Disarming the Citizens

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?" - Patrick Henry

By Douglas V. Gibbs

It is no secret that the liberal left is not very fond of the citizens being armed. Gun control is a progressive policy, though for the time being the strategy has remained at a simple level of registration requirements, and banning higher powered firearms. As an owner of eight long rifles, and four handguns, I am not very fond of political ideologies that aim to take those weapons away from me.

The Founding Fathers recognized that big government tyrannies always have the aim of disarming the citizens. An unarmed population is easier to control. The Second Amendment applies to the Federal Government so that the central government cannot take away the right of the citizens to protect themselves against a tyrannical government.

When on this website it has been mentioned that President Obama, and his liberal democrat cronies, have as a part of their strategy to increase the level of gun control in the United States, the liberal commenter response was, "Name just once when Obama has taken action to ban guns."

For conservatives, the "Gunwalker", or "Fast and Furious," Scandal has been evidence enough that the liberal democrats desire to increase gun control in America. The operation by the democrats in Washington had the ATF allowing members of the Mexican drug cartels to purchase American guns at gun shows in the hopes of tracing these weapons back to the criminals behind the violence South of the Border, as well as along the border we have with Mexico. This is a common technique with local law enforcement, so the thought was that it would work just fine at this much larger level, as well. The knowledge of the operation was denied by those at the highest levels when it was discovered, and it was believed that this was simply an operation carried out by the ATF as a normal part of doing business.

Then evidence began to emerge that Holder and Obama had prior knowledge of the "Fast and Furious" operation, and may have even ordered it - yet, they denied prior knowledge. The implication was that these people originally lied about their knowledge of the operation. Why would they do that? Did they believe there was something wrong with the operation, and that exposure would not exactly have them looking good to the voters?

As an investigation began digging into the scandal, it became obvious that not only did the higher ranking democrats know about this operation, but their involvement was more dubious than originally thought. They did not "allow" the drug cartels to buy the firearms, but rather they bought the firearms with taxpayer monies and then delivered the weapons to the Mexican drug cartels.

Why would they do that? Their argument was that they launched this operation in order to trace the guns back to the drug cartels, but if they delivered the guns to the leaders of the cartels, apparently there was no need to trace the weapons. Therefore, there may very well be a different reason for the operation.

Could it be that the hope by the democrats was to demonize the American firearm industry, and to be able to say that lax registration laws allowed those guns to wind up in the hands of the Mexican cartels and later kill hundreds of Americans?

We saw the democrat party members jump all over gun owners, calling them potential domestic terrorists, after the shooting of Representative Giffords in Tuscon, Arizona. The blame was on gun owners, Sarah Palin's website, the Tea Party, and anyone else that poses as opposition to the democrats - rather than placing the blame on a wacko young man and his warped desire to be a gunman.

President Obama, early on, voiced his desire to go after the gun laws in America, and push for stricter controls. He, and his democrats, may have not taken the additional step of using legislation to further control gun ownership, but the desire is there, and has been revealed by the words of the liberals.

One might speculate that the only reason they have not taken legislative action to compliment their anti-gun rhetoric is because they know it could be detrimental to their election chances in the future. Liberal democrats do not do insidious things like impose gun control out in the open for everyone to see. They use creeping incrementalism to slowly introduce their agenda, bit by bit, piece by piece, speeding the process up only when they can demonize gun ownership through what they perceive to be a crisis.

Americans being killed by American guns in the hands of the Mexican cartels is just the crisis they were hoping to create.

But it backfired on them.

A matter of a couple months after the Giffords shooting we were still hearing from the liberal left how much of a tragedy it was that the shooter was able to walk into a gun store and purchase a firearm. Despite all of the rules and regulations and restrictions by the liberal left, the criminal element still found a way to get his hands on a gun. And if he didn't buy it, a man like Jared Lee Loughner would have found another way to get his hands on a firearm.

