RSS

What Obama says and what the Founding Fathers meant

26 Oct
What Obama says and what the Founding Fathers meant

In a historical, he said they said moment, let us take a look at how Obama interprets the Second Amendment as compared to how the Founding Fathers meant it when it was written.

Firstly, President Obama claims to believe in the Second Amendment.  That’s all well and good, but if he doesn’t understand the Second Amendment then what good is his belief in it.  Let’s take a look at what his belief holds if we take him at his word:

“I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation -– that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.” – Obama 7/25/12

Hunting and sport.  That is what Obama believes the Second Amendment is about.  Now let’s take a look at what the Founding Fathers, the ones who fought to free themselves from the tyranny of a King, the ones who enumerated our rights in the Bill of Rights, who set up our Government to be a Representational Republic and who intrinsically gave the people the power to decide how they will be governed.

We’ll start with the guy who is considered the Father of the Bill of Rights.  Let’s see what George Mason has to say on the issue:

“To disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”   -George Mason

I do not believe the the Father of the Bill of Rights was about deer rising up and enslaving the citizenry.  Mason wasn’t the only one.

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”                         -Richard Henry Lee

“No free man shall ever be denied the use of Arms” – Thomas Jefferson

I don’t think Lee meant that we had to preserve our liberty from wildlife.  And since not every one was a hunter so if it only applied to hunters why wouldn’t he say “no hunter shall…”.

I know a lot of people want to try and use the wording of the Second Amendment to deny the individual the right to keep and bear arms so what does the Father of American Scholarship and Education have to say on the matter.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”    -Noah Webster

That pretty much encapsulates the entirety of what the Second Amendment means and as it was written to mean.  Webster wrote the above passage while examining the leading principles of a federal constitution back in 1787.  This wasn’t an interpretation of what the Amendment meant, it was a basis of which the Amendment would be written a year or so later.

So, the Second Amendment wasn’t written with hunting in mind but rather the defense of liberty against a tyrannical government.  One might think that President Obama just didn’t expand his definition well enough to include that.  One might think that…until the President starts talking like this:

“But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,” -Obama

He uttered this phrase right after he finished with his first definition of the Second Amendment as pertaining to hunting.  He also tried to paint the argument that such weapons are only used by criminals or soldiers.  But the people should have the same access to such weapons legally.  Why should they?  Because that is who makes up a militia.  And not some modern nonsense about the National Guard but the true and timeless definition that a citizen has the right to protect their life and defend their liberty.

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves”                  -Richard Henry Lee

Properly formed you ask?  All that means is that the group is not a roving mob but rather armed with purpose to defend liberty.  That is the truest sense of the term militia.  It doesn’t need government regulation or control because as it stands, it is the government that the militia will most likely need to defend themselves from.

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” -Alexander Hamilton

Why is that the best we can hope for?  Because it is by the use of arms that freedom and liberty can ever exist.  Not necessarily by using them, but by simply having them to deter those who would usurp our liberties.

But of course, Obama at best thinks it only means hunting.  And if we continue to take him at his word then we must also accept that he believes in disarming the populace from any means of defense against a tyrannical despot.

“What I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.” -Obama 10/16/12

The only violence that could possibly reduce is the violence done in defense of liberty against tyranny.  Because, as any gardener of liberty and freedom knows:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -Thomas Jefferson

While Webster phrases the reasons, Jefferson states the action.

That is the reason of the Second Amendment, and that is why Obama is so wrong on it.

About these ads
 
28 Comments

Posted by on October 26, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

28 responses to “What Obama says and what the Founding Fathers meant

  1. Jarred L. Mitchell

    October 26, 2012 at 11:01 am

    Another thing I’d like to point out is that our government prefers to arm “rebels” and “insurgents” in other countries. While this is well and good, those same “leaders” of ours don’t want us to be armed in the same way. The latest example is Lybia and the arming of the rebels to defeat Qadafi. There are some issues on the side concerning just who those rebels were, but the point is that our government armed them.

    We have had too many elected officials, organizations and voters who seek to disarm us entirely. Examples are Chicago, Illinois overall, Washington D.C., California and a myriad of other places in our country.

     
    • Travis

      October 27, 2012 at 8:51 am

      Dude, you are right on the nuts here. Thanks for this, I’m going to copy and post this on my FB page, attributed to you.

       
  2. Mark

    October 26, 2012 at 11:03 am

    I’d love to forward stuff like this, but please use spell check next time.

     
    • Tony Oliva

      October 26, 2012 at 11:07 am

      What is misspelled mark?

       
      • B.C.

        October 26, 2012 at 12:06 pm

        not a misspelled word, only a typo in the quote “the best we can help for…” , “help” should have been “hope”.

         
    • Jim

      October 26, 2012 at 11:29 am

      I can’t find a single misspelled word, Mark. Even c/p the article in Word and ran spell check.
      Please support your remarks.

       
    • Lpcd Denise

      October 26, 2012 at 12:00 pm

      Agreed, but spell check does not articulate or correct word choice!

       
  3. rkhnascar

    October 26, 2012 at 11:10 am

    SO HOW’S ROMNEY’S ASSAULT WEAPON’S BAN WORK FOR YA ?

     
    • msalzbrenner

      October 28, 2012 at 12:42 pm

      Couldn’t agree more. And even as a member of the NRA, I am completely disgusted by the NRA endorsement of this individual. Being a member of the NRA doesn’t mean I agree with them all the time. And the good news is I have a choice, and it doesn’t have to be either one of the Two-Party troglodytes. I’ll be voting for Gary Johnson, whom not only has a proven gun rights history, but a better political platform, and a history of actions/results to support it.

       
      • Travis

        October 28, 2012 at 12:52 pm

        I will be writing in Ron Paul. I am voting my conscience. I cannot support a candidate that supports a platform that does not recognize the personhood of unborn people and legitimizes sexual perversion.

         
  4. Rick N

    October 26, 2012 at 11:39 am

    The Second Amendment is two things to me. First, it is the guarantee of the First Amendment. Second, it is the operative part of the phrase found in the Declaration of Independence that says “…by consent of the governed…”.

     
    • msalzbrenner

      October 28, 2012 at 12:04 pm

      Bravo! Finally a fellow patriot who understands that the context of the United States Constitution is only truly understood by utilizing the United States Declaration of Independence. If only more citizens would pay attention the entirety of our nations history instead of “picking and choosing” particular items out of context. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7lZ7gOtSBg

       
  5. Joanna Reichert Photography

    October 26, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    Mark is referring to these 2 passages:

    “That’s all well in good…”

    and

    “The best we can help for…”

    Not incorrectly spelled words but rather the incorrect word is used.

    Still a great article! Keep ‘em coming!

     
    • Tony Oliva

      October 26, 2012 at 2:04 pm

      Look at you. Bonus Stars! Thanks for the proof read Joanna :o)

       
      • Joanna Reichert Photography

        October 26, 2012 at 4:12 pm

        I’m a former journalist. :) I’m such a grammar nerd!

         
  6. Bill Verbano

    October 28, 2012 at 8:47 am

    This whole article is total BS. Another scare tactic from the paranoid wingers about Obama’s supposed “agenda”.
    “But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,” -Obama
    What exactly is wrong with this statement?
    And this?
    “I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation -– that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.” – Obama 7/25/12. Somehow, because Obama mentions hunting and the second amendment doesn’t, means he wants to disarm the citizenry?
    And Jarred, just who the hell EVER said they wanted to disarm us ENTIRELY? Put up, or shut up.
    And comparing the arming of rebels in Libya, a country under the yoke of a dictator with the U.S. is beyond stupid.
    You do know the NRA was started as a sportsman’s organization, don’t you? To further the aims of hunters and shooters. It has since been hijacked by political operatives that have used fear to get the ignorant stupids to help keep them in power.
    As for all those quotes from the Founding Fathers regarding the militia and an armed citizenry; anyone who believes that the reality of the late 18 century applies to the reality of the early 21st century is simply living in their own little re-inactment, tri-cornered world of make believe, complete with ball and musket.
    Because that is who makes up a militia. And not some modern nonsense about the National Guard but the true and timeless definition that a citizen has the right to protect their life and defend their liberty.
    What claptrap. The second amendment makes perfectly clear that a “well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state……” this is the part that most of the jabbering dim bulb defenders of liberty don’t mention. Right here the second amendment gives the government the power to regulate arms.
    This artilce isn’t about a reasoned discussion of gun control. It’s about Obama’s and by extension, any and every democrat/liberals wet dream of enslaving everyone else.
    Total and utter BS.
    BTW, please feel free to provide factual data showing where and how Obama and his ilk are moving to disarm everyone.

     
    • msalzbrenner

      October 28, 2012 at 12:34 pm

      If for nothing else in your comments :

      “As for all those quotes from the Founding Fathers regarding the militia and an armed citizenry; anyone who believes that the reality of the late 18 century applies to the reality of the early 21st century is simply living in their own little re-inactment, tri-cornered world of make believe, complete with ball and musket.”

      this statement alone indicates your inability and/or lack of interest in learning from history. In essence you have expressed your own ignorance and therefore discredited any remaining information that you expressed.

      I’m sure there were plenty of citizens in Nazi Germany that would disagree with you.

      Neither Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Mussolini, started out blatantly declaring that they wanted to disarm the citizens “ENTIRELY” either. But that IS what the final intention was and it IS what was finally accomplished.

      That is why it is called “subversive”.

      The only ignorant ones are the ones that fall for “subversive” dictators who are very skilled at spoon feeding sheeple with easily digested propaganda. They know these sheeple are too lazy, stupid, or unmotivated to dig deep enough to find alternative information.

      Jarrad was expressing his opinion and his concerns. He isn’t saying you HAVE to believe it verbatim. But there is no reason he shouldn’t express his opinion so that those of us that are NOT IGNORANT SHEEPLE can have access to a second opinion, and then form our OWN conclusion.

      The article was about gun control. It just so happens that Obama has declared his interest in gun control. This is the only reason that Obama is singled out. Me personally I feel that Obama has already provided a plethora of reasons during this existing term to more that support his removal from the office of President. But that’s just my opinion. Its obvious that you disagree. But then again I have actually paid attention to what he has DONE and the effects that have actually OCCURRED because of his choices. While I’m sure you, like many others, have simply listened to what he SAYS.

      Regardless it doesn’t matter. Support whom you wish. That is the beauty of this country.

      Myself, I will continue to support those who have proven themselves through their ACTIONS, and continue to be cautious of those who only make PROMISES they can’t deliver.

       
      • Bill Verbano

        October 28, 2012 at 4:18 pm

        If you read my entire post you would have seen at the bottom that I invited anyone to show me EXACTLY what Obama has done that would lead you to believe he is a threat to the Second Amendment. In other words, what actions has he taken. Since actions are what you look for. And what are some of those “plethora of reasons” that Obama should be removed from office?
        The real beauty of this country is that every 4 years you can remove your elected leaders, unlike Nazi Germany, or China or the old Soviet Union. Obama’s non-statement of intention to disarm you or me means nothing more than that. Nothing. It certainly doesn’t follow that he is secretly planning to do such a thing.
        Go ahead and vote for the guy who dismisses half the country(the 47%) and wants to restrict the rights of half (women). It’s your right, too.
        And I’ll wait for your specific examples of Obama’s crimes against America. Specifically as it relates to gun ownership.

         
  7. msalzbrenner

    October 28, 2012 at 4:42 pm

    Bill Verbano – I did read the entirety of your post. And it doesn’t surprise me that you are asking everyone else to GIVE you information. As I said in my post. If you don’t want to know any different then you won’t. It isn’t my responsibility, or within my ability, to educate you, nor do I have any intention of doing so. If that is what your looking for then you have selected the appropriate person to support in Obama. He is certainly the individual to spoon feed you whatever information he feels you should have. Enjoy your naive and self imposed existence of over developed sense of entitlement. The rest of society owes you NOTHING. If you want something learn to obtain it for YOURSELF.

