Conservative Daily News - The best news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..

What Part Of “Shall Not Be Infringed” Does Obama Not Understand?

ban rifles
The 2nd Amendment to the US 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.” The amendment is very unambiguous: “… shall not be infringed.” The definition of the word “infringe” is also unambiguous: “to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress”.

But “Dear Leader” President (for life?) Barack Hussein Obama announced today (January 14, 2013) that he intends to “infringe” upon the 2nd Amendment through legislation and Executive Order. Obama said:

My understanding is the vice president is going to provide a range of steps that we can do to prevent gun violence. Some of them will require legislation. Some of them I can accomplish through executive action.”  [emphasis mine]

The key phrase here is “prevent gun violence.” I don’t think anyone, even us 2nd Amendment zealots, would have objections to any legislation or executive actions that quell (or even reduce) gun violence. But (and there’s always a “but” with Obama), Obama’s track record and pronouncements are against him. For example, on May 25, 2011, Obama told Sarah Brady, “I just want you to know that we are working on it [gun control]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.” And, today, Obama said, “… ban on assault weapons and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines are all on the table.”

What he says and what he does tend to be two different things. His statements and actions tend to, as Richard Larsen so eloquently pointed out, “exceed his authority.” The legislation he sponsors or asks for, and his executive actions, tend to exceed his authority, to “infringe” upon our right to keep and bear arms. But we can expect any actions taken by Obama to be cast in a “reasonable” light by his lap-dog MSM.

As Richard Larsen, in his excellent article, says:

“The limits of presidential declarations, like the EO [Executive Order], were clarified judicially by the landmark 1952 Supreme Court ruling of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. By executive order 10340, President Harry Truman declared that all steel mills in the country were to be placed under federal government control. The Supreme Court ruled, however, that the EO was invalid since Truman was essentially creating, or making law, as opposed to clarifying the executive branch enforcement of an existing law.”  [emphasis mine]

So, is Obama going to “create” law? Is the law he “creates” going to infringe upon our constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. History is NOT on Obama’s side.

Or does Obama understand the phrase, “… shall not be infringed,” and just wants his way?

But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. This is due to our approach that citizens have a voice, not only 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

Tags: ,

Comments (5)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Cal says:

    I would guess any and all parts that are discussed in the constitution. Lord knows Obama has trampled over that national document many times in the past. This is just another feather in his hat, and another defeat for democracy.

    • rxantos says:

      The #1 flaw. People calling the USA a democracy when is a constitutional republic. Let me illustrate the difference.

      Democracy:
      Two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner.

      Constitutional Republic:
      Two wolves and a well armed sheep deciding whats for dinner.

      Democracy is just rule by the mob. Uninformed people deciding on whatever the media sells them as the truth.

      The vote of a fool has exactly the same weight as the vote of the wise. As there are more fools than wise, the result of a democracy is always foolishness.

  2. L.E. Liesner says:

    How about his oath of office, he either does not understand or intentionally dishonors this “I do solemnly swear(or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” I’m betting that he has no intention of honoring his oath or the Constitution. A man without honor is nothing but flesh and bones with no substance.

  3. Mack says:

    What part of “well regulated” don’t you understand?

    • Chuck says:

      What part of “…shall not be infringed,” don’t you understand? Self-Defense: This Right is “fundamental” and is a “major component” of the 2d Amendment–SCOTUS said so, see, McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). BHO, Jr., nor VP Joe have ANY duty, or authority, to “change, revise, suspend, or eliminate,” ANY of the Bill of Rights. Want to do so? Call a Convention and go through the process. I don’t think that would be successful.