You are here: HomeU.S. NewsConstitution
Wednesday, 16 January 2013 17:38

Obama Unveils Assault on Gun Rights

Written by 

Using young children as cheap propaganda props, President Obama unveiled his deeply controversial anti-gun proposals on Wednesday amid a series of false claims about having public opinion on his side. Among the most extreme, aside from some two dozen executive decrees he signed, was the announcement that the administration would push for an even more draconian so-called “Assault Weapons Ban” purporting to criminalize popular semi-automatic firearms. Restrictions on magazine capacity as well as mandatory “universal background checks” that could obliterate gun shows and private firearm sales are also at the top of the agenda. 

Analysts on all sides of the issue said the package was the most aggressive assault on the Second Amendment in decades. However, with resistance building nationwide — state governments, sheriffs, police chiefs, and more are all vowing to protect gun rights in their jurisdictions — Obama’s attack may end up falling flat. The GOP-controlled House of Representatives is unlikely to budge, at this point at least. And in the Senate, RINOs and even some Democrats have already spoken out against the administration’s unconstitutional schemes. At least two Republican congressmen are now openly talking about impeachment.

Ironically, perhaps, Obama acknowledged the fact that rights are endowed by the Creator and cannot be legitimately removed by governments, as the Founding Fathers observed in the Declaration of Independence. However, he said it even while openly detailing assorted unconstitutional plots to infringe on Americans’ unalienable right to keep and bear arms, dismissing fears of tyrannical government and attacking the sincerity of his political opponents. He also implied that the Second Amendment was responsible for violations of other rights, such as the right to life.

The president claimed, falsely according to recent polls, that most of the public supports his controversial schemes — not that majority opinion would justify unconstitutional violations of the people’s rights. Acknowledging that much of his assault on gun rights would be hard to get through Congress, however, Obama vowed to use "whatever weight this office holds" to ram it through anyway — perhaps ObamaCare style, where Democrat lawmakers simply ignored the Constitution and defied public opinion.

While his own daughters have heavily armed, taxpayer-funded Secret Service protection, Obama urged the American people to join his crusade to further restrict the Second Amendment for civilians under the guise of protecting children. The president and anti-gun politicians in Washington, of course, will continue to be protected by heavily armed forces carrying large-capacity magazines and fully automatic weapons that are already virtually impossible to get for average citizens.

The people, however, must make do with less firepower, according to Obama. A propaganda pamphlet outlining the president’s plan posted on the White House website insists that it is all “to protect our children” — assuming, of course, that they are already born and do not live in one of the myriad countries suffering from his non-stop mass-murdering drone attacks.

"This is our first task as a society — keeping our children safe. This is how we will be judged. And their voices should compel us to change," Obama claimed as the cameras moved between children and parents standing in the room, relying on a popular but deceptive argument historically exploited by those pushing dangerous or unpopular ideas — protecting kids. "I will put everything I've got into this … but the only way we can change is if the American people demand it."

At the top of the president’s list is making sure that Americans who wish to buy or sell firearms — even in private sales at gun shows or transfers among friends — must jump through hoops and navigate D.C. red tape to perform full federal background checks. While criminals almost always buy their guns on the black market anyway, Obama’s plan says mandating universal background checks is “the single most important thing we can do to prevent gun violence.”

Aside from the inherent problems with asking permission to exercise an unalienable right and the bureaucratic nightmare such a scheme would create — not to mention the costs and the risk of criminalizing otherwise innocent people — critics worry that the federal government will use the data to keep an unlawful firearm registry that would eventually be used for confiscation. Gun shows, as they exist today, would essentially become history. Even if Congress refuses to adopt the scheme, Obama is ordering the ATF to prod people into doing it anyway.    

Using “executive orders,” the president is also beefing up the background-check system, ordering state governments to turn over more information on citizens to be placed in a central database. Private healthcare records, for example, which many people assumed were protected by law, will be among the data vacuumed up by the federal government under Obama’s plan. Also included in the “executive action” package are improved “incentives” to state governments in an effort to gather more information about citizens for federal databases.