     
    • Bill Verbano

      October 28, 2012 at 6:57 pm

      salzbrenner, However do you get the idea that I feel entitled to anything? I admit to being a liberal democrat and I might ad a well armed, military veteran liberal democrat. But, your refusal to “educate me” as you put it is more an indication of your inability to prove your paranoid assertions than my lack of information on issues. You are the one who said Obama should be removed from office and while I have had several bones to pick with his policies, I don’t think he has done anything to merit removal from office except by the ballot box. You may feel the same way, but I merely asked you to provide an instance of his supposed desire to eliminate your right to bear arms. The truth is you cannot provide any such proof. Instead you accuse me of being too lazy to educate myself of these mythical actions of the President.
      You do nothing but deflect the argument, because you have no substantive foundation on which to make one.

       
      • msalzbrenner

        October 28, 2012 at 9:07 pm

        Bill Verbano – Nor did you provide any proof to support YOUR claims either. It is for us each to do our OWN research, make our OWN judgement, and enact our OWN choices. I can’t change your mind anymore than you can change mine. It is for us each to develop our OWN conclusion by researching ALL available information and forming OUR OWN CONCLUSION. This article was simply providing ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW to be included into the available knowledge base for individuals to take into consideration. Not agreeing with it is one thing, but it was you who condemned it. If you want proof that he supports “TOTAL DISARMAMENT” just ask the people who live in Chicago, or New York City, what THEY think of his “intentions”. For that matter ask the people in Massachusetts what they think of the Romney NRA endorsement. Do YOUR OWN RESEARCH and quit expecting me to do it for you. I didn’t disagree with the article YOU DID. It is YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF that need be expected NOT mine.

         
    • Bill Verbano

      October 28, 2012 at 7:01 pm

      And one more thing; I am not asking anyone to give me information, as you put it. I am asking you for proof. I want you to show me something solid that supports your side of this issue. So far you either cannot, or will not.

       
      • msalzbrenner

        October 28, 2012 at 9:20 pm

        “However do you get the idea that I feel entitled to anything?” If you didn’t feel entitled you wouldn’t be demanding proof. I don’t OWE you ANYTHING. Nor does ANYONE ELSE. If you want answers to YOUR questions. YOU go get them. Its called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Oh I forgot, Obama doesn’t support that. My mistake. Forget it. Enjoy being a member of the 47% who feel the same way. And I’m sure you will get what you are asking for. When it comes, I hope that you will enjoy the Obamanation of America.

         
  8. msalzbrenner

    October 28, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    Travis – Even though I don’t agree with your ideals concerning Homosexuality or Abortion, I commend you for voting your conscience. As everyone should. That is the point of voting. I totally respect you choice regardless of whom you choose to show your support for. A great man once said. “Even if I don’t agree with what you have to say, I will fight to the death for your right to say it.” I will warn you though. Ron Paul is NOT a viable selection. Since he is not a “running” candidate, if you write him in you may as well leave the selection blank. HOWEVER, that is the “technical” truth. Now my “belief” is you should by all means write in Ron Paul. If for no other reason because it will identify your personal voice on the issue regardless of its effect on the elections outcome.

     
    • Travis

      October 28, 2012 at 8:55 pm

      thanks, and yup, I’ve heard that about the write-in. Still gonna do it.

       
      • msalzbrenner

        October 28, 2012 at 9:13 pm

        As well you should. As I said, I commend you for doing what you feel is right. Too few people have the courage anymore. It gives me hope to know that there are still some who do. Its become far to easy to accept the flood of obtrusive information that comes from shall we say “easily accessible” (by that I mean the “regular media” outlets) resources. It takes a certain personality and dedication to question what your are told, then ask why, and find your answers.

         
  9. episodes

    January 23, 2014 at 11:16 pm

    I read this piece of writing completely about the difference of most recent and earlier technologies, it’s remarkable article.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 355 other followers

%d bloggers like this: