Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Obama & Congressional Democrats Aiming to Stifle Gun Rights?

It is starting to look that way to me. We have an attorney General, Eric Holder, who doesn't believe in individual gun rights. His interpretation of the Second Amendment is completely different from how most legal scholars see it. Will he pursue an agenda aimed at taking away basic rights?

I already knew that Obama was anti-Gun, but I didn't realize until recently just how anti-Gun he really is. Now I understand why people have been swamping the gun shops, trying to get their purchases made, before their rights are challenged.

Obama doesn't believe in Concealed Carry Laws and he would like to see a Federal Ban on the practice. Although at least 40 of the 50 States have full Concealed Carry Rights for citizens who have been vetted and properly trained and who pay the required fees. Another 8 States offer partial Concealed Carry Rights (usually based on need...and with even more scrutiny and restrictions for applicants). Only two States have a ban on Concealed Carry... not surprising that Illinois is one of those 2 States. Wisconsin is the other.

Obama ignores the fact that there have been no serious problems with the Concealed Carry programs in States that allow full CCW rights. Despite information challenging their position they continue to try to erode the Second Amendment. Recently another Chicago politician, Bobby Rush (him again) quietly introduced Federal legislation (bill HR 45) known as the "Blair Holt Bill" that would stifle my right as a citizen to protect myself. Why are these Chicago politicians so obsessed with this? It's strange, considering the fact that Chicago's own Gun ban has done little to reduce gun crime. That's because the vast majority of street criminals don't buy guns through legitimate channels. Therefore, these gun bans only hurt law abiding citizens....preventing them from protecting themselves from the thugs who have been enabled and encouraged by folks like Bobby Rush.

Chicago has seen violent gun crime rise in recent years .... under the gun ban. Just last month, there was a major shooting outside of a Chicago high school... wounding at least 5. Even the Chicago police Department had to deploy much heavier weapons just last year because they were so outgunned. Chicago is like Mexico right now.... Damn near lawless. St. Louis is the same... with a much higher murder rate than Chicago... in fact, St. Louis has one of the highest Murder rates in the nation. Running gun battles in broad daylight between gangs or between gunmen and police are not all that uncommon in the City. But officials here understand that preventing law abiding citizens from protecting themselves is not the answer and is beyond foolish.

I have never understood the logic of the anti-Gun politicians. I really don't think they understand this issue... they just don't have the criminal justice expertise to understand street crime. They have this false notion that blocking legitimate gun purchases and preventing law abiding citizens from even having guns in the home will somehow prevent thugs, burglars, gang members, rapists, robbers, and career criminals from accessing guns on the street level -- The Black Market. These politicians don't understand that there are two parallel gun markets... blocking one gun market, does not effect the other whatsoever, especially in large urban areas. If you take away the legitimate gun market.... it doesn't impact the criminal at all... Why? Because he is getting his gun on the street anyway. He's not going to a gun shop... submitting to background checks and so forth. Gun bans and restrictions only prevent law abiding folks from having the option... their Second Amendment Right... to protect themselves and their families. This is the main fallacy in the anti-gun argument.

We recently saw the same nonsense in Washington DC... with its ban on handguns. The city saw gun violence skyrocket in recent years, with the handgun ban in place. Again, showing that such laws are idiotic. Luckily the U.S. Supreme Court agreed and decided (for once) to support the Constitution. And why was the DC law so idiotic? Because most of the gun violence was taking place on the street... between thugs, gang bangers, drug dealers, muggers assaulting innocents, home invaders, burglars, etc. Meanwhile, the citizens of DC (like in Chicago) were left vulnerable to all this nonsense by their own crooked politicians. (By the way... the politicians enjoy armed body guards and police protection...while their citizens are left to fend for themselves unarmed... interesting). These politicians are cowards... the worst kind. These political cowards in DC and Chicago should be forced to live in these crime ridden neighborhoods for 6 months with no protection. Then they might see just how irrational their logic is on this issue.

