In a free country, the Federal Government should not have a say about who owns guns and who does not. State and local governments should be responsible for overseeing that people respect existing laws regarding gun ownership. No new laws need to be created in order to modify the access to firearms. The laws that are in place are enough.

A one-size fits all policy that places everyone -law-abiding people and criminals- into one single category is not only unfair, but also irrational.

The Federal Government does not know the particularities of a determined state to create and apply a new law accordingly, which is why it should not be the creator of laws that have an effect on people who are culturally different.

For example, people who were born in Texas are culturally different from those who were born in Oregon, so a one-policy solution is obsolete from its very inception.

One of the reasons why States representatives do not take a stronger position on banning gun ownership is that they can be removed from office more easily and more often than the President, a Congressman or a Representative.

State governments should be the ones enforcing constitutional laws already in existence, and the president should have no power whatsoever to issue executive orders that promote a one-size fits all policy, especially if those policies directly erode the Second Amendment.

According to Barack Obama, his proposals are all about protecting people from gun violence, not about restricting gun ownership. His logic is based on the fact that “closing loopholes” in certain states will make it harder for people who sell guns across state lines to purchase and then sell those firearms without having done a background check.

This idea is preposterous for many reasons. One of them is that a person who legally purchases weapons at gun fairs or stores does not know what is the intent of someone who buys a firearm from him.

Obama’s proposal is in reality a step closer towards forming a national gun registry program which is the Federal government’s goal. In his proposal, Obama requires that State governments provide all information they have on gun owners so the Federal government can create a national database of who owns guns and who does not.
The result of such a plan would be that the Federal government would have it easy should it decide to confiscate firearms whenever it decides it is time to declare a national emergency.

Obama blames opposition to his plan on people who “sell” his idea as an attempt by the Federal government and the President to ban the Second Amendment. During a CNN-staged Town Hall Meeting-style interview, Obama said that his position was consistently mis-characterized. The US President equaled what he called the good record on driving safety to his gun proposal, implying that a Federal government-created plan does indeed help keep people safe. He also implied that passing gun laws to stop gun violence is equal to passing laws to obligate people to wear seat belts.

Obama also took the opportunity to denigrate the National Rifle Association (NRA) because, according to him, they had not shown up at the Town Hall meeting. “The notion that we can’t apply the same basic principles to gun ownership to everything else that we own, just to try to make them safer, or the notion that everything we do is somehow a plot to take away guns, that contradicts what we do to create a better life,” said Obama.

As we reported on Wednesday, Obama has been the best ally to gun manufacturers ever since he was elected. Him and his constant attempts to restrict gun ownership along with his governments incapacity to provide security, has prompted law-abiding people to purchase more firearms. Every new mass shooting is an alarm bell that rings loud and clear to warn people that the police cannot be there at all times to keep them safe, and any new plan to restrict access to firearms is another warning that the Federal government is slowly and surely pursuing people’s right to have a Second Amendment.

Obama’s Gun Violence Irony

Perhaps, the aspect that gets more attention every time Obama presents a new plan to restrict gun ownership is the fact that while he says he defends the Second Amendment and that he cares about innocent lives, his government does exactly the opposite. As we have explained before, the United States government is the largest arms dealer in the world. The US profits the most from arms sales globally. US-made weapons are responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. US-sponsored wars are responsible for the death of millions. Therefore, expecting government protection from crime or terrorism is an illusion.

The US government sells billions of dollars in weapons that are capable of killing not 10 or 20 people at a time, but hundreds or thousands, yet Obama says he cares about the deaths of men, women and children. He blames all law-abiding citizens for the crimes of a few lunatics who, different from most gun owners, do not follow any laws. When questioned by Anderson Cooper, Obama admitted that his proposals will not eliminate gun violence. In fact, he said that it was just an attempt to do something about it.

Both Obama and Hillary Clinton, have shown support for Australian-like restrictions on legal gun ownership, even though none of the measures proposed by Obama to restrict gun ownership makes any difference in avoiding mass shootings, because most weapons used by criminals are not registered or purchased following established laws.

Another ironic point in Obama’s growing concern for gun safety is that under his administration, the US Federal Government was responsible for running guns illegally into Mexico in an operation known as Fast&Furious. These guns ended in the hands of Mexican drug cartels whose members used them to kill innocent men, women and children in that country. Many of those guns also made it through the US southern border and into the hands of drug cartel operatives on US soil as well as gangs and other criminal organizations. The questions is, where is the outrage of a Federal Government when it comes to gun violence when it illegally provides guns to drug cartels, gangs and other criminals?

Last but not least, there is the case of the genocide committed by the US president via the US drone program. More innocent people in Yemen and other countries have been killed under Obama than under any other president. The secret documents that tell the details about the American drone program were published by The Intercept. According to the report, faulty intelligence is often used to carry out drone attacks against unsuspecting populations. Drone operators themselves have come out to give details about the horrifying experience they went through when having to shoot innocent people.

During the question and answer sessions of the Town Hall meeting, an audience participant questioned Obama’s plan by saying that laws cannot outlaw crime because criminals do not have the same morals than law-abiding people. She added that perhaps it was better to explain to people that, right now, the US has the lowest murder rates in history and that such a fact coincides with the highest rate of gun ownership in history. “We are at the lowest murder rate in history, and yet I think that most people in this country are like, it could happen at any moment, it could happen to any of us at any time.” The participant, a middle age woman said that to say that new gun laws will protect people from gun violence gives people false hope.

Obama responded to the woman’s argument by saying that he challenged the correlation between high gun ownership and lower crime. He said that “places with high gun ownership did not experience significant declines in gun violence, where places with strict gun laws did indeed have a significant decline”. The reason for this is that places with high levels of gun ownership already have the lowest levels of gun violence, which is why a decline in crime would be much lower than in places where new gun laws are enacted.

Another audience member questioned Obama on what she believed is her right to purchase any gun she felt comfortable with and to carry it anywhere she went in order to protect her two children. “It is part of my responsibility as a parent,” she said. The participant was a victim of rape and she raised another caveat in the gun ownership debate: People should not only have the right to own guns, but also to open carry them in public places.

Obama responded that open carry was a State issue and that none of his proposals was addressing what States should do regarding open carry or any other issue. That is false, as Obama proposals do mandate that states provide all information on gun owners, implement new controls on how a person can purchase a gun or not, whether someone on a no-fly list can purchase a firearm and many others. Obama had the nerve to tell the participant that “there are questions about whether or not having guns at home protects you from rape.” He added that people argue on both sides of the issue.

Most likely the biggest grilling of the night came from Sheriff Paul Babeu, from Pinal County, Arizona, who has asked people to arm themselves to protect their families. He reminded Obama that just as he did after being elected Sheriff, he had also sworn to defend the Constitution and that he needed to remember that. “You say that often you get frustrated, and I also get frustrated, but I don’t make laws, and I sworn an oath to enforce the law and to uphold the Constitution, the same oath you’ve taken. Babeu then brought up the fact that no gun laws that the government could pass would prevent mass shootings.

The last nail on the coffin for Obama’s gun grabbing proposals came from the President’s own mouth: “We can’t guarantee that criminals will not get guns,” he said, when answering a questions about how could the government prevent weapons from moving freely from states with looser gun laws into others with tighter restrictions. Obama said that his measures would simply make it “a little more difficult and a little more expensive” for criminals to get guns, as if criminals had cash flow problems to purchase high power firearms.

You can watch the video of the complete town hall meeting below:

[media url=”” width=”650″ height=”400″]




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *