Obama Takes Aim at Second Amendment following Umpqua Community College Shooting

Written by:

Published on: October 2, 2015

Another mass shooting in a gun free zone occurred yesterday. This time at Oregon’s Umpqua Community College. Right on cue Obama paraded out to make a long speech calling for gun control and gun control laws before he called upon God to comfort the families and friends. Obama thanked the first responders. His speech included everything but his sorrow and sympathy for the families and friends. While he claimed to offer condolences, he never explicitly stated “He and Michelle, or Michael” or “He and VP Biden” extended their condolences or sorrow at the loss of the victims.

Naturally, Obama called for “common sense” gun control laws. Obama stated, “In interviews earlier, I said this is the one nation on earth in which we do not have common sense gun safety laws, even in the face of mass shootings.” He talked about America not being the only nation with mental illness, but America was the only nation where mass shootings occur, after stating anyone who commits mass shootings has “a sickness in their minds.” He went on to lambast law-abiding gun owners while claiming many law-abiding gun owners support gun control legislation.

It cannot be this easy for someone who wants to inflict harm on other people to get his or her hands on a gun. What’s become routine, of course, is the response of those who are opposed to any gun control legislation. Right now I can imagine the press release is being cranked out ‘We need more guns, fewer gun safety laws.’ Does anyone really believe that? There are scores of responsible gun owners in this country. They know that’s not true. We know because of the polling that says the majority of Americans understand we should be changing these laws, including the majority of responsible, law-abiding gun owners. There is a gun for roughly every man, woman and child in America. So how can you, with a straight face, make the argument that more guns will make us safer?

Well, first, Barry, no responsible, law-abiding gun owner is saying, “more guns will make us safer.” Not every US citizen exercises their right to bear arms. An individual, responsible, law-abiding gun owner may have several firearms for different purposes; but, he or she can only shoot one at a time. Poll data can be skewed to favor whichever side of the fence the pollster chooses, so any poll data is at best questionable. So, let’s talk here about “common sense.”

While there may be “a gun for roughly every man, woman and child in America,” not all US citizens exercise their right to bear arms. Everyone knows “more guns” will not make people any safer. However, the ability to exercise the right to bear arms freely everywhere will. In order to carry a firearm, most states require a permit, which involves a background check. Many individuals do not exercise their right because states make it cumbersome to do so. It’s not that “more guns” make anyone safer; it’s more people exercising their right to carry freely that does so.

With the number of establishments that prohibit firearms (gun free zones), the problem becomes all too clear. Criminals go for easy targets. Any establishment displaying a “gun free zone” sign sends a message to criminals that no one carries in those places.

We know that states with the most gun control laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. References, if you will, Barry. So, the notion that gun laws don’t work or just will make it harder on law-abiding citizens, and criminals will still get their guns, it’s not born out by the evidence. Try Chicago, Washington, DC, New York and any other city with strict gun control laws that have epidemic rates of gun violence perpetrated by criminals while law-abiding citizens are unarmed and discouraged from gun ownership. We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings — friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours, so we know there are ways to prevent it. What’s also routine, of course, is that somebody, somewhere will comment and say, Obama politicized this issue. Well, this is something we should politicize.

Correction, people comment saying, “Obama is lying about this issue.” While gun control laws in Great Britain and Australia have almost eliminated mass shootings, the operative word is “almost.” For while the number of mass shootings decreased, mass shootings were not eliminated; but, crimes of all types increased exponentially as individuals were defenseless against criminals. Omission is a form of lying. “When seconds count, the police are minutes away.” If gun control laws worked so well, the mass shooting at Charlie Hebdo would not have occurred, nor would the one in Australia last year.

In Great Britain, crimes involving the use of knives have increased to the point Great Britain seeks to “ban” certain types of knives. When criminals change their mode of weapon again, what will be the reaction of the government of Great Britain? Will the government ban the weapon substitute for knives? Suppose criminals decide to use screwdrivers or ice picks; maybe baseball bats or scissors? It’s a never ending non-solution of “banning” until all anyone is left with is a naked body, stones, and sticks. How do you ban sticks, stones and trees or rid the planet of such?

Now, European countries are inundated with illegal alien invaders misnamed as “refugees” and “asylum seekers.” The majority are males ages 18 to 35 — military age. Reports coming out of Germany speak of increases of rape upon citizens, other illegal alien invaders, forced prostitution and the limiting of freedoms and right of citizens in favor of these invaders. Take any nation in Europe where this invasion of illegal aliens has occurred and the story is the same. Increase in crime as government refuses to protect citizens due to “political correctness” in favoring invaders and limiting the rights of citizens. These “gun control” nations, who are allies, have left their citizens dependent on government to protect them. Citizens trusted their government to do so in supporting “gun control.” These citizens are now helpless, hopeless, and defenseless at the hands of invaders as well as government.