Incredibly, disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder, who was caught trafficking guns to Mexican drug cartels under “Fast and Furious,” will be charged with reviewing rules purporting to determine which Americans may own guns. The Justice Department chief, of course, was caught on video in 1995 proposing a tax-funded campaign to, in his words, “brainwash” the American people against guns. Official e-mails from Fast and Furious also revealed that bloodshed resulting from the administration’s gun-running plot, which was uncovered thanks to brave whistleblowers, would be used to advance more infringements on gun rights.

Obama’s plan would also seek to ban what he calls “military-style assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines,” propaganda terms used by the president and other anti-gun zealots to demonize popular semi-automatic weapons and standard-capacity magazines owned by millions of law-abiding Americans. The scheme would criminalize possession or transfer of armor-piercing ammunition for civilians, too, so if criminals wear bullet proof vests, they will have little to fear from their prey — even if the victims are armed. Sen. Diane Feinstein's (D-Calif.) ban legislation would unconstitutionally require national gun registration complete with fingerprints, historically a precursor to confiscation.

The administration is demanding that Congress appropriate $4 billion for police as well, noting that economic problems have resulted in decreased funding at the state and local level. The proposal would essentially confiscate more money from taxpayers or borrow the funds from others, route it through Washington, then hand it back out with strings attached to local law enforcement, which is supposed to be independent of the federal government and accountable to the community — not Obama. State and local law enforcement have been some of the fiercest centers of resistance to federal attacks on gun rights. More federal funding for schools is also being sought to deal with "gun violence."

In all, the president offered a total of 23 “executive orders” dealing with everything from “mental health” to mandating more tax-funded "research" on “gun violence.” One of the orders that has received quite a bit of media attention declares that the deeply unpopular ObamaCare statute allows doctors to interrogate their patients about whether or not they have guns at home — and to report their findings to the government despite doctor-patient confidentiality.

Predictably, much of the slavishly pro-Obama establishment media, already widely mistrusted among Americans in part because of the shameless attacks on gun rights masquerading as “news,” jumped aboard the presidential anti-gun bandwagon. Over the last month, much of the press has been using emotional appeals and outright falsehoods to push gun control, but activists say the establishment talking heads are mostly talking to themselves and that politicians who support further infringements will suffer the consequences at the ballot box. 

Billionaire George Soros-funded groups like MoveOn.org are also in full attack mode, deploying paid “community organizers” and propaganda blitzes to help push Obama’s radical anti-gun agenda. “We have to go big,” the far-left outfit said in an e-mail to supporters celebrating "the most aggressive and expansive national gun-control agenda in generations." The administration has already vowed to try to get as much “public pressure” behind its agenda as possible while fracturing the opposition, so analysts say this is likely just the beginning of that anti-liberty assault.

Gun rights activists, however, are standing firm, saying Congress must reject any and all gun control. Groups like the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, and others are all united against the proposed schemes, and lawmakers are already considering action to block the lawless executive orders. Second Amendment advocates and opponents both argue that all of the pieces of the agenda are simply part of an incremental attack on gun rights eventually aiming to fully disarm all Americans.

“This is a game the anti-gun zealots have played before: They threaten to kill the Second Amendment, and then negotiate their way back to ‘merely’ eviscerating it,” Gun Owners of America said in an e-mail to supporters asking them to contact their elected officials. “The only way that America’s gun owners are going to have peace over the next decade is to stop all gun control — as we did after Columbine — and then defeat compromising legislators running for reelection in 2014.”

While prospects for passage in Congress at the moment appear slim, according to analysts, supporters of the Second Amendment are urging concerned citizens to flood their representatives with calls and letters demanding that they obey their oath of office. Obama has big plans and big money to ram his agenda down the American people’s throats, so if the right to keep and bear arms is to survive, activists say the time to get involved is now.

