DOUGLAS V. GIBBS<---------->RADIO<---------->BOOKS<---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <----------> DONATE

Friday, January 08, 2016

Obama's Gun Control

By Douglas V. Gibbs

At the end of this article are a number of links to pages about what Obama is trying to do regarding gun control.  He stood in front of the camera and a crowd of cheering sociopaths with tears in his eyes, with Biden behind him with an exaggerated frown going on, and told America that (as he is letting felons out of prison, and welcoming Islamic terrorists into the country by importing them from Syria disguised as poor migrants) he wants to do more to hinder your ability to defend yourself with a firearm.  I remember during Obama's first term as President, even before the Fast and Furious scandal began to break, I wrote that Obama wants to take our guns.  A liberal left progressive commenter on my Political Pistachio website Texas wrote me with a long explanation about how I was full of it, and that Obama had never said anything about gun control and it wasn't in the President's plans.  I responded that Obama is a statist, a liberal, a Democrat.  That is what they do.  Down the road, I told him, Obama will make a huge effort to go after our guns.  He's waiting for the right moment, the right excuse, the right "shooting in a public place" to blame.  The commenter told me I was nuts, I was bat-poop (but he used a different four letter word) crazy, and us right-wingers are all alike with our paranoia that the big bad government wants to come and take our guns.

Here we are.  President Obama is doing all he can to further restrict gun ownership, and he's telling Congress (and the people) that he'll do it himself without any consent from Congress, or the governed, through Executive Actions.  This is the same guy that told us in 2008 that the problem with George W. Bush was that the man did things without congressional approval, and Obama said he planned to change that as the new President.  Now, there are all kinds of people angry at what Obama wants to do, and they are writing articles and airing radio and television programs about the content of the actions against guns Obama is taking, screaming and yelling, "He can't do that!"

He can, and he is.  Not legally - but President Obama is going after gun ownership in America, whether Congress, or you, likes it or not.

The list of links at the end of this article is to show you what some of these people are saying, and what Obama said during his teary-eyed speech.  The pundits are out in force, the debate is raging, and to be honest, none of that matters.  The content of Obama's speeches regarding gun control that is sparking debate does not matter.  All that matters is one thing.  Any actions regarding guns that he, or Congress, takes is unconstitional, and therefore is illegal.  All federal background checks, all federal restrictions, all federal rules, are unconstitutional.  I am not saying I want anyone to buy a gun at any time.  As per the Tenth Amendment, those responsibilities fall upon the States.  However, the phrase in the Second Amendment that reads, "shall not be infringed" was intended to be a message to the federal government that said, "Do Not Touch!"  All federal gun laws, actions, or even whispers in a back room while secret deals are being made, are unconstitutional. . . period.

In fact, the Second Amendment exists primarily because of the things that President Obama is trying to do right now.  The Second Amendment was written to tell the federal government "hands off our gun rights, or we will shoot you."

Thomas Jefferson so distrusted the new federal government that he suggested it may be possible that the United States would need to endure a bloody revolution every twenty years to get the central government to return to the limitations of authorities expressly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. Jefferson wrote: "The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[1]The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787[2]
The right to keep and bear arms is a God-given right that cannot be taken away, nor impeded, by government.  The right belongs to us specifically for the reason to keep government honest.  In history, every dictator, every totalitarian state, confiscated weapons as one of its first actions of tyranny.  An unarmed populace cannot fight back.  An unarmed citizenry is easier to pacify.

The gun culture in America finds its roots in the English Colonies, long before the writing of the United States Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence.  The gun was considered to be a necessary part of life.  It was a person's lifeline.  Without one's firearm, one died.  The firearm killed the next meal, and sent away any robber who would dare try to take that meal without killing his own.  Then, as the British became more and more tyrannical, the gun also became a tool of liberty, a right used to defend freedom, and forge a new nation.

The "Shot Heard 'Round The World" was fired at Lexington Green, as the British marched to Concord, Massachusetts.  The reason for the journey of Red Coats across the Massachusetts landscape was to seize the armory in Concord, to capture the largest colonial stash of ammunition and firearms.  In other words, the final straw that led the Americans to revolution was when the British came to take their guns.

Ancient Germanic tribes believed that the right to bear arms was more than a right.  Keeping and bearing arms was seen as being a duty of free men. The ceremony for giving freedom to a slave required that the former slave was presented with the armament of a free man. He then acquired the duty to serve in a citizen army - something that came to be called a "militia" in the English Colonies. These customs were brought into England by the Saxons, and were then later handed down to the English Colonists.  Our right to keep and bear arms is not some recent conjuring of rightwing extremists, but a necessary God-given right understood by early Americans (and prior) that has been passed down throughout the ages.

