Glenn Beck: ‘We Are Officially at the End of the Country’ if Trump Loses 2020

[jimnyc]

Still nits considering his prior stances, but great to see he has evolved, saw results & admitted how good he was doing. Thank you, Mr. Beck :)

With that said, his end of the country stuff is almost as bad as the end of the world climate dummies. BUT, some of his concerns are reality! I just don't see the end... I DO see possibilities of things changing like we have never seen before. Look at what they are trying to do - with all of the free shit, which goes to votes/elections. Reparations talk. BS SC changes talk, which won't happen, I don't think. Then all of this socialist crap. They're gonna TRY at least.

---

Glenn Beck: ‘We Are Officially at the End of the Country’ if Trump Loses 2020

Appearing Monday evening on the Fox News Channel, radio personality Glenn Beck told host Sean Hannity that “we are officially at the end of the country as we know it” if the Republican Party fails to win the 2020 election.

As part of their nearly 10-minute interview, Beck explained how he believes various radical groups are plotting together to “destabilize” the West, warning that the plan is already in motion.

“I said what was coming and the last few steps were that the radicals, the anarchists, the Islamists, the socialists would all gather together, they would not be working together, plotting together, but they would see the opportunity and they would all come together and work to destabilize Europe and America,” Beck told his former colleague “And that is exactly what is happening.”

Beck then warned the U.S. will cease to exist in its current form if the Democrats win in 2020 — and “may not survive,” even if President Donald Trump is re-elected. “If the Republicans don’t win in this next election, I think we are officially at the end of the country as we know it,” he said. “We may not survive even if we win, but we definitely don’t if the Republicans lose with Donald Trump.”

Beck, once a prominent Never Trumper, saw his popularity among conservatives plummet after he endorsed Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in the 2016 presidential election and contributed to National Review‘s “Against Trump” special issue. Since President Trump’s election, Beck’s media company, TheBlaze, which recently merged with CRTV, has suffered greatly due to mismanagement, falling advertising revenue, and declining web traffic. The company has also conducted several rounds of layoffs.

In recent months, Beck has warmed to President Trump and signaled he will support him in the next election, telling Hannity earlier March that the president is “doing the things he said he would do.”

“By the time he got to Israel, he was proving me wrong every step of the way on his policies. I was happy, thrilled, thrilled to say, he’s doing the things he said he would do,” the radio personality said.

Asked whether he would vote for President in 2020, Beck replied: “I think when you are looking at avowed socialists that want to end the free market…when you are sitting here talking about infanticide, when you look at who these people are, there’s no way anyone who is standing up against those guys and actually has a spine, yes. Now, will I say I’m going to vote for him? No. And here’s why, because anyone I ever say I’m voting for, it’s a kiss of death.”

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/03/19/glenn-beck-we-are-officially-at-the-end-of-the-country-if-trump-loses-2020/

[Abbey Marie]

I think our country is at its end if Dems are able to take our guns away.

[jimnyc]

I think our country is at its end if Dems are able to take our guns away.

Well, a few policies is one thing, but I believe if they literally went for a 'grab', and go for all guns, then there would be some sort of civil war.

[Abbey Marie]

Well, a few policies is one thing, but I believe if they literally went for a 'grab', and go for all guns, then there would be some sort of civil war.

It’s a horrible thought, but you may be right.

[LongTermGuy]

I think our country is at its end if Dems are able to take our guns away.

Like Jim said...If they made a gun grab...look for civil war...Dont feel its gonna happen (yet)...(Dems making the gun grab )

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user12162/imageroot/2015/12/greek.jpg
https://pics.onsizzle.com/moaqn-aabe-come-and-take-them-the-greek-phrase-molon-5771716.png
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/30/69/5a/30695abfa2ed0400449f65fb145c1976.jpg

[Elessar]

Most of these 'gun grabbers' have no sense of present BATFE Laws - which are covered in the US Code of Federal Regulations.
More feel good 'Laws' will correct nothing.

When will they understand that it is not LEGAL owners and shooters who make attacks?
Mentally unhinged persons and criminals turn a 'Gun' from an inanimate object to
one capable of killing - not the gun itself.

Background checks prior to LEGAL Purchase should be encouraged - that I will agree upon.

[Noir]

Well, a few policies is one thing, but I believe if they literally went for a 'grab', and go for all guns, then there would be some sort of civil war.

Civil war seems to come up a lot from Americans. With regard to this - who do you think will be killing who?

