The Future of Obama’s Stealth Gun Control
January 2013: After the most unremittingly negative, cynical presidential contest in American history, Barack Obama has narrowly won a second term in the White House and stands ready to take the oath of office again. Aided immeasurably by a Legacy Media that buried the Gunwalker scandal along with myriad other scandals potentially harmful to him — and relentlessly savaged his opponents — Mr. Obama just barely pulled himself across the finish line on the strength of his rhetoric.
No longer restrained by the need to maintain appearances in order to win reelection, no longer restrained by the need to appease congressional Democrats, he turns to those facets of his agenda too unpopular to openly pursue during a first term. Very near the top of his list is gun control – or, more properly, the disarming of the American people.
Flash back to June 2011, when I wrote about the dangers of changing the balance of the Supreme Court from a majority which always (or usually) decides cases based on the Constitution, precedent, and the law to a majority which prefers to bypass those things to impose, by means of judicial fiat, leftist social policies which cannot carry legislative support, even with a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress. When I wrote that article, I had no idea that Mr. Obama would so soon provide such tellingly direct evidence of his post-2012 intentions.
It is certainly reasonable to believe that Mr. Obama is very much against the Second Amendment right of Americans to keep and bear arms. He has, upon occasion, said that he supports the Second Amendment. But his rhetoric is always accompanied by a “but” that opens the door to “common sense” gun control measures. It is a virtual certainty that what is “common sense” to Mr. Obama and his gun control allies is anything but to most Americans.
Despite his rhetoric, Mr. Obama’s true beliefs have always hovered just below the surface of his public rhetoric. (Take, for example, his well-known disdain for those who cling to God and guns.) But before exploring Mr. Obama’s actual second term intentions for the Second Amendment, it will be instructive to review his record on the issue. This list is not in any way exhaustive:
(1) In 1996, then Illinois state Senator Obama answered a gun control questionnaire. He wrote that he supported a complete ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns and “assault weapons,” and also supported mandatory waiting periods and background checks. During the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama denied ever filling out the questionnaire, despite the fact that it was completed in his handwriting. FactCheck.org confirmed that he had, in fact, filled out the questionnaire. [source A]
(2) In 1998, Mr. Obama expressed his support for a complete ban on the sale or transfer of all semi-automatic firearms. He supported increasing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms — this in Illinois, one of the only two states that to this day bans concealed carry. [source A]
(3) The 1998 Joyce Foundation annual report revealed that Mr. Obama was a member of its board of directors. The Joyce Foundation is one of the largest sources of funding for anti-gun groups and for anti-gun “research.” [source 7]
(4) In 1999, the Chicago Defender reported that Mr. Obama wanted to ban the resale of police issued firearms, even for the purpose of buying new equipment. [source 4]
(5) In 1999, Mr. Obama endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition. This was obviously intended to increase the price of gun ownership so drastically as to make it unaffordable for most Americans. [source 4]
(6) In 1999, Mr. Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within five miles of a school or park. This was a reasonable sounding scheme that would have had the effect of banning nearly every gun store in America. [source 8]
(7) In 1999, the Chicago Defender also reported that Mr. Obama favored mandatory firearm training for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for everyone under 21. [source 4]
(8) In 2000, Mr. Obama cosponsored a bill that limited firearm purchases to one per month. The bill failed. He also voted against allowing citizens to violate local weapon bans where self-defense was involved. [source A]
(9) In 2004, Mr. Obama voted for an Illinois Senate bill that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. While this might seem to be at odds with every political stance he had taken on the issue, it was later revealed that at the time he was fighting his Republican opponent for the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police. His support for the bill was almost certainly cynical political pandering rather than an indication of any appreciation for police officers or for the rights of gun owners. [source A]
