Obama: America’s Greatest Gun Salesman

“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.” – the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

The Washington Examiner reports that

Gun sales are on a pace to break last year’s record of more than 23 million, a boon to the U.S. industry and gun stores thanks to election-year worries about gun control and recent terror attacks, according to government figures and experts.

Under Obama, background checks for guns reached 141.4 million through the end of May, amounting to sales of about 52,600 a day, according to the FBI. Last year, the FBI conducted more than 23 million background checks, which are generally used to figure sales of new and used weapons.

Domestically, manufacturers have reported producing about 21,000 guns a day, or more than 46 million in Obama’s first six years in office.

And should Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton continue to best Republican Donald Trump in the polls, sales could hit new highs, according to industry experts.

Joining men in buying guns have been women, youths and now members of the LGBT community, especially after the terrorist slaying of 49 at an Orlando, Fla., gay nightclub this month.

Justin Anderson, marketing director for Hyatt Guns in Charlotte, N.C., one of the nation’s biggest gun shops, said Obama has been great for sales.

“The recent surge in gun buying is based on two variables: fear of government intrusion on Second Amendment rights, and, more importantly, people interested in personal protection,” Anderson told Secrets.

“Our sales have doubled across the board, not just in AR-style rifles, but also in small frame handguns and home defense shotguns. We saw this just after the San Bernardino shooting, as well. More and more people are coming to realize that their personal safety is at risk and their government cannot protect them,” he said, adding:

“This is likely the beginning of a long rise in gun sales leading up the election. Should Hillary Clinton take a significant lead, it will only boost these sales.”

No Doubt.

That is what Liberals have never understood, in their continuous quest to take away the Second Amendment rights of average Americans.

Average Americans will never surrender our Constitutional Right to defend ourselves and our families from enemies foreign and domestic.

What part of the words quote “shall not be infringed” do you Liberals not understand?

Let’s have a “serious conversation” about the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, found in the section known as the “Bill of Rights”.

Why did our Founding Fathers, in all their wisdom, include this Amendment?

Dr. Nelson Lund, Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University, wrote the following in an article posted at Heritage.org

The Founding generation mistrusted standing armies. Many Americans believed, on the basis of English history and their colonial experience, that central governments are prone to use armies to oppress the people. One way to reduce that danger would be to permit the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or similar emergencies, the government might be restricted to using a militia, consisting of ordinary civilians who supply their own weapons and receive a bit of part-time, unpaid military training.

…Thus, the choice was between a variety of militias controlled by the individual states, which would likely be too weak and divided to protect the nation, and a unified militia under federal control, which almost by definition could not be expected to prevent federal tyranny. This conundrum could not be solved, and the [Constitutional] Convention did not purport to solve it. Instead, the Convention presumed that a militia would exist, but it gave Congress almost unfettered authority to regulate that militia, just as it gave the new federal government almost unfettered authority over the army and navy.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that federal control over the militia would take away from the states their principal means of defense against federal oppression and usurpation, and that European history demonstrated how serious the danger was. James Madison, for one, responded that such fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the new federal government was structured differently from European governments. But he also pointed out a decisive difference between America and Europe: the American people were armed and would therefore be almost impossible to subdue through military force, even if one assumed that the federal government would try to use an army to do so. In The Federalist No. 46, he wrote:

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.”

Implicit in the debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions: first, that the proposed new constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and the militia; and second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. The disagreement between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was only over the narrower question of how effective an armed population could be in protecting liberty.

My purpose in reviewing history is quite simple:

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.

Make no mistake, if President Barack Hussein Obama had his way, we would live in a country comprised of restrictive gun laws, which would be modeled after those in Europe.

And, as recent events have plainly shown, those restrictive gun laws have allowed Islamic Terrorists to kill innocent people unchallenged, because none of those innocent people were allowed to carry a weapon with which to defend themselves.

In fact, in some cases, even the police officers, who first arrived on the scene, were unarmed, and had to call for additional forces, thus giving the perpetrators more time to murder and maim the innocent.

One of our Founding Fathers, Dr. Benjamin Franklin, once wrote,

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Like Dr. Franklin and the rest of those who have fought for our freedom, average Americans realize what Modern American Liberals, including the President, do not.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Advertisements

Tags: , , ,

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


%d bloggers like this: