Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Is Obama Unfettered On Gun Control?

November 13, 2012 by  

Is Obama Unfettered On Gun Control?

Second Amendment advocacy groups like Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) are predicting a tough four years for the Nation’s gun owners as President Barack Obama readies himself for a second term in the White House.

Larry Pratt, executive director of GOA, said in a recent interview that he is shocked that the President won a second term. He expressed concerns over Washington’s call to restart debates over the United Nations’ proposed Arms Trade Treaty. He contends that Americans can expect the Administration to “openly launch broadsides” against their gun rights.

The Obama Administration joined with China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and more than 150 other governments to support renewed debate on the proposed United Nations Arms Trade Treaty less than 24 hours after the President was re-elected, according to SAF.

“It’s obvious that our warnings over the past several months have been true,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of SAF. “The election was called about 11 p.m. Tuesday and by 11 a.m. this [Wednesday], we got word that the United States was supporting this resolution. We have to be more vigilant in our efforts to stop this proposed treaty.”

Amnesty International issued a statement Wednesday lauding passage of the resolution, saying the treaty will protect human rights; but Gottlieb counters that the right to self-defense as allowed by the 2nd Amendment is a basic human right.

While both SAF and GOA highlight the importance of American vigilance when it comes to protecting the 2nd Amendment for those domestic and abroad who seek to undermine the rights it provides, they also say that Congress is unlikely to pass the international treaty if it makes it to the Capitol.

Pratt believes Obama will pursue more gun owner registration, more executive orders designed to limit 2nd Amendment rights and more anti-gun Supreme Court justices in the coming years.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Is Obama Unfettered On Gun Control?”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Harold Olsen

    One of the first things that totalitarian dictators do is disarm their citizens. Obama is being true to form. I hate guns and do own any. But, the US Constitution, which he and the rest of the left consider to be an illegal document, guarantees our right to own weapons. I’m actually considering getting one now that Obama has been reelected. Take our guns away from us and we will be unable to defend ourselves when that scumbag decides he’s going to be president for life and go after those of us who oppose him.


      “Harold Olsen,”



      • outdoorfrontiers

        Christopher, you are correct when you say that most black people do not want the death penalty or life in prison for harming a caucasian. And thankfully, people like Timoth McVeigh are rare. However, they do exist, and there are blacks that have no problem with risking the death penalty or life in prison to harm someone.

        Are you willing to bet your family’s life and safety that you’ll NEVER meet someone willing to do harm? That’s something that I am unwilling to risk.

        My feeling is that it’s far better to legally carry a weapon and not need it than to need one and not have it. I’m not willing to die to protect my loved ones, but I am willing to kill for them!

      • Hedgehog

        Paranoia is never unnecessary!









      • LarryFrom10EC

        As a legally aremed citizen, you are only paranoid until you are attacked. Then you are prepared.

    • eddie47d

      Apparently Harold doesn’t like free elections and is now throwing a typical hissy fit. There will be no president for life so put away your delusional thinking. There is a scumbag totalitarian dictator ruling Kazakhstan so maybe Harold is commenting from there.

    • Tom Cook

      Harold, your thought process is not cogent. Perhaps you are not a filthy stupid liberal, but “I hate guns” is their mantra, not the statement of a reasoning man. Think about it: you are afraid of guns, and likely steak knives, kitchen forks, hammers, and baseball bats.

    • Wayne Leach

      Exactly, Harold! The article states that “…as allowed by the 2nd Amendment….” which is in error, it merely guarantees that the basic inherent right cannot be infringed. The 2nd Amendment “allows” nothing, but does restrict our central government. We MUST insist that these rights are unalienable, Executive Orders and Statutes notwithstanding.

      • Kansas Bright

        Finally! Someone who knows our government!

        America is a Constitutional Republic – the Constitution IS our government. Those people we temporarily put into office are required to carry out the duties assigned by the Constitution and nothing else. As you state, the Bill of Rights listed our natural rights (and not all are listed as made clear by the Ninth amendment) that those in government have NO power to touch in any way, for any reason. This is an ongoing power grab by those temp workers we put into office for more power, a usurpation.

        “… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”. Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

        “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … “. Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice John Cartwright

        “The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

        “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”. Samuel Adams, quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789

        “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them.” Zachariah Johnson, Elliot’s Debates, vol. 3 “The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.”

