The 2012 Election and Obama's View of the Second Amendment

By | November 25, 2011

The second amendment to our U.S. Constitution states, “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.”

President Barack Obama’s history in support of strict gun control measures prior to becoming president makes it difficult for him to claim he’s a Second Amendment champion. In 2004, while campaigning for the Illinois senate, he said, “I think that the Second Amendment means something. I think that if the government were to confiscate everybody’s guns unilaterally that I think that would be subject to constitutional challenge.” He didn’t say it would be unconstitutional, just “subject to constitutional challenge.” Nor did he express any opposition. “I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it’s subject to commonsense regulation” like background checks, Obama said in 2008. His idea of “commonsense regulation” is making gun ownership completely illegal.

For a really good source about Obama’s gun control stance, see this source.

Obama has viciously attacked Second Amendment rights, but he has done so quietly, behind-the-scenes, and by regulation and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) abuses, such as Fast and Furious.

But there is another reason why Obama’s reelection could spell the death of the Second Amendment as we know it: the Supreme Court, which currently consists of four conservatives (Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alita), four raving liberals (Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer), and one sort-of-conservative swing vote (Kennedy). There is a very real possibility that one, two, or three vacancies will occur in the next five years. And, if the vacancy(ies) is/are filled by Obama, that will create an at least 5-man majority of anti-gun liberals on the Supreme Court. In fact, after stating under oath before the Senate that she had no opinion on the scope of the Second Amendment, Sotomayor wasted no time opining (in a decision) that she believed Heller was bad law.

Liberals on the Supreme Court often don’t defer to stare decisis, so the Supreme Court could declare the Second Amendment to apply only to militias. (see below)

So? If even one gun control advocate who intends to vote for Obama “sees the light,” then this post will not have been in vain. People, be armed with facts when the 2012 election is discussed.

BTW, just for the record, I have owned pistols, rifles, and shotguns all my life, even as a pre-teen. I was in the Army for almost 22 years. During this time I have NEVER has a weapon of an sort, on its own volition, shoot anyone. I taught my children (two girls, one boy) to shoot, and to treat all weapons as if they are loaded. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. And all the other clichés you have heard.

BTW2, I have gun control advocates say that the second amendment applies ONLY to militias. To that argument I always answer, “Have you ever heard of citizen-soldiers?” We never know when we will be called upon to join a militia and bring our own arms. Plus we have to have our own arms to stay in practice!

But that’s just my opinion.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. We believe that citizens have a voice - one that should be heard above the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

3 thoughts on “The 2012 Election and Obama's View of the Second Amendment

  1. Bob Russell Post author

    Two terms are important to understand when coming from a politician, any politician. The first is “comprehensive”. This means two things. One, they haven’t read what is in the legislation, and two, they are hiding an agenda of tyranny over freedom. The other term to understand is “common sense regulations”. This means total control by government of whatever the subject matter is and that the only “common sense” view is their own. They will never let the Constitution or rule of law get in the way of “commons sense” regulation on anything.

    1. Anonymous

      Mercy! You have just described “Adolph Hitler”!

      If, “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.” ….. in the Post WW1, the German laws, Hindenburg would have ample reason to “turn over in his grave!” However, after 50 million dead, there are folks in our own government that would like to see us ALL dis-armed, such as the 1938 Nazi law. Specifically, the state of Illinois! I just can’t get over the fact that the state of IL is DENYING EVERY citizen their 2nd amendment right!

      Perhaps it will change soon…as IL is the ONLY state where the right is DENIED!

      1. Bob Russell Post author

        Anonymous, check out the things I have written about this issue on CDN. I mention Hitler quite often as we are seeing him being brought to our naiton daily. I also write about Hugo Chavez a lot as he is the current day Hitler in the western hemisphere. Adolph Ahmadinijad is the eastern hemisphere version. Our freedom is nearly gone. The NDAA bil, Sb 1867/HR 1540 and S. 679 combine to take every vestige of choice away from We the People.
        http://conservativedailynews.com/?s=letter+to+congress+s.+1867

        http://conservativedailynews.com/2011/11/letter-to-senators-regarding-sb-679/

Comments are closed.