By Erik Rush
A recent Gallup poll featured “Guns and gun control” as 19th on a list of most important problems in the eyes of the American people.
“Government” was the first on the same list. Thus, it should say something to the American people when “guns and gun control” is so overwhelmingly important to “government.”
Before dismantling arguments for the new executive actions announced this week by Barack Hussein Obama relative to firearms, I will briefly reiterate my take on gun control as viewed through the lens of the Second Amendment, this being the only proper criterion for evaluating same: Individuals should be held civilly and/or criminally liable for damage done to persons or property with firearms in their possession in the same manner they might be held civilly and/or criminally liable for damage done with a gardening implement in their possession. Any further restriction – or infringement – upon the possession of firearms or ammunition is unlawful – period.
This would likely apply to over 99 percent of the federal, state, and local firearms statutes on the books in this country. Most of these were instituted by progressives over the last 100 years, and were allowed to stand due to ignorance of the citizenry with regard to the law.
My assessment may appear outrageous (or at least outlandish) to some, but should be no surprise to my regular readers. Simply put: the government from whose potential tyranny the Second Amendment was passed to protect Americans doesn’t get to impose restrictions on that law, as expressly indicated in the verbiage of the Amendment itself.
Over the holiday weekend (actually, through two holiday weekends and the week in between), there was a great deal of anticipation and anxiety as to what firearms-related executive actions in the new year promised by Obama might look like.
Last Friday Obama, who has been called “The Greatest Gun Salesman in American History,” defaulted to the tactic of division, admonishing Americans to “stand up” to groups such as the National Rifle Association. On Monday, Obama vowed to press ahead with new executive actions on gun control after meeting with top law enforcement officials, and asserted that he has the legal authority to do so (this is reminiscent of other areas wherein Obama governed by decree after declaring that he possessed the legal authority to govern by decree).
Finally came the press conference on Tuesday, where Obama announced the new executive actions. Flanked by a cross section of generic Americans whose loved ones had allegedly been victims of gun violence, Obama announced measures requiring background checks on firearms sales at gun shows, flea markets, on websites, and for parties “in the business” of selling firearms.
Offhandedly referencing the Constitution as “the paper” upon which the Second Amendment was recorded (since actually articulating the word “Constitution” might cause him to burst into flame), and reinforcing the necessity for his action with lie after lie concerning the prevalence of gun violence in the U.S., Obama spun legitimacy for these new decrees out of whole cloth.
One of the bugbears of liberal gun control advocates has been gun shows, where private citizens are able to buy and sell firearms without the requirement of background checks. Another sticking point has been online gun sales, which the administration has alleged allows people to circumvent background checks.
This is patently false. As it stands now, for online firearms transactions, firearms must be shipped from one Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealer to another, whether the sale is between private citizens or involving an online gun dealer and a private citizen. The receiving dealer is required to conduct a background check on the buyer, even though the dealer did not originate the sale (Firearms dealers typically charge a modest handling fee for this service).
Leaving aside my personal disdain for firearms laws in general, any online firearms transfer not completed in this manner is illegal.
The point is that the “online sales loophole” that the federal government decries doesn’t even exist.
In 2013, when activist legislators in New York, Colorado and Maryland passed draconian gun control measures that had been aggressively advanced by the Obama administration and its surrogates (like former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg), 340 sheriffs in those states refused to enforce the new laws. Some of the sheriffs filed suit against their legislatures, and in Colorado, the laws in question resulted in the successful recall of once-powerful liberal state legislators.
Obama’s pretext for proposing more gun control measures has been the recent spate of domestic acts of terrorism and spree killings involving firearms. None of these could have been prevented by any conceivable firearms legislation, but leftists aren’t prone to confuse such issues with facts.
In large, liberal-controlled American cities, the status quo of law-abiding citizens being at the mercy of armed criminals due to onerous firearms laws is well-known. Controlling governments and socialist ideologues like Obama desire an unarmed populace because such a populace is incapable of armed resistance to tyranny; it’s that simple. The fatalities and injuries among individuals who fall prey to armed criminals is a necessary sacrifice in the minds of these hypocrites who espouse compassion and a desire to protect citizens.
With regard to those unarmed Americans who will be maimed or killed the next time Islamists execute a terrorist attack employing firearms, in Obama’s putrefactive, twisted mind, the victims will deserve it for partaking in the fruits of America’s serial pillaging of undeveloped nations and oppression of the little brown people of the world.
Originally published in WorldNetDaily