Even Barack Obama gets it better than the leftist activists:
In order to argue with a straight face that the right to keep and bear arms is inextricably linked with “service in an organized and sanctioned militia,” you would have to believe the following unbelievable things: 1) that the Founders’ intent in codifying the Second Amendment was to protect the right of individuals to join an organization over which the federal government has constitutionally granted plenary power; 2) that unlike every other provision in the Bill of Rights — and every other constitutional measure that is wrapped in the “right of the people” formulation — the Second Amendment denotes something other than an individual right that can be asserted against the state; and 3) that every major judicial figure of the era was mistaken as to its meaning — among them, Joseph Story, William Rawle, St. George Tucker, Timothy Farrar, and Tench Coxe, all of whom explained the Second Amendment perfectly clearly — whereas a few judges and politicians in the 20th century have been bang on in their comprehension.
I’m just glad that we got Heller before the court drifted too far from the Founders. But we are at the point at which any attempt to deprive us of our rights will result in insurrection. And fortunately, those defending their rights have the guns and knowledge to use them.
Obama is playing PT Barnum with the Democratic base. He’s not even gaslighting the right here. He is saying Executive Action, not Executive Order, because it is not a change in regulations. He neither has the time or authority to make such changes in this regard.
Obama tried to weaken the blow by making some stupid comments about conspiracy theories, and them blew it by linking it to the American Revolution (rock a history book Obama: the British sent the Redcoats and the revolution was fought almost entirely on what is now US soil). He also tried to pretend he isn’t interested in disarming Americans, despite his misunderstanding of the American Revolution, and his previous references to preferring the Australian method of gun control, which included confiscation of guns by the government.
Ultimately, Obama has accomplished nothing beyond filling some CNN air time. His actions will not stop any future firearm crime, as none of it as stated would have prevented any previous crime. It sure didn’t stop the ISIS supporter from stealing a police weapon and shooting an officer today in Philadelphia.
Actually, Obama’s talk about guns did one more thing. It took away air time from covering Hillary’s flagrant violation of laws for handling confidential information. And it kept the WH Press Corps focused on asking questions that have nothing to do with the collapse of US markets, Chinese markets, Nork development of H-Bomb, or Iranian violations of recent nuclear agreements. It is better for Democrats to talk about Newtown from 2012 than anything actually happening in the past 72 hours, because the last 4 years are worse off for Americans; thanks to Obama!
Does North Korea actually have a Teller-Ulam weapon as of this week, or is this bluster from Dear Leader?
I’m actually stunned to hear those words from Obama. I’ll even commend him for saying them.
However, regarding the rule of law in general, and the subject of insurrection, I hope I’m wrong, but I think things are heading in that direction. However, I think gun rights will be a part of it, but not the largest part. My guess is that Obama’s push on opening the floodgates to islamic refugees will be the flash point, once those so called refugees start doing what they are already doing. I wonder how armed Americans would have reacted to what happened on NYE in Cologn, Hamburg, etc (the mass sexual assaults)?
Or, just a general total breakdown in the rule of law, such as a high federal official committing multiple felonies, putting it in writing so there’s no possible room for doubt of guilt, and not getting indicted. I’m referring to Hillary sending an e-mail to Jake Sullivan (state department)
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/08/whoa-hillary-e-mail-instructs-aide-to-transmit-classified-e-mail-without-markings/
telling him to strip out the national security classification markings and send classified data “non-secure”. Both of those things are major felonies, and we have hard proof of guilt courtesy of her own words. (Which is also proof positive that she’s just too dang stupid to be in any sort of office).
Is it any wonder that we’re seriously having to worry about insurrection?
Even if they refuse to indict -her-, hit all of the underlings.
The excuse “I was just following orders” is still invalid.
The problem isn’t -just- the tip-top, it is how many people are just going with the flow!
They indite any of the underlings, expect the underling to squeal.
I’m adding Hillary! somehow taking the November election to my list of events that would likely trigger armed resistance to the federal misgovernment.
The minute Obama was elected, I knew we were headed for a civil war, for the simple reason that you can’t have half of the population trying to ram Communism down the other half’s throats without bloodshed.
A common trope is that the Amendment grants states the authority to institute state national guards. Setting other issues aside, did the concept of a National Guard even exist at the time? Calling out the militia meant conscripting from the general militia (i.e. all service-age males. National Guard units represent part-time standing armies, staffed by a tiny fraction of the general militia, given training not available to the general militia.
Everyone knows that Democrat’s ultimate goal is the banning and confiscation of all guns. Too many elected officials and party leaders have proposed this for the claim of paranoia to be accurate. The incremental steps taken in this direction are just to punish people they don’t like and scapegoat them for the actions of gangs and crazy people.
“If you like your guns, you can keep your guns.”*
*Posted by another commenter on another blog.