Posts Tagged ‘Dr. Benjamin Franklin’

Obama’s Gun Control Town Hall: “Giving Up a Little Bit of Liberty For a Little Bit of Security”

January 8, 2016

But-one-Life-600-LIThe President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, continued to display his “great disconnect” from average Americans last night in an Internationally-televised “Townhall Event, featuring a hand-picked audience, selected by CNN and the White House. reports that

President Obama doubled down on his push for gun control Thursday at a televised town hall meeting in which he said that sales of guns have soared under his presidency because gun rights groups have convinced people “that somebody is going to come get your guns.”

“Part of the reason is that the NRA has convinced many of its members that somebody is going to come get your guns,” Obama said after admitting that his presidency had been good for gun manufacturers.

The town hall came just two days after Obama announced executive actions designed, among other goals, to broaden the scope of gun sales subject to background checks.

Obama said that he has never owned a gun but would occasionally shoot one at Camp David for skeet shootings.

He also said he would “be happy” to meet with the National Rifle Association — which has vocally opposed to the president’s gun control proposals — and that he had invited them to the White House multiple times. Obama criticized the NRA’s decision not to attend the event, and took aim at their fiery language in response to his actions.

“If you listen to the rhetoric, it is so over the top, and so overheated,” Obama said.

At the town hall, which was hosted and televised by CNN, Obama took questions from Taya Kyle, whose late husband Chris Kyle was depicted in the film “American Sniper.” Kyle told Obama that gun ownership was at an all-time high while murder rates are at an historic low, and defended her right to own a gun.

“I want the hope — and the hope that I have the right to protect myself; that I don’t end up to be one of these families; that I have the freedom to carry whatever weapon I feel I need,” Kyle said.

“There is a way for us to set up a system where you (as) a gun owner … can have a firearm to protect yourself but where it is much harder for somebody to fill up a car with guns and sell them to 13-year-old kids on the streets,” Obama replied.

Obama also took questions from Cleo Pendleton, whose daughter was shot and killed near Obama’s Chicago home, and from Sheriff Paul Babeu, an Arizona lawman and congressional candidate who has accused Obama of unconstitutional power grabs on guns.

He also took questions from controversial Chicago Catholic priest Rev. Michael Pfleger.

“The reality is that I don’t understand why we can’t title guns just like cars,” Pfleger said. “If I have a car and I give it to you, Mr. President, and I don’t transfer a title, and you’re in an accident, it’s on me.”

“Issues like licensing, registration, that’s an area where there’s just not enough national consensus at this stage to even consider it. And part of it is, is people’s concern that that becomes a prelude to taking people’s guns away,” Obama replied.

Also in the audience was former Rep. Gabby Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly. Kelly and Giffords became prominent gun control advocates after Giffords was shot in 2011.

Obama has come under heavy fire from Republicans and Second Amendment advocates for his actions, which they say infringe on Americans’ right to bear arms.

The NRA fired back at Obama while the town hall was still going on. NRA Director Chris Cox told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly: “This is an attempt to distract the American people away from his failed policies.”

“The NRA does more to teach safe and responsible gun ownership than this president ever has or ever will,” Cox said.

The president also published an opinion piece in Thursday’s New York Times in which he pledged not to support any candidate who is opposed to gun control.

“I will not campaign for, vote for or support any candidate, even in my own party, who does not support common-sense gun reform,” Obama said, a move that could make Democratic candidates in Republican states feel unable to request the political support of the two-term president.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said before the event that Obama hoped the forum will spur a “serious conversation” about the Second Amendment as well as the administration’s new push to tighten gun control rules.

So, 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”.

The Second Amendment states that

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.

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

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 the president does not.

Until He Comes,




Power, Perks, and Privilege: Washington Vs. the U.S.A.

June 18, 2013

americaneagleflagWhat in the Sam Hill is going on in this country?

We’ve got “leaders”…and I use the world loosely…that seemingly could not care less what the American Citizens who elected them want to happen in our nation.

For example, we have a President of the United States, who won’t allow us inside OUR White House, which we bought and paid for. Meanwhile, he, his crass bigot of a wife, and their kids, as I reported yesterday, are about to go on a trip to Africa, which will cost us, the American Taxpayers, up to 100,000,000 dollars.