[jimnyc]

Civil war seems to come up a lot from Americans. With regard to this - who do you think will be killing who?

It's actually either crazies.... or folks speaking of crazy ideas to be implemented - of course which never do, but some tend to always try.

I can't imagine anyone running out to kill anyone. But I also can't imagine the majority of owners to run out and hand anything over either. Folks will protect their homes and their rights. I won't say much more myself.

Do I think it truly ever happens, to take them away? Probably not.

As for your "killing" gotcha type crap - the best answer is that simply folks will uphold their rights and not relinquish their guns.

The man said it best - "from my cold dead hands"- and he wasn't up there talking about killing people that I recall.

[jimnyc]

Civil war seems to come up a lot from Americans. With regard to this - who do you think will be killing who?

An Btw, you see it more from Americans, because we aren't lame fruitcakes, we are all willing to stand up for our rights instead of being trampled on. Some countries like to be led by their governments, hand in hand, and to be at the mercy of others for protections and such. I prefer not to have the government hold my hand and wipe my ass, and I'll be safe myself with my own rights and liberties.

[Elessar]

Civil war seems to come up a lot from Americans. With regard to this - who do you think will be killing who?

Try to take my shotgun, rifle and bow from me. Dare is on the table.

The anti-gun people will lead the charge at their own risk - and I guarantee they will
be armed in one fashion or another.

[jimnyc]

Civil war seems to come up a lot from Americans. With regard to this - who do you think will be killing who?

Yup, a more accurate way to answer:

I would have no desire and don't have a desire to be violent and/or shoot anyone with any type of weapon.

So to answer your question, it would have to be those trying to take guns, take away citizens rights... and of course they would have been killing me if they got their way and walk away with the weapons. :)

[Noir]

Yup, a more accurate way to answer:

I would have no desire and don't have a desire to be violent and/or shoot anyone with any type of weapon.

So to answer your question, it would have to be those trying to take guns, take away citizens rights... and of course they would have been killing me if they got their way and walk away with the weapons. :)

So if it came to pass that owning a gun was made illegal, and that guns in private ownership were to be handed in. Would you hand yours in, or keep it illegally?

[jimnyc]

So if it came to pass that owning a gun was made illegal, and that guns in private ownership were to be handed in. Would you hand yours in, or keep it illegally?

I'm not admitting to a crime here on the board, dummy! But that should about answer your question.

[icansayit]

So if it came to pass that owning a gun was made illegal, and that guns in private ownership were to be handed in. Would you hand yours in, or keep it illegally?


If the politicians in this nation made owning a gun illegal. They would be violating our 2nd Amendment.

Asking Hypothetical questions here are merely driven by ignorance, and hatred for LAWS some would like reversed.

[Noir]

I'm not admitting to a crime here on the board, dummy! But that should about answer your question.

You can’t admit to a crime that doesn’t exist :/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You can’t admit to a crime that doesn’t exist :/
If government ordered every American citizen to give up any guns they--OWNED- , then that government had already turned into a dictatorship and nullified not only our Constitution but the very rights we as Americans have died by the millions defending- since our Revolution that founded this nation.
The Bill of Rights is not something that can be tossed aside and nullified by the dem party and its blinded sheep that follow it.
Too many Americans still live for that to happen and nobody step up to stop it.
So your little attempt at a gotcha query is just that, spoken by BLINDED LIBERAL FOOL, IMHO.
Male liberals are not true men, they are childish , ignorant and most often cowardly ffing little whimpering cretins, IMHO.--Tyr

[Noir]

If the politicians in this nation made owning a gun illegal. They would be violating our 2nd Amendment.

Asking Hypothetical questions here are merely driven by ignorance, and hatred for LAWS some would like reversed.

The constitution can be amended.

[STTAB]

So if it came to pass that owning a gun was made illegal, and that guns in private ownership were to be handed in. Would you hand yours in, or keep it illegally?

I'll answer .

If the government attempted to force me to "hand in my guns" they would get them.

Bullets first.

[Noir]

I'll answer .

If the government attempted to force me to "hand in my guns" they would get them.

Bullets first.

So the policeman comes to your home with a warrant for your guns, and you kill them?

[jimnyc]

So the policeman comes to your home with a warrant for your guns, and you kill them?

No longer have them, sold at a show, sold privately, lost them, was robbed... and good luck finding them, you'll need a helluva lot more than a warrant. Suffice to say, they will never go anywhere. It really is that simple. And if THEY were ever to try and use force to take away the guns of the unwilling and THEY decide to make that first move - whoever THEY are will be highly outnumbered by those in support of the 2nd.

