The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

"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 U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Under that law, the citizens of the United States have the right to own guns. In it's McDonald v. City of Chicago ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that core Constitutional right.

Pretty straightforward ruling. How can there by any other ruling ? The Second Amendment says what it says. Gun ownership is a RIGHT. The Supreme Court should have ruled unanimously in this case.

But of course, the ruling was not unanimous. There were four judicial activists on the Supreme Court who ignored the Constitution and voted against the right of gun ownership. Anybody want to guess who those four were ??? Anyone ? Anyone ?

Just kidding. We all know who they were. From the Washington Post:

The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates.

The court's gun decision in McDonald v. Chicago divided the nine justices just as the Heller case had done almost exactly two years earlier. Roberts and Alito were in the majority with Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. [John Paul] Stevens and [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg dissented, along with Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, who was marking her first term replacing David H. Souter.

Four justices willfully ignored the Constitution of the United States. That's really all there is to it.

Article 6 of the Constitution, titled "Debts, Supremacy, Oaths," contains the following:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Under Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Yet, and I repeat, four justices (Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and Sotomayor), willfully violated their oath to uphold the Constitution. They threw the Constitution out the window and voted instead for their partisan political leanings. The end.

Now, I don't care whether you like guns or you hate guns. I'm not too fond of them. I don't hunt. I believe I have the right to protect myself, but I don't care about my opinion on gun ownership, just like I don't care about your opinion, because none of our opinions matter. They don't matter because gun ownership IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. The only way to change that should be via a Constitutional Amendment. The way to change it is not to place outlaw Justices on the Supreme Court who will ignore the law of the land and trash the Bill Of Rights because they feel like it.

We the people need a way to boot these outlaw Justices off the Court. They are appointed for life. Therefore, they can rule however they want, the Constitution be damned. That undermines the very concept of Constitutional government and turns it into a partisan political football. Our rights can be kicked around and tossed away at any time, based upon the judgement of five people. Five UNELECTED people.

There is only one way to remove a Supreme Court Justice, and that is through impeachment. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Would willfully violating the highest law in the land be considered "high crimes and misdemeanors" ? It sure should be, but there has only been one impeachment proceeding against a Supreme Court Justice, and that happened in 1805. That Justice was Samuel Chase, who had proceedings brought against him for…drumroll please…allegedly letting his partisan leanings affect his court decisions. Chase was acquitted, but there is precedent to getting these Constitution tramplers off the Court, as we should.

So why don't we DO IT, and stop all this judicial tampering with our Constitution ? The Justices are replaceable. The Constitution stands between us and tyranny. Bye, bye, Ginsburg. Bye, bye, Breyer. Bye bye, Stephens, and bye, bye, Sotomayor, we hardly knew ye. Good riddance. First you all ruled against the First Amendment in the Citizens United case, and now you ruled against the Second Amendment in the Chicago case. You're a bunch of criminals. Organized crime. Get outta here, and don't let the door hit your unconstitutional partisan-agenda backsides on the way out.

We even have Supreme Court nominees lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee during sworn testimony. As an example, look at Sonia Sotomayor, who said the following during her confirmation hearings:

“Like you, I understand that how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans. In fact, one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA. And I have friends who hunt. I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller.”

Heller supported the individual right to keep firearms for self-defense.

But what did she say in the McDonald v. Chicago case ? Something completely different:

“I Can Find Nothing In The Second Amendment’s Text, History, Or Underlying Rationale That Could Warrant Characterizing It As ‘Fundamental’ Insofar As It Seeks To Protect The Keeping And Bearing Of Arms For Private Self-Defense Purposes.”

Sotomayor voted to uphold the gun ban. Isn't lying to Congress a crime ?

- One nice thing about Bill Clinton's presidency was that you could oppose his policies without being called a racist (mostly).

- People who think Bush went into Iraq to enrich Halliburton have no right to complain about the Birthers.

- When you go looking for "code words" for racism, aren't you just making stuff up ?

- When I talk about Obama's huge first year deficit ($1.8 trillion) on this blog, why do liberals always bring up Bush's deficits to excuse Obama's ? (Note to libs – By doing that, you aren't countering my argument. You are only making the argument that Obama is worse than Bush).

- Obama can offer health insurance to 30-45 million more people with health care reform, or he can reduce health care costs, but he can't do both at the same time.

- Obama's health care reform offers less choice, not more choice.

- Only Democrats think Rush Limbaugh is the head of the Republican party.

- Why is it that when liberals call conservatives racists nearly non-stop, nothing ever happens to those liberals, but when Glenn Beck calls Obama a racist one time, 20 advertisers are pressured into dropping their ads from Beck's show ?

- The only point being made by those people who are carrying guns outside events at which the President is speaking is that the gun carriers are oblivious morons.

- Is there any doubt at all that House Democrats are seeking the financial records of health insurance companies in order to demonize those companies ?

- Why is it okay for Congress to buy private jets with taxpayer dollars, but it's not okay for CEO's to fly private jets to Washington D.C. after being bailed out with taxpayer dollars ?

- Why would we want the federal government, an organization that is nearly $12 trillion in debt (and counting), to run our health care system, which represents 17% of our economy ?

- The "Obama is Hitler" signs must stop, because Obama is not like Hitler – he's much more like a combination of Saul Alinsky and P.T. Barnum. (Note to liberal media – that Obama-Hitler "I've Changed" sign you idiots at MSNBC, NBC, and CNN keep attributing to right wingers came from a Lyndon Larouche group, a communist group. Is even a tiny bit of journalistic integrity too much to ask ?)

- Speaking of Saul Alinsky, doesn't Obama's playbook seem awfully close to Alinsky's Rules For Radicals (pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it) ?

- MSNBC is such a biased organization that they actually edited out the fact that it was a black man who was carrying the AR-15 outside an Obama event, so MSNBC could peddle it's racist angle to the story.

- In the interesting political poll of the week, Gallup polling showed that conservatives outnumber liberals almost two to one when it comes to political ideology, yet Democrats have a sizeable lead over Republicans in party affiliation. (In other words, conservative doesn't always equate to Republican. I can identify with that).

- If you want to know why the health care public option was in, then it was out, then it was back in again….it's because up to 100 House Democrats said it better be back in again.

Rabid lunatic left-wing bloggers have been casting the blame for the killings of three Pennsylvania police officers by Richard Poplawski right where the blame lies – on Fox News talk show host Glenn Beck. When I first heard about this, I thought it was some kind of sick joke, for the following reasons….

Did Beck tell Poplawski to go kill cops ? No.
Did Beck tell anyone to go kill cops ? No.
Does Beck advocate violence against cops ? No.
Does Beck advocate violence against anyone ? No.

But lunatics are undaunted by facts. That's what makes them lunatics. Lunatics act in irrational ways. That's why the lunatic Poplawski murdered three police officers in Pennsylvania, and that's why the lunatic left-wing bloggers think it's Glenn Beck's fault. Here is why the loony left thinks Beck is to blame – one of Poplawski's neighbors said Poplawski was afraid President Obama would take away his guns, Glenn Beck interviewed NRA head Wayne LaPierre about the Obama assault weapon ban/Mexican drug cartels, and Poplawski allegedly saw Beck's program about alleged FEMA internment camps. That's pretty much the loony left's entire case against Beck. The loons say Beck is "inciting violence" (normal people would say Beck is engaging in "free speech").

I wouldn't even be reporting this spew from the lunatic bloggers, because I could care less about their hate-filled nonsense, but the lunatic fringe blogger spew has spilled over into the lunatic fringe mainstream media, namely the Countdown With Keith Olbermann program on MSLSD, er, I mean, MSNBC. Last night, Olbermann named Beck one of his 'worst persons in the world,' and declared that Beck was inciting violence and shared the blame for Poplawski's actions (FYI – Olbermann is obsessed with Fox News, who clobbers Olbermann and MSLSD in the cable news ratings. One or another Fox News host is almost ALWAYS one of Olby's 'worst persons.' It's incredibly transparent and self-serving on Olby's part).

For the sake of argument, let's suspend disbelief and pretend the lunatic left spew has enough credibility to be addressed. I'll address it here:

On Obama banning guns - Obama DOES want to ban assault weapons, just as Beck said on his program. There are also several pieces of gun restriction legislation in Congress at this moment, as I reported myself in a blog article I called 'Democrats And The Second Amendment.' (I guess that makes ME responsible for the cop killings too). Obama's own attorney general, Eric Holder, has said he doesn't believe the 2nd Amendment allows private citizens to bear arms. If the lunatic left wants to know where people get the idea that Obama and the Democrats want to take away their guns, I suggest the lunatic left take a look at OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS.

On Beck interviewing NRA head Wayne LaPierre - It's called the First Amendment, loony left. Get used to it. This is the USA, not Soviet Russia. And there was NO incitement to violence by Beck. That exists only in the fevered imaginations of the loons.

On Beck talking about FEMA internment camps - Beck is DEBUNKING the story about the FEMA camps, you lefty blogger morons. Beck is investigating the claims and finding them to be FALSE. Beck says the government is NOT intending to put Americans in internment camps.
—-
Beyond the absurd notion that Beck is somehow responsible for the actions of a crazed cop killer, let's take a look at the galactic hypocrisy in which the lunatic left is engaging. These people have the gall to say right-wingers are inciting violence after the lunatic left has engaged in the following (to name only a few examples out of a multitude):

- Called Bush an international criminal, racist, fascist, terrorist, murdering thug for the last 8 years. If somebody assassinated Bush after listening to the loony left, would the loony left be responsible ???

- Openly advocated violence against AIG employees and their families. This wasn't only the loony bloggers. Even House Financial Services head Barney Frank (D-MA) threatened to publish the names and addresses of AIG employees unless they returned their bonuses, so the mob could find them. President Obama himself said Americans should be outraged at AIG. Obama also told the bankers, "I'm the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks." An ACORN group led bus tours to the homes of AIG employees, so the mob would know where they lived. If somebody killed bankers or AIG employees, would the loony left, the Democrats, and the President be responsible ?

- Left wing Air America radio ran audios of the simulated shooting of president Bush on more than one occasion. Luckily, since only three people listened to Air America, nobody heard the implied threats against the president. When Glenn Beck does something like THAT, then I'll listen to your complaints, haters.

- Obama's left wing buddy Bill Ayers bombed buildings as a member of the Weathermen.

- Left wing groups like Code Pink routinesly disrupt proceedings, such as the Republican National Convention, sessions of Congress, etc. Left wingers routinely shout down and attack conservative speakers at college campuses and at their homes. Left wing groups like PETA throw blood all over people wearing fur. Left wing environmental groups routinely spike trees, resulting in the maiming and death of lumberjacks. Left wing groups like Al Sharpton's National Action Network have incited riots against store owners, resulting in murder. And if we REALLY want to talk about fomenting violence, the leftist philosophy of Karl Marx was responsible for about 120 million people being killed in the 20th century.

I could give you scores more examples. If the stupid moonbats want to go on a witchhunt looking for people who incite hatred and foment violence, I suggest they go look in the damned mirror.

"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban as soon as I take office. Within 90 days, we will go back after kitchen table dealers, and work to end the gun show and internet sales loopholes. In the first year, I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns." – presidential candidate Barack Obama

In my last post, I touched on American militia groups. I'm not in any of those groups, but I have met enough people who are in them to know what gets them fired up and what gets militia membership to increase. The number #1 reason is when they think the government is trampling the Second Amendment and coming after their guns. The militia groups refer to this as tyranny. Because gun ownership is an explicit Constitutional right (unlike, say, health care), the militia groups are correct. This is not a value judgement. It's simply a fact.

Enter the Democrats. Here's what the Obama administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress are pushing only two months into Obama's presidency:

First up – On February 25th, 2009, Obama's newly sworn-in Attorney General, Eric Holder, (who has said in the past he doesn't believe the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to own guns) repeated the Obama Administration's desire to reinstate the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and make it permanent.

Next up – H.R. 45: The Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. This one is sponsored by the former founder of the Illinois Black Panther Party, Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL). In short, this legislation would ban possession of a firearm unless the following conditions are met – It is registered. You are fingerprinted. You supply a current Driver's License. You supply your Social Security #. You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of the government's choosing. You will have to pass a firearms knowledge examination in order to own a gun. You will have to release your medical records to the Attorney General for purposes of assessing your mental health. Each change of ownership through private or public sale must be reported and a $25 fee will be charged. Each lost or stolen firearm must be reported within 72 hours. All guns must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. The government has the right to come and inspect that you are storing your firearm safely at any time. Failure to comply with any of these rules results in loss of your firearm, a fine, and you may be imprisoned for 1-5 years.