The modernization of civilization does not make the likelihood of tyranny any less possible.  Liberty does not go out of style, and the need to defend it is as necessary today, as it was when the Framers of the Constitution debated over the Law of the Land, or when they later debated over the creation and ratification of the Bill of Rights.  And that is what Obama's moves are.  They are nothing more than the signs of tyranny.

Obama cried crocodile tears when he told us he wants to bypass Congress and unconstitutionally put into place gun control executive orders.  Liberal left viewers probably melted, proclaiming "he is such a sensitive president that feels for us."

The average constitutionalist, and folks who are politically right of the Democrat Party, saw the tears as weakness.  He's a wuss.  A yellow-bellied, panty-waisted, chicken-hearted, namby-pamby wimp.  Suck it up, be a man, and understand that sometimes Americans have to defend themselves.  Guns are necessary.  In the world, whenever guns have been confiscated, home invasions increase, violent crime increases, and suicidal people still find a way to kill themselves.  The criminal element does not do what they do because they have guns.  They do what they do because they are criminals.  Killers don't kill because they have guns.  They kill because they are killers.  Terrorists don't terrorize because they have bombs and guns, they terrorize because they are terrorists.  All gun control does is convince those people that there are less targets out there that might fight back because the chance for a lethal response has been drastically reduced.

Tyranny, once the guns are off the streets and out of the hands of the citizenry, then has nothing to worry about.  A police state is no problem when nobody can do anything about it.  Bondage and oppression is easy when nobody can shoot back.  Big government control over people is a walk in the park when the citizens can only bow their heads, and wait obediently for whatever the government has coming for them.

The liberal left believes that coercion is the way to force you into their little box, and disarming you is an easier way to make you comply.

Remember, every once in a while, they actually tell you this. . .

California Governor Jerry Brown, December, 2015, said in an interview, "...you used the phrase 'policy, good policy.' But I want to unpack that term a little bit. Inside the policy, you need a law, you need a rule, you need the coercive power of government to say 'do this.' ... politicians need to be willing to use the blunt force of government intervention to tackle climate change. ... Never underestimate the coercive power of a central state in the service of good and wisdom ... You can be sure California is going to keep innovating, keep regulating, and, shall I say, keep taxing.” (NewBusters)

And let's not forget this blast from the past: “State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies; and this lie slips from its mouth: 'I, the state, am the people.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche

3 comments:

Storm'n Norm'n said...

Ref:"Obama cried crocodile tears...
Regarding the cry baby in the White House, I offer my opinion:

In his book, “Why Only Humans Weep, Unraveling the mysteries of tears” (published 2013 Tilburg University, The Netherlands) Ad Vingerhoets (Yes, that’s his first name, ‘Ad’) exhibits his academic verbiage in various ways but not so as to disturb the reader. Although his approach appears to be from a purely scientific inquiry to answer the ‘Why’ question, there’s a line or two in there that caught my eye:
“Tears may have many different causes, ranging from irritation of the eye by onion fumes to sympathy for the situation of another, infant reflexes, and in emotional blackmail. However, the present model only concerns adult emotional crying, not reflex weeping, infant crying, or pathological weeping due to brain disorders, nor is the focus of feigned, forced, or strategic tears that are shed to manipulate others during rituals.”
Now much is been said…and still ongoing, about Obama’s recent shedding on national television in front of cameras obviously set-up for the close-up for what was to come (it was almost as if the cameraman new in advance the Obama will shed a tear…but we don’t know that for sure). But for those of us who have studied Obama’s Alinskyite tactics since he has invaded the national stage, we could very easily assign ‘Emotional Blackmail’ and/or ‘Strategic tears that are shed to manipulate others…’ and in my humble opinion they were feigned and forced! ~ Norman E. Hooben

Storm'n Norm'n said...

Ref:"The Second Amendment was written to tell the federal government "hands off our gun rights, or we will shoot you."
"
See image here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=549918675189259&set=a.106784496169348.9271.100005133938389&type=3&theater

and here:https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=549782678536192&set=a.106784496169348.9271.100005133938389&type=3&theater


and here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=549585028555957&set=a.106784496169348.9271.100005133938389&type=3&theater

Storm'n Norm'n said...

See also: American Freedom... Professor Rotberg Wants To End It Where It All Began @ http://normanhooben.blogspot.com/2016/01/american-freedom-professor-rotberg.html