Photo of President Barack Obama signing gun-control executive orders: AP Images


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, politics, and more. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Related articles:

As Obama’s Anti-gun Agenda Emerges, Republican Threatens Impeachment

Wyoming Bill Would Nullify Obama Gun Control, Jail Feds

Obama Executive Orders on Guns Would Spark Mass Resistance

Police Chief Seeks Nullification of Unconstitutional Gun Control

Obama Task Force Plotting Extreme Assault on Gun Rights  

Obama Administration Intends to Increase Limits on Gun Ownership

Critics Slam Sen. Feinstein’s “Assault Weapons” Ban, Gun Registry

Gun-free Zones Called "Magnets for Mass Shooters"

Media “Talking to Itself” on Gun Control

Gun Sales, NRA Memberships Boost After Conn. School Shooting

State vs. Federal: The Nullification Movement

6 comments

  • Comment Link Kenneth Updike Thursday, 17 January 2013 17:07 posted by Kenneth Updike

    If Wyoming passes the law to arrest federal officers for enforcing federal gun laws, should a warrant be made for the arrest of President Obama also?

  • Comment Link William B Thursday, 17 January 2013 14:57 posted by William B

    For being so Euro-centric, you'd think Obama would subscribe to Cesare Beccaria's philosophy on arms, crime, and punishment, as did most of Europe (see the first, very long comment here by REMant.) Beccaria said the very same things the NRA and GOA are saying today.

    Second, if he is so concerned about the children, why is he OK with saddling children with over $52,000 in debt each? Actually twice that, since less than half the children in the U.S. today will ever pay taxes.

  • Comment Link REMant Thursday, 17 January 2013 14:00 posted by REMant

    The president's remark tho that one life (or even 86 or 151 lives) is worth half-a-billion dollars indicates to me that we should require chief executives to have had a course in cost accounting.

    Yesterday's announcement was a charade, a sideshow, intended, like George Bush's fulminations after 9-11, only to save face. Not only are the measures being considered insignificant, especially the executive orders, and not cost-effective, they are unconstitutional. And it doesn't matter what the polls say unless the ppl are willing to amend it.

    The 2nd Amendment says "arms" not firearms, nor any particular type of arm. Any other construction is plainly unconstitutional, as is the Federal govt's attempt to overreach the states in this matter. And as Gerry, when the amendment was debated, pointed out, that the original exclusion for freedom of conscience could be used to exclude people from keeping arms based on religion, the same argument can surely be made with respect to mental health. Can you imagine Eric Kandel deciding who should be allowed to have weapons or not?

    The fact that "arms" were used by militias does not constrain the imperative clause, which clearly says the right "shall not be infringed." But the fact of the matter is that the militia were the whole body of the ppl, and there was no clear distinction made between public and private at that time, tho it was becoming so with the introduction of the idea of contractual "rights" by the Whigs. Militia duty like posse duty, watch and other duties were a holdover from feudal obligations in a time before bankers, police, standing armies and divisions of labor, when the monarch relied on the ppl directly for defense of the realm. They were never considered synonymous with standing armies despite the fact that they began to use special firearms, and indeed both Hamilton and Madison in the Federalist were at pains to make the distinction in arguing against fears that the Constitution's army clauses could prove tyrannical.

    Commercially-minded Whigs like Defoe - something of a social-climber and scoundrel like Voltaire - who defended William's standing army, were clearly afraid of an armed populace as much as Charles II, and tho in addition making the argument that the militia idea was outmoded by technological advances and the need to fight foreign wars, nevertheless passed a law allowing Protestants to carry arms for self-defense, if not Catholics. Toland, whom Defoe wrote against, on the other hand, defended the republican idea that the monarchy was best supported when it was, as was said at another time and place, "of the people, by the people, and for the people".

    Americans in the revolutionary period held both ideas: for example, Mason spoke of militia as the best defense of freedom, but Jefferson, as he had in the Declaration, for a right to keep and bear arms. They meant the same thing, but were set in two different vocabularies, just as the colonists in 1774 had appealed both to natural rights, and to the king as if the Glorious Revolution had never happened.

    Madison, like his mentor, was quite clear in calling his proposed amendments "private rights," despite the mention of militia as used in his home state, doing so in both notes and letters. And ten days after its introduction, Federalist Tench Coxe wrote: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms," wording approved by Madison.

