Here are links to my floors speeches and parliamentary inquiries on the House YouTube channel, as well as the text of my floor speeches. HR9 ended up not having floor debate, but I had a prepared speech just in case.
The HR9 PI once again had me going viral in the liberty Twitter world, with my thanks to AFP’s Chris Maidment!
HR8 – Federal Assault Weapons Ban Resolution
HR8 was the first bill I argued on the house floor since becoming a New Hampshire State Rep, and it was entirely within my wheelhouse. It was to request the Federal government to enact an “assault weapons” ban.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
I rise to speak in support of the committee report of ITL on HR8
The 20th Century was filled with millions of reasons to never permit a government to restrict your natural right of self defense.
Pol Pot – 2 Million
Adolf Hitler – 13 million
Joseph Stalin – 20 Million
Mao Zedong – 45 Million.
These are the lowball estimates of civilians massacred after private firearm ownership was banned by those leaders.
Contrary to what Biden may repeat in front of the cameras, our natural right to keep and bear arms is not so we can go deer hunting, or sport shooting. It is to prevent the horrors that have played out by fascist governments.
Supporters of a Federal Assault Weapon’s ban will echo the refrain that the founders could not have imagined modern firearms. But cannons existed, privateers owned battleship equivalents of the day. The founders were fully aware of the evolution of arms, and this is evident by the use of that specific word – “arms” in the 2nd Amendment. Not just muskets, not just swords, not just pistols, no such limitation is defined.
In Congress last session, HR1808 was the proposed Assault Weapons Ban of 2022. The bill swept so broadly it would make millions of owned firearms illegal overnight, also including several hunting rifle and shotgun models. During the hearing Congressman Dan Bishop asked: “Would anyone on the other side dispute that this bil would ban weapons that are in common use in the US Today?” Chairman Jerry Nadler replied “That’s the point of the bill.” This flies directly in the face of DC v. Heller, where the supreme court held that arms in common use were protected under the 2nd Amendment. This alone makes any bans unconstitutional based on precedent.
HR1808 also exempted all departments of the Federal Government from the ban. All departments. Congressman Thomas Massie attempted to amend the bill, clarifying that of course this wouldn’t include the Departments of Education or Agriculture. Since the bill supporters keep referring to AR15s as “weapons of war” and “only useful for mass murder.” Why would a department of teachers or farmers need this? When answering this very question, the bill supporters said “Because they may need to defend themselves.”
Okay… so they aren’t only useful for mass murder or just for war? And apparently the rest of our lives aren’t important enough to let us defend ourselves in the same manner. This type of monopoly of force is precisely the outcome the founders wanted to prevent by including the second amendment.
Which, I will add, doesn’t grant us any right. We are born with the natural right to self defense, to protect ourselves, our families, and our property. The 2nd amendment, along with the entire bill of rights, is a list of restrictions on the Federal government to protect our natural rights and liberty.
Support liberty against tyranny, vote ITL on House Resolution 8.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Thank you, Mr. speaker.
Mr speaker, if I know that the CDC reported a renewed assault weapons ban would have no measurable difference on gun violence.
And if I know that any bill banning firearms in common usage violates the Heller v. DC ruling,
And if I know that Columbine occurred during the last Federal assault weapons ban,
And if I further know we have to only look to the last century to see the disastrous outcome of governments having monopoly ownership over firearms,
And, Mr Speaker, if I know the definition of “shall not be infringed” I would press the green button and ITL HR8.
HR9 – Federal American Marshall Plan Resolution
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
I am here to support the committee report of ITL on HR9.
$31.5T. That’s the current US debt. That is about $250k per taxpayer. That is a debt to GDP ratio of 120%.
In 2020, the US government injected (printed) approximately $4T dollars in the name of COVID relief. In 2022, another $4T was printed under the ironic name “Inflation Reduction Act.” Coupled with the latter was a provision to hire 87,000 IRS agents. You don’t hire that many agents to just go after a handful of billionaires to make them pay “their fair share.” These agents would go after your tips, and your $600 Venmos.
Both of these trillions of dollars spending sprees have caused record inflation, and global hesitancy with respect to the dollar. The Saudi’s are shopping around for alternate currencies to trade for their oil, which likely means they’ll be getting a healthy dose of regime change and a hefty plate of freedom soon.
The effects this mass creation of money had on prices is still rippling through the market today, so much so the current administration circled their media empire to try and gaslighting us into thinking inflation is a good thing because it means wages might go up. Might. Meanwhile your savings are depreciating.
A one-for-one America-centric Marshall Plan would, in today’s dollars, cost at least $173 billion. And with the mismanagement and earmarking of the previous $8T, there’s no way the price tag wouldn’t be identical in scale. And it’d almost certainly contribute half its cost to be lit on fire in Ukraine. Well, not literally, because burning the dollars would at least remove them from circulation and help us in some way.
During testimony it was also made adamantly clear that any projects divvied out under this plan would have prioritized, if not grant exclusively, contracts to union workshops, discriminating against the massive amount of independent workers in the country. This type of cash-dump would also feed up through union dues and be paid directly into ActBlue accounts to fund the next generation of lawmakers to craft union-preferential labor bills and so on and so on. But I digress.
We cannot afford a project of this scale. Not only that, but we cannot trust the Federal government to helm such an endeavor. They have proven to be reckless with the checkbook. Until a Convention of States ratifies a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution, every effort should be made to dissuade further big project spending from the Federal government.
And with that I ask you to vote yes on the ITL motion on HR9.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr speaker, if I know the Federal government has spent more money in the last 3 years than ever before, with large portions of that money being misappropriated or going unaccounted for,
And if I know that a project of this size would undoubtedly inject trillions more into the $32.5T national debt, a debt to GDP ratio of 120 percent,
And if I know the inflation reduction act added positions for 87000 IRS agents to squeeze taxes from us to compensate unstoppable Federal spending,
And if I further know that we are still experiencing rapid inflation due to these federal spending sprees, and that inflation is one of the most insidious taxes,
And, finally Mr. Speaker, if I know that Taxation is Theft, then I would press the green button to ITL HR9.
Tom Mannion for New Hampshire 