Obama: Constitution ‘Constrains’ Me

CNS News

In his  pursuit of overarching gun control legislation in the aftermath of the  Sandy Hook massacre, President Barack Obama has been dogged. He’s been  relentless. He’s been demagogic, too, whether flanking himself with  schoolchildren (the implication being that his political opponents don’t  care about dead kids) or suggesting that if just one life can be saved  by his legislation, we ought to buy into it wholeheartedly (a  proposition that would justify almost any sort of government overreach).

But  on Wednesday, President Obama took his gun control push a step further:  He admitted that only the Constitution stands between him and full gun  confiscation.


Rejecting concerns that new background checks might be a  prelude to gun seizures, Obama suggested that worries about gun seizures  were empty, and were only designed to feed “into fears about  government. You hear some of these folks: ‘I need a gun to protect  myself from the government. We can’t do background checks because the  government’s going to come take my guns away.’ The government’s us.  These officials are elected by you. … I am constrained as they are  constrained by the system that our founders put in place.”

This  is deeply frightening language. The notion that government tyranny is  impossible in an elective republic is insanity of the first order.  Hitler was elected chancellor. Mussolini manipulated his way into power  through constitutional means. Hamas was elected in the Gaza Strip.  Mohammed Morsi and his thuggish Muslim Brotherhood were elected in  Egypt. If rights are dependent on votes — if we only have a right to  bear arms because a majority of the population elects politicians who  say we have a right to bear arms — then we have no rights at all.

The  point of rights is to guarantee them against government. That is why  the founders stated that rights descend not from government — not from  “us,” as Obama would have it — but from God or nature. And in truth,  Obama feels the same way about rights he thinks are universal, including  the so-called right to same-sex marriage or the right to abortion.  Reverse Obama’s argument by stating that radical feminists worry about a  complete ban on abortion, but that feeds into fears about government,  which after all, is only “us.” Would Obama agree with this? Or would he  say that true rights cannot be violated, even by a majority vote?

Government  is not us. Government is a group of people elected by us, who then use  their own judgment. If government were us, we would be a pure democracy.  And even if we were a pure democracy, that would not give us the right  to violate the rights of others. The logic Obama uses with regard to gun  control is the root of fascism and oppression. Liberalism is reliant on  the concept of rights that supersede popular whim. And the greatest  right — the right that protects all other rights, especially when  popular whims turn against human liberties — is the right to bear arms.

If  Americans weren’t afraid of government violation of rights before Obama  spoke about guns this week, they should be now. This is a president who  cannot understand or willfully ignores the notion of tyrannical  government. And if he refuses to see that possibility, then American  rights are very much in jeopardy.

3 thoughts on “Obama: Constitution ‘Constrains’ Me

  1. Yes, our leaders could turn on us. But,we also have alot of crazy people out there that life is worth nothing to them. I always write this little tip. Say the presidents FULL name three times slowly HUH ? Something is wrong.

  2. I am sorry to barge in on this thread, but I would like my theory on a Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen, and why Obama isn’t one to be examined by others at this point, and judge accordingly

    Wong Kim Ark could not have been a U.S. citizen at birth, and the reason lies in Sec. 1 of the 13th Amendment and Sec. 4 of the 14th Amendment.

    To wit:

    13th Amendment:

    Sec. 1: Neither slavery nor “involuntary servitude”, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    14th Amendment:

    Sec. 4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

    Therefore: Only a person who has “voluntarily” become a U.S. citizen through the naturalization process and those who have acquired their U.S. citizenship at birth, naturally, under the voluntary allegiance of its two U.S. citizen-parents can rightfully assume the responsibility to service the nation’s debt.

    ex animo

    ex animo

    • Don’t be sorry. I may not have all the answers but most comments are welcome. I tend to screen the kool-aid drinking liberals.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s