Police can't do jack shit if you lost your guns and they can't prove otherwise.

Not sure what is hard for you to understand here. Folks aren't going to voluntarily give up their rights and guns. YOU right away want to attach that to mean those in support of the 2nd will then kill people. NO. We will keep our guns and our rights. Ask those taking rights away if THEY will kill over them, THAT is the real question. If they won't, then we know how it ends with all of the guns still out there and rights protected and won. If they decide to use force and shoot to somehow take guns away - well, then I'm confident that many won't relinquish them, and will protect their homes, families, liberties and rights.

Sorry, doesn't make us killers. But I wonder why others want to murder us simply for wanting to keep guns for protection. Odd that.

[Noir]

No longer have them, sold at a show, sold privately, lost them, was robbed... and good luck finding them, you'll need a helluva lot more than a warrant. Suffice to say, they will never go anywhere. It really is that simple. And if THEY were ever to try and use force to take away the guns of the unwilling and THEY decide to make that first move - whoever THEY are will be highly outnumbered by those in support of the 2nd.

Police can't do jack shit if you lost your guns and they can't prove otherwise.

Not sure what is hard for you to understand here. Folks aren't going to voluntarily give up their rights and guns. YOU right away want to attach that to mean those in support of the 2nd will then kill people. NO. We will keep our guns and our rights. Ask those taking rights away if THEY will kill over them, THAT is the real question. If they won't, then we know how it ends with all of the guns still out there and rights protected and won. If they decide to use force and shoot to somehow take guns away - well, then I'm confident that many won't relinquish them, and will protect their homes, families, liberties and rights.

Sorry, doesn't make us killers. But I wonder why others want to murder us simply for wanting to keep guns for protection. Odd that.

Fair enough, you seem more intent on lying to keep your illegal weapon, rather than STTABs declaration of “bullets first”

[darin]

My brothers and sisters who have vowed to uphold and defend the constitution, against even domestic enemies are my family. To those who would alter the plan drawn up in our Constitution? I'd have one thing to say

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ3pG06j_I6VERi-wpEm73HGgID-ir7XXb8gyqP6rlUH7MO4ITxYg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TcXqEUH2vyI/T_H7UGF7X2I/AAAAAAAABmw/99f7AWbQU50/s1600/red-dawn-cast.jpg

[jimnyc]

Fair enough, you seem more intent on lying to keep your illegal weapon, rather than STTABs declaration of “bullets first”

I prefer to see it as a political ploy and illegal of them to grab guns.

If set to a national vote, no way the 2nd is ever in trouble. But the left would do anything in the power outside of the COTUS as well, and that's been proven time and time again.

So "illegal weapon" - since you're so intent on labeling folks here depending on their answers to your loaded questions? So be it, I would happily be a criminal in that case. But it won't happen and if it ever did it would be an illegal unconstitutional grab. And yeah, you just keep wet dreaming about an amendment to change that. It won't happen from the right in office and sure as hell won't come from the right in public and sure as hell won't come from the gun owners of those 400 million guns. And even tons on the left have guns. While many of those fruits will happily allow it to happen, I'm betting even many don't though.

You want and are looking to ask questions to get folks here to give you answers as such.

[Elessar]

So the policeman comes to your home with a warrant for your guns, and you kill them?

You are so ignorant. Have you fixed Ireland yet?

[Elessar]

The constitution can be amended.

Tell us that know the Law and Document how that is done?

You have not got a clue.

[Noir]

You are so ignorant. Have you fixed Ireland yet?

I don’t live in Ireland.


Tell us that know the Law and Document how that is done?

You have not got a clue.

Well it’s been a decade since I studied the American Constitution but I still have my (heavily noted) copy to hand, so I had to go all the way downstairs to pluck it off the shelf - if you do the same with your own I would direct you to ‘Article V’

[jimnyc]

Well it’s been a decade since I studied the American Constitution but I still have my (heavily noted) copy to hand, so I had to go all the way downstairs to pluck it off the shelf - if you do the same with your own I would direct you to ‘Article V’

First off, again, good luck with that. There's a damn good reason that you see "amendments" as often as you do, which is closer to never than often. Two thirds on this issue, or amending things in general, isn't easy to achieve. Well, not that it's not easy, it's much harder than that. And more involved of course.

Secondly, many of us as Americans don't but rarely have to refer to a study guide, or past test, or the COTUS itself, we know it and breath it. But yeah, sometimes referenced. But I hardly need to pickup a guide to read/know what the 5th entails, or the 1st, 2nd.... Not mocking, just pointing out that the "document" is much more than that to Americans, and even much more than that to folks on the right as opposed to those on the left.

Point is, pointing to the 5th stating as if "hey, it can just easily be amended" or to imply such, doesn't mean much. Can I see regulations like further types of background checks and things prior to a purchase? Absolutely. They will push for all kinds of regulations and I believe some of them will go through eventually. Can I see them completely banning and taking guns away? Nope, just won't happen, not even a valid scenario even though we entertain debates of course.

[Noir]

At no point have I said constitutional amendments are easy, or that a change is likely etc, I simply stated that they were possible.

[jimnyc]

At no point have I said constitutional amendments are easy, or that a change is likely etc, I simply stated that they were possible.

Of course anything is possible. In this case, just very very improbable. It truly would be an ugly scene, as Americans aren't fond on relinquishing their rights, especially if it were political BS that made no sense and left us unprotected.

[CSM]

Noir is correct in that the Constitution can be amended. However, the process is not easy nor was it intended to be. Once does not alter our form of government capriciously else we would soon no longer be a Democratic Republic. He is also somewhat correct when he implies that many citizens would comply if it were made illegal to own firearms. Law abiding folk tend to abide by the law regardless of how onerous it may be. Then again, Americans tend to resort to armed rebellion on occasion (much to King George's dismay) so confiscation of the citizens' fire arms may not be easy either.

[Noir]

However, the process is not easy nor was it intended to be. Once does not alter our form of government capriciously else we would soon no longer be a Democratic Republic.

Yep my handwritten note beside Article V says ‘Difficult by design. Red tape done right’. I can’t remember if that was my wording or my teachers, but I think i’ll take the credit (:

[CSM]

Yep my handwritten note beside Article V says ‘Difficult by design. Red tape done right’. I can’t remember if that was my wording or my teachers, but I think i’ll take the credit (:

Go ahead and take credit for the note. Give credit to our Founding Fathers for the design...

[jimnyc]

Just to have it in the thread for discussion. Or maybe we can even start a new thread on the merits and difficulty. I've highlighted a few areas that are pertinent to the amendment passing.

Constitutional Amendment Process

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.

In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

[Abbey Marie]

It won’t happen anytime soon. But trust that the Dems are playing the long game, and playing it well.

Look at the traction that abolishing the electoral college is getting. With the overwhelming percentage of media on their side, changes we never thought possible will come. Our only hope is in having a conservative USSC for a very long time.

[Noir]

It won’t happen anytime soon. But trust that the Dems are playing the long game, and playing it well.

Look at the traction that abolishing the electoral college is getting. With the overwhelming percentage of media on their side, changes we never thought possible will come. Our only hope is in having a conservative USSC for a very long time.

Its an odd sort of sentiment to ‘hope’ that the luck of the draw would stop something coming to pass. This is not to say that the popular opinion is the right one - but understanding and engaging with the genesis of that opinion is much more preferable than hoping.

[jimnyc]

Its an odd sort of sentiment to ‘hope’ that the luck of the draw would stop something coming to pass. This is not to say that the popular opinion is the right one - but understanding and engaging with the genesis of that opinion is much more preferable than hoping.

Understanding and discussing and engaging with the left is often not only a waste of time, but can be eye rolling.

EVERY gun crime seems to be the fault of the NRA. They are clueless about guns themselves and don't care to learn. They are clueless about regulations and laws and the outcomes and don't care to learn further.

And again, the disclaimer - every last one? No. Every time you engage them? No. I'm speaking in majority.

[jimnyc]

Coincidentally, I just got this in an email. :)


1 - Eleven teens die each day because of texting while driving. Maybe it's time to raise the age of Smart phone ownership to 21.

2 - If gun control laws actually worked, Chicago would be Mayberry.

3 - The Second Amendment makes more women equal than the entire feminist movement.

4 - Legal gun owners have 300 million guns and probably a trillion rounds of ammo. Seriously, folks, if we were the problem, you'd know it.

5 - When JFK was killed, nobody blamed the rifle

6 - The NRA murders 0 people and receives $0 in government funds. Planned Parenthood kills 350,000 babies every year and receives $500,000,000 in tax dollars annually.

7 - I have no problem with vigorous background checks when it comes to firearms. While we're at it, let's do the same when it comes to immigration, Voter I.D and Candidates running for office.

