By David Codrea
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms,” Barack Obama’s White House asserts on its website page explaining the Bill of Rights. If you believe that, then you agree with the totalitarian lobby worldview that “the government giveth, the government taketh away” is the way things ought to be.
It’s the difference between our Bill of Rights and the UN’s so-called “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” which shows its all-controlling hand in Article 29:
- Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
- In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
- These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Basically, they’re saying you’ll take what they give you and like it. And no, of course you can’t have guns, that is, unless you work for them, and use them only to enforce their orders.
The White House website’s Second Amendment lie was called to my attention in a Facebook response to yesterday’s AmmoLand article on the administration intimidating landlords to either accept felons or face the wealth-transferring wrath of Obama’s “social justice” locusts. I’ve talked before (plenty of times) about the antis pulling the “given right” con, but don’t recall pointing out the White House is still doing it.
You’d think someone who brags about teaching Constitutional law would know that unalienable rights are not revocable privileges bestowed by government, but are, per the Founders, endowed by our Creator (or, to keep things in a secular context, inherent to the condition of being human). You’d think someone who represents himself as operating within the framework of Constitutional law would know that the Supreme Court reiterated in Heller:
As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.
You’d think that and you’d be right. This isn’t subject to interpretation and spin, which means the evil b******s are demonstrable liars, defrauding Americans out of their rights and usurping powers they have no claim to. Plainly, because there’s no other way to put this and remain faithful to the truth, that makes them tyrants and domestic enemies, and if you think about it, presumptuous blasphemers.
And that makes it extremely problematic for those in law enforcement who can see this for themselves, and who then can ask themselves if “just following orders” is what they’d rather place their trust in over the oath they all swore before putting on a badge.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.
In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
Here you go people, an instruction book on what happened and what to do. Pass this on to everyone you know who is of similar mind. Our future depends on it. The book ‘Unintended Consequences’ is a controversial novel that mixes real events with fiction. These events portray a continuing oppression of the American gun culture that, the author believes, has occurred since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which made it a federal offense to possess a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or silencer without first paying a $200 fee to the United States Treasury.… Read more »
So is Obama declaring Himself or the UN GOD? All Natural Rights were endowed by God. Colonial law was based on the Magna Carta which was based on the Laws of Nature and God’s Law. So it was understood that ALL law was based on God’s Law when the Constitution was written. You will find God mentioned in many of the documents of the founders discussing the content of the Constitution and in the State Constitutions. The Founders were Not atheists nor anti-religious and had no intention of a separation of Church and State. Their only restriction in the first… Read more »
When are we going to do some thing with these idiot like empeach or vote them out. When they go into office part of the oath they take is to up hold the constitution, the whole constitution not just part of it. I am tire of these idiots thinking they can just up hold only what they want to up hold. When they are elected they are supposed work for us the people not for them selves. So people lets get with it let get these idiots out of office and let get ones in that will up hold the… Read more »
I guess Barrackolli doesn’t understand the words “Shall not be infringed”. That statement all on it’s own means “You can’t take it away”. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! I suggest you take a remedial English language class Mr. Faux POTUS.
What an intelligent series of comments in response to this article! Deepest respects to all! I find myself wondering what, if anything, I can add to this discussion. I’ll just say this, You’re all correct in everything you’ve said, about the Constitution, and the Bill or rights. What you’re not taking into consideration, is the single great flaw in our Founders design for checks, and balances, in a System Of Government by the Rule of Law, rather than by Men. The great failure in the whole concept is that it requires those in control of at least one of the… Read more »
We can argue all day where our rights emanate from…..bottom line is this: The Bill of Rights is a restriction AGAINST government…PERIOD! Remember, it says, “…..shall not be infringed.” for a reason.
Obummer hisself has stated how much he is displeased that The Constitution only says what the gubmint can’t do to the citizens, not what it can do for them. Aw, poor little petulant man-child.