In his October 27 speech at the annual International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) conference in Chicago, President Obama (shown) called for “common-sense gun safety reforms,” which, in the complete context of the speech, obviously means more federal and state gun-control laws.
Obama challenged the obvious conclusion made by those who have pointed out that in Chicago — with its draconian gun-control laws that have banned new sales and registration of handguns in the city since 1982 — tougher gun “safety” laws don’t help, and only make things worse.
Aside from their obvious ineffectiveness, it should be also be pointed out that on January 6, 2014, a federal judge ruled that Chicago’s gun ban was unconstitutional and granted the city’s request for six months to pass new laws regulating gun shops.
The president used the word “safety” nine times during his speech, as if he were proposing regulations to remedy defects in firearms that might cause them to discharge accidentally or explode. However, his words made it obvious that he was talking about not gun safety — but gun control.
Obama also made it obvious that he is not satisfied with regional gun-control restrictions, such as those found in Chicago or New York City, but wants to enact such violations of the Second Amendment at the federal level. He complained that “60 percent of guns recovered in crimes in Chicago come from out of state. You’ve just got to hop across the border [to Indiana or Wisconsin].”
The fact that the president looks to Congress for the solution made it obvious that he favors enacting more federal gun-control laws. He said:
So, look, I understand we won’t all agree on this issue. But it’s time to be honest — fewer gun safety laws don’t mean more freedom, they mean more danger. Certainly more danger to police, more fallen officers, more grieving families, more Americans terrified that they or their loved ones could be next. So I’m going to keep calling on the folks in Congress to change the way that they think about gun safety. And if they don’t, I’m going to keep on calling on Americans to change the folks in Congress until they get it right.
The president’s slick speechwriters also anticipated the obvious reaction to his remarks from constitutionalists who jealously protect their right to keep and bear arms and attempted to defuse those concerns:
And please do not — some of you watching certain television stations or listening to certain radio programs, please do not believe this notion that somehow I’m out to take everybody’s guns away. Every time a mass shooting happens, one of the saddest ironies is that suddenly the purchase of firearms and ammunition jumps up because folks are scared into thinking that Obama is going to use this as an excuse to take away our Second Amendment rights. Nobody is doing that.
With the president’s obvious disregard for the Second Amendment, can there be any wonder why some “folks” would get the impression that “Obama is going to use this as an excuse to take away our Second Amendment rights”?
In his speech, Obama displayed obvious ignorance of — or disregard for — the history behind the enactment of the Second Amendment. He asserted, “That’s why the IACP believes we shouldn’t sell military-style assault weapons to civilians. They don’t need them. They don’t need them to hunt a deer.”
The Second Amendment does not state: “The right to hunt deer being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” but, rather, “a well regulated militia.”
The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, just 16 years after British soldiers attempted to seize the arms stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord. This citizen militia, organized to defend the colonists against the tyranny of the British crown, was what the authors of the amendment had in mind when they used the term “militia” in conjunction with the right to keep and bear arms. Among the arms that British Major John Pitcairn ordered destroyed at Concord were three cannon capable of firing 24-pound shot. These arms were not used by the colonists to hunt for deer, but were intended to be used by the colonial militia in all-out war against the British occupiers, if necessary. It was this and similar experiences that inspired the Second Amendment.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution requires every president to take an oath before assuming office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The Second Amendment is part of that Constitution. Obama’s denials to the contrary, his proposals to enact stricter federal gun-control laws violate that oath.
Photo: AP Images
Related articles:
Senators Manchin and Toomey Consider Reviving Failed Gun Control Legislation
Judge Considers Rewrite of Missouri Gun Rights Amendment Summary
New Yorkers Protest “Assault Weapon” Registration Law
Idaho Latest State to Stand Against Federal Assault on Gun Rights
Kentucky State House Considering Gun Grab Nullification
Gun Production Continues to Rise
Obama Gun Control Scheming Sparked Record Firearm Sales
Obama to Ignore Senate, Sign 2nd Amendment-Violating UN Gun Treaty
Constitutional Sheriffs Convention Focus: States’ Rights, 2nd Amendment
Texas House of Reps Passes Slate of 2nd Amendment Protections
Kansas Governor to AG Holder: We Will Continue to Defend 2nd Amendment
