Why Americans Have The Right To Keep & Bear Arms

The least discerning person I know instantly knew what happened in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 when four Americans were murdered in our diplomatic facility there & yet it will take the federal government months on end to pretend to study the matter & issue a report.  BO & Hillary certainly had no intention of coming clean before the election & Hillary still didn't today @ her hearing.

 

Contrast the in-depth study politically required regarding the Benghazi murders with Biden's lickety-split written report regarding stricter gun controls that was prompted by the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings last month in which twenty-six people were slain.   Luckily for people who are in favor of stricter gun control measures Biden was able to hold meetings during a very few days with many different groups & issue a long list of recommendations quickly.  Biden's breathtaking timeliness was so obvious that anyone could see that his report had been on the shelf waiting to be dusted off & presented as cover so that BO could pursue his large anti-American goal of disarming the citizenry.  In brief, BO ultimately wants firearms our of the public's hands for the opposite reason the Founders wanted firearms in the public's hands. 

 

We should tie any new gun control legislation with the reasoning, if any, of how it will prevent another mass slaying – & of course legislation can not. To put it in terms a dieter can understand – the fork does not eat the cheesecake.

 

Now that BO's pitch @ a White House event last week has been made for greater gun controls much of the political battle will turn to whether or not any new gun control measures are in violation of the Second Amendment – "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

Now the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunters, hunters' rights, or even protecting yourself in your home against an intruder like a burglar - although a gun will prove handy in such an event.  It was written into the Bill of Rights so that the citizenry would have a constitutional means of protection against an oppressive government – period.  The sooner TV pundits start to explain it this way the better. 

 

Many gun restriction discussions I have seen on TV focus on self-protection from criminals.  These discussions will only lead to people conceding to what seems reasonable in this regard while missing the bigger issue of protection from the government.  The Founders did not intend for citizens with cap pistols to fend off soldiers with military weapons.

 

Based on the Founders' colonial experience they knew that central governments are quite capable & even can be inclined to oppress people.  European history clearly revealed this danger to our Founders.  Over the years the trusting citizenry gradually lost their fear of the government oppressing them politically but in fact today this danger is more likely than @ any time in decades.  BO's call for limits on the size of ammunition magazines (ten rounds) & Cuomo's NY state law (seven rounds) are direct forms of citizen disarmament that will leave the people virtually defenseless against the government foe the Founders wanted protection from when they wrote the Second Amendment.

 

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, realized that the American people were already armed (note the past tense – "keep & bear arms") & that it would be almost impossible for the central government to raise enough force to subdue them – especially as long as the citizenry was armed & the central government did not know how many or where the arms were, or how well trained or practiced the citizenry (i.e., regulars in military terms) was in the use of firearms.

 

In negotiating the terms in the Second Amendment the Federalists & the Anti-Federalists agreed that the central government does not have any authority to disarm the citizenry – they were interested in the ability of the people to protect the liberty they had secured from Great Britain. 

 

The Founders were as much for the people keeping & bearing arms as they were for them to have free speech & the free exercise of religion.  In fact the Founders showed their priorities by putting both freedom of speech & religion first & the right to keep & bear arms next in the Bill of Rights as a way to signal the power of the people is superior to any government.  And that is what BO is trying to reverse with this latest gun control ploy.

 

---Below are related excerpts from the Neal Boortz Blog of January 17, 2013---

 

I really do feel for you folks in the media who have to continue to honestly and objectively cover this dangerous man in the White House. Talk about the best planned retirement in history. I simply cannot sit here and do the daily play-by-play of his destruction of this country that I love any more. This last election made it clear. The moochers, parasites, leaches and the looters who support them are in control. We simply have too many people voting for a living in this country … the takers rule, and too many makers are disengaged and sit on their hands on Election Day.

 

Obama KNEW that as soon as he won the election in 2008 that one day he was going to make a move against the Second Amendment. His ultimate goal was and is to disarm the American people --- not because he didn't want them to have the means to defend themselves against thugs and predators, but because he knew – as most liberals know – that the true intent of the Second Amendment was to preserve for the American People the right to resist, with arms if necessary, an oppressive government.  Liberals are all about oppressive government --- why in the world would they want the people to be able to resist? Take a lesson from Obama's recent tax increase victory. What did he do as soon as the GOP caved and gave him his tax increase? He IMMEDIATELY said that now he wanted to raise taxes on the evil rich even MORE! Same things with gun control. Give him what he asked for here, and he will immediately step forward to ask for more. Again … his goal is to remove the Second Amendment from our Constitution.

