Tossing Out the Constitution?

January 16, 2013 at 10:02 AM 2 comments

UPDATE:  here is the complete list of 23 steps Mr. Obama wants to implement:
http://thebrennerbrief.com/2013/01/16/23-executive-orders-the-full-list/

Apparently, when the Left has a problem with something, the first thing they do is attempt to circumvent the law.  This alone should tell us where those on the Left stand with respect to the US Constitution.  Unfortunately, there are some extremely uneducated people in this country who believe that this is a fine idea when it comes to the issues that are important to them.  In this case, the issues are illegal immigration and gun control.

Recently, Mayor Villaraigosa of Los Angeles stated that Congress needs to do something about immigration reform and essentially, if that means breaking the law, then so be it.  Mayor Bloomberg of NYC has stated that Mr. Obama should ignore the 2nd Amendment and simply ban guns.  That, my friends, is traitorous talk and Bloomberg should be impeached and then arrested, charged as being a traitor to the United States.

But regarding Villaraigosa has stated, give me a break please!  This country has enough problems with politicians who are clueless, but now the mayor of L.A. wants America to stop deporting non-serious criminal aliens. [1]  He even says that doing so would make America safer.  Unfortunately, the mayor’s meaning is not explained in the article referred to in the link below.  So, I guess we should keep those criminal aliens who are merely “kidding around”?  I’m sorry, but I just don’t get it Mayor Villaraigosa.  Makes no sense to me, sorry.

The mayor also connected the Sandy Hook tragedy with the need for immigration reform stating that our government should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.  Again, he lost me, unless his meaning is that Congress should have the ability to deal with comprehensive gun control and immigration reform at the same time.  If so, Mayor Villaraigosa needs to wake up.

It appears that Mr. Obama is content to let the immigration reform sit on the back burner for now, which means he will do nothing either for or against it and will leave it as it is…for now.  He will not try to enforce existing immigration laws as has been his modus operandi in the past, nor will he attempt to pass any type of DREAM ACT right now either.  In fact, Congress really can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.  They cannot deal with several important issues at once and they’ve proven that repeatedly.

But onto other news with respect to Mr. Obama’s leftwing DREAM Act regarding gun control.  He’s had his press conference.  He has stated (and so has his mouthpiece Carney) that he respects the 2nd Amendment.  However, his voting record tells us that he does not and we glean that from when he was a senator, but why let those facts speak for the man, especially when he is telling us what he means now?  Would he lie to us?

Yesterday, WH spokesman Jay Carney said, “First of all, the president of the United States believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to bear arms,” Carney told reporters. “He has been explicit about this.” [2]  But what does Mr. Obama’s senate voting record or anything else actually say about his support for the 2nd Amendment?

In truth, Mr. Obama seems to believe that banning guns is fine.  He, like Eric Holder, believes that guns can and should be used for the military, but not necessarily for the individual to use as a means of self-defense. [3] So when Mr. Obama states that he supports the 2nd Amendment, he does, but he places a different meaning on it than most of us do.  He has opposed a bill that made it okay for illegal gun use during home invasions.

The specific case has to do with “Hale DeMar, a 52-year-old Wilmette resident, was arrested and charged with misdemeanor violations for shooting, in the shoulder and leg, a burglar who broke into his home not once, but twice. Cook County prosecutors dropped all charges against DeMar.” [4]  The resultant bill that came about because of this situation was passed, but Mr. Obama voted “no” on it.

When asked specifically about the 2nd Amendment and the right of the individual to bear arms, Mr. Obama responded “As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.” [5]  In 2008, Mr. Obama voted to endorse the Illinois handgun ban, so this tells us that he indeed, said one thing and voted another.

If it was up to the government, either no law-abiding citizens would have guns or we would be allowed to have a gun that fired one bullet at at time.  They might allow us to have ten rounds of ammo too, but who knows?

The way Mr. Obama responded above proves that he does not understand the actual intent of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  The 2nd Amendment ends with the words “shall not be infringed,” yet we know that government – local, state, and federal – has consistently infringed upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.  Chicago just lost a major lawsuit in which they illegally kept people from having guns in their home as a means of protection from home invaders.  San Francisco has also lost similar lawsuits in recent times.

The trouble with each of these situations (and many others like them) is that – once again – the results of anything Mr. Obama and Congress attempt to do will continue to have absolutely no bearing on criminals.  So for instance, when Chicago made it illegal to have guns in the home for protection, they only people they harmed and inconvenienced were law-abiding citizens.  Obviously, criminals were not affected negatively.  In fact, it is clear from factual information that during the time guns were not allowed in the home, crime skyrocketed and the reason should be obvious.

If criminals know that the homes they invade contain people with no lethal means of defending themselves, the criminal wins.  The criminals have the element of surprise and likely a gun – two elements that provide a tremendous advantage to the criminal.  Anything the home owner might use in such a situation would be something for close combat, like a baseball bat, or knife, or fireplace poker.  None of these are effective against someone who has a gun and the element of surprise.

According to several news sources, Mr. Obama has outlined a plan for more gun-control initiatives, which includes “23 steps he would take without congressional action.” [6]

Despite discussions earlier about addressing the pervasive violence in the entertainment and video game industries, the president’s plan does not appear to address those issues. The plan, though, does call for a range of measures to improve access to mental health services and improve safety at America’s schools.” [7]

There are things that Mr. Obama is going to implement immediately and they include hiring more police officers, creating policy that allows federal departments to share gun information more easily, improving the system for background checks, and much more.  No source that I read had all 23 points delineated at this point. (See above link at beginning of article – ed.)