        “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

        “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government”. St. George Tucker (“Because ‘great weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition,’ the Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over forty cases. One can find Tucker in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era.”)

        William Rawle describes the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms: “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” Rawle writes “neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens”.

        Justice Story wrote; The next amendment is:’ “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 importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’

        Tench Coxe published his “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” (Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789) He asserts that it’s the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:
        “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

        Tench Coxe wrote: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

        James Madison in Federalist No. 46 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, 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. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.”

        If you are still unsure of what the Bill of Rights is, some examples:
        First Amendment; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

        The six protections against government encroachment are:
        1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
        2. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the exercise of religion
        3. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech
        4. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press
        5. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peacefully to
        6. Congress shall make no law abridging the right to petition the government for a
        redress of grievance.

        Remember ONLY congress can make legislature – executive order are not now, nor have they ever been constitutional (legal) here in the USA.

        Fourth Amendment; “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

        Basically there are two governmental limitations:
        1. The citizens are to be secure in their person, home, papers, and property, from
        unreasonable searches and seizure. In other words they have the privacy to go about their lives without worrying whether the government will invade them. This amendment was to ensure that the government does not trespass on the people nor take anything from the people without following correct legal procedure.
        2. The government is restrained from taking either person or property without first
        getting a warrant, listing exactly what they are looking for, and only after proving probable cause. This of course is only as valid as the judge issuing it is honest. There have been cases in where judges have signed blank warrants, and the details are not filled in until after serving the warrant.

        These amendments are not a grant of rights, but are limitations placed in writing on the government to ensure that the people occupying positions within it do not trespass beyond their enumerated (listed) powers.

        Hope this helps. Also, no person within the three branches of our federal government or within the state governments have ever been given the power to give a foreign nation or entity power or authority over the USA – that is treason.

    • Paul

      Where, and when did President Obama say he wanted to take our guns away from us. How about showing some real facts, and not the BS the NRA, and fox phoney news keeps throwing out at us. I have guns, I use guns, and I have never heard anything said about taking them away from us by anyone in this administration.

      • CZ52

        Four years ago obama said the only reason he would not seek new restrictions on gun ownership was that he did not have the votes to insure their passage. During the debates obama called for the renewal of the so called assualt weapon ban that does NOTHING to ban assualt weapons but rather bans some of the most common SEMI-AUTO only firearms. obama has also approved banning the manufacture, sale, and posession of semi auto pistols.

      • CommonSense4America

        That’s because you have your head up your arss and are not listening.

      • tlgeer

        “Where, and when did President Obama say he wanted to take our guns away from us.”

        He didn’t. When the US Supreme Court issued the ruling that the 2nd Amendment applied to citizens, Obama said that he would abide by it.

        • OutdoorFrontiers

          Oh, he won’t “take” our guns. He’ll do sneaky things like ban guns with pistol grips or thumbhole stocks, or guns with detachable magazines, or guns that have a history of military use, or guns with a forward grip or barrel shroud, or guns with a folding or telescopic stock, or guns of a certain design. Or there’ll be legislation proposed that taxes ammunition to ridiculous extremes, or places a “fee” on ownership, or any number of things that will not outright “ban” guns, but make it highly difficult to own or retain…. Remember, in Nazi Germany, in Fascist Italy, in Uganda under Idi Amin, in Cuba under Castro, one of the first things they ALL did was remove guns from individual citizens. And now that he doesn’t have to worry about re-election, he’s free to push his private agenda. His history both as a Chicago organizer as well as his brief history in the legislature proved that he is NOT a fan of private gun ownership.

          Remember, it’s not about Gun Control, it’s all about CONTROL!

    • Bill

      Hi Harold,
      If you are new to shooting, consider a glock. They are real easy to shoot, simple to clean and very reliable. Do your weekend shooting with a 9mm and get a 40mm for home protection. And don’t forget a pump shotgun for crowd control. The pumps are more dependable than the semi autos.

      Welcome to the world of shooting. Teach everyone in your family about gun safety and start going to the range together. It is a good way to teach kids responsibility

      • CZ52

        The best thing for a new shooter unfamiliar with firearms to do is seek out a gun club and/or firearing range that will let him try many different types of handguns and decide what is the best fit for him. If that is not possible then the simpelist hand gun would be the best choice for him. A double action revolver in 357 mag or perhaps the Glock semi-auto.

