Obama’s Agenda: Shrink Second Amendment Freedoms

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. … [I]t 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.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • espersemper

    2nd Ammend = Jihad?
    Well under the CIA’s version of Jihad perhaps.
    The curtain of the real cancer is lifting.
    Soon as all other anti-american ideologues it will be more obvious
    To the world who’s agenda is open.
    From within our freedoms are falling and sadness sinks in.
    This mission presented to us by this dark Holyness in a sanctimoneous wrapping
    Of fairness will only get to the cracking point of treason to America.
    And the world agenda of peace will tumble as the ultimate victory of Jihad.
    Do we need a 2nd amend Jihad? Don’t want it.
    The ennemy is counting on it!
    Where is the math on violent crime behind jihad?
    Holy war or unholy peace?

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    This blogger keeps beating the Second Amendment drums, and it is NOT for nothing. It is one of the major steps towards America's deconstruction, however, more is at play. But this is a biggie – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/01/15/leftist-menda

    As such, patriotic marching orders are more than in order – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/01/09/patriotic-mar

    Hopefully it is not too late!

    Adina kutnicki, Israel – http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • Victoryman

      Once the Second Amendment is gone, the First Amendment is next.

      • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

        Indeed. And it has been duly noted too – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/12/22/first-amendme

        Shiver us all timbers….

        Adina Kutnicki, Israel – http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

      • White Hunter

        The First is already on the chopping block. Remember the push to reinstate the "Fairness" doctrine–which was a naked attempt to snuff out conservative broadcast media? Remember Schumer's obscene sneer that since the FCC quite properly outlaws child pornography, it can (and indeed should) likewise shut down Fox and Rush Limbaugh? We're dealing with pathological liars here, who have taken a wrecking ball to the country and who reach for the Constitution the same way the rest of us reach for the Charmin.

      • Mary Sue

        The First Amendment's been under attack for a while, culiminating in the arrest of that youtube video that nobody watched.

        • stevef

          Excellent point…thanks.

      • https://www.facebook.com/Mosocne RJ

        In order to change our long lived rights of any amendment, all 50 states have to approve the change. If any of our rights are taken from us it’s because we voted to do so. This is not a case where taking our rights away to bare arms is the right course of action. I will not give up any of mine. But more along the lines of locking up our schools. During class times, one way in and one way out. Police guard in every school. Walk through metal detectors in every school office in order to get onto campus. Problem solved! easy and no reason at all to mess with our rights. Coke, crack, pot, and what ever more are not legal. But I can find them on every corner if I’m looking.. This law will only make a new black market business and only make things worse.. It will not help at all. All my feelings are personal. None are to make anyone upset on how I feel. (Unless they are taking my right of free speech away now..haha funny but if gun rights are taken, what do you think is next) We are the people. It’s up to us to make each other safe. Not some dumb law that we can’t protect our selfs, right????

  • cedarhill

    The Left practices "termiting". They've been at it for decades. The "push the envelope" may be more familar to those following the entertainment world. It's a pulsing operation. Push today, it gives a bit. Push next week and every week after that and, over decades, most don't even know where they started.

    And they'll take every ruling on anything and apply it to any other area. So expect bullets to face taxe of $500 per bullet, registration of a gun to be $30,000 per weapon and magazines – go dream, even Soros couldn't pay it.

  • Mike Williams

    Why is it that when gun advocates quote the 2nd ammendment, they ALWAYS only quote the last part of it? Read the ENTIRE 2nd ammendment. By their way of thinking, a 10 year old should be able to take his paper route money and go by a glock to carry around. Why not also give convicted felons and mentally challenged people guns too? After all, the 2nd ammendment says NOTHING about the aforementioned NOT being able to own guns! It says " people". Aren't kids and felons and mentally unstable persons " people" too? All we want is Sensible gun regulations and preventing idiots from owning a .50 caliber water cooled machine gun IS sensible! By the way, I own a couple of guns.

    • Jarhead1982

      Further evidence of the failure of our schools is your inability to understand basic English composition and how the meanign of a complex sentence occurs, much less the histroical fact that the BOR is a control on the powers of government, not the rights of the people!

      The second amendment as RATIFIED by the state’s.

      “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

      Maybe you can explain how for the entire history of English language, that the independent clause, a complete sentence capable of conveying a clear meaning, and must first exist for a dependent clause to have meaning, has always set the meaning of the complex sentence. (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”)

      Yet some now infer the dependent clause, an incomplete sentence, incapable of conveying a clear meaning (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State) is now the determinator of the complex sentence meaning and history and English scholars have all been wrong throughout the history of written English. Have at it, but warn us when Hades will be freezing over for you actually having data to support your claim.

      Lets see, have you removed the 30 plus references from the congressional writings 1774-1789 & the federalist papers showing well regulated as to meaning well trained in the arts of war? Much less all those dictionaries that say the same thing? No, you haven’t. Reference Karpeles Museum, CA.

      Maybe you removed that original draft of what became the second amendment. You know, the one that was clearly written as a collective right, but then was changed to what exists today.

      original proposed draft 
the right to keep and bear arms 
of the 
(17 TH of 20 amendments) on display at the Karpeles Manuscript Library 
Santa Ana, California

      "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."

      Why did our founding fathers change the amendment draft if it was what they wanted?

      Oh that’s right, actions do speak louder than words. Ref Karpeles Museum, CA again.

      Then of course, here is the logic failure the anti’s always have. They always fail to prove, that the militia existed before the armed individual.

      The anti’s always fail to prove that a collective right can exist without the individual right first existing as how does a collective begin, oh that’s right, pre-existing individuals come together to form said collective, DOOOHH!

      Funny how all that was before the 2008 rulings eh?

      Funny how in the 2008 Heller ruling all 9 justices agreed that bearing arms was an individual right. That 5-4 vote was on the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. gun ban, read it, you will see!

      10 USC § 311 – Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
      (b) The classes of the militia are—
      (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
      (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

      Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

      • Atlas_Collins

        You wasted all that typing, Jarhead. Mike Williams is a verminous traitor who doesn't deserve an explanation for what he already knows is a lie. Mike Williams deserves nothing but a green hocker spat in his face by anyone who loves liberty.

        • Jarhead1982

          Naw, its called saved word file, then cut and paste, a total of 20 seconds elapsed time.

          Besides, reminding them of the facts just tends to piss them off which makes it worth 20 seconds of my time, as those socipaths like Mikey can never refute those facts!

          • DavidT

            Nice job of automating the reply. Can I steal that, giving credit of course, for site where I don't see you?

          • Jarhead1982

            Have at it, as all was collected from public sources (Karpeles Museum of Historical Govt. documents, Heller, English Composition rules…..) , do cite anything that is linked properly, some get a little nitpicky about that!

            The snarkiness I contributed, use if you wish, LOL!

            Semper Fi

  • wgswst

    Now is the time for all gun owners to seek out the resources and people within their own state to fight this battle.

    The states are the battleground now, the last stand against the government behemoth. Find your group – republicans, libertarians, secessions, anyone making a stand, and – Fight!

  • stevef

    Wrong…O's agenda is to destroy the Bill of Rights….The PR campaign against the second amendment is just the second battle in this war against our freedom. (the first battle was against free speech using "hate speech" BS and its been quite successful, at least in America's schools.)

  • getagrip

    Paranoid little babies is what it sounds like to me. Refresh my memory, is it gun control or a ban on guns? Do you cry and squirm when they lower alcohol blood levels for dwi's? How dare the government try to tell me how drunk I can be when I plow my car into your kids killing them!

    • White Hunter

      Well, here's one for you: Would it be an "unconstitutional" violation of Roe v. Wade to mandate a 10-day waiting period for an abortion, or limiting a woman to a certain number of abortions per year? Would it be a "slippery slope" toward a total ban on abortion? Imagine the hysterical shrieks from NOW, NARAL, and PP claiming exactly that, if anyone proposed such "reasonable" "controls." BTW, I no longer care about abortion one way or the other; in fact, I'd like to see a bumper sticker saying "Too bad Muhammad's mother wasn't pro-choice!"

      • Rifleman

        By the left's own 'logic' the government should be paying for our firearms and ammuntion. Imagine the fit they'd throw if they had to pay a tax to excercise their 'right' to vote.

    • stevef

      good point…the Emperor rules as he sees fit.

  • polnick

    Survivors in heroin infested ghetto`s need guns to protect themselves against druggies, muggers, and home invaders. Recipients living under the poverty level should be supplied with a free Glock to protect their EBT card and flat screen. Those with jobs can buy their own weapon

  • Mary Sue

    This pretty much proves that Obama's a liar from the getgo. He lied when he was sworn in the first time. He'll be lying again when he doubles down. Narcissist douchebags lie; that is what they do.

  • Ghostwriter

    I don't own a gun myself. That doesn't mean that I don't want law-abiding people to have gun at all.

  • Clara Samuelson

    If we read the koran, we shall see that once a muslim, always a muslim. Obama was a muslim as a child, and he still is. He wants this country to become islamic…..and everything that he does facilitates further success by radical islam. Who is not a radical among the islamists? According to the koran, no one.

  • http://www.sunjournal.com/users/rosetent2 Violette

    Hola! I’ve been following your web site for a while now and finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from New Caney Tx! Just wanted to mention keep up the great job!