SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?
In true teleprompter form, King Barry delivered his royal decree on gun control. It is amazing to me the blind ignorance that so infects Washington DC. The framers of this nation made THEIR position very clear on gun ownership and the DUTY of a free people to keep and bear arms.
It is very tempting to go through the King’s pronouncement line by line, but for the sake of brevity, I will restrain myself. I am going to focus only on the Second Amendment, but we must be aware that everything presented in the 23 “executive actions” are completely unconstitutional.
The federal government does not have the power to fund research, the States, their law enforcement or even operate the ATF. Those are all powers that remain with the States through the 10th Amendment and there has NEVER been a constitutional amendment to change that.
What seems to elude those who are willing to jump on
board the gun control train is the very principle and purpose our framers had
in mind when drafting the Second Amendment. Knowing what the drafters said is essential to knowing why the King’s
declarations are not only unconstitutional but also anti-liberty.
The fundamental principle behind the Second Amendment is
actually pretty simple: it is the duty of the PEOPLE to preserve Liberty and to
do so they MUST keep and bear arms. King
Barry said he supports the Second Amendment for hunters and sportsmen and
personal protection. Problem is, Barry,
the framers said lots of things about our duty to keep and bear arms and NONE
OF THEM had to do with hunting or sport or protections from the mugger.
George Mason: “When the resolution of ENSLAVING America
was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised to disarm the
people that it was the best and most effectual way to ENSLAVE them; but that
they SHOULD NOT DO IT OPENLY, but WEAKEN them and let them SINK GRADUALLY…”
Barack Obama: “Require universal background checks for all
firearm sales. Reinstate and strengthen the ban on assault weapons. Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds. Ban
possession of armor-piercing ammunition by anyone other than the military and
law enforcement. Eliminate restrictions that force the ATF to authorize
importation of certain firearms because of their age.” Translation: Let’s make
them sink gradually.
Noah Webster: “The supreme power in America cannot
enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the WHOLE BODY of the people are
armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops…A military force at the command of Congress,can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and
constitutional; for they will possess the power; and jealousy will
instantly inspire the inclination to resist
the execution of a law which appears to them unjust
and oppressive.”
Barack Obama: “I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right
to bear arms. I respect our strong tradition of gun ownership and the rights of
hunters and sportsmen. There are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun
owners in America who cherish their right to bear arms for hunting or sport or
protection or collection.” Translation: Bearing arms has nothing to do with
me…just the deer in the field or the robber entering your home.
Richard Henry Lee (Federal Farmer #18): Whereas to
PRESERVE LIBERTY, it is essential that the WHOLE BODY of the people ALWAYS
possess arms…The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a
truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice
upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder TRUE REPUBLICANS are for
carefully guarding against it.
Barack Obama: "Ban
possession of armor-piercing ammunition by anyone other than the military and
law enforcement. Reinstate and
strengthen the ban on assault weapons." Translation: Only the government can keep and bear arms unless I DECLARE
otherwise.
In summary, the writers of the Second Amendment intended
all the people to always bear arms to:
1. Keep
from becoming slaves to a central government;
2. To
keep the central government from enforcing unjust, unconstitutional, and
oppressive laws;
3. To
preserve Liberty and protect our Constitutional republic from men who operate
to remove Liberty.
Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment is for:
1. Hunting,
sport, protection, and collection;
2. Law
enforcement officers;
3. The
military in war (not when they come home);
4. Federal
government agents unless otherwise declared by the federal government.
You CANNOT preserve Liberty by compromising the Second
Amendment. The Second Amendment reads
“the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” That literally means the government is
completely forbidden to violate or transgress the peoples’ right to bear
arms. Yet the King wants us to believe
that it is a matter of “common sense” to allow the central government to decide
who and on what terms the people can bear arms. Do you see how that is contrary to the very core of the Second
Amendment?
The King says he is going to “direct the U.S. attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun and make recommendations to ensure dangerous people aren't slipping through the cracks.”
I thought we were trying to make sure only criminals didn’t own guns. Now the government wants a new classification, “dangerous people”. I’m sure the King and his court will be ready and willing to pronounce the definition of “dangerous”. Who are the “dangerous” people today? Who will they be tomorrow? But then where does the compromise end? Because when you are completely forbidden to do something and then you get permission to do it just a little bit, you are no longer COMPLETELY forbidden, you are CONDITIONALLY forbidden. Conditions, as well as definitions, in the eyes of the government, are always mutable.
The King says he is going to “direct the U.S. attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun and make recommendations to ensure dangerous people aren't slipping through the cracks.”
I thought we were trying to make sure only criminals didn’t own guns. Now the government wants a new classification, “dangerous people”. I’m sure the King and his court will be ready and willing to pronounce the definition of “dangerous”. Who are the “dangerous” people today? Who will they be tomorrow? But then where does the compromise end? Because when you are completely forbidden to do something and then you get permission to do it just a little bit, you are no longer COMPLETELY forbidden, you are CONDITIONALLY forbidden. Conditions, as well as definitions, in the eyes of the government, are always mutable.
If you have heard or read the King’s diktat, he has
warned you that the argument of Liberty would be presented; how very Alinsky of
him. His denunciations of the founders’
intent and the principles that make this nation great are merely tactic and
have no credibility. He speaks from lies
and emotional propaganda…the founders taught from historical experience and
timeless principles. But I am just the
messenger, so you must make your own decisions. As for me and my family, we stand with G. Mason, N. Webster, R.H. Lee
and the men who sacrificed for Liberty. You may, however, choose to stand with those who only stand on avarice,
ambition, and constitutional destruction. I leave you one last testimony from
each side, a closing argument if you please:
Barack Obama: "If parents and teachers, police officers,
and pastors, if hunters and sportsman, if responsible gun owners, if Americans
of every background stand up and say, enough. We’ve suffered too much pain, and
care too much about our children to allow this to continue, then change will --
change will come."
Daniel Webster: "Is
the Constitution worth preserving? Guard it as you would the seat of your life;
guard it not only against the open blows of violence, but also against that
spirit of change.