      • Bill

        You are right. A 357 revolver is a great attitude adjuster. Consider a Smith & Wesson, they are very smooth. How do you like the CZ’s?

      • CZ52

        I have two. A 7.62X25 cal and a 32 ACP and love them both. While I prefer a more powerful round the 32 is my “grab and go” gun

    • Benjamin Fox

      If the thug-in-chief and his armies come for your guns to take away your rights, it is time to fight back, don’t let obozo follow the Hitler plan. We have a Constitutional right to fight against a government that is evil and this one has proven to be as evil as Hitlers, so don’t throw in the towel. Fight with all you have, it is better to die free then become a slave to a out of control dictatorship.

      • Jimmy the Greek

        Benjamin Hitler was loved by his people ! How do you figure he was evil ? He wanted his people to prosper , you should do some research , He fixed there economy in less than three years he put the German people back to work . If Germany was left alone all of Europe today would not be the multicultural liberal crap pit it is today and there never would have been the cold war or the problems in the middle east , after obama and his zionist masters get done with this country , we well need a Hitler to save us .

  • Michael J.

    When a boil festers, you lance it. Any more questions?

  • Dave67

    More nonsense… The only thing Obama has done pertaining to guns is allow them on fed lands.

    The United Nations gun treaty is aimed at curb illegal arms sales…


    • jopa

      Dave 67; You can also bring guns on Amtrak when traveling because of Obama Legislation.Of course the (GOA) and (SAT) are going to say your rights are going to be infringed upon.That’s how they get people to sign up and pay dues.The old NRA trick and it works, there is a sucker born every day as the saying goes.May not sound like it but I am for the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership 100% but a little leary on the magazine size issue.

    • CZ52

      Four years ago obama said the only reason he would not seek new restrictions on gun ownership was that he did not have the votes to insure their passage. During the debates obama called for the renewal of the so called assualt weapon ban that does NOTHING to ban assualt weapons but rather bans some of the most common SEMI-AUTO only firearms. obama has also approved banning the manufacture, sale, and posession of semi auto pistols.

      ” The only thing Obama has done pertaining to guns is allow them on fed lands.”

      Obama overturned the Bush decision to allow concealed carry on federal lands for “further study”. That action was bypassed by an astute congressman who attached an amendment allowing the carry to the credit reform bill that obama wanted desperately. To have stopped the amendment would have ment vetoing the whole bill.

      “The United Nations gun treaty is aimed at curb illegal arms sales…”

      If that is true then why does it call for registration of ALL p[rivately owned firearms. If that is true then why does it call for confiscation of “undesirable” firearms by the government.

  • http://Google SeenItAll

    It’s not paranoia when they’re really out to get you. Just watch Obama’s actions, listen to the words of his Iranian born Witch-in-Chief, Valerie Jarrett. Buy a gun, buy two.

    • eddie47d

      The British are coming! The British are coming! Everyone wants to be a Paul Revere and yes SeenItAll you can be paranoid! The Second Amendment isn’t going anywhere but I think a few of you should be knocked up beside your head and with your own gun. How was your night in the bunker? One of the local stories today was about concealed carry on campuses. This staffer at CU Anschutz Medical Campus brought his weapon to class because he had a permit. (happened in office) While going about his business his weapon went off injuring two people. So much for self defense!

      • Motov

        Another “Obamanoid”?,…like with all rights, one must be responsible to exercise these rights correctly. He should have had his safety lock engaged. Criminals by definition will always have illegal weapons, and being in a population that may be armed will serve as a better deterrent for committing crime than just the police being armed.

      • COTom

        Beg to differ Eddie… the professors weapon did not discharge. The students saw the piece and freaked out, which resulted in having the professor losing his CC privilege on CU campus.

      • Bill

        I take it that you do not own any guns?

      • Hedgehog

        You got it wrong Eddie, that was the last revolution. It’s The Americans are coming, The Americans are coming, again. I’m expecting our fourth, or is it fifth wave of New Canadians to start coming here to Canada from Obamaland. The first wave was the UEL leaving the USA ahead of lynch mobs. Hopefully this wave will be smart enough to bug out before the Obamanites strip them of everything they own. Y’all Come! There’s lots of empty land and resources needing development up here. But hurry, the Chinese are already trying to work deals with our government!

