RSS feed
AmmoLand Gun News
Washington DC - -(Ammoland.com)- President Obama is pro-gun control to his core, and his past is full of anti-gun legislation and anti-gun rhetoric that provides a clear indication of where the Second Amendment is headed in the next four years if we’re silly enough to give him a second term.
For example, as a state senator in Illinois, Obama supported one-gun-a-month purchase limits; he supported legislation that banned the use of handguns for self-defense (even in one’s own home); he supported an Illinois bill that would have not only banned but also confiscated ”assault weapons” had it passed; and he supported a total ban on handguns.
As a Senator in DC, Obama opposed every pro-gun Supreme Court nominee he had the chance to vote against. He supported the Assault Weapons Ban and even joined Senator Ted Kennedy in attempting to pass huge increases on ammunition taxes in order to discourage gun ownership through cost inflation.
During his candidacy for the presidency in 2008, Obama filled out a candidate questionnaire in which he indicated his support for a national handgun ban. He also supported micro-stamping legislation while on the campaign trail and came out in support of DC’s handgun ban.
Candidate Obama knew he had to conceal his anti-gun tendencies; thus, he not only voiced support for the DC gun ban but also for the Supreme Court decision that overturned it (Heller, 2008). He would do the same thing as president in 2010 when Chicago’s gun ban was before the Supreme Court (McDonald, 2010).
As president, Obama has filled important posts with notorious anti-gunners. For example, Attorney General Eric Holder shares Obama’s opposition to gun rights. Under Holder’s watch, we have seen the Fast and Furious debacle – an attempt to justify new gun regulations – come to pass with a body count in the hundreds. And there are new gun control requirements on long-gun sales in Arizona, Texas, California, and New Mexico.
And justices nominated by Obama have already begun chipping away at the Second Amendment and concealed-carry laws by ruling that there’s no Supreme Court-recognized, Constitutionally-explicit right for Americans to carry guns outside their homes.
And we can’t forget the fact that Obama recently expanded the ATF’s ability to seize guns without going through all the hassles of “due process.” Nor we can overlook the fact that we’re still waiting to see exactly what he meant via his 2011 promise to push for gun control “under the radar.”
When Sen. Obama was running for the presidency in 2008, the National Rifle Association warned that he would be the most anti-gun president in history. Larry Pratt, executive director at Gun Owners of America, sounded the same alarm. We didn’t listen then. It is imperative that we listen now.
AWR Hawkins
About:
AWR Hawkins writes for all the BIG sites, for Pajamas Media, for RedCounty.com, for Townhall.com and now AmmoLand Shooting Sports News.
His southern drawl is frequently heard discussing his take on current events on radio shows like America’s Morning News, the G. Gordon Liddy Show, the Ken Pittman Show, and the NRA’s Cam & Company, among others. He was a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal (summer 2010), and he holds a PhD in military history from Texas Tech University.
If you have questions or comments, email him at awr@awrhawkins.com. You can find him on facebook at www.facebook.com/awr.hawkins.
But you would have voters toe the party line and vote for Romney instead, who has just as abysmal a record on Second Amendment rights? Why is one corrupt politician that wants to take away our guns better than another corrupt politician that wants to take away our guns? That’s like deciding whether you die of malaria or syphilis; the means doesn’t really matter as much as the result.
Yet, it’s this kind of head in the sand “lesser of two evils” mentality that has crippled this country. How about neither of the damned evils, and quit allowing the evils to run the country? Instead of using your popular influence to propagate this corrupt system and convince people that this is the only viable option, you should instead focus on a more worthwhile effort to actually fix the problem.
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” -Edmund Burke
Agreed Romeny does not have a perfect record of voting for Gun Rights but he has been throughly vetted by the NRA and he shows us good faith by picking one of the most pro gun Congressmen going, in Paul Ryan. Obama and the democrats have come out swing for more gun control and Eric Holder has gotten away with a direct attack on the second amendment with Fast and Furious, time for a change, I’ll take my chances with a new guy in Romney rather than a sure thing in Obama.
And I ask again, why is one corrupt politician better than another? Both have proven that the laws they will enact, or enforce, are suited to one purpose only: theirs. Neither candidate cares a bit about your rights or mine. They are loyal to money and power. Period.
Politicians of any ilk have exactly zero credibility, and to speak of good faith in regards to a politician is naive at best, and downright foolish in my personal opinion.
