The Coming Assault on the 2nd Amendment in Nevada

     With the election of Steve Sleestak Sisolak to the Governorship of Nevada (the first Democrat to win the seat in nearly a quarter of a century) combined with Democrats newly gained supermajority in the state Assembly (they missed out winning a supermajority in the state Senate by only 24 total votes), the Democrats in Nevada are poised to turn this once purple state a deep shade of blue. This is the first time the Democrats have won a trifecta in Nevada since before the end of the Cold War.

     And what is high up on Sisolak’s agenda? Eviscerating the 2nd Amendment (as well as Article I, Section 11 of the Nevada Constitution):

“Gov.-elect Steve Sisolak says tougher gun laws are one of his top priorities as he takes the top office in Nevada.

“Sisolak told The Associated Press that he wants to see the state ban assault weapons, silencers and bump stocks, which the gunman used in the Las Vegas shooting to modify his guns to mimic the firing of a fully automatic weapon.”

     If you want a preview of what this means for the 2nd Amendment, just look at the insane hellhole that California has become.

     A little mood music:


This entry was posted in Elections, Gun Rights, Progressives and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The Coming Assault on the 2nd Amendment in Nevada

  1. Pingback: The Coming Assault on the 2nd Amendment in Nevada - The Gun Feed

  2. avatar Geoff says:

    All I have to say is that one day the Democrats will regret ever infringing on the 2nd. Amendment.

  3. avatar Joe R. says:

    The 2A argument is simple.
    We have the “Constitution” to briefly describe how we’ll all get what we want of/by/for/and from each other under The Declaration of Independence. We are on our third version of a ‘constitution’ (Articles of Confederation, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights Amendments) even if you don’t count the Amendments past the 3rd one.

    The Declaration of Independence implies once, and STATES NO LESS THAN 2 TIMES in the flesh-language of the 2nd Paragraph, that, should a bona fide citizen so choose, they should chuck the government an install new guards for their security.

    No stretch of logic can be made to say that the Founders/Framers thought such a person would have to ask the government (that needed replacing) for the means or the PERMISSION to obtain the means, to accomplish that.

    Therefore, the 2nd Amendment demands PARITY of arms, with our government. And it’s not our fault what that parity requires.

    AZ can suck-it. Mess up your state all you want. The rest of us will come and get our American real estate back.

    AND LETS GET SOME PROSECUTIONS GOING on the
    Communist Control Act of 1954.

    A couple of you commies need to do hard time.

  4. avatar Eli says:

    From all appearances, they wanna do whatever they can to start enforcing Marshal Law, and they can’t do it against gun bearing Patriots!

  5. avatar Kroglikepie says:

    If that fat scumbag wants what he claims, he can come get the items in question himself. He will not like the results.

  6. avatar Dana says:

    I bet there’s a lot of precision shooters in Nevada.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *