Tuesday, 24 September 2013 09:25

Pres. Obama "Fired Up" and Ready to Repeal Second Amendment

Written by 

On behalf of your children, President Obama plans to take the guns you own and make it harder for you to buy them.

During a speech September 21 at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s Phoenix Awards dinner, the president promised he was turning his attention back to his gun control agenda.

Referring to his failed efforts to irreparably infringe on the right to keep and bear arms begun after the massacre of 20 children and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, President Obama declared:

We fought a good fight earlier this year, but we came up short. And that means we've got to get back up and go back at it. Because as long as there are those who fight to make it as easy as possible for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun, then we've got to work as hard as possible for the sake of our children. We've got to be ones who are willing to do more work to make it harder. 

There could hardly be a more receptive crowd, and the president’s remarks were met with cheers and applause.

Admitting that although there was so much to be done and the repeal of the Second Amendment would be a tall order, President Obama promised supporters that he was “still fired up.”

Given his penchant not only for ignoring the Constitution, but for zealously pursuing the permanent, piecemeal destruction of the roster of fundamental rights it protects, there is little doubt that this will be one promise that President Obama keeps.

Gun owners — the “dangerous people” being targeted by the president — have legitimate reasons to fear the federal government’s assault on the Second Amendment.

After the recent murders at the Navy Yard in D.C., White House spokesman Jay Carney reported that the president is committed to redoubling his efforts to enforce the score of executive orders he signed in the wake of the Newtown tragedy. “The president supports, as do an overwhelming majority of Americans, common-sense measures to reduce gun violence,” Carney said.

Prior to the shootings at the Navy Yard, Vice President Joe Biden announced that through “executive authority,” the president was closing two so-called loopholes in federal gun restrictions. First, corporations purchasing guns will be subject to a background check. Second, the re-importation of almost all surplus military weapons to private individuals will be banned.

His water carriers in Congress were no less anxious to use tragedy as a pretext for tyranny.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) lamented the “litany of massacres,” asking, “When will enough be enough? Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.”

Ironically, that is the same question Americans are asking themselves about the federal government and its daily demolition of the Bill of Rights.

While many Republicans have so far successfully resisted wholesale gun grabs, the compromises by conservatives are stacking up and that which was once a right is become little more than a privilege.

It is undeniable that the requirement that one recur to the government for permission to do something that the Constitution protects as an inherent right of all men is an outright obliteration of the bedrock liberties upon which this Republic was founded.

Remarkably, there are many Republicans and other self-described “pro Second Amendment” politicians who accede to the notion that the government should be permitted to impose “reasonable restrictions” on the owning, buying, selling, and trading of weapons. 

True constitutionalists recognize such unconstitutional concessions for what they are: reductions of rights protected by the Constitution. Furthermore, they understand that if we are to remain a free people, we must enforce every provision of the Constitution on every issue without exception; that includes those rights that may be politically unpopular or misunderstood en masse.

The hour is late, but there is still time to ride to the defense of the Constitution and the Second Amendment. Constitutionalists can let the president and their elected representatives in Washington know that they will hold them accountable for each and every attempt to curtail rights that are not theirs to dispose of.

Also, state lawmakers must be aware that voters will likewise hold their feet to the fire and demand that they unqualifiedly reject any effort by the federal government to enforce any act — be it congressional bill, executive order, or regulation — that exceeds the constitutional limits on its power.

As the applause faded at the banquet Saturday night, President Obama undoubtedly rode back to the White House determined to get rid of the guns and increase the surveillance of the “dangerous people” who currently own them. 

Were he honest, however, President Obama would admit that the elimination of guns from the world is not the goal of the gun grabbers. Their hidden agenda, the one shared by the president and his fellow internationalists at the United Nations, is the consolidation of monopolistic control over firearms by the plutocrats on the Potomac and Turtle Bay.

