Conservative Political Commentary

[Under the Radar?] Anti-socialist, anti-communist, anti-globalist, pro-Constitution, and usually with an attempt at historical and economic context (This blog was given its name before I decided it was going to be a political blog.)

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

The Second Amendment Is Under Attack
“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.” – Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”-- George Mason, Speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788 [Quoted by The Patriot Post]

* * * *
 President Obama, accompanied by cute children who were no doubt sincere in wanting something done about “guns” since they were horrified by the Newtown shootings, presented his proposals for new gun restrictions. How can anyone’s heart not go out to those helpless little ones after a deranged lunatic opened fire on their classmates and teachers? The Obama Administration, never wanting to let a good crisis go to waste, created a crisis out of the Newtown shootings in order to have an excuse for further restrictions on guns.

And all the gun restrictions Obama wants to impose would accomplish exactly nothing toward fixing the problem he claims to be addressing. But they would be a start toward disarming the law-abiding citizens. And they would create many more problems while solving none. What would be some possible unintended consequences of further gun restrictions?

1. A thriving gun market today will still thrive for “permitted” guns and ammo, and a black market will thrive for “forbidden” guns and ammo.

2. Gun owners’ slogan about “cold dead hands” may be tested.

3. Gun enthusiasts and gun owners in general will sternly resist new restrictions.

4. Thinking people rightly resent the knee-jerk response to the Newtown shootings and the left’s attempt at emotional manipulation for more gun laws. This is like unscrupulous undertakers exploiting families’ grief to get them to buy more expensive coffins and funerals. Obama is trying to exploit grief over shootings get Americans to give up essential liberty.

5. If government orders are issued for more gun restrictions, there will be more talk and action concerning militias, nullification, secession, possible armed resistance, etc.

6. As the initial shock subsides, most people will not be in favor of more gun control, and it will be a political liability to press for it. The Tea Party will find a strong issue to go after liberals on.

7. More people will, rightly, resent the imperial presidency of Barack Obama, his extreme partisanship, and his drive to destroy his opposition.

8. House members may file articles of impeachment against the president for overstepping his authority.

But our imperial president, having been re-elected and facing no more elections (unless he somehow gets the 22nd Amendment repealed) waxes ever more bold and radical. Obviously he knows what the Second Amendment is for and he doesn’t like it. The NRA is precisely correct saying he is attacking the Second Amendment. Mark Levin discussed his view on the imperial presidency of Obama with Megyn Kelly:

As usual, Levin is on target. What Obama is doing is not reassuring, but frightening.

A National Rifle Association ad called the president out for sending his daughters to a private school with armed guards, yet expressing doubt about the value of armed security in all schools, rightly calling the president an “elitist hypocrite.” The White House response was that using the president’s children for a “political” purpose was “cowardly and repugnant.” What the NRA did was not wrong. The president, of course, doesn’t mind using children as props in his press conference, for a political purpose, where he arrogantly waited to sign a score of executive orders, to show his power. Congress should act to stop him on this and many other executive orders. The president never engages in debate or negotiations, only in impugning the motives of his critics and trying to demonize and silence them. “My way or the highway” has been his approach in just about everything.

For all Piers Morgan’s claims about how banning guns in England has resulted in lower gun crime, the fact is that gun crime increased after the ban went into effect in 1996, and gun crime remains a serious problem.

Criminals who can’t get their hands on guns are using knives, to the point that authorities want to ban kitchen knives as too dangerous. In Switzerland, where almost all citizens are armed, gun crime is quite rare. In these and other cases, more guns in the hands of citizens results in less crime. Burglars and other intruders have something to think about if the residents of the home they want to enter might be armed for protection.

In America, the cities with the strictest gun laws have the most gun crime (New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.) Criminals know that residents are unlikely to have guns to protect themselves and are thus emboldened.

The New York newspaper that published the names of gun owners in a certain county did the county a grave disservice. People who were not listed would be well advised to obtain guns to protect themselves from criminals who want to take advantage of the information that was published.

If anyone wants to own a gun, perhaps they should buy now before severe restrictions can go into effect. Rush Limbaugh correctly said, “People are reacting quite rationally here to what they're hearing and seeing in the media when they're going out and joining the NRA and buying guns. They know what they're up against. They've heard Democrats all their lives. They know what they really want. Their problem is the existence of guns.”

But the question larger than the fact that gun restrictions won’t help is the issue of the Second Amendment.

The Founding Fathers generally believed that all citizens had a duty to be armed, and that this would be a safeguard against tyranny. That, of course, is still true, and we are getting closer to tyranny (already in it to too great an extent). This is a blatant attack on the Second Amendment. Keep in mind that Obama and his ilk have no use for the Constitution, especially the Second Amendment. However, it is the Second Amendment that helps guarantee all the Bill of Rights.

Obama has shown himself in numerous ways to be an enemy of the Constitution he swore to uphold, and therefore, no friend of the American people. His propaganda event of today clearly demonstrates his deep cynicism and his disrespect for all Americans who believe the Second Amendment means what it says.

Dr. Walter Williams, economist and author, discusses the meaning of the Second Amendment with Ginni Thomas of The Daily Caller.

Regarding guns and many other issues, it is truly We the People against the government.

The Patriot Post editor Mark Alexander wrote,
…. I hereby make this public declaration: In keeping with the oath I have taken in the service of my country, I will "support and defend" Liberty as "endowed by our Creator" and enshrined in our Constitution, "against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Accordingly, I will NOT comply with any defensive weapons ban instituted by executive order, legislative action or judicial diktat, which violates the innate human right to defend self and Liberty, as empowered by "the right of the People to keep and bear arms."….
Dean Garrison at Liberty Crier writes,
…. For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:
The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams
I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. ….    [Emphasis his]

Garrison goes on to argue that citizens have a responsibility to defend their liberty against the government’s attacks. Hence the article title, “If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?” His answer is “Yes.” I hope and expect that it won’t come to that, but tyranny must be resisted. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Americas have an individual right to keep and bear arms. Congress not only should not pass any new gun restrictions, but should also act to nullify Obama’s executive orders concerning gun regulations.

More than most people realize, this issue is a defining one for America. Will we retain our freedom or hand it over to the statists? We may know the answer soon.

Further reading:

IBD Editorials, "Gun-Control Zealots Target Law-Abiding Citizens," 01/09/2013.
 IBD Editorials, Bill Wilson, "Left's Desire To Weaken Constitution Endangers American Freedom," 01/09/2013
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments: