Democrats Always Make Emotional, Not Legal, Arguments

BUCK: There was a big ruling that came down yesterday, too, though. Not quite in the same category of legal and political importance as the ruling today, obviously, but still big — big for Second Amendment rights — and, no surprise, the Democrats had that one totally wrong as well. I’ll just note this for all of you. They never really spend any time actually disagreeing with the legal side of it. It’s just slogans and emotions and talking points.

When I say why I think Roe is bad law or when I say why the right to carry, which was effectively ratified yesterday — carry a weapon outside the home — it’s amazing as we see that the Democrats don’t even feel the need to argue on these points. Right? They just say, “We don’t like it, guns are bad.” Here is President Biden yesterday who… His legal analysis is honestly childlike. It’s as though this man has…

He writes laws and went to law school or at least his staff writes laws and then he signs them when they shuffle him in the right direction and tell him to actually put his initials down. But here he is telling everything that the New York gun law that was dealt with yesterday — it’s more than just New York, other states, too — was also the wrong decision. Replay 22.

BUCK: How about, “Why?” Why was that a bad decision yesterday? Why is it? I know they’ll say a lot of things, but listen closely to what they say. Why is today’s Roe v. Wade decision, overturning it, a bad decision? They use all of this blather that doesn’t make any sense. “Women’s right to choose.” That’s a slogan. That’s not in the Constitution. To choose what? A woman’s right to choose to get vaccinated or not, that didn’t count, right? Bodily autonomy when it comes to vaccines, that argument was out the window. Get the shot or else!

Get the shot or else you’re a threat to society — a shot that at best lasts, what, two, three months? Get it or else. Right? “The power to control their destiny,” “the fundamental right of privacy,” “the health of women is now at risk”? Well the health was unborn babies was certainly at risk, and a lot of them will no longer be at risk as a result of this. So what is the argument? To just keep repeating it, to just keep saying it, it’s as though they have a religious faith, and that religious faith justifies the existence of a Supreme Court decision.

They really have elevated the state in place of religion, really the state in place of God. That’s how they view so many of these issues. And then on the issue of guns, just think about this. You have all these cities that are seeing huge increases in violent crime, the progressive prosecutors backed by Soros and left-wing Democrats all over the country have done their absolute best to legalize criminality and to allow for our cities to be turned into hellscapes where there’s just constant disorder, anarchy, roving biker and ATV gangs and broken needles and fentanyl out in the public and constant theft of retail stories, shoplifting everywhere.

People being assaulted and punched for no reason. People being shot in unprecedented numbers. All that going on, and these progressive prosecutors think they’re doing a great job. This is what justice demands, you see. These people are, honestly, something wrong with them. There’s something deeply unsettled in their minds, perhaps in their souls. And Eric Adams in New York City is presiding over a 25% increase — he’s the mayor of New York City, elected to get the city under control, and he’s presided over a 25% — year over year in crime increase. Now, that’s overall crime.

I think the violent… I think shootings may be slightly down but not much. But overall crime is up substantially. Actually no, shootings are up, I think 2%, 5 to 7%, something like that. But here he is in response to that Supreme Court decision yesterday which all it does is say (summarized), “You have to have a clear, lawful, permitting process for people to carry firearms who are citizens in good legal standing. You can’t do this game of only the connected and powerful and rich can have Second Amendment rights outside the home.” How can you only have Second Amendment rights in your home? That makes no sense. Well, here’s the mayor of New York City — again, very poor legal analysis, but he’s a bad mayor, so far. Play clip 21.

BUCK: In 2022 in New York City, all right, there have been — as of last month — over 2,000 gun arrests in the city of New York. Over 2,000 people had illegal guns who were arrested — never mind all the ones who walk around even today and have been walking around for months with illegal guns with no consequence. So what is this, “Oh, if we allow people to legally carry there might be shootings.” There are plenty of, unfortunately, shootings going on in New York as it is.

Just like there are in so many cities across the country that have restrictive firearms laws. So their argument is garbage. It’s not a sensible argument. To say, “Oh, no, now…” What they liked, is the libs wanted people like me to not be able to protect themselves, in the home or outside the home. Hope the police show up. Yeah? I think we’ve seen, unfortunately — as much as I do love law enforcement in general — if you depend on the police entirely, things can go very, very wrong for you.