January 16, 2013

Obama’s Agenda: Shrink Second Amendment Freedoms

Filed under: 2nd Amendment,Activism,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 6:59 am

This column went up at FrontPageMag.com earlier this morning.


President Barack Obama, who swore he would “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” when he joined the U.S. Senate in 2005, and that he would “to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” when he entered the White House in 2009, now stands ready, according to his vice president, to consider “19 steps … (he) can take himself using executive action.”

The administration’s intent could not be more clear. It wants to bureaucratically create a de facto repeal of as much of the Second Amendment’s clearly stated and correctly interpreted individual “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” as possible by January 20, 2017 — and if that requires shredding what’s left of the Constitution’s separation of powers, so be it.

The clear-eyed among us warned that this day might come in 2008 if Obama won the presidency that year. During that campaign, Obama tried to quiet a group of skeptics at a Pennsylvania campaign stop, first by claiming: ““If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it.” That wasn’t particularly persuasive, nor was his next line, which predictably did not get the press attention it should have: “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress.” It’s now clear that he mostly doesn’t care about how many “votes in Congress” he has.

In 2012, we further warned that reelecting the most visceral opponent of the fundamental human right of self-defense ever to occupy the White House to a second term would exponentially increase the danger to our free exercise of that basic right. Now Obama has won his last election (or so we hope), while bragging that “the American people have spoken.” Hardly. 50.61 percent of voters pulled the lever for Obama despite his being opposed by the worst Republican candidate in my lifetime; fewer than 27 percent of all voting-age adults voted for him, a decline from four years earlier. Nonetheless, it remains the case that Obama has four more years to figure out how to gut the Second Amendment — something which has been one of his overarching goals for at least the better part of two decades.

It is reasonable to believe — in fact, there’s really no other rational alternative explanation — that Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, who in 1995 told a sympathetic audience that the nation’s leaders should “really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way,” believed that Operation Fast and Furious would be that brainwashing vehicle. As Ben Shapiro — yes, the same guy who ran circles around CNN’s gun-grabbing Piers Morgan last week – wrote at Breitbart.com in March of last year:

… (In) the Fast and Furious scandal … the Attorney General apparently gave the go-ahead to an operation that funneled guns to the drug cartels – guns later used in the murder of U.S. citizens. … it surely was not a simple sting operation – and critics have long suspected that the program was designed to stir up anger at gun distribution inside the U.S. in order to provide support for gun control.

Fast and Furious was “not a simple sting operation,” simply because the detailed movements of most and possibly all of the “funneled guns” weren’t tracked. Instead, as Univision reported in October, the law enforcement “logic” was as follows: “If the weapons were used to kill in Mexico, then (police), in the crime scenes, could establish who acquired them.” In other words, it was an operation in which what ended being a body count of at least 300 Mexicans, including a group of innocent teenagers at a birthday party, was sloughed off as collateral damage.

On the U.S. side of the border, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s murderer used a Fast and Furious gun, and the Justice Department has admitted that it was “aware of 11 (other) instances” where a Fast and Furious firearm “was recovered in connection with a crime of violence in the United States.” Completing the conspiratorial circle, Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News revealed in December 2011 that “the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation ‘Fast and Furious’ to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.”

At his Tuesday press conference, Obama did not correct a reporter who wanted him to call the recent spike in gun and ammunition sales “irrational,” instead calling it the result of “a fear that’s fanned by those who are worried about the possibility of any legislation getting out there.”

That fear is far from irrational. Those who have called for gun confiscation or mandatory buybacks include New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Iowa State Representative Dan Muhlbauer, and the queen of confiscation, Dianne Feinstein. The California Senator recently proposed “a program to purchase weapons from gun owners, a proposal that could be compulsory.”

In 1995, Feinstein bemoaned her failure to take everyone’s guns, saying:

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up every of them — Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.

There’s no reason whatsoever to believe that Feinstein feels any differently now.

More to the point, Barack Obama’s track record is so littered with over the top opposition to the right of self-defense that it would take at least another full column to enumerate all of the outrageous examples. One will suffice to demonstrate how deep-seated his hostility is.

Beginning in 1999, as described by David T. Hardy in October 2008, the Joyce Foundation, with Obama serving as one of its directors, began a campaign to stack the influential Chicago-Kent Law Review with articles claiming that the Constitution does not confer an individual right to bear arms. It pointedly rejected offers from writers wishing to promote the opposite view.

This may seem a mundane matter, but Hardy pointed out that “When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles.” He also noted that the Foundation almost got its wish:

The Joyce directorate’s plan almost succeeded. The individual rights view won out in the Heller Supreme Court appeal, but only by 5-4. The four dissenters were persuaded in part by Joyce-funded writings, down to relying on an article which misled them on critical historical documents.

Having lost that fight, Obama now claims he always held the individual rights view of the Second Amendment …

No he doesn’t.



  1. Excellent point raised by Jacob Sullum

    When a Politician Talks About Our Rich Hunting Tradition, Reach for Your Gun


    Obama has been framing the gun control debate about the reason’s why anyone would own a gun in order to exclude the original reasons of Natural Law, the right of self defense against perps and rouge government.

    For Obama, the police are the only ones who should be carrying guns and you the victim should depend upon them for your protection. (Ironic given his anti-police statements in the Gates affair)

    For Obama, government is a benign benefactor and thus any citizen with a gun is automatically it’s enemy because he/she might oppose by force of arms a government edict. According to Obama and Bloomberg, all government edicts are for our own good and that of society whether we recognize it or not… In other words, people like Obama and Bloomberg do not recognize the inherent right of the consent of the governed. Elections are merely popularity contests in which candidates skillfully lie (window dress) to advance their hidden agenda and intent.

    Meaning the only defense against a government that usurps its power is the gun since the process of the consent of the governed has been corrupted, ignored or over ruled.


    Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment


    A well sourced website and article, good reading.

    Federalists Paper 28

    [T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!

    Therefore the only reason, the hidden agenda, for gun control is not public safety but the elite’s safety in usurping the consent of the governed.


    Antifederalist No. 29


    …Mr. Wilson says, that he does not know of any nation in the world which has not found it necessary to maintain the appearance of strength in a season of the most profound tranquillity. If by this equivocal assertion he has meant to say that there is no nation in the world without a standing army in time of peace, he has been mistaken. I need only adduce the example of Switzerland, which, like us, is a republic, whose thirteen cantons, like our thirteen States, are under a federal government, and which besides is surrounded by the most powerful nations in Europe, all jealous of its liberty and prosperity. And yet that nation has preserved its freedom for many ages, with the sole help of a militia, and has never been known to have a standing army, except when in actual war. Why should we not follow so glorious an example; and are we less able to defend our liberty without an army, than that brave but small nation which, with its militia alone has hitherto defied all Europe?


    The framers of this constitution appear to have been . . . sensible that no dependence could be placed on the people for their support; but on the contrary, that the government must be executed by force. They have therefore made a provision for this purpose in a permanent standing army and a militia that may be objected to as strict discipline and government.

    A standing army in the hands of a government placed so independent of the people, may be made a fatal instrument to overturn the public liberties; it may be employed to enforce the collection of the most oppressive taxes; and to carry into execution the most arbitrary measures. An ambitious man who may have the army at his devotion, may step up into the throne, and seize upon absolute power.

    The absolute unqualified command that Congress have over the militia may be made instrumental to the destruction of all liberty both public and private; whether of a personal, civil or religious nature.

    First, the personal liberty of every man, probably from sixteen to sixty years of age, may be destroyed by the power Congress have in organizing and governing of the militia. As militia they may be subjected to fines to any amount, levied in a military manner; they may be subjected to corporal punishments of the most disgraceful and humiliating kind; and to death itself, by the sentence of a court martial. To this our young men will be more immediately subjected, as a select militia, composed of them, will best answer the purposes of government.

    Secondly, the rights of conscience may be violated, as there is no exemption of those persons who are conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms. These compose a respectable proportion of the community in the State [Pennsylvania]. This is the more remarkable, because even when the distresses of the late war and the evident disaffection of many citizens of that description inflamed our passions, and when every person who was obliged to risk his own life must have been exasperated against such as on any account kept back from the common danger, yet even then, when outrage and violence might have been expected, the rights of conscience were held sacred.

    At this momentous crisis, the framers of our State Constitution made the most express and decided declaration and stipulations in favor of the rights of conscience; but now, when no necessity exists, those dearest rights of men are left insecure.

    Thirdly, the absolute command of Congress over the militia may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independency. But in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and these in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow-citizens, and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the Constitution, but in strict conformity with it; it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly.

    As this government will not enjoy the confidence of the people, but be executed by force, it will be a very expensive and burdensome government. The standing army must be numerous, and as a further support, it wilt be the policy of this government to multiply officers in every department; judges, collectors, tax-gatherers, excisemen and the whole host of revenue officers, will swarm over the land, devouring the hard earnings of the industrious like the locusts of old, impoverishing and desolating all before them. . . .

    How prophetic!


    On a personal note, given that America is a Republic, the public deserves the government it votes for. The failure (idiocy) of the majority to cynically critique a candidate’s assertions is their’s to bear not mine. It is upon the idiots to make things right, I have no obligation to shield them from the consequences of their idiocy much less risk my life and property. Don’t count on me when it comes for the force of arms against a rogue government. I vote with my feet like my ancestors did.

    Comment by dscott — January 17, 2013 @ 9:42 am

  2. Speaking of Bloomberg and his contempt for the consent of the governed:

    Nanny State Mayor: “I Have A Responsibility To Not Force Anybody To Do Anything”…


    Just like Obama, Bloomberg says EXACTLY the opposite of what he does. You can’t be a hypocrite if you don’t have principles. Why is he still mayor of NYC? Elections have become popularity contests.

    Comment by dscott — January 17, 2013 @ 9:49 am

  3. On a personal note, given that America is a Republic, the public deserves the government it votes for.

    If they retain the unqualified right to change their minds.

    Comment by Tom — January 17, 2013 @ 10:36 am

  4. #3, no take backs!

    There is no unelection of Obama when the useful idiots decide they were wrong as many are only now belatedly expressing. Four more years, Four more years, Four more years…


    Changing one’s mind is meaningless when you can’t effect said change!

    Comment by dscott — January 17, 2013 @ 11:37 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.