We might as well call H.R. 45 the "Government Can Take Your Weapon If The Government Feels Like It Act."

Next up – On March 20, 2009, Federal District Court judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (appointed to the federal bench by Bill Clinton) issued a preliminary injunction against implementation of a new rule that had passed Congress and would allow law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed firearm in national parks and wildlife refuges for purposes of self-defense. Kotelly's reasoning to overturn Congress ? (Your gonna love this.) Kotelly blocked the rule because no environmental impact analysis had been performed. Never mind the fact that a concealed firearm DOESN'T HAVE ANY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.

Next up – Obama ends the post-9/11 program that allows pilots to carry guns on planes. The Washington Times reports:

Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology. The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.

So now, instead of pilots being able to defend the public against possible terrorists, Obama is hiring more people to INVESTIGATE PILOTS, because, as we all know, the pilots…are…the…problem ???
—
It's no coincidence that gun sales are proving to be one of the few recession-proof industries since Obama's election. Gun sales are skyrocketing. The gun shops can't keep up with the demand. People know Obama and the Dems plan to throw ever more roadblocks in front of gun owners. The Dems don't plan to repeal the Second Amendment all at once. They know there would be outrage if they tried that. Instead, the Dems plan to chip away at gun ownership step by step, the same way they chip away at your incomes little by little until you're poor and dependent.

And don't forget, we have as many as 20,000 total gun laws already on the books if you count all the local laws, and we have about 300 major federal and state gun laws if you don't count all the little local ones. We aren't lacking for gun laws.

If militia groups are getting riled up and antsy (I don't know if they are, but I imagine so), now you know why.

Here's Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) listening to the voice of the people who think Obama's stimulus bill wastes WAY too much money on non-stimulative pork spending:

"…and let me say this, to all the chattering class, that so much focuses on those little, tiny, yes, porky amendments. The American people really don't care."

So shut your faces, you chattering class you. All that incessant chattering is harshing Big Brother's mellow. Just be good little sheep, and let Lord Obama and Sir Chucky lead the flock (over the edge of the cliff). Gee whiz, you chatterers act like trillions of dollars in government spending is something to be concerned about. And those "tiny, little porky amendments," hey, those only add up to tiny little porky billions of dollars. Clearly, there is no problem. A billion is pocket change. Y'all keep forgetting about the CHANGE thing.

Speaking of CHANGE, power has slapped truth upside the head on energy too. Remember last summer, when gas prices were skyrocketing and Republicans were making gains in the polls with their advocacy of drilling offshore and in ANWR ? Then, Lord Obama CHANGED his mind and said he was open to considering offshore drilling. Well, it seems he has now considered it (for at least a second or two), and decided – NO. In only three short weeks, Lord Obama and the Dems have cancelled Bush era oil and gas leases in Utah, introduced a bill in Congress to permanently ban drilling in ANWR, and have shelved Bush's plan for offshore oil drilling. The Dems continue their 30 year assault on America's energy independence. But not to worry, we still have biofuels (which studies have shown produce more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels), inconsistent windmills, and inconsistent solar power. Comforting, isn't it ?

I guess Lord Obama showed you, suckers. And stop that chattering out there. It's giving power a headache. Power can barely hear itself not think. If you don't pipe down, power will institute the Fairness Doctrine. That'll show you. You chatterers can just go to your rooms. You're grounded.

One last bit of chatter, however. Wouldn't all that oil and gas drilling our Lord has banned have created lots of JOBS and stimulated the economy, WITHOUT REQUIRING MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING ??? I guess some jobs are more equal than others. Power blasts truth in the chops again.

As if that isn't bad enough, Lord Obama appointed an attorney general, Eric Holder, who doesn't believe in an individual's right to bear arms. Power is telling the Constitution of the United States to stop chattering too. In an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller, Holder cosigned a brief which argued the Second Amendment is a "collective" right, not an individual one. In other words, Holder recognizes the "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" part of the Second Amendment, but pretends he can't see the part about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's a common left wing dodge. I guess they think we'll form that militia with broomsticks and shovels. Btw, gun sales have increased rapidly since Lord Obama took office, in anticipation of a coming, um, shortage.