Hey, Scooter…while you’re over there…visiting the land of your bir…err…ancestors…say hello to your brother for us. You know…the one who lives in a hut.

Additionally, he and members of Congress…on both sides of the aisle…want to jump in the middle of a Civil War in Syria…on the side of the “noble” rebels.  Some nobility. Those “rebels” are supported by, and support in return, the bloody Muslim Terrorist Organization known as al-Qaeda. Are all of you “Beltway Boys (and girls)” blooming idiots?

There are no “Good Guys” in this scufflin’ match. Why don’t we just sit this one out and let “the last man standing” win?

I thought that we were supposed to have a system of checks and balances in this country.  Between Obama signing Executive Orders and ruling like an emperor on his throne and the spineless Republican Leadership basically giving him carte blanche to do whatever the heck he wants, average citizens, like me, are experiencing a feeling of moral outrage and a feeling of helplessness.

We have elected Senators and Representatives who have seemingly forgotten who pays their salaries and who put them in office.

Look at what is facing us, right now.

These Congresscritters seem to be dead set on betraying the very country that they are supposed to be serving. They want to reward the illegal behavior of millions of “undocumented immigrants’, who sneaked into our sovereign nation, to have the monetary and Social advantages of being an American, without any of the responsibilities.

While claiming an altruistic motive behind their  drive for Amnesty, these Congresscitters’ actual motivation is more self-serving than anything else. They want to create more voters for their political party.

And, that is where the Democrats are playing Sen. Marco Rubio, and the rest of his new-found friends in the GOP Elite for fools.

If the Moderate Republicans believe that any of these illegal aliens are going to vote for them, when they can vote for the Party of Baracky Claus, instead…they’re dumber than Jim Carrey’s Anti-gun Video.

While I’m on a rant…Sen. Rubio is another subject which I would like to address. Did he fall victim to a Space Pod, or what? I remember this guy from the Mid-terms, speaking out about our Constitutional Rights, in front of Tea Party Rallies, with great Conservatives like Sarah Palin and Lt. Col. Allen West.

Now, ol’ Marco spends his days at the G.O.P. Elite Country Club, sipping Apple Martinis with Juan McAmnesty and his pet dog, “Toodie” Graham.


Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely.

Our Founding Fathers were afraid of that. They viewed national service, as just that. A farmer or a merchant would be elected to the Senate or the House, he would spend his term, in the service of his country, and then he would rejoin his follow American Citizens, and allow fresh ideas to be heard.

Not now. Now, Congresscritters make a career out of it, often dying in office, like Frank Lautenberg, who was 89.

Why? Is the reason that they stay past their usefulness in office, because they truly wish to serve their constituencies? I don’t think so.

I believe it’s a combination of Power, Perks, and Privilege.

Why should they leave…if we are dumb enough to keep electing them?

Thank you, sir. May I have another?

What can average Americans, like you and I, do about this?

I mean, it’s become dang near impossible to tell the Republicans from the Democrats. In fact, the Moderate Republican Leadership acts as if they want to be Democrats, bending over so far in “compromise” with the opposition party, that they can see their own hindquarters.

It is almost as if we have become two countries…the tiny area of blue, which we saw in electoral maps, concentrated around the Northeast and the coasts, and the red areas, which basically comprise 90% of America, including the area referred to as “The Heartland”.

Out here in “The Heartland”, the majority of Americans still “bitterly cling” to our Bibles and guns…and try hard to live up to and uphold the Traditional American Values taught to us by our parents and grandparents, in spite of being bombarded daily by an out-of-touch leadership in Washington and their sycophants in the Main Stream Media.

The strength of America lies in its people…not an ever-expanding, nanny state, all-powerful Federal Government.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Dr. Benjamin Franklin, 81 years old, was approached by a lady, as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation.

The lady asked him,

Well, Doctor…What have we got? A Republic or a Monarchy?

Dr. Franklin answered,

A Republic, madam. If, you can keep it.

Today, almost 235 years later, we still have a Republic. If, we can keep it.

Until He Comes,