“Let’s all vote for Romney because he’s so much better than Obama!”
NO HE IS NOT. HE IS YET ANOTHER CORRUPT POLITICIAN, AND IS NOT ANY BETTER THAN OBAMA OR ANY OF THE OTHER CRIMINALS IN WASHINGTON.
Get rid of all of them.
When Obama was an Illinois State Senator he supported SB1195 which was about as close to a total semi-auto ban has you could get.
When Romney was governor he said in 2004 that people don’t need assault weapons!
Personally Obama is bad news but Romney isn’t much better if there is an election to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of 2 evils I guess this is it.
Here’s my take, I want to repeal the gun control laws on the books.
In 1994 we were promised by the GOP that if we put them in power the Brady Bill would be repealed; it never happened.
When are we going to start RESTORING OUR GUN RIGHTS IN THIS NATION! !
Bottom line, voting for the lesser of two evils is exactly why this country is in the shape that it is. Who cares which politician takes away our rights? They are still gone. See my earlier analogy.
The time has come to remove the entire damned bunch from power. Trying to affect change while hamstrung by our current corrupt system is a fool’s errand. The entire system has become a cancer, malignant and growing exponentially. It will not get any better until the people of this country, originally designed to be the ruling body, step up and stand up for our rights. We keep listening to the politicians lie to us, and more astonishingly, we keep believing them.
This is no different than an abused spouse listening one more time to, “I’m sorry I hurt you. It won’t happen again. This time will be different, I swear.” Abusers don’t stop voluntarily. The abused either leave them (or in a lot of cases the abused die at their hands) or the abused fight back.
Sitting back, listening to the lies that we have all heard before, and voting for the lesser of two evils guarantees one thing; evil will win. How can I say this? Because the contest is currently evil versus evil, the only possible victor will be evil. Good isn’t even in the fight, and until it is, we will continue the downward spiral until we’re either gone or dead.
Joel, Your antics will do nothing but get Obama elected. There IS a difference between Obama and Romney. We may not agree with all of Romney’s views, but you will not agree with ANY of Obama’s. Romney is a good person. Obama is a good Marxist.
Tex, with all due respect, that’s where you’re wrong. Romney is not a good person. He has spent his professional career buying viable companies, systematically stripping all assets, laying off the workers, shutting the companies down, and sending the money off-shore. Check out his record on that front with Bain Capital.
As for my “antics” getting anyone elected, you give me far too much credit sir. I am but one man. What I am attempting to do is point out the basic flaw in this line of thinking. Neither candidate will fix anything. They are both corrupt. Neither supports our Constitution. I don’t know about you, because I don’t know you, but I swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Our own governing body has become that very enemy. Our constitutionally “guaranteed” rights are being systematically destroyed at an alarming rate, and NO politician has lifted a finger to stop it.
Don’t take my word for this. Please, go do your own research and form your own opinions. I respectfully ask that you base them in fact, however. This country is falling apart around us, and until the people of this country stand up to this blatant oppression, it will continue.
If you wish to keep burying your head in the sand, that is your God-given right. At least you’ll be in the right position when the government comes calling.
Joel, I don’t think Romney is just as corrupt and anti gun as Obama by a LONG stretch. But here’s what you’re forgetting: Obama would be a LAME DUCK president who then could put out EO’s with impunity and pretty much do anything he wants. It’s apparent that Congress won’t try to stop him.
NRA can’t stop him. The ATF is a rogue agency.
I’m even concerned that if Romney is electd, the period between Nov 6 and Jan 20 2013 gives Obama 2 1/2 months to be that LAME DUCK. A lot can happen in 2.5 months. And Congress may not even be in session. So, go ahead and get Obama for another term. You are putting ALL THE REST OF US AT RISK FOR YOUR INCONSIDERATE ATTITUDE.
Ivan, that is your opinion, and as I told Tex, you have every right to that opinion, no matter how wrong headed I think it is. My opinion of your opinion is ultimately completely irrelevant, so let’s move on to the meat and potatoes here.
For starters, thank you for coming back with a logically presented argument. Your points are thought out, and, to an extent, valid. Would Obama be a lame duck president? Absolutely. You get no argument from me on that point.