(10) In a 2004 Illinois Senate debate with Alan Keyes, Mr. Obama said: “I think it is a scandal that this president [Bush] did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.” [source A]
(11) In 2005, Mr. Obama voted in the U.S. Senate to ban nearly all rifle ammunition in common civilian use. [source 3]
(12) Mr. Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He said he would not have voted for Scalia or Thomas and voted against the confirmation of Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. [source 1]
(13) Mr. Obama voted to allow lawsuits against firearm manufacturers for the acts of third parties beyond their knowledge or control. Such suits were designed to destroy the domestic firearms industry. [source 2]
(14) Mr. Obama has consistently opposed right to carry laws. [source 6]
(14) A 2007 report revealed that Mr. Obama supported a ban on standard capacity magazines. [source 9]
(15) A 2008 report revealed that Mr. Obama was in favor of mandatory micro-stamping, a scheme which would significantly increase the cost of new firearms while simultaneously establishing a massive registry. Despite uniform scientific evidence that the scheme does not and cannot work, efforts to impose it continue today. [source 10]
(16) In 2008, ABC News reported Mr. Obama’s support for gun bans in major cities including Chicago and Washington, D.C. [source 5]
(17) Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign website indicated his support for the repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the ATF from being used in nuisance lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers. This too is a battle anti-gun forces continue to fight. [source 11]
Note that Mr. Obama’s antipathy for guns and their owners was abundantly clear from virtually the first moment the public took notice of him. None of this should be surprising. Mr. Obama is, after all, not only a Democrat, but a product of the Chicago political machine.
Mr. Obama’s anti-freedom inclinations have not abated. He has merely put them aside temporarily in the pursuit of larger progressive goals. Just because gun control has not had the kind of exposure enjoyed by ObamaCare does not mean it is not part of Mr. Obama’s agenda.
Mr. Obama’s judicial appointments have been an important means of anti-Second Amendment activism. His two appointments to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, professed their support for precedent and the Second Amendment during their confirmation hearings, but voted against Second Amendment freedoms at their first opportunity after being confirmed.
More recently, Mr. Obama nominated 39 year-old Berkeley Law School Dean Goodwin Liu for a seat on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals [source C]. The 9th Circuit is known as the most liberal appeals court in the nation, and has earned the dubious distinction of being the court most overturned by the Supreme Court. A staunch progressive, Liu’s writings revealed a man of no judicial experience who favored deciding cases based on progressive policy goals rather than the Constitution. Liu’s anti-gun views were predictable and available in his own words in several prominent articles. Fortunately, Liu’s nomination was blocked and eventually withdrawn.
As has been recently reported, acting ATF head Kenneth Melson may soon be out the door, the first Obama administration victim of the Gunwalker debacle. This has lead to speculation that Mr. Obama will again nominate Andrew Traver of the Chicago ATF office to head the agency. Mr. Traver’s anti-gun credentials are impeccable. That Mr. Obama would even think of nominating someone like Mr. Traver to head the ATF with the Gunwalker scandal still boiling is surely indicative of his attitude toward gun control. [Source F]
The objection could be raised that Mr. Obama’s relative lack of overt action on gun control initiatives indicates that he is not a stereotypical progressive gun banner. But on May 25, 2011, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air [source B] provided substantial and disturbing information that dispatches this charge. It seems that Mr. Obama has a “point man” in the White House in charge of gun regulation policies named Steve Crowley. Mr. Crowley was profiled in the Washington Post “Lifestyle” section in April. A gun control point man seems rather odd for a president who isn’t planning to pursue gun control policies.
In addition, on March 30, Sarah and Jim Brady of the Brady Center, one of the most prominent anti-gun organizations, met with Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney. Mr. Obama met with them as well, and according to Sarah Brady told them that gun control was “…very much on his agenda.”
