As gun sales shoot up around the country, President-elect Barack Obama said Sunday that gun-owning Americans do not need to rush out and stock up before he is sworn in next month.
"I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment," Obama said at a news conference. "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word."
The article also indicates that the National Rifle Association is not buying Obama’s enthusiasm for the Second Amendment, citing his voting record as proof that he is less than inspired by citizen gun-ownership.
Why then, is there a huge spike in gun sales and how is that tied to the Second Amendment? One would think that Hunting would play a large part, and it does, but there is a larger implication in play, and that is the actual wording in the Amendment itself.
“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.”
Taking the following: Militia (civilian military), necessary to the security of a free State (the State as it was intended to remain under the Constitution), the right to bear and keep arms (as pertains to both the Militia and the State), it can be argued, that the intent was not to provide arms solely for the purpose of procuring food and entertainment, but rather, to protect the government from itself.
An excellent treatise on the subject can be found at Mitchell Langbert’s blog: from the Federalist Papers, #8, Hamilton is concerned with the ability of the citizens to protect themselves from our government – in other words a change in the nature of the established government, against the will of the people, the inclusion of the second amendment gives the people the ability to re-establish rule – or the original Constitution – in the face of subversion of that government.
Mike Huckabee, in his latest book, “Do The Right Thing”, also discusses the Federalist Papers and the original intent of the founders to mean the same.
Is it no wonder then, that those who believe that our nation is headed towards a path to socialism would want to insure that they might be able to protect the very foundation upon which our government was formed? The President-elects unfortunate associations with committed socialists and ‘progressive” democrats, gave rise to the speculation that should he attain the Presidency, then he would, in certainly, socialize everything from healthcare to a personal police force. ( Rahm Emmanuel discuses mandatory civil service).
That said, the path to socialized government has already been set in play, with the bailout of financial institutions and the current bill backing the Auto-Makers, however, one must keep in mind that the President-Elect has not played a significant role in either and more-to-the point, has chosen moderate centrists to fill key cabinet positions. Additionally, although Obama has not been an avid supporter of Second Amendment rights in his past political career, he is now in no position to swing too far left or right, understanding that the stability of the nation rests in focusing on the economy. One also must understand that the President is, in essence, the titular head of a political party – a party which now holds control over the legislature; however, there remains a system of checks and balances, as they were unable to achieve the super-majority necessary to affect harm. Meanwhile, one might consider purchasing stock in Smith & Wesson.
2 comments:
Purchasing stock in Smith & Wesson sounds like a great idea ... but only after purchasing an actual Smith & Wesson first.
The attack on the U.S. Constitution has only just begun. Take for example the Supreme Courts decision to not look into the matter of just where was President Elect Obama really born?! Thus prompting the liberal media to start asking questions such as:
" "What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on U.S. soil?"
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE??? Are you kidding me? O.K. ... then let the people of this great nation break the Federal and State laws of the Constitution, and related doctrine, and then be free to ask the same:
"What difference does it make if I provide our enemies with U.S. secrets?"
Or maybe the Police start asking:
"What difference does it make whether I beat you, torture you, throw your butt in jail, without providing you with your right to remain silent or have an attorney?"
ATTENTION: COURTS OF THIS LAND ... QUIT INTERPRETING THE LAW ... IT'S RIGHT THERE, IN BLACK AND WHITE!!!
Here's a quarter ... buy a clue!
Over the last several months there has been absolute disdain from the left for the Constitution.
Post a Comment