As for the ATF being a rogue agency, again, you are correct. On this one, however, I would see your bid, and raise it in the sense that the ATF is not the only rogue agency in operation by any stretch of the imagination. The BATFE is without a doubt out of control. They operate with virtual impunity, even to the supposed oversight authorities. This is a precedent that has been set, however, by a multitude of the “alphabet agencies” over the last 11 years in particular, and in all honesty, going back a good 80 years plus. I offer as evidence the egregious offenses against American citizens by the TSA, DHS, NSA, and others. These three that I mention, in addition to the ATF, have been responsible for more constitutional violations and usurpations over the last eleven years than I can name off the top of my head.
What is the common thread here? These are all federal agencies, supposedly instituted and overseen by our elected officials. Yet, at virtually every turn, barring extraordinary effort to motivate the populace into opposition, our officials not only make no effort to stop the abuse of power, but encourage their excesses.
Let’s start with first amendment violations, see cases of recording of police officers for evidence. Second amendment, do I really even have to go into that here? I think we are of the same mindset there. Third amendment, we haven’t seen much, if any of, which is fine by me. Fourth amendment, this one is fun. See multiple cases of warrantless searches, and seizure, if not outright forfeiture of property. Several fairly high profile cases have cropped up this year alone. Fifth amendment, this dovetails nicely into several of the Fourth amendment violations. While the protection against self-incrimination is widely known, many forget that this is the amendment that also prohibits the deprivation of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” In many of the high profile fourth amendment offenses, citizens were deprived of liberty and property without due process. See the incidents of Raub, Sarti, and others. Moving on to the sixth amendment. This amendment guarantees a defendant the right to be informed of charges against them, as well as to be confronted by the witnesses against them as well. See again, Raub, Sarti, and others. These individuals were deprived of their liberty and property, with no notice of charges, no notification as to the nature of the witnesses against them, and property was seized with no compensation as a result of these actions. The seventh amendment, like the third, thankfully, has not seen many, if any major offenses. The eighth amendment is, in my personal opinion, open to a bit more interpretation. Excessive bail is a fairly vague concept, and generally speaking, courts rely on prior cases as legal precedent for their actions in addition to the ever increasing mandatory sentencing guidelines. I will move on from this point, as by its very nature, it lends itself to fruitless debate. The ninth and tenth amendments, like the third and seventh, have seen less blatant violations. That being said, the usurpation of power at the federal level is specifically forbidden in the tenth amendment, while the ninth, which states basically, that the rights in the constitution, as enumerated “shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In my opinion, this has been violated by a massive number of Supreme Court Justices, both liberal and conservative. Our highest court has made myriad decisions specifically limiting constitutional rights because, in their legal opinion, that is what was intended. This flies in the face of the text of the ninth amendment, specifically the four word phrase “shall not be construed.” This states explicitly, paraphrased in layman’s terms, that our Constitutional rights as listed will not be understood to limit any other rights.
Now, if you’re still with me (this is not a slight, but a reference to that section getting a bit long-winded) I will move into a bit more direct answer to your final paragraph. I went as far in depth as I did for the purpose of illustrating just how widespread and systemic this corruption has become. Electing another figurehead, created by this very corrupt system, placing him at the head of that corrupt system, and expecting anything meaningful to change, is naive.
Please understand, I do not want Obama as a president any more than you do. However, where we differ, is that I also do not want Romney as a president. We are allowing this systemic corruption to continue, and every vote in favor of a corrupt politician, ANY corrupt politician, sends a clear message to those running that system that we the people are still behind what they are doing, and by extension approve of their behavior.
I, sir, do not approve of their behavior. I find it absolutely reprehensible, and I will no longer sit idly by, biting my tongue, voting for the lesser of two evils, and doing my part to maintain the corruption. It has to stop. The only way it will stop is with removal of ALL of the corrupt politicians.
I am not an Obama supporter. I am not a Romney supporter. I am no longer a supporter of any politician within our corrupt system. They all need to be fired by their employer: the American people.
As for your final sentence, again, you give me far too much credit. I am one man. No more, but no less either. I have earned the right to my political opinion, even though it was guaranteed long before my birth, by those brave patriots that decided that enough was enough and stood up for themselves, and those too weak to stand.
I stand now because I will no longer participate and allow this on my watch. If I stand alone, so be it. I know where I stand, sir. I stand behind 235 years of men like me that state clearly that enough is enough. If you want to continue to hurt those I love, you will go through me to do so. I stand for those too weak to stand for themselves as well, in hopes that they take strength from mine.
Stand with me, or do not, as is your God-given right to do. History and the creator shall judge us all.