Brady quoted Mr. Obama: “I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
According to Morrissey, the Huffington Post has reported that the Department of Justice has been holding meetings to plan options for enacting gun controls by bypassing the legislative process though executive orders or regulation making by federal bureaucrats. This method of autocratic rule is nothing new for the Obama administration. [source B]
The cross-border Gunwalker mess is not the only way in which Mr. Obama has pursued an anti-gun foreign policy. According to former UN Ambassador John Bolton, the Obama administration’s apparently incoherent policy is being used to further gun control goals domestically and internationally. Bolton asserts that the Obama administration is arguing that supposedly lax American gun laws are responsible for the problem of drug related violence in Mexico, and that this argument will provide a foundation for United Nations arms treaties. [source E]
The Gunwalker scandal provides only the most recent — and potentially the most damning — evidence of the Obama gun control agenda.
So return to January 2013. What can Americans expect? Mr. Obama will rely on his tried and true methods, continuing the perpetual campaign despite the fact that, for him, the campaign is over. Those methods include:
(1) Public persuasion. This is the first, above the radar, public front. Mr. Obama has always tried to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to convince “the people” that their ruin is actually their salvation. This first step is always closely aligned with:
(2) Legislation. When Democrats controlled the Congress, Mr. Obama was able to push through ObamaCare despite the fact that a clear majority of the public did not, and does not, want it. However, even with control of Congress, he was not able to pass cap and trade, which would have given him absolute control over the daily lives of “the people” — enabling Obama bureaucrats to regulate the very air we breathe. If Mr. Obama has lost control of both houses in 2013, this option would be more or less closed to him, but his veto would prevent back-sliding on portions of his agenda already imposed by various means. If the legislature is closed to him (and even if it is not), Mr. Obama will rely upon:
(3) The administrative state. Where the first several steps fail, Mr. Obama makes an end run around the legislature by means of his appointed, unaccountable czars and innumerable bureaucratic functionaries, constantly growing in number and boldness, who not only have the power to make up the rules as they go, but to harass, obstruct, punish, and harm anyone who might try to stand in their way. Bureaucrats can, on their own initiative, bring economic development and activity to a halt. By ensuring that only like-minded sycophants are in bureaucratic positions, Mr. Obama need not stoop to issuing specific instructions: they know what to do. Mr. Obama would not have appointed them if they did not. They will — independent of other initiatives on other fronts — continue to do everything possible to obtain by fiat what is otherwise unobtainable.
(4) Environmentalists and similar groups. Whatever can’t be obtained through the first three steps can be obtained — and opponents impeded and punished — through the efforts of gun control groups, environmentalists, and other advocacy groups. By means of manipulating the media, threatening and abusive protests, and filing endless lawsuits to obstruct and delay whatever they oppose, the Obama agenda can be furthered. Many of these organizations are openly extreme in their views and tactics — giving Mr. Obama cover, as he will tend to be reluctant to reveal his true beliefs, preferring a stealthily socialistic approach.
(5) The imperial courts. By appointing the “right” kind of judges and/or jurisdiction shopping, predictable rulings are easy to obtain. Whatever mischief bureaucrats aren’t able to secure can often be accomplished through liberal, activist judges. Even if lower court decisions are eventually and inevitably overturned, the process takes years, and any rulings adverse to Mr. Obama’s desires can usually be safely ignored.
(6) The international community. As Ambassador Bolton noted, Mr. Obama is a believer in the will of the international community and the UN. International bureaucrats have long sought to impose gun control on the world and America through binding treaties. With nothing to lose, Mr. Obama will almost certainly become much more active on this front.
With a second term, Mr. Obama can be expected to cause unimaginable damage to America apart from the economic disaster he is already wreaking. His agenda will continue to be at least somewhat stealthy. But, unburdened with the necessity of a second campaign, Mr. Obama will almost certainly go for broke on every item on his progressive wish list. Gun control has always been near the very top of every progressive’s wish list, and Mr. Obama is nothing if not a good progressive. Sarah Brady is convinced of it. Despite the fact that the Brady Campaign has often been caught in misrepresentation and lies, Americans would be wise to take her at her word, at least this once.