Mr. Obama would like a limit on magazines to 10 bullets.  Currently, so-called hi-capacity magazines can be legally purchased (in most states) for rifles and handguns.  These are also readily obtained by criminals on the street (in every state) and simply making them unlawful to own does not mean they will disappear from society.

So what are Mr. Obama’s 23 steps?  No one knows and it appears as though Mr. Obama has not elaborated.  I’m sure we’ll be hearing more about this in the coming days. (See above link at beginning of article – ed.)

It simply seems to me that those on the Left have little problem avoiding and ignoring the Constitution when it suits them.  Mayor Villaraigosa has no problem telling people to stop sending “non-serious criminal illegal aliens” out of the country.  The Obama will back him on that one.  The asinine part of this is that Villaraigosa actually calls them “criminals” but since he deems them to be “non-serious” then I guess it’s okay if they stay here.

All of this is simply (and nothing more than) politics.  The gun grab will continue in further attempts to erode (or attempt to erode) the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Some of the things that Mr. Obama announced have to do with strengthening mental health awareness and include “stricter prosecution of would-be gun buyers who fail background checks as well as new requirements for federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.” [8]

I can see many in Congress thinking that Mr. Obama has not gone far enough, while others will say he is pushing too much.  The truth of the matter seems to be that no matter what laws are made, criminals will continue to find ways around them.  They will continue to do what they do with or without more anti-gun laws.

Mr. Obama wants Congress to ban the so-called “assault” weapon.  They may well do this, but it will be a hard-fought battle before that happens.  We have already seen the state of New York pass a bill that – in my estimation – is illegal, but that remains for the courts to decide.  Other states have issued declarations indicating they will not under any circumstances obey any new federal regulations where gun-control is concerned.

There are millions and millions of law-abiding gun owners in America and more than 99% of them do not break the law and have never shot another human being, except in self-defense.  This seems not to matter to politicians, most of whom either have a concealed weapons permit to carry a gun or they have their own security forces who follow them around ensuring their safety so that they don’t have to worry about it.

I’m sure more will be attempted as time goes on and each time a “massacre” takes place, politicians will use that to further their agenda.  Eventually, the push for a national gun database will gain steam and potentially become part of the fabric of America.

In the meantime, hopefully, the NRA and other groups will keep the pressure on so that people will see the truth.  A gun grab is a gun grab and it is against the 2nd Amendment.  Every time the government tries to tighten regulations, they are guilty of infringing upon that amendment.  Those who say that we should be willing to go along with this if it means greater safety for people are completely ignoring the fact that quite often, guns are used in legal self-defense against the criminal element.

When a criminal breaks into your home carrying a gun with a hi-capacity magazine of 15, 20, or more and you meet that criminal with your weapon that has been limited to 10 rounds, there is a problem.  The criminal has the upper hand and therefore the advantage.  They already have the advantage of surprise and now they also have more bullets loaded and ready to go than you do.  Mr. Obama wants the magazine law-abiding citizens have limited to 10 rounds.  Of course the criminals will go along with that, right?  Because of a hi-capacity ban, these particular magazines will become thoroughly obsolete in society, won’t they?  Certainly, criminals will never be able to get their hands on them, right?  Uh…no.

I’m thankful that we have people in this country who understand what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights mean for law-abiding citizens.  I’m glad they are willing to step up to the plate and push back against illegal gun grabs by politicians in our government.  These people do not care about our safety at all.  They care only about removing any threat to them.

[1] http://cnsnews.com/news/article/la-mayor-keep-non-serious-criminal-aliens-us-it-will-make-us-safer

[2] http://cnsnews.com/news/article/wh-obama-committed-second-amendment

[3] http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

[6] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/obama-urges-new-restrictions-on-assault-weapons-magazines-as-part-gun-control/#ixzz2IA1cqo00

[7] Ibid

[8] http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16544842-obama-unveils-sweeping-new-gun-control-proposals?lite

Entry filed under: 9/11, alienology, Atheism and religion, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Sotero, Communism, Demonic, dispensationalism, Eastern Mysticism, emergent church, Gun Control, Islam, Islamofascism, israel, Judaism, Life in America, Maitreya, new age movement, Posttribulational Rapture, Pretribulational Rapture, Radical Islam, rapture, Religious - Christian - End Times, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology, Romney, salvation, Satanism, second coming, Shadow Government, Sharia Law, Socialism, temple mount, Transhumanism, ufology. Tags: , , .

What Really Happened? So What is in Mr. Obama’s Gun Plan?

2 Comments

  • 1. The Brenner Brief  |  January 16, 2013 at 1:05 PM

    Thanks so much for linking our story here. We will add you to our blog roll, and hope you’ll do the same in kind. Keep up the good work!

    • 2. modres  |  January 16, 2013 at 1:19 PM

      I like to give credit where credit is due. Thanks for adding me to your blog roll.


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 3,067 other followers

Donate to Study-Grow-Know 501 (3)(c) Non-Profit)

Blog Stats

  • 268,616 hits

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,067 other followers

%d bloggers like this: