"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind.” - Bob Marley

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States, Part 2

Barack Obama is not fit to be president of the United States.

The title of this post comes from the Presidential Oath of Office. It's full text is:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads:

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.

Though many sophists were inclined to believe that this somehow limited the rights to those associated with a Militia, most reasonable folks knew that "the people" referred to in the second amendment were the same "the people" referred to in the first, fourth, ninth and and tenth amendments.

The Supreme Court stated this utterly explicitly in Heller v DC on June 26, 2008.

Obama, however, has undermined the Second Amendment at every chance, in ways that render it null and void, while simultaneously professing (lying about) his support for the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Perhaps the most comprehensive collection of documentation of this dishonesty is the sarcastically named Sportsmen for Obama site. Another source is the NRA site here and here and here.

Obama does not believe in even the most basic right to keep and bear arms in self-defense in one's own home, see here for his vote against an override of gun bans for those in that situation.

He has stated that he considered DC's law ban constitutional. He has stated that he still believes Chicago's gun ban is constitutional, even though it fails under both 2nd and 14th Amendment laws (the Chicao ban allows politicians to keep and carry guns, but not private citizens - "equal proection under the law"?).

He has variously proposed or supported:

  • no handguns
  • no semi-automatics
  • no guns stores within 5 miles of a park or public school

amongst other absurdities and atrocities.

The denial of effective defense to law abiding citizens is unconstitutional and has been the pre-cursor to many mass-murders in the 20th century. See Lethal Laws for more information.


OBloodyHell said...

Nicely argued.

In the defense of the "militia" point, I recommend usage of Federalist #46, written by Madison, in which he explicitly states:
To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

F46 clearly and obviously makes a complete hash of the oft-touted "the militia"<>"every citizen" claim.

Also note specifically the clause, "officered by men chosen from among themselves", which trounces the assertion that the National Guard is within that construct.

So anyone who makes either claim is either a liar or an ignorant fool.

Also note the explicit purpose for the right to keep and bear arms, openly stated in F46 -- crime, and even self-defense (at least against criminals, etc.) is irrelevant.

The purpose for the Right is explicitly to hold an overbearing and potentially tyrannical government at bay.

By all means, do argue that the "safety first" argument of most anti-gun people is quite evidently wrong, but always turn the narrative back to the real purpose of the Right.

A modern nation-state is capable of implementing far more death than any collection of nutjobs with guns. Germany, Russia, and China alone killed not less than 70 million of their own populations (some argue up to 200 million). So keeping your government in check is NEVER to be taken lightly. And so I strongly encourage anyone to never, ever let the anti-gun crowd keep it on a crime-only basis, even if they are going to lose. The citizenry should never, ever lose sight of the real purpose: Holding the government in check. Period. All the rest of the arguments are irrelevant in the face of that essential need.


OBloodyHell said...


Among other things, being disarmed causes you to be despised.
- Machiavelli -

A Monarch's neck should always have a noose about it... It keeps him upright.
- Robert Heinlein, 'The Cat Who Walks Through Walls' -

(the gun in the citizen's hands is that noose.)

bobn said...


Thanks for the reference to F 46.

It is undeniable that the 2nd Amendment announces the specific purpose of the arming the Militia (the people) as a check on governnment power.

However, this purpose is the reason given for the prevervation of a broader pre-existing right to keep and bear arm. This right already existed; the 2nd amendment states that it will not be abridged and gives 1 reason why.

In this post, I concentrate on the "self-defense in the home" aspect because that is what Heller was specificially about, and that is part of the specific finding in Heller.

Also, that is what the Hale DeMar case in Wilmette was specifically about.

And that is what Obama specifically voted against in the Illinois legislature.

Also, if you liked this post I've got one or two more you'll problably get a kick out of.

About Me

I'm a 57 year old geek. I voted Democratic for 20 years, because I disliked the Republicans more. But now, nobody really speaks for me. I'm for Guns, for more correct government regulation of the financial world, against illegal immigration and amnesty. (in 2008 I ended up voting Republican - too many questions about Obama, and voting against anybody who voted for TARP 1.) In 2010 I voted a stright republican ticket because the Democrats have completely lost their minds.