Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Obama's New 'Angry' Standard for Owning Guns

Barack Obama wants you to believe that the horrific murders in Charleston last week happened because his gun control agenda has been thwarted. In a new interview — part of a comedian’s somehow appropriately titled podcast “WTF With Marc Maron” — Obama blamed the NRA. “Unfortunately, the grip of the NRA on Congress is extremely strong,” he said. “I don’t foresee any legislative action being taken by this Congress.”

Fortunately, the Second Amendment, which the NRA defends, still holds sway with enough members of Congress to stop Obama’s agenda.

Of course, he trotted out his usual trope about how he concedes “we have to be respectful” of the traditions of “hunting and sportsmanship around firearms,” neither of which have much to do with our rights.

But his most worrisome statement was on the standards for background checks, which the Charleston murderer passed. Obama wants those background checks to be even tougher to pass. How tough? Obama asked, “The question is just, is there a way of accommodating that legitimate set of [hunting and sporting] traditions with some common-sense stuff that prevents a 21-year-old who’s angry about something — or confused about something, or is racist, or is deranged — from going into a gun store, and suddenly he’s packing and can do enormous harm?”

So now the standard is whether someone is merely angry, confused or racist? Who gets to decide that? If it’s Obama, no Republican would ever be permitted to purchase a gun.



Anonymous said...

How do you determine Anger, confusion or racism in a computer lookup?

Anonymous said...

Who gets to decide?

What an interesting question posed!

The NRA is positioning itself as (at least) one of the "deciders" by rejecting the Second Amendment, the federal preemption on behalf of the people, in favor of state preemption which affords the NRA the mainline control over the imposition called "training qualifications"....which are required for the PERMIT.

Obama and his ilk bag on the NRA so that LIVs will kneejerk and say "Well Obamas against the NRA, and Im against Obama so I must be for the NRA.".

Its a false premise conceded to say the question is "Who gets to decide?" We already KNOW the true answer to that question.....for it is written right there in our Highest Law - The Constitution. The right is left EXCLUSIVELY to the people themselves, the right to DECIDE for OURSELVES.

Even when SCOTUS admits it openly- that enumeration itself removes any claim of power to decide on a case by case basis whether a right is really worth insisting upon - folks still PLAY IT as if its an unanswered question in need of debate and decision. Even when SCOTUS admits that the Second is the PRODUCT of debate, a decision, some still PLAY IT like its an open debate point. Its not. The Second itself is a DECISION....one that can only be dismantled and discarded via outright REPEAL.

Until REPEAL, it stands. SCOTUS cant ignore it any more than local LEO can. As for REPEAL, the Chicago Tribune went there right after heller. It knew THEN that REPEAL was the controllers only viable option.

Guess what?! Repeal ISNT POSSIBLE! Here is why. If THAT right is repealed, then so too can the right to assemble be repealed. Then, so too can the right to speak and so on. The bill of rights, which BECAME the LAW of RIGHTS once ratified, is a "package deal". If one stays, they all stay, but if one goes they all go. Once ratified, that deal was set in stone. That itself IS the great compromise.


The standard is already set - Every Citizen owns the RIGHT, which SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, to keep and bear arms. Period. Gubmint has ZERO to say or do with and about that. Fair enough, governance plainly has authority over ABUSES committed, outside self defense of course....say robbery, rape and murder committed with arms and facilitated by arms, but then, those crimes are not done BY guns or knives, they are done by PEOPLE. Thus, its clear where government authority rests - over PEOPLE but outside the scope of their RIGHTS.

The NRA believes and acts upon a different standard, one it has sided with GOVERNMENT to manufacture an alternative.... one which is direct conflict with, at war with, the Second Amendment. The NRA has decided to take the thirty pieces of silver (training dollars) for conning FUDDS into believing that "commerce" and "sporting purpose" is the standard. Truth hurts. The NRA is not what some think and wish it to be. Indeed, it is the biggest gun CONTROL organization in this country.

Think it through and you will see that. Every carry PERMIT is itself GUN CONTROL in direct opposition to the Second Amendment. Remember, this isn't a TENTH amendment issue....its a SECOND AMENDMENT issue!

Anonymous said...

If he hates guns so much he should get rid of his armed security detail. If we do not need protection he shouldn't either. He is the primary reason we do need protection.

Anonymous said...

Actually the tenth amendment backs up the second amendment if you read it as written. the tenth amendment preempts the states from passing gun laws. IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS ANYTHING COVERED IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION MUST BE HONORED BY THE INDIVIDUAL STATES Anything not covered in the federal constitution may be addressed in state constitutions and anything not covered in either constitution is left to the people. The prohibition on legislative action to infringe on the second amendment is in the federal constitution and the states are required to honor that preemption shall Not infringe is in the federal constitution. The federal congress is forbidden to infringe and it can not create an agency (BATFE) to do the infringing for them. BATFE can not pass regulations that are enforced as laws. All laws must originate in Congress. The US constitution is the supreme law of the land. states have no authority to modify anything in the federal constitution, therefore all state gun laws are infringements by definition.

Anonymous said...

I have been complaining about the NRA for decades. they would be out of business if they actually settled the constitutional issue. Arizona had the fewest gun laws on the books of any state until the NRA started getting unnecessary laws passed. No where in the 26 words of the second amendment do most of the words used in state gun laws exist. You wont find open, concealed, locked up, trigger guarded, gun safe, permit, license, tax, safety training, age or any other infringing words. NRA backed a law to allow women in Arizona to carry a concealed gun it their purse. it was already legal since Arizona became a state. I looked it up when I had to give a speech in high school. even dueling was explained and legal. If you went one quarter mile out side of town from the last building at a specific agreed to time you could shoo it out. If one party did not show up for the duel you could shoot them any where you found them even in town. that was Arizona constitutional law from 1912.