This is a discussion on What would this do to RKBA? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; What we certainly do not need is more gun control. Those who call for the repeal of the Second Amendment so that we can really ...
What we certainly do not need is more gun control. Those who call for the repeal of the Second Amendment so that we can really begin controlling firearms betray a serious misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, such that its repeal would legitimately confer upon government the powers otherwise proscribed. The Bill of Rights is the list of the fundamental, inalienable rights, endowed in man by his Creator, that define what it means to be a free and independent people, the rights which must exist to ensure that government governs only with the consent of the people.
At one time this was even understood by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the first case in which the Court had an opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment, it stated that the right confirmed by the Second Amendment "is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The repeal of the Second Amendment would no more render the outlawing of firearms legitimate than the repeal of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment would authorize the government to imprison and kill people at will. A government that abrogates any of the Bill of Rights, with or without majoritarian approval, forever acts illegitimately, becomes tyrannical, and loses the moral right to govern.
A Nation of Cowards
DaveH, thank you for posting those articles. The last one especially that specifically layed out some of Obamas coments and votes.
The first two articles mostly seemed to me to show that Obama doesn't like guns, but will only do what is politically palatable to ban them. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that we should ignore him because he is not screaming "BAN THEM ALL!" Sometimes the ones who do things quietly behind closed doors (as we have seen him to be good at with health care), because they don't push hard so you let your guard down, and they they will pounce. Just because he isn't willing to lose political capital pushing for something he knows will fail, doesnt' mean he will let it slide for his whole term.
I do agree with the second article that we can not hold him specifically responsible for all of the money given to organizations from a board that he sat on, but being a part of that board does show the type of people and ideas that he associates with.
It does seem that having Obama on the Supreme Court would be a bad thing for the 2A. He aknowledges the right for hunting, sporting and target shooting, but not for defensive purposes. But the 2A says nothing of hunting or target shooting. It was meant to give the people military capability for defense of their country and family "being necessary to the security of a free state...".
He claims to be pro 2A and support an individual right, he just thinks that right can be regulated? He says a lot of the right things that make "common sense" but I think his interpretation of things is just a little different than what the American People think.
Walk softly ...