 

Yesterday's propaganda routine was a well-choreographed display of arrogance, masked as a heartfelt gesture "for the children." Obama did, indeed, surround himself with four adorable children while addressing his plans for victim disarmament. He read from their letters – which were likely written at the direction of some unionized government school teacher. The West Wing is no longer in the business of governing; it is in the business of running a well-oiled propaganda machine. After reading some of the letters, Obama says …

These are our kids. This is what they're thinking about. And so what we should be thinking about is our responsibility to care for them, and shield them from harm, and give them the tools they need to grow up and do everything that they're capable of doing — not just to pursue their own dreams, but to help build this country. This is our first task as a society, keeping our children safe. This is how we will be judged. And their voices should compel us to change.

If our first task as a society is to keep our children safe, then why did Obama go on to propose measures that limit the means of protection for the parents of these children? What Obama was really saying was, "Our first task as a society is to ensure that you, faithful citizens, rely on the government for everything in your lives and that includes protection of your life, liberty and property. You will not be judged based on your individual efforts to keep your child safe, but rather on your compliance with government directives which we will tell you are designed to keep you safe."

 

As predicted, Obama proposed universal background checks for all gun sales, including private sales. Considering a private individuals inability to conduct a background search, this will likely lead to the end of private gun sales in America. At the very least it will lead to a database of all private sales and purchases. This database will be a precursor to confiscation … just as it was in New York City. Oh … and do you think that street thugs are going to run background checks on each other before guns change hands?

 

Obama wants to restore a ban on military-style assault weapons and impose a 10-round limit for magazines. He then cited the horrific Aurora movie theatre shooting as an example of why we need to limit these magazines. Do you think the law was going to stop a deranged man such as that from getting his hands on such weaponry capable of producing such carnage? Nope. But the people defending themselves from such firepower will be limited. Hence the real name for Obama's proposal: Victim Disarmament.

 

Obama then took not one, not ten, but 23 executive actions on the issue of victim disarmament. Jamie Dupree has the entire list. I love that one of the executive actions is: "Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers." The same ATF that lost all of those guns they walked into Mexico? Yeah, they sure are a reliable source for how to track guns …

 

Oh and did you notice that Obama managed to call for more government spending? I know! Let's use this crisis to expand the size of government! After all, America's greatness comes from government spending! The proposed package is $5.4 billion and includes things like "$10 million for the Centers for Disease Control to conduct further research, including investigating the relationship between video games, media images, and violence."

 

And before we move on, a few stats on victim disarmament:

• A survey found that Americans use guns to frighten intruders away from a home break-in about 500,000 times annually.

• Armed citizens shoot criminals more than twice as often as police each year (1527 to 606).

• A survey of male felons in 11 state prisons across the USA found that 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

Inch by inch, these liberals will manage to disarm or at least weaken responsible, self-reliant Americans.

 

• The libs are trying to change the language here. They know that the phrase "gun control" elicits a strong negative response among many. Look for "gun violence prevention" or some other such phrase. Same goals, different phraseology. Liberals know the masses are suckers … and will play them.

• Obama's absolute intent is to make the Second Amendment inoperative. He's a despot .. and despots don't like subjects with guns. Yes … it's just that simple.
• Of all the recent highly publicized mass killings with guns … every one, except Tucson, took place in what was defined as a "gun free zone."
• There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that limiting the size of magazines will have any affect on the people who want to use guns to prey on others. These people, by definition, do not intend to obey the laws. Those who do obey the laws will obey this one, and they will see their ability to defend themselves affected negatively.
• Liberals love to use the "Wild Wild West" as an example of the carnage that would ensue if more private citizens carried guns. This illustrates the basic ignorance of liberals. There was much less gun violence in the so-called "Wild Wild West" than there is now in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Washington DC, Atlanta, Miami, or any other large American city. Why? Because in the "Wild Wild West" pretty much everyone was armed, so folks didn't screw around with folks.
• There was a rash of school shootings in the 1990s. The majority of those school shootings were stopped by a civilian with a gun, not by law enforcement.
• The highest rates of urban gun violence in our country occur in the cities that make it the most difficult, if not impossible, for a law-abiding citizen to carry guns.