Obama statement vs. the Constitution

By Dean L

The president issued a statement last week regarding gun control, or as the president put it, gun violence.  Let's for a second disregard the fact that a gun is incapable of violence, it's just a tool that can be used for violence just as it can be used for defense and security.

We've entered the matrix?

Here's the president's statement in full.  I've added the emphasis for discussion purposes.  It is not emphasized in the original.
I thank the Senate for taking another step forward in our common effort to help reduce gun violence by advancing a bill that would reinstate and strengthen a ban on the sale of military-style assault weapons and set a 10-round limit for magazines. These weapons of war, when combined with high-capacity magazines, have one purpose: to inflict maximum damage as quickly as possible. They are designed for the battlefield, and they have no place on our streets, in our schools, or threatening our law enforcement officers.

The Senate has now advanced legislation addressing three of the most important elements of my proposal to help reduce the epidemic of gun violence in this country. Now the full Senate and the House need to vote on this bill, as well as the measures advanced in the past week that would impose serious penalties on anyone who buys a gun as part of a scheme to arm criminals, improve school safety, and help keep guns out of the hands of criminals, people with a severe mental illness, and others who shouldn’t have them. Each of these proposals deserves a vote.
The highlighted section sounds powerful at first blush, but not as powerful as this, the Second Amendment to the Constitution:

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 part people tend to focus on is "shall not be infringed".  Infringed: Act so as to limit or undermine. Seems like the president's proposal (notice he takes credit for a liberal plan but won't take the blame for his own liberal failures?), tends to infringe the public's second amendment rights.

But what about "being necessary to the security of a free state"?  It is quite necessary that weapons that are in fact designed for the battlefield be available to the people.  Whether the framers were arguing that the security is to face an external threat or to the face an overbearing domestic government, does not matter.  The intent was to allow people to both keep and bear (carry) arms.  Further, if the purpose is to raise a militia when needed, then should not the arms suitable to a battlefield be not only available but indeed required?

The president seems to view the Constitution, at best, as malleable or unequally applicable.  At worst he sees it as archaic and not up to snuff.  He did  say at one point that the Constitution was a document of negative rights.
“We still suffer from not having a Constitution that guarantees its citizens economic rights.” By positive economic rights, Obama means government protection against individual economic failures, such as low incomes, unemployment, poverty, lack of health care, and the like. Obama characterizes the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties,” which “says what the states can’t do to you (and) what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.”
Disdain for the Constitution is unbecoming for a Commander-In-Chief.  The president is as agenda driven as he is political, and as much as he is eager to take credit and eschew blame.  This simple release, shows once again each of those first three points.  He's attempting to sound-bite himself into convincing the public to support his 'perfectly reasonable' position.  He is eager to take credit for the work being done by Senate Democrats.   And finally his agenda is a pure liberal agenda.  Rolling back gun rights is a progressive liberal wish list item, and Obama is fully on board with it.

As for eschewing blame - he's had over four years of track record showing that.


  1. "weapons of war"? Perhaps the President would be s kind as to cite exactly which nation on the planet wages war with a .22 semi-automatic rifle, such as some of those on the list?

  2. Not to believe that facts have anything to do with the Control/gun control agenda, but we compiled the data from CDC and FBI. Gun banning laws do not stop violent crime, as a matter of fact, they appear to do the opposite.


    "District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). After the gun ban in Washington D.C. was repealed, murder rates fell 43.2% by 2011. "

    1. That's a good point and a whole other discussion. I guarantee if say, senior citizens were required by law to carry guns that the crimes against seniors would go down. Why? Because it's a deterrent.

      Deterrence is a strategy - hope isn't. Just a reminder to all those who voted for hope.

  3. What I find most frustrating in this entire debate is the fact that people don't honestly believe that The Second was written for the very reasons you addressed above. Then, in the rare event they actually accept that, they don't take the term "well regulated" to mean organized, as it is clearly shown in the context thereof. The other very frustrating part of arguing with people about it is the complete disregard they have for the, literally, hundreds of studies and instances that have shown stricter gun laws don't reduce crime at all. "High-capacity" to anyone familiar with the modern sporting rifle platform is any magazine that is capable of holding more that 30 cartridges. If you go and buy one, you will receive one or two 30 round magazines, as they were the standard design for Eugene Stoner's Armalite Model 15.

    We need common sense gun laws and enforcement of the current ones. I personally own 7 fire arms, basically one of every type that could be used for North American hunting and defense, and I am all for back ground checks on any fire arm transfer, as long as the price is reasonable. No responsible gun owner would want or willingly and purposefully sell any fire arm to someone they suspect of being incapable of responsibly using it. I am also completely on board with criminalizing domestic abuse convicts of owning any fire arms. I am not for any sort of registry or database containing my name and number of weapons I own. I am a law abiding citizen, not a sex offender.

    If you find yourself discussing the banning of modern sporting rifles with someone of a tyrannical mindset, just drop this line on them and then laugh at the look in their faces: "You're right, the AR-15 is such a great "weapon of war" that not one single military on the planet uses it." I love the looks it illicits! I'm also a big fan of asking them what the AR in AR-15 means!!

    1. Great comments Spanish War Donkey.

      And you've got to love the ArmaLite Rifle (AR). Personally I do not own any guns because, well, I'm in Canada. Freedom here is a recently re-emerging idea, and gun ownership is as rare as it is onerous to achieve. That so many people in the United States would be willing to give away a right so easily has disturbing implications for the future of not only the United States but for all of mankind.


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.