Constitutionalists should now be on the lookout for the imminent announcement by Secretary of State John Kerry or by President Obama himself that the United States has signed the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty. That act will be a bellwether of the coming acceleration of the disarmament of the civilian population of the United States.


Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, and the surveillance state.  He is the host of The New American Review radio show that is simulcast on Youtube every Monday. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


  • Comment Link rprew Thursday, 26 September 2013 22:09 posted by rprew


    Obviously someone has waxed your nub so vigorously that you have lost the ability to think straight. This is evidenced by your lack of knowledge of current events (countless stories of armed citizens stopping crime) and your lack of ability to compose a logical sentence.

    You are also ignorant of the fact that Starbucks is a very open supporter of the "change" agenda of Obama and the Democratic Party.

    In the future, learn your facts before going on a rant. Facts hold sway over emotion. But then again, sometimes emotion is all you have.

  • Comment Link marvin nubwaxer Wednesday, 25 September 2013 14:41 posted by marvin nubwaxer

    "On behalf of your children, President Obama plans to take the guns you own . . . "
    your ranting lacks any credibility whatsoever when it begins with an assertion that only right wing extremist agitators believe yet has no factual evidence to support it.
    on the other hand your gun propagandists are trying to foist your gun cult ideals on all of us with the assertion that guns are the answer to gun violence and encouraging armed vigilantes to patrol our streets endangering citizens who neither want nor need your protection. has starbucks finally put its foot down and banned guns in their stores? they are hardly obama operatives. a good guy with a gun being in a position to stop stop someone else with a gun committing a crime is so rare that that is what makes it a news story.
    guns guns guns
    guns guns guns
    all you need is guns guns
    guns is all you need

  • Comment Link Frank M. Pelteson Wednesday, 25 September 2013 10:31 posted by Frank M. Pelteson

    Obama is merely following the mandates of the United Nations for disarmament of all but the United Nations military and police. This was already predicated by State Department Publication 7277.see https://www.jbs.org/shop-jbs/books/shop-jbs/books/freedom-from-war-7277-booklet whose text can be read at http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html . Its title is "Freedom From War

    The United States Program
    for General and Complete
    Disarmament in a Peaceful

    It was published in 1961 during the Kennedy Administration.

  • Comment Link Me Walton Wednesday, 25 September 2013 09:10 posted by Me Walton

    Always interesting how he can make statements as any dictator would and our Congress (house and senate of course) nods like bobble heads. Even while offering the voters lip service, they "let it happen". When any branch of our federal leadership attempts to usurp the authorities granted by our Constitution, there are two other branches that have taken individual oaths to protect that document. What has happened here? We are truly a house divided across our nation. Segregation was outlawed decades ago. Private clubs based on race, ethnicity, or other divisive notions should not be allowed by federal law. The president took an oath to keep the Constitution as well as to protect the individual rights of the people. In one meeting he has usurped and broken that promise. This is not a party or race or religious issue. It is one of national solidarity state by state, citizen by citizen.

  • Comment Link Tony Butler Wednesday, 25 September 2013 06:16 posted by Tony Butler

    If it is possible to remove the Second Amendment, then it may possibly be a prelude to the removal of them them all.

    History show that despots and dictators have always disarmed their own people before seizing power.

  • Comment Link Brian Parker Wednesday, 25 September 2013 03:17 posted by Brian Parker

    Every time I hear or see the phrase "Congressional Black Caucus", I wonder what would happen if there were a declared "Congressional White Caucus"?
    I'm not race baiting here, just puzzled.

  • Comment Link BOB WILLS Wednesday, 25 September 2013 00:52 posted by BOB WILLS

    If He and congress were to do that on there own now?...there'd be a different result. Blood would cover the house of Congress step entrance continually till they were all dead. That would be justice rightly divided.

  • Comment Link REMant Tuesday, 24 September 2013 20:32 posted by REMant

    I'd have no objection if the president took guns out of the hands of blacks.

  • Comment Link rprew Tuesday, 24 September 2013 20:22 posted by rprew

    "How amazingly ignorant. No president can 'repeal' any amendment to the constitution."

    That didn't stop Lincoln from "repealing" parts of the first amendment. Bush and Obama have both effectively "repealed" parts of the fifth amendment.

    The constitution also restricts the federal government to those powers enumerated in the constitution, yet we have "laws" going far beyond the scope of constitutional authority.

    The constitution provides for the separation of powers, yet presidents and courts and unelected bureaucracies routinely "legislate" by executive order, court order, or bureaucratic regulation.

    To believe those who have repeatedly disregarded the constitution on a multitude of occasions are going to suddenly fully abide by the same is to be truly ignorant. Only by knowing the constitution can we recognize when it is being abused.

    While past behavior is no guarantee of future behavior, it is a pretty good predictor. It is upon such past behavior that I base my original observation.

  • Comment Link Nora Tuesday, 24 September 2013 20:03 posted by Nora

    There is no way we're giving them up, and if we rounded up the traitors trying to take them and threw them in jail before it came to that, there would be no blood shed by patriots.

  • Comment Link Don Mitchell Tuesday, 24 September 2013 18:20 posted by Don Mitchell

    The only way the government can take your guns is if you allow it. Those who are unwilling to kill and die to preserve their rights, freedoms and property will surely and deservedly lose them. Semper Fi!

  • Comment Link James Smith Tuesday, 24 September 2013 17:44 posted by James Smith

    How amazingly ignorant. No president can "repeal" any amendment to the constitution. That requires a referendum from the states or an overwhelming majority i congress.

    For those that keep whining about the Constitution, you are remarkably ignorant of it.

  • Comment Link rprew Tuesday, 24 September 2013 17:06 posted by rprew

    As ludicrous as it sounds, I wouldn't be surprised if there won't be an attempt to repeal the second amendment by executive order. No, not directly, but in a roundabout way, perhaps by a declaration of martial law or some other "national emergency measure".

  • Comment Link Rocky Tuesday, 24 September 2013 15:36 posted by Rocky

    It appears the ONLY thing Americans will take up arms and fight back is confiscation of their guns. We have sat by and watched our Constitution and American way of life ripped apart by corrupt politicians in BOTH political parties and done little to nothing to stop them. Many times we even re-elect them knowing full well what they really are. But touch our guns and the war is on ! None until now wanted to chance a shooting revolution, now...who knows?

  • Comment Link Northeast Patriot Tuesday, 24 September 2013 10:35 posted by Northeast Patriot

    In every nation where guns have been confiscated, liberty has disappeared. Listen to the statistics in both spoken sections of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnuDzozkjC0

  • Comment Link Bobl Tuesday, 24 September 2013 09:57 posted by Bobl

    Obama has already been given far too many "passes" on violations of the limits of power imposed up the office he occupies. Notice I didn't refer to his legality in occupying the office in the first place. Congress has been spineless to confront him as yet and if he does try to render the Amendment which secures the existence of all of the rest void and he is not brought to ground for it, then there will be but one remaining action that the freedom loving American people can take to preserve their freedoms and Constitutional government - secession and the reestablishment of the Republic under the Founding Principles.The seizure of power has gone too far today to save what little is left because even the GOP is complicit in the downfall of our Constitutional Republic and the establishment of global governance. Washington for several decades now has gradually worked toward that goal and today there seems to be a rush to complete the treasonous crime by whatever means necessary, even if it means confronting the American public in the streets with force. I see the reason the "civilian" branches of the federal government are currently being armed and procuring the massive amounts of ammunition as preparation for just such an event if the people don't just surrender to the final seizure of power and suspension of the Constitution. Remember when Obama said there needs to be "a civilian national security force just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well funded as the military"? It's clear now what he meant.

Please Log In To Comment
Log in