(National Sentinel)Â Inappropriate:Â For some reason, theÂ American Medical AssociationÂ â€” which was founded to promote the AmericanÂ medicalÂ community â€” wants to wade into one of the premier political battles of our day: Gun control.
The AMA has shifted at least some of its attention recently away from pushing Big Pharma meds thatÂ kill more than 100,000 Americans a yearÂ to jumping on the gun confiscation bandwagon pushed by the Marxist Left.
As reported byÂ TownHall, the organization last week approved a wide-ranging list of â€œcommon senseâ€ gun control demands that include banning the sale of â€œall assault-type weapons, bump stocks and related devices, high-capacity magazines, and armor piercing bullets.â€
The list was okayed by the AMAâ€™s House of Delegates, a pretend â€˜legislative bodyâ€™ that meets a couple times a year at overpriced venues to drink overpriced liquor and vote on medical and political â€˜recommendations.
AsÂ TownHallÂ noted further:
The lengthy list of gun policy changes also includes bans on the sale of firearms and ammunition to those under 21 years of age, prohibitions on the ownership and unsupervised use of firearms by those under 21, and the establishment of a national gun registry for all firearms and a gun licensing system for gun owners.
Also, the organizationâ€™s gun control proposals include a number of provisions ostensibly aimed at curbing domestic violence and abuse, including one recommendation for a new legal tool by which â€œfamily members, intimate partners, household members and law enforcement personnelâ€ can go to court in order to have a personâ€™s guns confiscated â€œwhen there is a high or imminent risk for violence.â€
No â€˜riskâ€™ of havingÂ thatÂ authority abused, right?
According to a blog post introducing the â€˜common senseâ€™ proposals, the AMA appears to ignore a well-establishedÂ constitutionalÂ requirement â€” due process â€” which must be engaged before a personâ€™s property or belongings can be confiscated by authorities.Â
Were this proposal to be implemented, it would mean the accused would not have an opportunity to defend himself or herself in court. Also, the proposals contain nothing in terms of how â€œrisk for violenceâ€ would actually be defined, which means that even people without criminal records or any previous history of violence or abuse could feasibly have their firearms taken from them.
The lack of defining parameters also extends to the AMAâ€™s call for confiscating â€œhigh-capacity magazinesâ€ and â€œarmor-piercing bullets.â€
Typically, â€œhigh-capacityâ€ has meant those that can hold 10 or more bullets, though New York state defines the term as a magazine capable of holding only seven or more rounds. Lawmakers in that state, by the way, never really said how they determined what the â€œsafeâ€ or â€œappropriateâ€ level of bullets was in order to â€˜allowâ€™ state residents the â€˜rightâ€™ to defend themselves and family. For instance, no one really knows how they arrived at seven bullets rather than five, or 11, or eight orâ€¦well, you get the idea.
The AMAâ€™s guidelines also do not provide any definition of â€œarmor-piercing,â€ and while that may seem rather obvious, remember that these demands were written up byÂ LeftistÂ anti-gunners, so the term could mean something completely different.
And if the term is appliedÂ tooÂ broadly, then it could apply to any bullet capable of piercing Kevlar-based body armor, which would encompass nearly every rifle round above .22 caliber.Â
One thing to remember as well is that these proposals are not being made as a symbolic gesture. The Big Pharma-linked AMA is making them with the intent of presenting them to lawmakers all over the country and in Washington, D.C. and getting themÂ implemented.
â€œPeople are dying of gun violence in our homes, churches, schools, on street corners, and at public gatherings, and itâ€™s important that lawmakers, policy leaders and advocates on all sides seek common ground to address this public health crisis,â€ said AMA Immediate Past President David Barb, MD.
Yes, well, theyâ€™re dyingÂ more oftenÂ in vehiclesÂ and from prescription drugs, but no oneâ€™s calling for them to be banned.
A version of this story first appeared at NewsTarget.Â
Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readersâ€™ newsfeed and is instead promoting Pravda media sources. When you share our stories with your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment to consider sharing this article with your friends and family (see buttons below) andÂ liking our page.
Also, if you like our content and never want to miss a story, pleaseÂ subscribe to our daily newsletter.