8 - You don't need a smoke detector; that's what the fire department is for. Now...if you think that sounds stupid, you know how I feel when you say I don't need a gun.

9 - Folks keep talking about another Civil War. One side knows how to shoot and has a trillion bullets. The other side has crying closets and is confused about which bathroom to use. How do you think that's going to end?

[Abbey Marie]

Its an odd sort of sentiment to ‘hope’ that the luck of the draw would stop something coming to pass. This is not to say that the popular opinion is the right one - but understanding and engaging with the genesis of that opinion is much more preferable than hoping.

Luck of the draw? There is an established process for both electing a President and nominating justices. Your comment seems to indicate that I lack understanding. Surely you didn’t mean to be condescending...

[Elessar]

I don’t live in Ireland.



Well it’s been a decade since I studied the American Constitution but I still have my (heavily noted) copy to hand, so I had to go all the way downstairs to pluck it off the shelf - if you do the same with your own I would direct you to ‘Article V’

Good luck with that opinion. What about my question of you fixing the UK
instead of telling us how to mend ours?

[Noir]

I
Luck of the draw? There is an established process for both electing a President and nominating justices. Your comment seems to indicate that I lack understanding. Surely you didn’t mean to be condescending...

In a large part it’s luck of the draw - If a democrat became president in 2020 and Kavanaugh dropped dead of an aneurism in 2021 what could of been a conservative justice seat for 20+ years is suddenly a liberal one, with all the consequences that entails.


Good luck with that opinion. What about my question of you fixing the UK
instead of telling us how to mend ours?

There was no opinion in the text of mine you quoted?

Don’t worry, I can work on both at the same time (:

[darin]

If it wasn't for the electoral college, AND things like the 3/5ths compromise there's a solid chance slavery would not have ended in the USA.

Without the Electoral College - our nation sets itself up to be like the dystopian society of the Handmaid's Tale - except God is replaced by leftist religious stand-ins like 'The State' and 'Climate Change'.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If it wasn't for the electoral college, AND things like the 3/5ths compromise there's a solid chance slavery would not have ended in the USA.

Without the Electoral College - our nation sets itself up to be like the dystopian society of the Handmaid's Tale - except God is replaced by leftist religious stand-ins like 'The State' and 'Climate Change'.
Bravo! You hit the nail dead on its head. The Electoral College is designed to stop a lurch towards pure democracy- pure democracy is mob-rule.
Big cities and big city values can not be allowed to rule over the freedoms and the justice our Constitution and our nation was set up to be and to insure!
As the lousy dems, libs, socialists all know its purpose , you now hear this magnified by media roar to do away with it.
For it at this time denies their damn goal to turn this nation into another corrupted, evil, third world, dictatorial hellhole.
Of course Noir poses the query and holds conservative Americans to be the obstructionists, preventing liberal nirvana--their insane fantasy of the perfect utopia!
When pointed out its been trued before and always ended up a cluster-fkkd up disaster they always say, but not tried by us-- as if they not human also -- not capable of the same result! Their famous, we are the gods we have been waiting for-- pretty much to me, explains how and why they are ffing insane ramble hat sane people know they are , IMHO.
And Noir ignores my posts because he has absolutely zero counter the the cold, hard and very naked truth I happily toss in his face.. -Tyr

[STTAB]

So the policeman comes to your home with a warrant for your guns, and you kill them?

No policeman will ever show up at my home with a warrant for my guns. If the government shows up to take them outside of that, yes they are getting killed to protect mine.

[jimnyc]

Here's one talking about it. Like I said, the citizens would never vote for this. Bernie's way would be the only way - and wouldn't lead to very good results.

When this man takes the 10 seconds and learns how to comb his hair, I'll take him seriously. Or when he's not so keen on taking rights away from people, instantaneously.

---

Bernie Sanders Calls for Stripping of Second Amendment Rights Overnight

Late last night New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced a ban on "military style" semi-automatic rifles in the country.

"Today I am announcing that New Zealand will ban all military-style semi-automatic weapons. We will also ban all assault rifles. We will also ban all high capacity magazines," she said. "We will ban all parts with the ability to convert semi-automatic or any other type of firearm into a military style semi-automatic weapon."

...

Democrat presidential candidate and socialist Bernie Sanders endorsed the move right away and said it needs to happen in the United States. He wants to strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights overnight.

Rest - https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/03/21/bernie-sanders-endorses-complete-gun-ban-through-executive-fiat-n2543477