And have you met Obama's deputy attorney general, David Ogden ? He sounds like a moonbat, and a creepy one at that. Some of his stranger positions – He opposed parental notification on abortions for 14-year olds. He opposed the Children's Internet Protection Act of 2000 (Hmmm. Pro-child stalker). He challenged the Child Protection and Obscenity Act of 1988, arguing that requiring pornographers to verify that their porn viewers were over 18 was too much of a burden and infringed on their First Amendment rights (hmmm. Pro-porn for kids.) He tried to force the Library of Congress to use taxpayer dollars to produce pornographic materials in Braille (Pro-porn for the blind).

What is one to surmise from this ? I guess Ogden likes his porn, wants kids to see it (or if blind, they can feel it), wants them stalked online, wants them impregnated, and then wants them to have an abortion on the sly without telling their parents. That's his take on the First Amendment. Nothing creepy about that, right ? Wrong. Ugh. This guy is a kiddie porn and sexual predator's dream come true. That's our deputy attorney general, and he is rumored to be Obama's first pick for a Supreme Court replacement.

Great. Just freaking wonderful.

That's enough for now. I'm getting sick just writing about this.

The conservative wing of the Supreme Court prevailed in the D.C. gun ban case. In yet another of those 5-4 rulings that prove swing voter Justice Anthony Kennedy is the most powerful man in the country, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment says what it says, that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Liberals were predictably outraged. In their view, when the Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it means that right SHOULD be infringed in any way liberals want. Hey, no worries, that's a mistake any blind ideologue could make. The reason liberals believe something so illogical is because they could care less about what the U.S. Constitution says. They just want what they want, and if the Constitution gets in the way, they will twist and/or discard it. How else can you explain liberals belief in a Constitutional right to, say, abortion, of which the Constitution speaks nary a word, and then their belief that there is no individual right to bear arms, which is explicitly stated in the Bill Of Rights ? Go figure.

The crowd who wishes to grab guns from law-abiding American citizens uses a selective reading of the Second Amendment in an attempt to usurp this basic civil right. The full amendment reads as follows:

"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 gun grabbers focus on the "well regulated Militia" part, and try to ignore the "shall not be infringed" part. I have a question for the grabbers. If you take away the guns from We The People, how are we going to form that militia ? We can't. There would just be a bunch of guys standing around, maybe armed with broomsticks, shovels, and steak knives, virtually helpless against whatever enemy we needed to fight. Therefore, the "shall not be infringed" part is of utmost importance. Only a liberal could miss something so obvious.

"Wait just one minute !' shout the grabbers, "We have the government to do our fighting for us".

Yes, but what if it's the government we need to fight against ??? Surely liberals, who have been calling Bush a fascist criminal dictator for 7 1/2 years now, can see how our government might get out of control, no ?

Another grabber argument is that guns can't be used for self defense, only for use in that militia (even though the militia itself would be for SELF DEFENSE. I doubt we'd use the militia for bake sales). This is another bogus argument. The law recognizes self defense as valid, and the law recognizes the right to bear arms as valid. So, how can using arms in self defense NOT be valid ? It's nonsensical.

Liberals are making all kinds of wild predictions about blood running in the streets due to the D.C. gun ban ruling. They ignore the fact the violent crime in D.C. went UP after the gun ban, or that violent crime tends to decrease in places where gun laws are less restrictive. I heard one guy on MSNBC make the ridiculous claim that this ruling would bring about a return to the days of the Wild West. That was pretty nutty, but the guy did unwittingly prove that gun ownership is a traditional right in this country, because everybody had a gun back in the Wild West, and they weren't only used for militias either. Nevermind the fact that the Wild West was far LESS violent than D.C. under the gun ban today.

The liberal media is almost unanimously referring to the the D.C. gun ban decision as "the first time the Supreme Court has ever ruled in favor of an individual's right to bear arms". This is profoundly dishonest, since individuals have owned guns from the days of the Founders forward, for the entire history of the country. If you had tried to take away the guns of our Founding Fathers, you'd most likely have gotten yourself shot, no pun intended.

My advice to the gun grabbers is this – Stop trying to tell people the Second Amendment doesn't say what it says, and doesn't mean what it means. That's silly. If you really want to disarm the citizenry, you have to amend the Constitution to remove the right to bear arms. I think that would be a pretty bad idea, but that's what you should try to do. Or, you can stack the Supreme Court with more Justices like the four liberals in the D.C. gun ban case, who could care less what the Constitution says or what it's intent was.

P.S. – ALL the rights enumerated in the Bill Of Rights are INDIVIDUAL rights of the people. Don't let some gun grabbing liberal try to buffalo you into thinking the Second Amendment is somehow different.

P.P.S – I'm NOT a gun fan, a member of the NRA, or anything like that. It's just that the facts are the facts.

Barack Obama supports a citizen's right to bear arms, as stated in the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Sort of. Sometimes. Except when he doesn't, which is usually. Got it ? Me neither. I'll try to sort it out.

On the campaign trail in rural Iowa in 2007, Obama said the following: (link)

"I respect the Second Amendment. I think lawful gun owners should be able to hunt, be sportsmen, protect their families."

About three sentences later in the same speech, Obama said this:

"So the point is, though, we should be able to do that, and we should be able to enforce laws that keep guns off the streets in inner cities…"

See what I mean ? Obama say he supports the right to bear arms for people in rural areas, but then turns around and says guns should be banned in urban areas. I recall no such distinction in the Constitution. In addition, who needs to protect their families the most, low crime rate rural america, or high crime rate urban america ? The question is rhetorical, because the answer is self-evident.

Here's more of Obama's nuanced position on guns, as reported by Bob Owens:

In his answers to the 1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test, Obama said he favored a ban on “the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.”

By definition, this would include all pistols ever made, from .22 target pistols used in the Olympics to rarely-fired pistols kept in nightstands and sock drawers for the defense of families, and every pistol in between. Obama’s strident stand would also ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, whatever their previously legal purpose.

In 1999, Obama proposed to make it a felony for the gun owner if a firearm stolen from his residence and used in a crime was not “securely stored” — effectively negating the homeowner’s right to self-defense.

For someone who claims to support the Second Amendment, Obama sure doesn't support the Second Amendment. Did you get a load of the part where Obama wants you to be charged with a felony if someone breaks into your house and steals your gun, and then uses it to commit a crime ? What kind of Orwellian police state garbage is that ? If your gun is "securely stored", it won't be much use to defend your family in case of an emergency. By the time you unlocked and loaded the weapon ("securely stored" means the bullets are stored in a separate place), you and your entire family could be dead. So much for self-defense.

The gun issue is also one of those where Obama has weakly voted "present" in the past. In 1999, he voted "present" on Illinois legislation that would have required teens 15 and older to be tried as adults for firing weapons on or near school grounds. There's leadership for you.

Obama has voiced support for the Washington D.C. ban on handguns, which is a direct contradiction of his alleged support of the Second Amendment. He also voted against protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits, and invariably votes on the side of gun control. He's against concealed carry laws. The National Rifle Association gives Obama a grade of 'F' on supporting the Second Amendment. You can find some of Obama's voting record on guns here.

In 1996, on an Illinois voter group’s questionaire, filed under his name during his bid for a state Senate seat, Obama responded that he supported bans on the sale, possession, and manufacture of guns. Obama denied ever having taken such a stance, and denied even having filled out the questionaire, until handwriting analysis determined it was Obama's handwriting on some notes that were written in the margins of the questionaire. (Link). Oops, you're busted Barack. I can't wait for the "I misspoke" or "I misremembered" excuse that will surely come if the media every bothers to mention this, which they probably won't.

This issue appears to me to be Obama attempting to have it both ways, like a good little double-talking politician. You can't say you support the right to bear arms and then vote against it at every turn. The Second Amendment doesn't mean Iowa can have guns, but Illinois and D.C. can't. It appears Obama really supports the standard liberal doctrine on guns (ban them), like he does on every other issue, but he doesn't want to come out and say so, because it will cost him votes in the general election. Instead, he's trying to tell everybody what they want to hear, in order to get as many votes as possible. If this is what Obama calls "change you can believe in", then, sorry Barack, but I don't believe you.

Too bad the media is too busy getting a tingle up their leg to notice stuff like this.