Speaking the TRUTH about Obama

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Marlin, Mar 31, 2009.

  1. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    13,846
    Location:
    At SouthernMoss' side forever!
    Now you know the truth !!!!! This is from today's TownHall.com newsletter.

    Obama's Sights on Second Amendment


    Janet M. LaRue
    March 30, 2009

    While campaigning for the U.S. Senate and then the presidency, Barack Obama said he believed in the individual right to bear arms.

    Those aware of his record and rhetoric thought he might have been referring to his wife’s penchant for sleeveless attire, not the Second Amendment.

    During his 2004 run for the Senate, Obama said “I think that the Second Amendment means something. I think that if the government were to confiscate everybody’s guns unilaterally that I think that would be subject to constitutional challenge.” No kidding.

    He didn’t say it would be unconstitutional, just “subject to constitutional challenge.” Nor did he express any opposition.

    During the presidential campaign, a case challenging Washington D.C.’s draconian gun laws was pending in the U.S. Supreme Court. The laws banned all handgun registrations, prohibited handguns already registered from being carried from room to room in the home without a license, and required all firearms in the home, including rifles and shotguns, to be unloaded and either disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.

    In June, the Court released its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, holdingthat the laws violate the individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to service in a militia as secured by the Fourth Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, emphasized that the individual right to bear arms pre-exists, and is independent of, the Constitution:

    Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” 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. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”

    Obama admitted in a Feb. 11, 2008, interview that he supported the handgun ban, and that it was“constitutional.” On June 26, he said he agreed with the Court’s decision, but added that the right to bear arms is subject to “reasonable regulations.” He never “explained” how an absolute ban on handguns is “reasonable,” or how he can agree with the ruling, which said it was unreasonable. Obama’s inconsistencies are numerous, as John R. Lott Jr has noted.

    Obama continued to duck and cover by talking about getting illegal guns off the streets, background checks for children and the mentally ill, and attacking the NRA.

    Since his election, finding mention of the Second Amendment on the White House Web site takes about as long as getting to the front of the line at a gun store. What is on the site could be engraved on a .22 shell casing.
    WH: The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms. [Emphasis added.]

    It’s far from the high caliber opinion of the Court or those of the Founders who fought for and secured the right:

    • “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” James Madison, The Federalist 46
    • “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” Patrick Henry
    • “That the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent “the people” of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” Samuel Adams
    • “A free people ought ... to be armed.” George Washington
    • “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” Thomas Jefferson
    • “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state.” Alexander Hamilton, TheFederalist No. 28
    Despite the Heller ruling and his professed regard for the Amendment, Obama will push legislation to make possession and purchase of guns and ammunition as burdensome as the constitutionally comatose congressional majority will enact.

    We should heed the warning of James Madison, “Father of the Constitution”:

    “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

    © 2009 Salem Web Network
     
  2. 45nut

    45nut Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,542
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Thanks for posting Marlin. I've already sent the link out to my conservative e-mail list. :D
     

  3. Teejay9

    Teejay9 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,255
    Location:
    Southwest Corner of the US, "Where no stinking fen
    Just what is it that makes these liberals and their kind so anti-Second Amendment? Why do they fear it so? I know that it isn't based on crime statistics, or anything to do with crime. The liberals just think we ought not to have guns. That bothers me to no end. They should be concerned with law breakers and not the law abiding. Obamama has gone on record time and time again against lawful gun ownership. Is he just saying what his core group wants to hear, or does he really believe what he says? What are his reasons for being against a Constitutional Amendment? Are there others he doesn't like? What has America done that they voted in such a anti-American president? He speaks right out of Rev. Wright's sermons, and we know Ms. O isn't pro-American either. Throw this bum out!! TJ
     
  4. WomenofCaliber

    WomenofCaliber New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    104
    Thanks for the post Marlin!
     
  5. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    Obambabababa is a socialist, and so are his puppetmasters. They know that they can't remake the US into a socialist workers' paradise as long as any segment of the population has any ability to resist and fight back. When they take our firearms, then they can dictate our lives without fear of retribution. THAT'S the reason the 2nd Amendment was put into place, and that is why Barry and his people want to get rid of it. First the 2nd goes, then the 1st (after all, why would we need to speak out against our great perfect new leader and messiah, and why should we go to church when we can worship Barry instead?), then the 4th (after all, an innocent person should have nothing to fear from the police searching their property, and a criminal has no rights anyhow, right?), then the 5th (if you're guilty then just come out and tell us, if you're not, then you have nothing to fear and need no protection against self-incrimination), then the 3rd (we're the gov't and it's your duty as our subject to house our soldiers in your private domicile if we tell you too, and of course, you don't need all this nice stuff that you worked for, so we're gonna take it, not compensate you for your property, and give it to these guys over here that are too special to work for what they own), an so on and so on.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
     
  6. ponycar17

    ponycar17 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    5,062
    Location:
    South Carolina
    I'm going to have to mull over this a while; maybe have a bagel and some Latte? Then, and only then can I really decide if I agree with Mr. Obama's opinion on firearms. Maybe I will give up my firearms when the jack-booted thugs come calling? ;)

    Excuse me while I go clean up my Birckenstocks and hemp shorts for the evening Humanist service...



    :D