My, how the times change… A few years ago, every anti-rights organization in the country was drooling all over themselves at the prospect of getting the most anti-firearms President in recent history into office. After all, then-Senator Barack Hussein Obama supported making the “Assault Weapon” Ban permanent in addition to banning private firearm sales by closing the non-existent, mythical “gun show loophole”, he discriminated against firearm owners, he was the director of the notoriously anti-rights Joyce Foundation, he supported D.C.’s unconstitutional handgun ban, he wanted to allow nonsensical lawsuits against firearm manufacturers for the actions of criminals, and he supported banning shotguns and any semi-automatic firearm that has a magazine capacity greater than five rounds. In short, hoplophobes throughout the country were gleefully looking forward to the halcyon days of “gun control”, “common sense gun legislation”, and countless other rights-abridging, authoritarian, self-serving pipe dreams.
… And then nothing happened. Oh, to be certain, now-President Barack Hussein Obama has been no friend of the Second Amendment, but all of his plans for repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, finalizing the “Assault Weapon” Ban, and so forth seem to have evaporated into the thin air.
*poof*
And now? Well, now Our Glorious President says things like this:
Well, the Second Amendment in this country is part of our Constitution, and the president of the United States is bound by our Constitution. So I believe in the Second Amendment. It does provide for Americans the right to bear arms for their protection, for their safety, for hunting, for a wide range of uses. That does not mean that we cannot constrain gun-runners from shipping guns into Mexico. And so we believe that we can shape an enforcement strategy that slows the flow of guns into Mexico, while at the same time preserving our Constitution.
That earth-shattering crash you just heard was the collapse of every “gun control” supporter’s hopes and dreams.
Take a look at that quote again – granted, Our Glorious President fails basic Constitutional Theory by saying that the Second Amendment “provides” a right (obviously, the Second Amendment protects and preserves a pre-existing right), but looking past that, examine the specific vocabulary he used, and the order in which he used them. First up, he specifically used the phrase “bear arms”, rather than “own firearms”, “posses guns”, or any of a host of other alternatives available to him. Obviously this is a hearkening to the actual text of the Second Amendment, but given how much the “liberals” and Mainstream Media (but I repeat myself) like to proclaim what a glorious public speaker our President is, we can safely assume he chose that word intentionally and with malice aforethought. As such, President Barack Hussein Obama just confirmed the American people’s right to “carry, hold, or bring” firearms. Wow.
Moving on, look at the first two reasons he provided for Americans to carry firearms – “protection” and “safety”. In short, our President admitted that the right protected (not “provided”) by the Second Amendment is there for American citizens to guarantee their self-defense. Again, wow.
And, finally, our President did mention “hunting” as a reason to carry firearms, but that was only the third reason mentioned, and right before “a wide range of [other] uses”. There was never really any doubt about this, but the Second Amendment was never about hunting, and apparently Obama at least loosely grasps that given his hierarchy of reasons.
Just plain wow.
Now, does any of this mean that Our Glorious President would not sign a ban on concealed/open carry if it ended up on his desk tomorrow? Of course not. And given his historical record on firearm-related topics, I would be genuinely surprised if he did not put his autograph to such a document. However, we now have him on official, documented record as supporting the right of American citizens to carry firearms for self-defense – talk about a trump card!
And just because I cannot let something go, I would, of course, point out that it is already illegal for “gun runners” to ship firearms into Mexico, and if Our Glorious President was really serious about stemming the illegal flow of firearms into our southern neighbor, he would cast a harshly inquisitive eye to the agency whose job it is to stop that flow, rather than facilitate it.
(Courtesy of Pithy Title Goes Here.)
[...] QOTD By JP 5.56, on March 7th, 2011 That earth-shattering crash you just heard was the collapse of every “gun control” supporter’s… [...]
I suppose I could only be more surprised if I was presented with a picture of Obama shooting an AR15 with Wayne LaPierre.
Thanks for the link!
You’re definitely right about how this statement wouldn’t stop the president from signing any anti-gun legislation that crossed his desk; he’s done it before (remember how he was against the individual mandate before he was for it?).
@ alcade: You and me both! I guess that is what we get for him operating without the comforting presence of his teleprompter…
@ wfgodbold: No worries!
And, yeah, given his past legislative history (once you dig past the miles of “present” votes), I would lose significant amounts of money if he were to pass up the opportunity to tighten the firearm laws of our country… That said, when he does sign those bills, he will now have millions of American citizens going, “Uh, Barry, do you remember what you said back in Mexico?”
Good times…
@ wfgodbold: He claims to have gone shooting with the Secret Squirrels (presumably at the White House range).
I really wonder how much fire in his belly he has ever had for gun banning, and how much of it was a ruse to keep a job.
He would not be the first gun-grabber who applied the “for me but not thee” mentality…
No argument there, Linoge. It just doesn’t seem that he has any fire left for the job of restricting gun rights. Or even any round tooits.
No disagreement there either, though I personally believe that it is more of a realization that “gun control” is a political third rail, rather than an abandoning of his desires… Either way, I can live with it.
Since the practical effect is the same, I guess it doesn’t matter which of our views is “right.”
Note that even if his personal view is neutral on guns, his inability to rein in the executive departments makes his administration quite dangerous to gun rights and freedom as a whole.
True on all counts… His silence has definitely been more-helpful to us than his pre-Presidency anti-rights stance, but it has also permitted certain agencies to run unchecked in their petty authoritarian pipe dreams… Still, probably better than it could have been…
I suppose he could have been anti-gun AND ineffectual as a leader. But, leaving the executive agencies to their own devices will make it VERY hard for his successor to regain control.
Plus, his SCOTUS appointments, being more conventional pro-government types, are reflexively anti-gun and pro-government power.
We could have done worse, but not with the candidates we were given.
Nope nope nope-
This is his professed position now ‘cuz he could never get a second term without it.
His first two years were radical beyond anyone’s imagining- the last 2 of his first term he plays the repentant moderate so he gets elected for a second term as reformed- then begins his most radical era as he now has nothing to lose-
Plan on an adoption of the UN’s general platform
bet on it
Except the PPACA act isn’t his (though he championed it), it’s Pelosi’s and Reid’s.
It’s easy and secudtive to paint him as the One True Enemy. And dangerous as hell, because it takes attention away from the other dangers.
Given the choice between believing Obama is an Evil Genius and the alternative, I gotta go for the alternative. The Liberal Evil Genius would at least have followed up on one of the campaign promises that is entirely within the remit of the Executive (shutting down gitmo, reining in the domestic warrantless investigations, &c). This isn’t him being a moderate, this is him being a greased weathercock.
@ Ian Argent: Not convinced that we could not have done worse with the candidates we had, either… The nitwit running opposed to him has performed a remarkable lack of leadership over the past two years (just because you are not President does not mean you cannot lead your party), and I have every reason to believe he would be just as pro-government, if not moreso. Perhaps not anti-gun, but still not someone we would necessarily want at the head of our government.
[...] on winter’s last gaspLinoge on my budget cannot keep up with their regulationLinoge on ace in the holeGaston on Protip: Facebook EditionWeer'd Beard on sensing a patternWeer'd Beard on Protip: Facebook [...]