Obamacare’s Threat to the Second Amendment

In the Federalist Papers (No. 78), Alexander Hamilton wrote:

Whoever attentively considers the different  departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are  separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions,  will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution;  because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive  not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The  legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but  merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

This is no longer true. The judiciary abdicated their responsibility and removed government’s restraint, sharpened the sword and enlarged the purse, and then added the scalpel for good measure. Obamacare includes the Independent Payment Advisory Board -- comprising 15 political appointees unaccountable to the People -- which will have “effectively unfettered power to impose taxes and ration care for all Americans, whether the government pays their medical bills or not.”

Founder George Mason said: "When the same man, or set of men, holds the sword and the purse, there is an end to Liberty."

This time has arrived. It isn’t necessary to confiscate your guns to disarm you. All they have to do is make it too expensive. Throughout history, serfs have shared common traits: They barely have enough wherewithal to survive, they don’t own property, and they can’t defend themselves. How they reach this condition is irrelevant.

Today, it’s constitutional to force buying choices on the American people and call enforcement  a “tax,” especially if it’s in the name of social justice; like Obamacare, which allegedly provides for historically “under-served ” groups like women, the uninsured, and poor immigrants.

This is the precedent big-government, tax-and-spend proponents have been laboring decades for: It’s okay to tax America to redress perceived social costs and injustice. What about a “gun tax” to pay for alleged social costs of “gun violence"? Gun banners have often complained how guns produce a public health cost, so when will we see proposals for a “gun tax” to counter this “social injustice”? Maybe $200 per gun purchase, so that poor people living in crime-ridden inner cities can no longer afford to defend their families?

Maybe now there’s justification to register your firearms, requiring you to pay an annual tax per gun or forfeit them, since they remain available to public access and are therefore a “social cost.” Maybe after registration we’ll need confiscation anyway, because as with all social taxes like Obamacare, society’s “cost” from “gun violence” will continue despite these new regulations, since criminals will always find guns on the black market. As only law-abiding, working Americans can afford to pay reparations for these “wrongs,” government will come after your guns and pocketbook.

The flip side to freedom is responsibility. It’s no longer enough to say you’re a responsible gun owner because you follow safety rules and practice to maintain your skills. Guns symbolize freedom. The Supreme Court just raised the bar. Responsible gun owners must step up and be active participants. To do less is to surrender.