        P.S. You don’t have to come Eddie, I know you won’t accept help from “foreign trolls”.

      • eddie47d

        Dear Hedgehog my dear boy. Why would anyone leave the USA over “obamacare” which is run by private insurers and head to Canada which is run as a national policy fully operated by government?

      • Jimmy the Greek

        It was a preemptive strike , I bet they never try to jack his car or rob him .

  • Motov

    Impeach him now, before it is too late!

  • RivahMitch

    It’s unnecessary to discuss this issue. Just decide whether you’re ready, willing, and able to kill and die when the Obamanoids come to your front door. If the answer is “yes”, you’re free. If it’s “no”, welcome to dhimmitude and slavery. You’ll get what you desire in this world or the next. Semper Fi!

    • Steve E

      If everyone stay armed and free. There would be no way anyone could get our guns.

  • Bob Rice

    My property is posted “dont worry about the dog. Worry about me,the property owner with his hand on his gun”,SCREW OREO……………

  • 45caliber

    Oblama may be “unfettered” but Congress isn’t. We just need to get it across to our “representatives” that if they pass a law like this that he likes, they won’t be around long.

    Of course with calls for him to run for a third term (despite the Constitution), he may decide to play coy. After all, he might not get enough votes next time, particularly if they get someone else to program the voting computers.

    • tlgeer

      “Of course with calls for him to run for a third term (despite the Constitution), he may decide to play coy.”

      What calls are they, and who, exactly, has been making them?

  • http://Yahoo Charles Schrader

    I believe in gun control thats why I use two hands.

    • Bill

      I believe in crowd control, that’s why I have two guns

    • Karen King

      me too.

  • JeffH

    Is anybody surprised? Not I!

    The surprised gun owners will be all of the Obamaphiles that ask this one little question…show me one thing Obama has done to restrict gun owners? Followed up with the Amtrak and National Parks examples.

    Lions don’t wildly attack herds of Cape Buffalo…but they have a history of attackng Cape Buffalo when the time is right, when the opportunity is best suited for an attack.

    Obama’s history is an anti-gun/2nd Amendment. What little time he spent in the Senate was spent voting 100% for every gun/2nd Amendment restrictive piece of legislation presented. These actions by Obama are clear…he is the Lion that has waited for the right opportunity to attack and 4 more years is that opportunity he’s been waiting for.

    This is what the Obamaphiles ignore about Obama and his support of gun bans and restricting the @nd Amendment.


    • JeffH
    • JeffH
    • JeffH

      Obama’s gun-control history in the Illinois Senate

      While a board member of the leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tens of millions of dollars to extremist gun control organizations.

      For the past 15 years, I have served in the Illinois state capitol as the chief lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle Association.

      I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator. As a result of that experience, I know Obama’s attitudes toward guns and gun owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than does Barack Obama.

      Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a “friend” of the law-abiding gun owner?

    • Dan Mancuso

      Why would you want to attack such a magnificent wild creature like a lion by equating it with such a deplorable, lying, conniving, homosexual deviant scum bag like Obama? I wouldn’t even insult a jackal or dirty blood sucking, Lyme disease carrying tick, with the likes of Obama. I think you owe all lions an apology!

      • jopa

        Dan That little fellah known as JefffH has even attacked magnificent me on several occasions.He seems to be one little despicable human being crawling around in his brothers basement mooching off of his brothers veterans pension for a livelihood and every now and then he surfaces to attack so many well meaning citizens on this site.If he could only be nice like most on this site it would be a much better world.But no he keeps popping up with paste and copy articles pretending to know what he is talking about.He doesn’t even own a gun like the rest of us.

      • JeffH

        Dan Mancuso, your point is acknowledged and I sincerely apologize to the Lion.

        As for jopa’s follow up comment, it is the just a comment of an angry and hatefull ignorant liberal. One who very closely fits the mold of a “deplorable, lying, conniving, scum bag like Obama”. I’ll not say that jopa is a “homosexual deviant” because that, unlike the others, doesn’t seem to be one of jopa’s identifiers.

  • roger

    the 2A has no exceptions. period. as with all of the other bill of rights……….

  • roger

    The author suggests the reader, after reviewing the preamble [], compare the wording of each Amendment to the original.
    Article I……… Congress is expressly denied the power to enact any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Article II……… Because a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the federal government is expressly denied the power to infringe the people’s right to keep and bear Arms. (EN 1)
    Article III……… The federal government is expressly denied the power to quarter any Soldier in any house, in time of peace, without the consent of the Owner, or in time of war, except in a manner to be prescribed by law. (This Amendment grants the federal government a very narrow lawmaking power to qualify the restraint.)
    Article IV……… The federal government is expressly denied the power to infringe the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the federal government is expressly denied the power to issue Warrants, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    Article V……… The federal government is expressly denied the power to hold any person to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall the federal government subject any person to a prosecution for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall the federal government compel any person in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor shall the federal government deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall the federal government take private property for public use, without just compensation.
    Article VI……… In all criminal prosecutions, the federal government is expressly denied the power to negate the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; nor shall the federal government deny the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; or the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him; or the right to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor, or the right to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
    Article VII……… In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the federal government is expressly denied the power to negate the people’s right to a trial by jury, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any federal Court, than according to the rules of the common law.
    Article VIII……… The federal government is expressly denied the power to impose excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments.
    Article IX……… The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to grant the federal government the power to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    Article X……… The powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (No change on this Amendment is needed)
    Even through the Constitution established a government of limited enumerated powers and under this system of government every power not granted was denied, the States decided that “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were needed to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” Thus, the insertion of phrases like “the federal government is expressly denied the power” is consistent with the intent of the Amendments.
    After establishing the original intent of the Amendments, three things are certain. First, the purpose of the Amendments was to place additional restraints and/or qualifications on the powers of the federal government. Second, the Amendments did not grant the people of the individual States any so-called constitutional rights. Third, the Amendments did not grant the federal government the general power to secure the rights enumerated in the “Bill of Rights.”
    In the author’s opinion, government and the American public school system are intentionally suppressing the preamble and the original intent of the Amendments because government wants it that way. If government wanted students properly educated on the “Bill of Rights,” it would insist that the civics curriculum incorporate this information into classes and textbooks.
    By advancing the myth that the “Bill of Rights” grants the American people individual rights, the federal government has been able to assume the role of “protector” of those rights. This has allowed it to transform restraints on power into grants of power. The federal government now claims it has the power to impose “reasonable restraints” on any right enumerated in the “Bill of Rights.” This is an absurdity because the Amendments were specifically written and adopted to restrain the powers of the federal government. If the federal government is allowed to assume this power, then the Constitution is meaningless as a written document because government can simply modify or remove every restraint on its power.
    Now that you know how to properly read the Amendments in a manner that is consistent with original intent, as expressed in the preamble, don’t be a victim of the government’s public school system on December 15th when we celebrate the 220th anniversary of the adoption of the Bill of Rights Restraints.
    Endnote 1-The word “because” can used at the beginning of a sentence to introduce a dependent clause. The first part of the Second Amendment is a dependent clause because a well-regulated militia is dependent upon the people’s right to keep and bear arms not visa versa. Therefore, it is, and would have been acceptable to use the word “because” at the beginning of the Amendment This change maintains the intent and sentence structure of the Amendment but makes it read in a manner that is more in tune with modern sentence structure.

  • DRC

    They’ll get my guns over my dead body, and, I promise, I will take a few gun collectors with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • http://personallibertydigest david

    guns are the tip of the ice berg.dictators and liberals WILL NOT REST UNTIL EVERY LAW ABIDING CITIZEN IS DISARMED. we are slowly being stripped of every single right and freedom that we have left. i belive every law abiding american and patriot should own a gun. when things go to hell youll hope you have one.

  • Motov

    I think Washington DC needs an enema, the sooner,.. the better.

  • VPutin56

    That treaty means nothing to me. I utterly refuse to recognize it. The UN has no jurisdiction inside America. So, let them sign whatever they want. It’s null and void to me. Anyone foolish enough to actually try to come to my door to confiscate my weapons, is a dead man. I’ve practiced the scenario of one or many coming to the door. My family and I have responses worked out that would enable us to take out several men at once. No, no treaty with the UN has any effect on me. And I have no intention of complying with any other creative little efforts that Socialist prick might come up with. The only gun license I need is the 2nd Amendment. And it has no expiration date.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.