Yes, every nation in the world has citizens who have mental illness; however, not all who have mental illness commit crimes. It is safe to say that criminals have a disdain for the law or an attitude the law doesn’t apply to them, as seen in Anti-social personality disorder sufferers, psychopaths and sociopaths. Some are just plain criminals who use crime as a means of employment and obtain firearms outside of legal purchase to aid in the commission of those crimes. Not all criminal elements use firearms, some use knives. It isn’t those who commit mass shootings but who commit mass murder
by any means that have “a sickness of the mind.” In the case of mental illness of an individual, it is the responsibility of the family to prevent the individual from obtaining objects that could be used to inflict harm upon others or that individual, not the government’s.

This is a political choice that we make to allow this to happen every few months in America. We collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones because of our inaction. When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make the mines safer. When Americans are killed in floods and hurricanes, we work to make our communities safer. Not sure how one can make a community safer against an act of weather. When roads are unsafe, we fix them. To reduce auto fatalities, we have seat belt laws because we know it saves lives.

Thank you Barry for making the point. In each incident Obama described, except for the natural disasters, there existed a “problem” with the operation of an inanimate object or someone in a company was not following the law or someone ignored safety. There does not exist a “problem” with the firearm, but the person behind it who chooses to commit a criminal act. Despite making mines safer, mine disasters still occur. Man cannot alter the weather. People still die on the roadways from “unsafe” road conditions and people wearing seat belts still die in automobile accidents. Some people plainly refuse to wear seatbelts. So, while these “regulations” and laws may decrease the incidents, it will not totally eradicate them. It is the same with gun control laws. Despite Obama’s claim, criminals find ways to break the law, which would include any form of gun control law.

So, the notion that gun violence is somehow different, that our freedom and our constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt and protect their families and do everything they do under such regulations, it doesn’t make sense.

According to the Second Amendment, it makes sense, as the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

So, exactly what kind of “common sense” or “modest” regulation preserves those rights without risking losing them? The answer is none. As one marine in a town hall meeting so eloquently phrased it, “Your dead doesn’t trump my rights.”

Nowhere does Obama address the punishment for violators of law, in particular, murder. Convicted murderers languish in prison, supported by the taxpayers, filing appeal after appeal if they receive the death penalty. Some receive life in prison with the ability to be paroled after a certain number of years served. Why? God declares the penalty for murder to be death. Yet, murderers are incarcerated for years on appeal or get parole after serving a required number of years while bleeding heart liberals calling for “gun control” advocate for eradication of the death penalty, calling it “cruel and unusual” punishment. In fact, Obama released hardened illegal alien invader criminals onto our streets because of supposed budgetary constraints. Why not release citizens whose time is close to ending who have committed lesser crimes? It’s part of an agenda, plain and simple.

Gun control legislation and laws would not affect law enforcement or the military. It usually doesn’t in countries who successfully brainwash their citizens in supporting such. The Second Amendment is to make sure citizens have a means to protect themselves against a tyrannical, despotic government as well as self-defense and a means to provide sustenance. Without it, citizens have no means to protect against being denied freedom, life, liberty, property, other unalienable rights, and the pursuit of happiness by government.

Think outside the box for a second. Obama is bringing in tens of thousands of unvetted Muslims per year under the ruse of “refugees” who are mostly young males. The borders of the united States are porous, allowing who knows who to enter — criminals, other than Mexicans, cartels, etc. Obama, himself, releases illegal alien criminal elements into our communities under the reason of “budget constraints.”
Sanctuary cities are havens for criminal illegal alien invaders with impunity. And, incidences of gun shootings are occurring all too frequently since Obama entered office. Police are militarized, but prevented from restricting illegal alien invaders. DHS purchases obnoxious amounts of ammunition in the billions of rounds for the reason “we want it.” Obama and his ilk call more forcefully for gun control.

Yes, Obama is politicizing the issue but not out of altruism, concern for families who have lost loved ones, or any reason hinting at imagined increased safety. It is an agenda intended to strip Americans of their God-given right to bear arms in order to usher in subjugation of the people to government, enact the unconstitutional UN Small Arms Treaty, strip individuals of property rights in order to enact UN sustainable development goals in Agenda 2030, and institute a one world government ruled by the wealthy elite bureaucrats. Sometimes, the greatest motivator can be fear. If people fear the inanimate object of a firearm and these incidences continue, people will beg government to take away rights. Just as Obama has declared religious freedom cannot be allowed when dealing with sodomite’s imaginary “marriage” rights, he will somehow, with the complicity of Congress, work around the Second Amendment. It’s only a matter of time. And, time is running short.

Don't forget to like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook, Google+, & Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of SonsOfLibertyMedia.com.
Check out Sons of Liberty Polls on LockerDome on LockerDome
Comment via Facebook
Comment via Disqus

Send this to friend