« McCain May Be Too Extreme for North Carolina | Main | Dumb Crackers »
Let’s Talk About Guns
By JBC | May 20, 2008
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
You recognize that phrase, correct? Well, if you are the average American, and in particular, a presidential candidate, you probably believe that it was something uttered by John Wayne prior to wasting several dozen Aboriginal-Americans. That is the SECOND amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. It was the second most important, if not the first in the mind of many Framers, individual right in the hierarchy of the Bill of Rights. And all of you lefties out there, don’t give me your wash about the amendment being intended to protect the formation of militias. One needs only to read the contemporaneous writings of the Founding Fathers to understand exactly what it means. They weren’t worried about invading foreign countries, shooting gangsters, or even being able to fend off invading foreigners. They were primarily worried about a tyrannical local government.
What does the most popular politician in American history, after that tyrant Abraham Lincoln, have to say about our constitutional right to bear arms? Regarding the District of Columbia law which bans the ownership of handguns, the Obama told the Chicago Tribune that, “Barak Obama believes the DC handgun law is constitutional.” (James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, “Court To Hear Gun Case,” Chicago Tribune, 11/20/07) In 2004, Barak Obama supported a NATIONAL BAN on concealed carry laws because the states that allowed concealed carry of handguns were “threatening the safety of Illinois residents.” On the law passed during the Clinton years which banned certain semi-automatic weapons, and has since passed away, BHO was reported by the Chicago Tribune as saying, “I believe we need to renew — not roll back — this common sense gun law.” In a completely nonsensical statement, ludicrous in its utterance, BHO said this, “The city of Chicago has gun laws, so does Washington, DC … The notion that to me how local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun safety laws to deal with gangbangers and random shootings on the street isn’t born out by our Constitution.” (David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, “Obama: ‘Common Sense Regulation’ On Gun Owners’ Rights,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, 2/15/08) Can somebody please read the beginning of this missive, you know, the Constitutional part, and tell me how B Hussein O comes to the conclusion that INFRINGEMENT somehow excludes local jurisdictions? Actually, there is some sound reasoning, IF ONE IS CONSISTENT. This does not apply to Obama, as I will explain.
The Bill of Rights applies to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. So, all rights protected in the Bill of Rights are explicitly stated to prevent the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from infringing our most basic rights. This did not prevent the state and local governments from limiting those rights, however. Given this basic understanding, states and localities could then enact gun control or safety laws without coming into direct conflict with the US Constitution. However, with the passage of the 14th Amendment, many interpreted this new statute as applying all basic protections in the Bill of Rights to the states as well. Under this interpretation, states would not be allowed to infringe free speech or the right to bear arms (or any other rights mentioned in the Constitution), thus denying states and localities from passing any laws which would infringe the right to bear arms.
Don’t get bogged down in the minutia, hang in there with me another minute or two!! Prior to the 14th Amendment passage, the federal, NOT THE STATE AND LOCAL, government was restricted from establishing a state religion or limiting the freedom of speech. Let me restate that, STATE governments were allowed to limit freedom of speech or the practice of religion at their will (as long as their constituents allowed it, and didn’t hang them from the highest tree). Of course no state would do that, and for that matter, no state wanted to infringe upon the right to bear arms either. However, if you buy into Obama’s argument that the 14th Amendment is limited, and states can feel free to infringe upon the right to bear arms, this means a multitude of US Supreme Court decisions need to be thrown out (and that ain’t such a bad idea), and states can go back to interpreting freedoms of speech and practice of religion and yes, even start limiting abortions (which is protected under a rather thin facade of the “Constitutional right to privacy” of the 14th amendment itself) as they please. Do you really believe that Obama would be consistent and allow that to happen? Please.
Barak Hussein Obama was SUPPOSEDLY a scholar of the US Constitution. In fact, he is but another liberal hack who cares little for our Constitution, and is pandering to whomever it takes to gain the power of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Beware of such charlatans who talk out of both sides of their mouths. What you ultimately get is nothing but another jackass who will do whatever he wants once you elect him. And we all know that this means more unconstitutional FEDERAL bans on gun ownership and yet more loss of our basic Constitutionally protected RIGHTS.
JB
Topics: Liberals, The Constitution, States Rights, Elections, Political Philosophy, Democraps |