SOURCES:
(A) http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_gun_control.htm
(B) http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/25/obama-were-working-on-gun-control-under-the-radar/
(C) http://gunowners.org/a051811.htm
(D) http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7784
(E) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53957.html#ixzz1LCPCAIks
(F) http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/22/meet-andrew-traver-possible-chief-of-batfe/
(1) United States Senate vote 245, September 29, 2005, and vote 2, January 31, 2006, and Saddleback Forum, August 16, 2008.
(2) “Candidates’ gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and “Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns,” Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html)
(3) United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 29, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217)
(4) “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)
(5) 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. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html)
(6) “Candidates’ gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and “Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns,” Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html)
(7) 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7.
(8) “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)
(9) “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html)
(10) Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008. (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/barack_obama_comments_on_shoot.html)
(11) Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement.)
Nice to see someone other than Cam Edwards outing this administration for it’s dangerous intentions. A second Obama term spells the end of America. If the sheeple are not awake before the next election may God have mercy on the rest of us.
Scott if we had any true journalist instead of MUCKRACKERS obummer would never have been elected. they would have investigated his background and reported the facts. instead of idolising him and trying to make him out to be the second coming. had the SOCALLED media done their job many of those who voted for him would not have.not all of them are IDIOTS. just nost of them,
No one should be surprised at the disintegration of American ideals. There are large segments of the population who are next to brain dead and easily confused, thus tractable. Witness the Casey Anthony jury – dumber than a box of rocks.
The jury did the only thing they could given the prosecution could not even prove the child was murdered. If you want to talk about brain dead people choose a better group.
As for the brain dead that voted for Obama… now there is a group worthy of disdain. And as an informed voter I knew about his earlier votes dispite the medis trying to hide them.
Thank you for writing this article. One thing I would like to add is if Obama gets the gun control he wants what makes you think he dosen’t get a third term?
Actually, He is holding out for President For Life. Which will require the 22nd Amendment to be “set aside” as long as He wants to be POTUS. (Look for an Executive Order to that effect- never mind that it’s not supposed to work that way.)
Of course, by that time, He will be so bored with being President that He will demand to be Secretary General of the UN- and then “attach” the office of POTUS to that job.
All of the above will (equally of course) be merely a stepping stone to His ultimate (for that moment) goal; being proclaimed Ultimate Totality God Of Everything For All Of Eternity.
At which point He will begin writing His third autobiography- to be titled “How Great I Art”.
Give Him His due- He dreams big.
clear ether
eon
How long do you suppose it will be before Dwight (or, as Mr. Lucky calls him, D-White) shows up for a bit of Hegelian trinagulation in favor of moving the putative ‘reasonable, common-sense gun control law’ goalposts towards the left? Much as he always does with any topic.
After all, this is the guy who, after asserting correctly that his life belonged to him, blithely and consistently argued for just the opposite in terms of people, policy and government for the rest of us.
I can’t believe I wasted my time reading this garbage. I could have been reading The New Yorker, ejoying a nice mocha cappucino, enfused with some Honduran vanilla extract. When will you crazy neocons get it: guns are designed to kill people! Why should any private citizen be permitted to own a gun? To what purpose? To kill more government officials? Look at that poor Giffords womyn. She had her whole life ahead of her, and now she’s gone! For what? so that crazy, murdering, downs-producing freak from Alaska can go shoot unarmed, innocent, wild, yet-admittedly-delicious caribou? Listen, I too love the taste of caribou (especially when done with a light French butter shallot sauce), but I stick to the farm raised stuff! Ethical, cleanly harvested! You psychos with your guns, bibles, Ford 150s, Gumbo, racist county fairs, and Navy SEALS….when will any of you see reason? Maroons!
I can’t speak to the caribou population, but the white tail deer population on the east coast of the US is such that the only ethical thing to do is HUNT them to keep them from STARVING to death over the winter. The rest of this…I’ll just bite my tongue and let your own words set you apart.
