As we reported earlier on Thursday, the Democrats were having a tough time trying to push the anti-Second Amendment agenda in Congress. The House was debating the Assault Weapons Ban Act of 2021.

House Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) not only revealed he didn’t understand guns, but he also stepped into a trap making it very clear that he wanted to ban guns that were in common use. Guns in common use are protected under the Supreme Court decision in Heller. So, he’s acknowledging he wants to ban guns in violation of that decision. If they manage to pass anything and it comes up to the Supreme Court, the Court will look back and see the intent was to circumvent that case.

That wasn’t the only time that Nadler stepped in it during the hearings. Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) also took him to school when Nadler tried pulling facts out of thin air about guns increasing the risk to women during domestic violence situations.

“The presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide by women by 500%,” Nadler said. He used that to justify why there shouldn’t be an exception to the bill for domestic violence victims to be able to protect themselves. “So, pass this amendment, and you’ll see an increase in domestic — in homicides of women by 500%.” I like how they try to use women when they can, but won’t even define what a woman is, if they think it hurts their narrative.

Jerry Nadler: "The presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide [of] women by 500%…"@RepChipRoy: "Not if the woman holds it!" pic.twitter.com/JomihLfNrw

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) July 21, 2022

But Chip Roy had the perfect response.

“I would note that the chairman just said that the existence of a firearm — I think you might have said in the household, I’m not sure — increases the likelihood of violence by 500% or something of that nature,” Roy responded.

“And I’d say, well, not if the woman holds it.”

Roy just took Nadler to the cleaners, washed him, and dried him in the spin cycle. But it’s an important point to make. A gun is a great equalizer, especially when a woman in a domestic situation might have to face a physically stronger man. Nadler would deny them that right — for their good, he would protest.

Roy also pointed out that the logical result of what Nadler was arguing was a banning of all guns. Nadler didn’t limit his “facts” to just “assault weapons.”

“If you’re saying firearms generally, then the next step for the chairman is to limit all firearms — which, let’s get to the heart of it, we know that that is where our colleagues wish to go,” Roy said.

Exactly. They say it, even as they protest that isn’t what they mean.