--no, I'm not interested in respecting the pronouns, particularly of scum who kills kids--to a more feminine one. A number of recent killers have identified as LGBT, which means a number have suggested disarming transgender people.
For the most part, I figure this is a flip of the typical anti-gun push we see after these shootings, and most who suggest it have no power to do anything beyond flapping their gums.
Bondi, however, is a different matter.
President Donald Trump's Justice Department could take a huge step to address gun violence that goes against decades of precedent set by previous Republican administrations.
In the wake of the latest school shooting in Minneapolis last week, Attorney General Pam Bondi is considering banning transgender people from purchasing firearms, according to conservative outlet the Daily Wire.
'Individuals within the DOJ are reviewing ways to ensure that mentally ill individuals suffering from gender dysphoria are unable to obtain firearms while they are unstable and unwell,' a DOJ source claimed.
The Daily Mail has reached out to the Justice Department for comment on this report.
When it comes to the culture wars regarding stuff like gender identity, I'm typically in the camp that doesn't care what law-abiding adults do right up until it starts screwing with the lives of other people. Biological men in women-only activities and spaces, such as sporting events or prisons? Yeah, that's an issue.
But the Second Amendment isn't just for people whom certain parties like.
While a number of recent high-profile shooters have been trans, and there's even a whole trans death cult out there called The Zizians, they still account for a tiny number of transgender individuals. Once you start banning people from owning guns simply because of the actions of a small number of a group, you open a door you don't want opened.
You lay the groundwork for future gun control targeting particular groups. I'm not the only one who feels this way.
“Prohibiting whole groups of people from owning and using firearms because a sick individual misused a gun to harm and kill children is as reprehensible as restricting the rights of all law-abiding citizens because some people have committed crimes,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb in a statement on Thursday. “That anyone in the Trump administration would consider such nonsense is alarming.”
I absolutely agree.
However, Gottlieb brought up another aspect that I hadn't thought about.
“The ironic aspect of this controversy,” he mused, “is that some in the liberal media are suddenly supporting gun rights because somebody in the Trump administration is talking about restricting transgenders from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Perhaps they will learn something from this.
“The government, no matter who is in charge, must understand that enumerated rights protected by the Constitution cannot be stripped away for what amounts to a publicity stunt,” Gottlieb said. “If we allow that to happen to one minority group, it could happen to another group, and then another, until the right becomes a distant memory, especially for those of us who have worked so hard to protect it. This is a bad idea, and it needs to go away immediately.”
Let's remember that many mass killers have been white males, for example. Some have suggested disarming white men because of it. If anyone actually pursues something like this, it'll open the door to that becoming a serious suggestion.
And then we have the fact that many homicides are committed by black males compared to their proportion as part of the general population. I'm not interested in disarming them, either. It's wrong.
Floating a ban of any kind is misguided at best.
"But they're mentally ill," some will say, and gender dysphoria is a mental illness according to numerous issues of the DSM. It might not be the most polite way to frame it, but sure, we can roll with that. I have depression and anxiety. That means I'm mentally ill, too. Should I be disarmed because I get anxious sometimes?
We don't draw the line and mental illness. We draw the line at someone who is incapable of functioning in a responsible way because of their profound mental illness.
Joshua Norton, in 1859, declared himself Emperor of America and later styled himself as "Protector of Mexico." This is probably a sign of mental illness, but he never actually did anything to harm anyone.
As for transgender individuals, Gina Roberts is a staunch and fierce defender of our Second Amendment rights. I'd much rather have her at my side than someone who is born the same sex as they present themselves as today, but who thinks literally any infringement on anyone's rights is a good thing.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are generally doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense, but something like this isn't good news.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes, and hold them accountable for their missteps. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member