LovelyEarth, I recognize that you are writing clever satire, but in case someone takes you seriously, I feel a duty to point out that if citizens are legally banned from owning guns because “they kill people”, then criminals that don’t care what’s legal or not will be the only ones that will have guns, and we’ll be at their mercy. Banning drugs didn’t eliminate drugs. Why would banning guns be any different?
Bibles! You.Forgot.Our.BIBLES!!!!
@lovey you have to be an EDUCATED IDIOT! all you have to do is look at b-a-ho’s NON voting record in Illinois and you can see he ia absolutly USLESS. To spout the crap you just did in your text means you have your head in the sand. I stood in front of this bozo in the Rotundra in Springfield and heard him lie for 15 minutes. You can tell he is lying, IF HIS LIPS ARE MOVING! wake DUMMY!
Relax. Lovelyearth is parodying the “progressives”. In case you doubt me, the giveaway is this:
Listen, I too love the taste of caribou (especially when done with a light French butter shallot sauce), but I stick to the farm raised stuff!
Honestly, do you know any caribou farmers?
Actually, there are caribou (reindeer) farms in Scandinavia (Finland/Norway/Sweden)
LovelyEarth,
I never cease to be amazed at the cavalier nature with which people espousing your position can cast away others freedoms without regard for the consequence. A fact you have admitted is beyond you capbility to grasp is that guns were not designed to kills people, they are merely a tool desigend to propel a projectile, it is the user that determines the intent of the projectile. I have a collection of firearms, none of which has killed anyone while in my possession. I use them for target shooting as a form of recreation and some I keep merely out of sentimental value. I have a pistol that my long deceased father taught me to shoot with when I was a child, it is a symbol of a father/son relationship that was cut short with his intimely death, perhaps we should outlaw the use of cargo ships since he died in a fall while perfoorming maintenance on one. Knives kill people as well, why should any private citizen be permitted to own one?
As for Gabrielle Giffords, perhaps you should recheck your news sources since she is not dead, and at last report will soon be back on the job in Congress.
I see from the rest of your rant that you have swallowed the kool aid in the gallon quantity, perhaps it is time for your fitting for your new tinfoil hat?
Splendid writing! A solid step up for PJM.
You are exposing Chairman Obamao for what he really is; We need to keep this momentum, even though there are throngs of the populace that agree with his agenda. He cannot move his agenda without high level support.
Needless to say, this shall lead to anarchy, which is intended so that his agenda is justified.
But, within the world of dictators, Obama is a neophyte, and will be replaced by a much more experienced despot.
I can only hope to live long enough to witness this.
Totally agree, Cybergeezer. Chairman O will be farmed out to someplace like Hawaii where there would be limited access to his Oneness. His followers and Useful Idiots will still be adoring and blah blah blah. Kinda makes me crazy.
And to Lovely Earth your inane comments are sadly funny. And your spelling is atrocious.
I’m hoping for a military coup me-self…..;^}
Something like this, perhaps?
Wow! That was great! Thanks for sharing!
Wowee! Thank you Sir Francis. Reminds me of R.A. Heinlein’s style. Thank you for taking the time and possessing the understanding that our military will NEVER allow politicians to through out the constitution. I, greatly, appreciate your story.
“throw out”
HEY! EVERBODY! Lovelyearth is joking!
Does not sound like satire to me! Sounds like a fools DRIBBLE!
It’s satire. He/she is a master of channeling the liberal moonbattery! There’s always satirical give-aways, though. The problem is that no matter how over the top he/she is there are real moonbats out that that can top him/her! Scary, huh!?
Joking? Not particularly funny stirring up emotions over such a serious issue, not to mention wasting time replying to it.
Certainly a very unpleasant, dishonest, negative campaign, abetted by a press that largely abandoned its responsibility to keep both sides honest and viewed itself as partisans for one candidate. But more negative than “Ma, ma, where’s my pa?” More negative than “continental liar?”