    Mason was uttering a commonplace when he declared in his state's convention: "to disarm the people was the best and effectual way to enslave them," predicated not only on the experience of Lexington and Concord, but of a century of repression in the home country. Before events at Saratoga changed the course of the war, Colonial Under-secretary William Knox suggested that dealing with America would require His Majesty's govt to establish a state church, a standing army, and a governing aristocracy with unlimited taxing power, and that "The Militia Laws should be repealed and none suffered to be re-enacted, & the Arms of all the People should be taken away,... nor should any Foundery or manufactuary of Arms, Gunpowder, or Warlike Stores, be ever suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without Licence..."

    And it is clear that everyone meant by "free state," a republic, or commonwealth, as had Hotman and Nedham, in the strict sense of a government of, for, and by the people, not merely one with a mixed constitution. The English Parliament, in the act forming the Commonwealth of England in 1649, declared that "England is confirmed to be a Commonwealth and Free State and shall from henceforth be Governed as a Commonwealth and Free State." The post-WWI German states were to adopt similar language, as had the Imperial free cities.

    In the republican view it was the king who rebelled against his realm by attempting to assert absolutism and "reason of state," not his subjects against him. It was termed the "French disease." This is in part why altho they were one with Locke against divine right, they still embrace the importance of family, and Real Whigs and Tories have often been indistinguishable, and contract viewed with suspicion. The evidence is that they were correct, for as the market economy grew, the monarch looked increasingly to commerce for support, Harrington's fanciful notion of redistributing wealth to the aristocracy notwithstanding. And as the commercial society evolved, talk was less about the "ancient rights of Englishmen," than liberties granted by the crown.

    However, republicans have never believed that freedom was alienated by the Constitution's adoption, nor the prerogatives of states except as strictly enumerated. And there is a considerable irony that when speaking in a rights context one is implying that there must be an higher power denying them, which is in fact exactly the argument used by the Federalists against attaching a bill or declaration of rights to the Constitution in the first place. We can extend this reasoning today, and suggest that if government were closer to the people, divisiveness would be less, and presumably shootings as well.

    Yale President Timothy Dwight, a Federalist, who lived through the Revolution and the early national period, wrote in his Travels in New England, "to trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed...to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless.... If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country." "The difficulty here," he added, "has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes."

    Jefferson copied this passage from Beccaria's influential Essay on Crimes and Punishments into his copybook: "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty - so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator - and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."

    Tho given the Chief Justice's ideas, Congress could tax guns out of existence. If the president's men are going to act as they have the past four years, I really wish they would try.

  • Comment Link Robert William Butler Jr Thursday, 17 January 2013 01:03 posted by Robert William Butler Jr

    Great suggestions by Peggy above.

    The common sense approach to the proposal outlined by the current hypocrites in the White House and administration should not be to punish law abiding citizens by restricting freedoms to own and maintain weapons of choice because of the actions of criminals and terrorists. This puts responsible citizens at a distinct disadvantage, and risks severely diminishing the ability of local militia and volunteer forces to defend the communities in which they live, including their CHILDREN from attacks by drug cartels and gangs, and yes a tyrannical government. The criminals never obey these laws, therefore will always be equipped to their maximum potential. To repel or defeat any attack, one must meet that challenge with equal or higher force in a violent and forceful counter attack. That's reality.

  • Comment Link Peggy Finch Wednesday, 16 January 2013 19:43 posted by Peggy Finch

    If President Obama is TRULY concerned with the children of America, I have some suggestions for him. First, stop supporting, promoting, and encouraging abortions. How many babies have been MURDERED by abortion since you took office? Second, if you, Mr. President, want to give our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and so on a secure future, STOP YOUR TRILLION $$ DEFICITS! Third, if your compassion for children extends to all the children of the world, and I hope it does, STOP THE DRONE ATTACKS! I believe that, to date, 178 children around the world have been killed in your ILLEGAL, IMMORAL drone attacks.

  • Comment Link MemphisMickey Wednesday, 16 January 2013 16:58 posted by MemphisMickey

    What? No Confiscation? No Registration?
    Much ado about nothing much. Same old same old. And state's are passing bills because of something that MIGHT Pass.
    Fodder for tabloids.

Log in
Sign up for The New American daily highlights