Sure... the citizens of DC could have shotguns in the home.... but the guns had to be disassembled... put away...packaged with no ammo...etc. Basically these guns would be of no use to you in an emergency. The corrupt politicians who run these cities want you to rely on 911 for protection... LOL. A complete joke. The response time that you can typically expect (the time between when your call is answered by an operator and the time an officer arrives) is anywhere from 6-10 minutes... and that's if you are lucky enough to get a 911 operator with a brain. It takes them about 1-2 minutes just to process your call. Yeah... good luck with that. The above time frame is an eternity if someone is breaking into your home (home invasion) to kill you, rape you, to kill and rob you, kidnap force you to withdraw your money from an ATM, kill you and dump your body somewhere before taking your vehicle. To put it plainly... 911 is inadequate. There are just not enough well trained operators...and not enough police on the streets to get to you before harm is done (at least not every time). Therefore, you have the right to have that 10 minute insurance policy.

The aim of the Bobby Rush legislation seems to be along the lines of the DC policies that were designed to stifle your rights. It is designed to create so much red tape paying fees, taxes, filling out paperwork (much of which is already done)... that people will be discouraged and deterred from exercising their rights under the Constitution. It's a play at incrementally taking away rights. 10 years down the road... they may take another incremental step... until finally the Second Amendment is effectively eliminated.

I am hoping that the proposed legislation dies in Committee. The bottom line is, the Legislation appears to be unconstitutional...since it creates additional barriers. This has usually been a States rights issue. For these restrictions to be made permanent, it seems to me that it would require a Constitutional Amendment. Most States would revolt against this.

If Obama and his Chicago cronies make a serious push to take away my fundamental rights... I will treat him worse than George W. Bush. It's interesting that he says little about the source of the gun violence (that it comes mostly from his gangs and street thugs...not from law abiding Americans). Yet he wants to punish the law abiding citizen and make them even more vulnerable than they already are to the madness in the streets.

Keep away from my Second Amendment Rights Mr. Obama.


Clayton Cramer's Gun Defense Blog

More on Chicago Gun Violence

The Story Behind the "Blair Holt" bill.


King Politics said...

Actually, many legal scholars disagree on the exact meaning of the second amendment; specifically the idea that guns are allowed for an armed militia. The Framers didn't trust Americans. Why do you think we have an Electoral College and originally we didn't have direct election of U.S. Senators?

rikyrah said...

Gonna co-sign with you, AI.

Plus, the Supreme Court has already had a case.

Leave the Second Amendment alone.

I have a right to bear arms.


The Angry Independent said...

Dr. King,

But the prevailing wisdom throughout most of our history has been that there is an individual right. This is how the Supreme Court sees it as well.

If you go back to early American history... even open carry was allowed (Remember the old west). In fact, gun ownership was required in some parts of the Country....going back a Century or more. Most of those laws have faded now... but overall... restrictions have increased over time.

I am not so sure that the Founders didn't trust the least not as much as you suggest. They had just gone through a Revolution where they were being oppressed by the Brits....and they saw individual rights and freedoms as important... regardless of the political makeup. that time.. there was no good model for a Democracy. They had no good templates. So not having direct elections, etc... has to be put into the context of the time...and what was considered a good government to them back then.

The Angry Independent said...


I'm surprised. I thought this would be a debate between us.

I thought you were more on Obama's side on this... thought you were anti-gun.

I'm glad you have come around to the pro-gun rights camp. "Change" is good. :)

rikyrah said...


The only folks in America who can't get guns LEGALLY in America are Law Abiding Urban Dwellers such as ourselves.

The Rural folk have guns.

The Urban Criminals have guns.

I should not be a criminal for wanting to have the way to defend my home.

Anonymous said...

First of all, we are not a democracy, we are a republic. We are a republic not because the framers of the Constitution didn't trust the people.

It is simply that they didn't trust majority rule ( a rule of men ) to protect the rights of the individual as well as a rule of law would.

They didn't trust governments, and they didn't trust the angry mob. Our gun control laws are the result of angry mobs ignoring the rule of law (the Constitution) and going along with the hysteria.

Remember to them, the Salem Witch Trials were fairly recent history. Those trials were the result of a democratic community singling out a minority. If those who were hung had guns, they might have avoided getting hung in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Historically, the fairest trials in the United States have been given to those whose families were very well armed and prepared to defend justice with violence.

Those to whom justice has been denied are those who had no lethal force in their network of friends and family to ward off corruption.