Brady quoted Mr. Obama: “I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
“The radar” being the notice of the American people, the translation being, “I intend to subvert the will of the American people before they know what’s happening.”
Obama is not only the worst president ever, he’s also the most lawless. America didn’t just elect a stealth socialist, America elected a criminal.
Of course he is and just like all criminal, gang bangers and so on they use armed force against unarmed law abiding citizens. There is a problem there are several states that have concealed or open carry laws that these law abiding citizens can fire back and eliminate some of these criminals. If you are the leader of a country the only way to be sure you can use your weapons against law abiding citizens is to outlaw that they have possession of such weapons then you as dictator can do as you please!
They will never find all my guns and I shoot at least five times a week at the range and can stop them…can you, are you prepared? Get a weapon and ammunition for it and learn how to use it and practice, just in case!
Unfortunately, in most of those states citizens must have a legally issued permit to carry a gun. Somewhere there’s a list of those citizens. ‘Nuff said?
Don’t forget he just recently blocked the re-importation of the old M-1′s from South Korea.
A gun ban would cross the deadline. It would be time to march on Washington. That is the real reason for the second amendment. If the government takes away your ability to throw off that government, you will not long be free.
Freedom of speech and the right to bear arms must be eliminated if tyranny is to prevail.
“One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.”
~Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840
Clinton tried to get the UN Small Arms Treaty signed when he was president. Obama will get that done. Then, we will no longer have a second amendment. Treaties overrule local law including our constitution and only need Senate ratificaton. And, remember boys and girls, the UN governs by unelected organizations (NGO’s).
Actually, no.
Article VI, paragraph 2;
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
In plain English, this means that no Federal or State law, foreign treaty, or State Constitution, may include provisions violating any part of the United States Constitution, or of the Bill of Rights. Any such Treaty signed by the President, and ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, would have to be struck down by the Supreme Court for violating this Article.
That said, I doubt that this would impede The One from trying it, because I have yet to see any convincing evidence that this “Constitutional scholar” has ever actually read the Constitution. He apparently finds his two (ghost-written) autobiographies much more important.
clear ether
eon
“Any such Treaty signed by the President, and ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, would have to be struck down by the Supreme Court for violating this Article.”
I’m worried that when the Supremes are in his pocket, do you think they will still strike this treaty down? He only needs one more justice and the balance will swing totally to the left. If he gets one more term, what are the chances that Kennedy, Thomas or Scalia will retire or take a dirt nap? When that happens it could be all over – every dumb_ss leftist scheme that would’ve been struck down by the court will instead be held up.
Granted chances are still low as 2/3 of the Senate must still approve, but as the author says, Obumma got health care pushed through.
I may just start buying AR receivers like orange juice or pork bellies.
I believe for the senate to ratify a treaty it takes 75% of the votes
No totalitarian dictatorship can be successful with a well-armed citizenry. The main reason why the 2nd Amendment was put into the Bill of RIghts was to protect us from the esblishment of a tyranny. The left’s desire for total control over the population is the primary motivating force behind everything the left does, and their quest to disarm the population will be never-ending. The country, however, seems to be going in the opposite direction with gun sales at record highs and most states enacting conceal-carry laws. Illinois stands to be the last hold-out, but even there the issue will at least be debated soon. It must irk the left no end that there are so many firearms in this country that are legally held, their only consolation being that they have a record of where most of them are and they can be confiscated when the time is right. I would not put it past Obama to concoct some pretext, some Reichstag fire national emergency, in order to make the attempt at gun confiscation if re-elected for a second term.
DICK ACT of 1902… CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) – Protection Against Tyrannical Government
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.
Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.”
The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.
During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.
The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.
Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: “The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States.” In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, “that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.”
“This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.”
The Honorable William Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 – 1917
Molon Labe. If you think you can.
“Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”
George Washington