President Barack Obama wrote, under the guise of making America a safer and stronger place, that we must seek gun reforms. He was careful to say the things everyone wants to hear, placating both sides, but in the end, as small of a step it may have been, his is a suggestion that we move closer to greater control, and ultimately, confiscation.

On April 16, 2008, during the 2008 democrat primary debate in Philadelphia, Obama made his intentions loud and clear, while responding to a question in regards to the right to keep and bear arms.

First, he was asked about the Washington DC law that prohibited handgun ownership. Obama responded, "As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it. . . I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don’t have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets."

Okay, seems fair enough. The masterful use of language revealed very little, sending nuggets in both directions. Except, in most of the country registration is not required. In states where registration is required, they do not expect firearms received through inheritance to be registered. Yet, Obama suggests that all firearms in all parts of the country need to be registered. Is Obama suggesting that through the federal government registration will mandatory everywhere just as tyrants have throughout history. . . right before they begin a campaign of confiscation?

The way the mainstream media took it, Obama has full intention of the federal government "constraining the exercise of that right."

The fact is, the Obama team knows that gun control is an unpopular position to take, so on the surface they take an ambiguous position regarding the issue. They won't go into detail of their real plans because they know doing so could backfire and result in them suffering an electoral loss much like the one the Tea Party handed them in November of 2010.

Right now the democrats have only revealed that they are interested in imposing registration standards. In line with this the liberals believe the government should have all ownership information through federal registration.

Never mind the fact that the 2nd Amendment indicates the federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The bits and pieces of things said that has revealed the Obama administration's true agenda in regards to gun control has opened the eyes of the National Rifle Association. Chris Cox, the NRA's top political official has said regarding Obama's position on gun control, “It shows what we’ve been saying all along — this guy doesn’t view the Second Amendment as a fundamental constitutional right.”

How long before they begin to legislate how and when you can squeeze the trigger?

California has no provision in its State Constitution protecting gun rights, and the liberals have been very tough on gun owners in this state. The result? California ranks among the highest when it comes to violent gun crimes.

Like all good liberals, Obama's anti-gun strategies happen under the radar. He enacted a ban on the importation of semiautomatic guns because, “The U.S. insisted that imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents.” He has proposed much more extensive reporting requirements on sales of long guns. Obama’s nomination of anti-gun Andrew Traver to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives threatens imposing many new regulations. Still further, the Obama administration has actively pushed for the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty and continues to make inaccurate statements about the source of Mexico’s crime guns.

President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, and both of those women have proven themselves to be adamantly against any protection for individual ownership of guns. The stark reality is if Justices Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, or Kennedy were to die or retire, prior precedents protecting gun rights would be threatened.

Yet, as usual, the liberal commenters and media will claim that gun rights are not being touched, there is no danger, and the democrats in Washington have no interest to take away your guns. . . and never mind the man behind the curtain.

The media has even gone so far as to say that Obama's presidency has surprisingly been scandal free. . .

Really?

Then what do they call the Fast and Furious guns for the Mexican Cartels scandal? Or how about his continuous scandal regarding green corporations like Solyndra and Beacon Power?

Obama is like an onion. The more you peal back layers, the stronger the stink gets.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

President Obama: We must seek agreement on gun reforms - Arizona Daily Star

And When They Came For The Gun Owners - United Liberty

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions - UCLA Law School

VIOLENT CRIMES 1 PER 100,000 POPULATION -- 2006 - U.S. Census Bureau

Crime Statistics > Gun violence > % Gun (most recent) by state - StateMaster

What's Really Behind Obama's New Push for Gun Control? - Fox News

ATF gunwalker update: Eric Holder to testify on Fast and Furious - CBS News

Napolitano Grilled Over ‘Fast and Furious,’ Likens Hearing to Cross Examination - Fox News

Obama Miracle is White House Free of Scandal: Jonathan Alter - Bloomberg

House panel may subpoena White House documents - Breibart

DOJ official knew of ATF "gunwalking" in April 2010 - CBS