Skip to content

“But Not For Us”: Dems Have to Rewrite New Gun Laws to Ensure Their Access to Heavily-Armed Private Security Teams

    shutterstock 1725977644.biden
    Note: This article may contain commentary or the author's opinion.

    NOTE: The following article is satire, not a statement of fact. Treat it as such.

    Democrats recently cheered when passing a law that bans semi-automatic weapons, magazines that hold more than ten rounds, and any other weapons with “assault rifle”-like features, such as a pistol grip, bayonet lug, or detachable magazine.

    However, as is now to be expected with the pandemic of incompetence that has roiled America, they wrote the law in a bad way, as it technically made it illegal for their security teams to own weapons such as Glock handguns, personal defense weapons, and even some shotguns, not to mention the AR-15 style weapons used by some security professionals.

    Though that’s not an immediate issue for the Democrat representatives who are protected by Secret Service teams, it was a major worry for those near retirement and those Democrat donors who are wealthy, and thus protected by well-armed private security teams at their palatial estates and when out in public, so the law had to be immediately amendmended.

    Pelosi, taking point on that, just scribbled “but not for us” at the end of the bill and then demanded that her party pass that version of it.

    Though some were concerned that it needed to be written in a more comprehensive way, claiming that it could be misunderstood and that some could take it to mean that only those Democrats voting for it, not their current or future security teams or other security teams, could own guns, concerns that Pelosi brushed aside.

    Speaking on that, she said:

    What, you think someone could misunderstand a clearly written law about guns? No way! The 2nd Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” line is super confusing, but we were able to discern that it means “can be infringed if you really want to do so”, so why worry about how people will interpret this in a way contrary to our interests?

    Nodding along, most Democrats and a few RINOs agreed, and so the law was passed with flying colors, making its way to the Senate chamber where RINOs like Lindsey Graham and Mitt Romeny immediately outdid even Chuck Schumer in their defense of the bill, presumably becuase they wanted to ensure their access to private security.

    Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and a few others are attempting to filibuster the bill, but a worrying number of Republicans are considering jumping ship and joining up with the Democrats on the bill so as to preserve their access to private security, none of them apparently being concerned with the phrasing of the bill.

    President Biden, speaking on the bill’s necessity during a bizarre press conference in which he fell asleep for a full moment before waking up and screaming about how “deer hunters don’t need bazookas”, argued that it was “simply smart, Jack” shortly before his inadvertent nap, which Lindsey Graham used as further evidence that supporting gun control is the right thing to do.

    By: Gen Z Conservative, editor of GenZConservative.com. Follow me on Parler and Gettr.

    Will you vote for Trump in 2024?(Required)
    This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
    This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.