"Obama Doesn't Need An EO To
Repeal the 2nd Amendment"
from "In Defense of Rural
America"
By Ron Ewart, President of the
National Association of Rural
Landowners
and nationally recognized author and
speaker on freedom and property rights issues
Ó Copyright Sunday, October 12, 2014 - All Rights
Reserved
As published on
Newswithviews, October 8, 2014
For decades the Democrat-Liberal-Progressives
have wanted to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Hardly a day goes by that a Democrat
politician or a fat cat isn't proposing or funding some new law to curtail the
right to bear arms. The cry for stricter gun controls or outright repeal
of the 2nd Amendment by Democrats, comes on the heels of every shooting anywhere
in America. You would think it is their battle cry and their only reason
for living.
Perhaps these Democrats and fat cats should explain their 2nd
Amendment repeal antics to the woman at the Oklahoma food processing
plant. This woman was being stabbed by a black Islamic Jihadist when the
CEO of the company pulled out a rifle and shot him just as the Jihadist was
about to behead her. She's in the hospital with severe stab wounds but at least
she is expected to live. The Black Islamic crazed terrorist had already
stabbed and decapitated his first victim.
It's too bad the CEO wasn't a better shot. If he had killed
this radical Islamic fruitcake we wouldn't be subjected to his lengthy trial
that will come in two or three years after his crime of murder and attempted
murder and a possible execution that might come 12 to 15 years after his
conviction, if ever.
Unfortunately, America's legal system is not known for swift
justice. The witnesses to this Black Terrorist's crime are numerous. He's
guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Why don't we just hang him after a
short one-day trial instead of paying millions of dollar to all those high-paid
attorneys to defend him when everyone knows he is guilty as Hell? The
American justice system should really be called the
"Permanent-Attorney-
But we digress. In another attempt to limit the right to bear
arms, proponents in Washington State have two opposing Initiatives on the
November 2014 ballot, the Liberals Initiative to expand background checks for
gun buyers at gun shows and private and Internet sales (I-594) and the
Conservatives Initiative to preserve gun rights (I-591).
I-594 Background Checks:
"This measure would apply the
currently used criminal and public safety background checks by licensed dealers
to all firearm sales and transfers, including gun show and online sales, with
specific exceptions."
I-591 Gun Rights Measure
: "This measure would prohibit
government agencies from confiscating guns or other firearms from citizens
without due process, or from requiring background checks on firearm recipients
unless a uniform national standard is required."
The money pouring in for the Background Check initiative is
running almost 8 to one for those opposing the Initiative. The $7,000,000
campaign funds supporting the expansion of "Background Checks" is coming from
the likes of Ex-New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg and Microsoft Billionaires
Bill Gates and Paul Allen. The NRA so far, has only come up with under
$1,000,000 to oppose I-594 and support I-591.
Sadly, the red counties of Washington State are totally
disenfranchised by those large population blue counties west of the Cascade
Mountains. The predominantly left-leaning urban centers of Washington
State, including Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia and Everett where most of the
population of the state is centered, will approve the Background Check
initiative. Except that, the harsh reality is it won't stop criminals from
getting guns. It just makes gun control nuts feel good! The Initiative
will only affect lawful gun owners and buyers and slow down and restrict their
rights to buy and sell guns in legal commerce.
But what is happening in Washington State this year is only the
tip of a very large iceberg. Federal and state legislation and initiatives are
the front door to their efforts. The back door is much more subtle and
devious.
For example, you don't need to confiscate guns if you can
render the ammunition scarce or way too expensive. The declining
availability of certain types of ammunition has been well documented.
Since Obama was elected, demand for guns and ammunition is high but ammunition
continues to be in short supply.
One way to make ammunition less available and thus more costly
is to dramatically increase the environmental regulations on lead smelters as
the EPA did to Doe Run Company's Herculaneum lead smelter plant, the last
remaining primary lead smelter in America. The prevailing wisdom seems to
be that the closure of this plant won't drastically affect ammunition costs
because ammunition manufacturers use mostly recycled lead. However, it
will affect those manufacturers that require primary lead. Those
manufacturers will have to go off shore, mostly China, to get their product.
Another way to curtail ammunition and raise the price is to ban
the use of lead bullets as California has done to state hunters, at the urging
of the all powerful wildlife environmentalists.
(SIDEBAR: The Audubon Society, another radical
environmental group, was responsible for over 40,000 loggers and wood product
employees losing their jobs to the fraud that was the listing of the Northwest
Spotted Owl as endangered. It turns out the reason the owl was endangered
had nothing to do with loss of habitat due to logging. The Northwest Spotted owl
was being eaten by the Barred owl moving west from the Great Plains, a natural
event, not a man-made one.)
Then of course the government can buy up a lot of ammunition
creating a scarcity in the market place. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) did just that with their ongoing purchases of well over a billion
rounds of hollow-point and other types of ammunition and fully automatic assault
rifles. (Americans can't own fully automatic assault rifles but
the government can.) With the ammunition that DHS has
purchased, they could shoot every American five times. One might ask why
DHS, a non-military federal government agency, would need so many bullets? We
tried to get that information with an FOIA request but were given a run-around
you wouldn't believe. Oh, and these rounds are being purchased with your
tax money.
There is another back door the President and Democrats are
using and that is getting Congress to ratify the UN Arms Trade Treaty, more
commonly known as the Small Arms Treaty.
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
"The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is a multilateral treaty
which has not entered into force that regulates the international trade in
conventional weapons. International weapons commerce has been estimated to reach
US$70 billion a year.
The treaty was negotiated at a global conference under the
auspices of the United Nations from July 2–27, 2012, in New York. As it
was not possible to reach an agreement on a final text at that time, a new
meeting for the conference was scheduled for March 18–28, 2013. On 2 April 2013,
the UN General Assembly adopted the ATT. The treaty has been signed by 121
states and has been ratified by 53. It will enter into force on 24 December
2014, having been ratified or acceded to by the requisite 50 states.
Your Secretary of State, John Kerry, signed off on the ATT
treaty for the United States.
In a Washington Times Article on July 16, 2014 entitled:
"Small Arms Treaty - Big 2nd Amendment Threat" (http://www.washingtontimes.
author James A. Lyons writes ….. "A number of major
defects in the U.N. treaty were detailed in a letter sent to President Obama in
October 2013 by 50 senators — both Republicans and Democrats. The first
problem was that the treaty was adopted by majority vote in the U.N. General
Assembly, not by consensus, a condition called for by former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton. After entry into force, the senators contend, the Arms
Trade Treaty can be amended by majority vote of signatory countries, effectively
negating the Senate’s constitutional treaty power and handing it to foreign
governments. Even the State Department concedes, the senators wrote, that
the treaty "includes language that could hinder the United States from
fulfilling its strategic, legal and moral commitments to provide arms to key
allies such as the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the State of
Israel."
Lyons writes further in the article that …..
"Of most concern is the infringement on our constitutional
rights, the senators charged. The Arms Trade Treaty 'includes only a
weak nonbinding reference to the lawful ownership, use of, and trade in
firearms, and recognizes none of these activities, much less individual
self-defense, as fundamental individual rights.' When coupled with the
treaty’s ceding of interpretive authority to other countries, this poses a
direct threat to the Second Amendment."
Obama and the gun control advocates are all for the Small Arms
Treaty, but it has virtually no chance of being ratified by the current Congress
or in subsequent Congresses, especially if the Republicans take control of the
Senate in 2015. Nevertheless, the Democrats will keep trying and if we
ever have a Democrat President and a Democrat majority in Congress again, like
we did when they passed Obama Care, the Democrats will finally succeed in
closing the door and effectively repealing the 2nd Amendment, either by direct
legislation, constitutional amendment, or by ratifying the International ATT
Treaty.
As the President is so found of saying, "let me make it
clear", we shall also invoke that passage when we tell you that the 2nd
Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, or even protecting yourself in your
own home or in person. It has everything to do with resistance to tyranny
and oppression and that is why the Founding Fathers included it in the Bill of
Rights.
"The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep
and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of
Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an
auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense
,
resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert
in defense of the state." [emphasis is ours]
The U. S. Supreme Court held in the "District of Columbia
vs. Heller" decision (2008) that the right to keep and bear arms is an
individual right. In "McDonald vs. Chicago," (2010) the U.
S. Supreme Court further clarified its earlier decision with: "that
limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government,
expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to
state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies
to the federal government.
Virtually every other country on the planet has severe
restrictions or outright bans on gun ownership. England and Australia,
supposedly free countries, outlawed guns and confiscated them to such an extent
that if a citizen has an illegal gun in his or her possession and shoots a
robber to protect his home, he will go to jail, probably longer than the robber.
In Australia, when the guns were confiscated, it was documented that violent
crime increased.
Ladies and gentlemen, if Americans voluntarily hand over their
guns to the government, or allow very strict gun laws to be passed and
implemented, or if the government confiscates our guns by force, it will spell
the death of a free America. It will also open up the opportunity for a
foreign government to take advantage of a country that now does not have a
"gun behind every tree."
There will be no turning back the clock and each American will
be an indentured servant of an all-powerful government exercising absolute
power. Trouble is, we are almost there now. The loss of the 2nd
Amendment will be the final chapter in closing and locking the jailhouse door
and forever prohibiting armed resistance to oppression and tyranny.
Government will be free to unleash its military might on its own people in the
event of such resistance and make no mistake, they will. Don't think for
one minute that the government will allow an antiquated, 17-page blueprint for
freedom get in their way.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on
freedom and property rights issues and author of this weekly column, "In
Defense of Rural America", is the president of the National Association of
Rural Landowners (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org), a non-profit
corporation headquartered in Washington State, an advocate and consultant for
urban and rural landowners. He can be reached for comment at info@narlo.org.
No comments:
Post a Comment