What Obama Really Believes About The Second Amendment: People Shouldn't Have Guns


Barack Hussein Obama just cannot be clear on the Second Amendment, at least in his rhetoric. In one breath he says he respects it, but with his votes in the Illinois State Senate and the United States Senate and, ultimately, how he has responded in the office of President, he has demonstrated that he is utterly against it. His rhetoric has been all over the map on the issue, but one thing we must keep in mind and that is what is his ideology and what has been his voting record when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Back in the 1990's Barack Obama told author and college faculty colleague John Lott, “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.” Obama also tagged Lott as "the gun guy." Lott referenced many of accounts of Obama's anti-gun mindset in his book Debacle: Obama's War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future, which he authored with Grover Norquist.

In an interview that was published in June of 2012 between Kathryn Jean Lopez and John Lott, she asked Lott why people should believe his citation of Barack Obama's quote above, "I don't believe people should be able to own guns." Lott responded,

Well, don’t just take my word for his views on guns, look at the positions Obama took on guns during his time in Chicago. Obama supported a ban on handguns in 1996, and a ban on the sale of all semiautomatic guns in 1998 (a ban that would have encompassed the vast majority of guns sold in the U.S.). In 2004, he advocated banning gun sales within five miles of a school or park (essentially a ban on virtually all gun stores), and he has worked in other ways to support bans. He was on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation, the largest private funder of research to ban gun ownership in the U.S.

When Jodi Kantor of the New York Times was writing an article on Obama’s time at the University of Chicago Law School, she heard that I might have some stories about Obama. She interviewed me during the summer of 2008, and I provided her with the different accounts that I provided in Debacle. But these examples were not included in her final article. Ms. Kantor said in an e-mail correspondence that “the Obama people denied that the conversation ever took place.” In a follow-up conversation with her, I kept asking what exactly they were denying. That I ever talked to Obama? That we ever talked about guns? That we knew each other at Chicago? But the only statement she ever received back from the Obama camp was that they “denied that the conversation ever took place.” It seems pretty clear that if the Obama people hadn’t denied the story, the New York Times would have run my quotes.

A key point of my stories was how different Obama was from academics in his unwillingness to discuss things with those who held opposing views. In my own case, Obama would just turn his back and walk away from conversations. Kantor noted that others had told her similar things. That was another reason my anecdotes were not crucial: “There was, frankly, a fair amount of other evidence, independent of the incident you told me about, that Sen. Obama did not engage much with conservatives/libertarians.”

While Obama's Second Amendment hatred could be summed up in that one comment, it goes far beyond that in what he actually does. But first, let's be clear and let Obama speak for himself. In 2008, then Senator Barack Obama from Illinois, campaigned in Lebanon, Virginia. During a speech there he said, "I just want to be absolutely clear. Alright, So I don't want any misunderstanding when you all go home and you are talking to your buddies and you say, ah 'He wants to take your guns away.' You've heard it here, I'm on television so everybody knows it. I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."

So let's see if anything he has done in the past or present or anything he is proposing to do in the future would negate that statement.

When Obama ran for the Illinois state senate, he was asked by Independent Voters of Illinois (IVI) if he supported a “ban [on] the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." He responded "Yes." But that wasn't all, when it came time to run for president, he flatly denied making the statement and attributed it to a staffer from his senate race. The problem for Obama in stating this, is a day after he was interviewed and amended version of the IVI questionnaire clearly shows Obama's handwritten notes added to at least one answer.

In another questionnaire provided by Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test in 1998 found that Obama wanted to "ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.” For those unaware, many handguns, as well as rifles are semi-automatics.

Mr. Obama was also on the board of directors the Joyce Foundation from 1998 to 2001. That foundation has been responsible for funding numerous anti-gun organizations such as the Violence Policy Center, the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, and Handgun Free America. Both the VPC and the HFA support a full ban on handguns.

It isn't that he just sat on a the board of directors of a foundation that doesn't support the Second Amendment and funded organizations that don't support the Second Amendment, but Obama viciously opposes current laws in 48 states in which citizens can carry concealed handguns for protection. While many academic studies demonstrate the opposite, Obama says, "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

In addition, Jerome Corsi, in his book Obama Nation, on pages 241-242 writes, "Hale DeMar, a 52-year-old Wilmette resident, was arrested and charged with misdemeanor violations for shooting, in the shoulder and leg, a burglar who broke into his home not once, but twice. Cook County prosecutors dropped all charges against DeMar."

"In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165," he continues, "a law introduced in response to DeMar's case, with provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure."

Corsi writes, "Governor Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill. On Nov. 9, 2004, the Illinois Senate voted 40-18 to override Blagojevich's veto. Again, Obama acted against the bill."

"On Nov. 17, the Illinois House voted overwhelmingly, 85-30, to override the governor's veto and Senate Bill 2165 became law," Corsi concludes.

According to a flyer, that used to be found on Barack Obama's website here, but has been preserved on our website here, he only sees two reasons for people owning guns: "Hunting and target shooting."

We could go on and on demonstrating Barack Obama's disdain for American citizens to possess guns. He endorsed the Illinois handgun ban in 1996, endorsed local gun bans in 2008.

He even chastised Alan Keyes during an Illinois Senate debate, in which he said, "Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban." That seems to be entirely at odds with his flyer's claim that hunting (which is with regards to animals) and target shooting are acceptable to him and both involved guns.

Barack Obama even voted "No" on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Senate bill S397 was a bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Had he voted "Yes," here's what the bill would have done:

  • Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
  • Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
  • Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
  • Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
  • Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices

In reference to the 2008 campaign, one Democrat pollster, Mark Penn, says,

"The formula for Democrats is to say that they support the 2nd Amendment, but that they want tough laws that close loopholes. This is something (Democrats) can run on and win on."

Penn gives us the inside scoop from an insider. He is telling us that we are to pay attention to what Barack Obama does, not what he says, though that is important, because quite often he tells us exactly what he thinks the Second Amendment is for, but he's wrong and he hasn't got a leg to stand on when that Amendment is read in its entirety and put in its historical context.

There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers hunted. There is no doubt that they probably engaged in target practice and even collected firearms, but when they wrote the Second Amendment, not one word of those things was put into it and for good reason: The purpose of the Second Amendment had absolutely nothing to do with them.

Obama knows the public sentiment and so he goes on and on about how he respects the rights of gun owners, but does he? As stated before, he claims there are only two legitimate reasons for owning guns, "hunting and target shooting." Never do you hear Barack Obama state what the Second Amendment is actually for.

What he does is attack it and he attacks gun owners. The mocking and condescending tone that pours forth from his mouth is evident when he says, "...it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

It is my opinion, that believers in the Second Amendment should start confronting Barack Obama and his administration with what the Second Amendment says and quote the entirety of it at every opportunity they get to educate the American public in print, the internet and when given the opportunity to be on radio or television. Recently, Dana Loesch gave one of the clearest and most succinct responses with regard to the Second Amendment I have heard. This must be our agenda. Yes, I make no bones that we must have an agenda or we will fall to the agenda of Barack Hussein Obama and his gun grabbing posse.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.






  • http://www.facebook.com/mr.timothy.harrington Mr.Timothy Harrington

    years ago the kkk clan can, now I hope they doo

  • http://www.facebook.com/mr.timothy.harrington Mr.Timothy Harrington

    obam you are exactly the reason people should have guns your administration should provide an ar 15 with 5000 rounds to every man woman and child who pays taxes to the government , this way the people have back the power you steal daily, from the very ones who voted wrongly and put you in your high chair of government which will soon come crashing down on the lot of you disrespectful powergrabbing , rule bending morons

  • MichaelZZ

    THE BILL OF RIGHTS

    Second Amendment

    Right to Keep and
    Bear Arms

    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.

    DEFINITIONS:

    (1)
    “Well-regulated militia”:

    Broadly defined: any
    military force

    Narrowly defined: any
    military force, composed of CITIZENS (who are

    called out in the time of emergency) rather than
    professional soldiers,

    which is regulated by the State or an agency
    thereof. I.e., the

    UNIFORMED military is the ORGANIZED militia, while all
    others

    constitute the UNORGANIZED militia (which is the
    “well-regulated

    militia”).

    (2)
    “security of a free State”:

    Implies an independent government within a territory having
    definitive

    boundaries protecting itself from forces within and
    without, further

    assuming that a “free State” is a comprehensive
    collective unit rather than

    FACTIONAL GROUPS or INDIVIDUALS.

    DISCUSSION:

    It appears that there is no “well-regulated militia”
    (un-uniformed) in the United States of America. Further, it appears that the INTENT of the framers of this
    article felt that the ORGANIZED militia needed the potential of augmentation to
    its forces if and when required. It is,
    further, probable that the State National Guard system is the metamorphosis of
    the “well-regulated militia”.

    It, further, appears that no intent of this article was to
    imply any right of the individual to keep and bear arms for any purpose other
    than to be able to participate in a “well-regulated militia”.

    CONCLUSION:

    It appears that, under ARTICLE II of the United States
    Constitution, no INHERENT right to keep and bear arms has been recognized or
    granted to the individual by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Furthermore, since the “well-regulated militia” has been subrogated
    by the ORGANIZED militia, this ARTICLE is without significance, i.e., has no
    meaning or consequence.

    And, finally, the various militaristic groups throughout the
    country are not valid militia, but are illegal, dangerous and abominable
    cancers to a civilized society and as with any cancer, if not eliminated, can
    spread and destroy that environment (society).

    These rogue militaristic
    groups can and will get out of hand.
    Do we, as a civilized society wait until disaster strikes or do we
    pre-empt by applying and establishing law to truncate this societal cancer?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Bazen/100000902510705 John Bazen

    What this M.T. Suit believes or even thinks is of no import, what the Constitution says is!

  • J J

    Obama is still out there picking winners and losers. He thinks he should be the one to pick who gets to have guns and who doesn't. That is not exactly what the Constitution says but he has never been one to follow the Constitution regardless of what his Oath of Office says. He is putting rules and regulations on the American people that he doesn't want to have to follow himself.