| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
It won’t be long before they go for confiscation…. Barack Obama is the kind of politician that doesn’t say anything until he thinks it is popular enough for him to say it.
Barack Obama is the kind of politician that doesn’t say anything until he thinks it is popular enough for him to say it.
In other words, he’s pretty typical, when it comes to the rats of Washington DC.
If an issue is unpopular, he hides his true feelings, says a few not-so-specific things about the issue, and as a Senator he would vote “present” on such issues, just so as not to commit himself in case the polls head in a direction away from his position. However, if you pay close attention, his rhetoric has always revealed he is an anti-gun kind of guy.
During Obama’s first term I remember occasionally mentioning on this website Obama’s desire to increase the federal government’s regulations on firearms, and liberals would freak out, leaving comments asking me to name just once when Obama claimed he was for banning guns. Obama’s position was obvious, without him ever saying it, and the rhetoric I could come up with vaguely insinuated he was for gun control, but was dated prior to him leaping onto the national scene. Things like the Fast and Furious scandal, where the Obama administration practically handed guns to the Mexican drug cartels in the hopes they would use them to murder thousands (of which they did), so that the democrats could create an anti-gun sentiment in the United States over it, were just not solid enough proof to convince these liberals that Obama wants to disarm America.
I would guess that most of those liberals wanted gun control, too, but understood that at the time it was a losing issue for the liberal left.
Obama was waiting for the right crisis, hoping that it would become popular to get on the gun control bandwagon – and the Newtown School Shooting was just the crisis Obama, and the democrats, were waiting for to politicize, and move America towards gun control.
Now, after all of the dust has settled, and it is looking like it might be time for him to let the clown out of the box, Obama has pledged to make gun control legislation his top priority.
According to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, federal gun laws restricting firearms in any way are unconstitutional. Such illegal legislation would be met with fierce opposition, and could prove to be a battle that becomes more volatile than the democrats believe.
Those that oppose federal gun control legislation understand that the States, not the federal government, have an authority to regulate firearms as they see fit. The State governments are closer to the people, and therefore are supposed to be more accountable to the people. A centralized federal government is distant, and is not going to be sympathetic to the local needs, or unique culture. Besides, when a centralized government bans firearms, it opens up the opportunity for tyranny. An armed populace guards against the federal government becoming anything other than servants to the people. A disarmed populace become nothing more than subjects that can be pushed in any direction the ruling elite thinks it sees fit.
Senator Feinstein has pledged to propose legislation a lot like her old anti-gun feather in her cap that banned assault-style weapons from 1994 to 2004. She has stated she plans to add high-capacity magazines to that.
Obama, echoing his colleagues, because he refuses to ever take the lead, says his plan is to rally Americans around an agenda to limit gun violence, adding he supports increased background checks and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity bullet magazines.
18 USC § 241 – Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
^^^ interesting that IF DEATH results from acts that prevent or hinder a secured right, the responsible party/parties can be SENTENCED TO DEATH!
The surpeme court has stated on multiple occasions that the police have no duty to protect “we the people”.. that leaves our protection, TO US! If “SOMEONE” were to interfere with our right to self preservation and a death occurs, that “SOMEONE WHO INTERFERED” can be sentenced TO DEATH!
U.S. Supreme Court CAHA v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211 (1894) “Generally speaking, within any state of this Union the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government, and are NO PART of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of congress in respect to those matters DO NOT extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force ONLY in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”
Rost v. Municipal Court of Southern Judicial District of San Mateo (1960) The Legislature, either by amending or otherwise, may not nullify a constitutional provision
in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), to wit: Congress … cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.
They can pass all the legislation they like BUT it has NO FORCE outside of D.C. and other properties owned by or ceded to the federal government!
Fina Supply, Inc. v. Abilene Nat. Bank, 726 S.W.2d 537, 1987 it says “Party having superior knowledge who takes advantage of another’s ignorance of the law to deceive him by studied concealment or misrepresentation can be held responsible for that conduct.”
Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 1990 “Knowing failure to disclose material information necessary to prevent statement from being misleading, or making representation despite knowledge that it has no reasonable basis in fact, are actionable as fraud under law.”
It is well established law that Fraud vitiates (makes void) any contract that arises from it.
Brookfield Construction Company V. Stewart 284 F Sup. 94 An officer who acts in violation of the constitution ceases to represent the government