Elizabeth Warren Shrugs When Asked If Gun Control Platform Would Violate The Constitution

When questioned whether or not her gun-control platforms would run afoul of the Constitution, Democrat presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren simply shrugged.

Warren joined other 2020 candidates at a forum to discuss gun control policies earlier this week. The event was hosted by MSNBC.

Moderator Craig Melvin asks Warren about her proposal of “limiting guns,” to which the Massachusetts Senator endorsed restrictions on what an American could buy to prevent “people from bulking up in the middle of a crisis.”

You know, a crisis like an out of control government? The exact reason the Second Amendment was put in place?

Warren also suggested people be flagged by the government for law enforcement if they legally purchased too many firearms in a certain timeframe. Which seems like an arbitrary set of criteria, eventually leading to restrictions on everybody.

“Look at some of these folks who’ve gone out and bought a whole lot of guns at once. I’d kind of like to know about that and say there’s actually going to be a federal limit on this,” Senator Warren explains.

“Does it survive Constitutional scrutiny?” Melvin asks.

“Yea,” she responded with a shrug as if that was an afterthought.

The exchange elicited laughter from the audience.

Warren has recently proposed a means to disarm poor Americans through a national gun tax of 30 percent and an ammunition tax of 50 percent.

The plan is a means to stick it to poor and middle-class families while having no effect on the wealthy with whom she so ferociously despises. Many Americans on tight budgets would be taxed out of the market to purchase a firearm to protect their families.

Warren’s response to disarming law-abiding citizens through shredding of the Constitution?


Warren isn’t the only Democrat shrugging their shoulders at the rights of every American.

Senator Kamala Harris, speaking at the same forum, said as President she’d be willing to confiscate “as many as 10 million” guns.

Julian Castro equated police officers with mass shooters and common criminals, stating “Police violence is gun violence also.”

Frontrunner Joe Biden’s gun control plan has been labeled a “constitutional disaster” that would bankrupt gun manufacturers and require law-abiding gun owners to give up their firearms or be treated as criminals if they do not register them with the government.

Then, of course, there is Beto O’Rourke, who yanked his party so far left on the issue of gun control that no Democrat candidate’s views on the Second Amendment lines up with the average American voter.

“Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” Beto famously declared at a Democratic debate earlier this year.

Hell no, you’re not. Unlike the radical left, most Americans won’t simply shrug their shoulders when they see the Constitution being shredded and their rights stolen out from under them.

Warren doesn’t stand a chance in hell of winning. Neither do the other buffoons.

And why should she care if it is Constitutional or not as long as she has the ear of the brain dead? They all must be laughing themselves silly knowing they can blame the Republicans when their campaign promises are stopped dead in the water by the courts.

1 Like

She will never be POTUS. Wall Street and banks are against her and will never vote for her. Her appeal may be growing on the left, but only the far left.

Dems have been ignoring the constitution for half a century.

I’m still waiting for them to define the term “assault rifle”.

1 Like

BULLSHIT. He asked her if it would survive constitutional scrutiny and she fired back “YEAH”

1 Like

Thanks for pointing that out. You are absolutely correct. She was asked if it was constitutional and she said “Yeah”. She answered the question. When she went to elaborate, it was clear that she thought it was so stupid of a question that it wasn’t worth going into any further. She was wrong, but as you said, it wasn’t a shrug to indicate that she didn’t care.

On a different note though, what is a problem with this clip is that she comes out directly against people getting guns in times of crisis. How is that not being called out. How can a sane presidential candidate come out against being prepared in times of crisis?!?!?! She didn’t say that people buy them when times are good and they have nothing to worry about. She didn’t argue that the times were not really times of crisis. She just said that people should not be prepared when there IS a crisis.

1 Like

And she was wrong. You’d think a person running for President of the United States would have a modicum of a clue.

1 Like

That’s fine, but I was responding to the deceptive op.

That is what communists do!

1 Like

“Shall not be infringed.” That is all.

Don’t like it? Amend the Constitution. This is THE process for everything the Federal Government does. Period.

As though you’d set back quietly while that was happening, even following the constitutional process…:roll_eyes:

Do you consider regulation and restrictions to be infringement…?

Btw, what does your comment have to do with my response to the op?

Triggered so much you need three separate posts to respond to the same person? Guess RJ is living in your head now!:rofl:

Warren is nothing but a liar and county records proves this so!

Don’t be too sure. Never underestimate the stupidity of the electorate.

By definition any regulation that interferes with the ability to exercise “The Right of The People” is an “infringement”.

Infringe- to encroach upon, interfere with, or violate.

An assault rifle is a rifle with a scary synthetic stock. Myself, I have a Mini 14 with the nonlethal wooden stock. Uses the same ammunition, and cycles rounds at the same rate as the scary rifle with the synthetic stock. Lucky for me, my rifle has a wooden stock. So now you know. Oh yeah, I also have this.

KCI Ruger Mini-14 .223/5.56 100-Round Dual Drum Magazine

KCI Ruger Mini-14 .223/5.56 100-Round Dual Drum Magazine

I’ll clarify. Scary image Not scary: