Obama Has Always Wanted Your Guns
I was able to write this entire article before the 2008 election, and then I added a few additional video clips in December 2012. I even sent this article to a dozen media outlets in 2008. Therefore, the media have NO excuse for ignorance on Obama’s life-long position on the right to keep and bear arms.
A few days before the 2008 election I chronicled Obama’s entire history on the 2nd Amendment because I was alarmed that my self described conservative coworkers were actually willing to vote for Obama because they believed he supported the 2nd Amendment. I discovered that the media were not only failing to inform us, but they were actively trying to misinform us. In other words, the media were a propaganda tool for Obama. Rather than being government watchdogs, the media had become government lap dogs.
Rather than conform like every Obama supporter I have spoken with, who have all decided they know for a fact that Obama supports the Second Amendment because he says he does – let’s look at the facts and think for ourselves.
Before we begin, consider that these conservatives and other Obama supporters found the biased FactCheck.org analysis to be convincing and objective. However, they could have simply observed how FactCheck claimed that the NRA has a powerful incentive to lie to scare voters into making larger donations while neglecting to balance that claim by mentioning that Obama has a powerful incentive to lie to get donations and votes. Also, any reader could simply observe that FactCheck justified several contradictions of the NRA claims by simply accepting the most recent verbal claims by Obama without any background research. Therefore, any independent thinking person would have dismissed the FactCheck analysis.
I have pieced together the following timeline so that you can more easily decide for yourself.
1995 – In 2012, we learned that Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, said in 1995 that he wanted brainwash the people until gun owners cowered in shame.
September 9,1996 – Obama or one of his staffers filled out a questionnaire from the liberal Chicago group Independent Voters of Illinois – Independent Precinct Organization, on which Obama advocated mandatory waiting periods and a complete ban on handgun ownership. Obama’s answers got him the endorsement of the group. Obama now says that he never saw the questionnaire and that it was filled out by a staffer; however, the group subsequently interviewed Obama about the questions and Obama submitted a second copy of the questionnaire with the same answers and with his hand written notes on it. We know this because after it was reported, the group actually released a copy of the questionnaire with Obama’s notes on it. Obama now says that just because his handwritten notes were on the second questionnaire doesn’t prove that he filled out or even saw the answers. Even Dan Abrams of the authoritarian left’s ultra-biased MSNBC showed an image of the questionnaire with Obama’s handwriting and asked why Obama will not clearly confirm or deny any positions on the questionnaire. The biased Abrams was later replaced with the ultra-biased Rachel Maddow because Abrams was not biased enough, which Abrams basically accepts as a personal flaw – but let’s not get sidetracked.
Reported by Politico, March 31, 2008
MSNBC’s Dan Abrams – Obama Denies 1996 Questionnaire with his Handwriting
FactCheck.org says that using this questionnaire to demonstrate that Obama favors a ban on hand guns is false because he “has said that a ban is not politically practicable.” Of course, if the Factcheck.org were unbiased, they would make the objective observation that Obama must still favor a hand gun ban because instead of contradicting his previous position, he merely said that he could not get enough votes, but of course we know that he will have a majority in the House, a super majority in the Senate, and that if Congress does not support him, his Supreme Court appointments can simply reinterpret the Constitution.
1998 – Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.” This NRA statement was not contested by FactCheck.org or Newsweek.
1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7
December 13, 1999 – A Chicago Defender article reported several statements made by Obama at an anti-gun rally, where Obama “outlined his anti-gun plan” according to the article. The statements by Obama would have been a smart political move in Chicago at that time, and Obama’s supporters are not disputing the article. A FactCheck.org article that is sympathetic to Obama quotes the Defender article too. The only justification offered by FactCheck.org for their criticism against the NRA quotes from the article is that we can’t assume these are still Obama’s positions because he did not respond to requests from FactCheck.org for an updated position, which again demonstrates the bias at FactCheck.org. The objective assumption would have been that these are still Obama’s positions in the absence of any contradictory claim. If Obama ever refutes these positions and if he wants any mature and intelligent person to believe him, then at a minimum he should explain why he thought his original positions were right, why he now thinks he was wrong, and why he thinks his new positions are correct.
At this 1999 rally, Obama advocated the following infringements on the individual right to keep and bear arms:
- A 500% increase in the federal tax on firearms and ammunition.
- A ban on gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would obviously have closed down every gun store in every city and town.
- A ban on the sale of “junk” handguns. (Apparently poor people do not have the same rights as the middle class.)
- A ban on the resale of police surplus firearms to the people.
- Mandatory firearm training for all gun owners.
- A ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21. (Unless of course they are working for the government, have been drafted into the military, etc.)
- Increased penalties for the interstate transportation of firearms, which was already 10 years in prison.
- Requiring gun manufacturers to invent technology that would permit a gun to be used only by its original owner.
- Charging a gun owner with a felony if anyone stole his gun and it was ever used in a future crime unless that gun was securely stored in the owner’s home. (So if a citizen exercises his Second Amendment right to own a gun and is then victimized by a criminal, he could subsequently be victimized again and more severely by the government. This position would only make sense if Obama interpreted the Second Amendment to not be an individual right like the rest of the Bill of Rights. Also, apparently people too poor to buy whatever kind of safe the government mandates do not have the same rights as the middle class.)
- Restricting gun purchases to one weapon a month.
- A ban on the sale of firearms at gun shows except for “antique” weapons.
- An increase in the licensing fee to obtain a federal firearms license.
May 5, 2002 – Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them. This NRA statement was not contested by FactCheck.org or Newsweek.
Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26
March 13, 2003 – In the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, Obama voted for bill intended to ban and confiscate assault rifles, which are like the full-auto rifles carried by ordinary US soldiers except that the rifles to be banned are less powerful because they are semi-auto, which means they can only shoot one bullet at a time. However, the bill failed because it was so poorly written that it could have been interpreted to ban most shotguns. See the vote here. This NRA statement was not contested by FactCheck.org or Newsweek.
March 25, 2003 – Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, which was a measure designed to assist young people in the military. This NRA statement was not contested by FactCheck.org or Newsweek.
Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18.
March 25, 2004 – According to the Associated Press, Barack Obama voted against a bill that would have let the people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation. FactCheck.org claims Obama was merely voting against a loophole, but they did not explain that it would have been a loophole in a ban on gun ownership, and thus Obama was supporting the existing ban on gun ownership and advocating punishment for those who violated it by defending their lives, their homes, and their children.
Illinois Senate, SB 2165, March 25, 2004, vote 20
May 16, 2003 – Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions. This NRA statement was not contested by FactCheck.org or Newsweek.
Illinois Senate, May 16, 2003, HB 2579, vote 34
September 13, 2004 – Barack Obama told NPR that he supports a federal ban on assault rifles and on concealed carry permits. This fact was not contested by FactCheck.org or Newsweek.
“Candidates’ gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and “Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns”, Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04.
NPR 9/13/04 – Obama Supports Federal Ban on Concealed Carry
July 29, 2005 – Obama voted for the Kennedy Amendment to United States Senate, S. 397, number 217. In spite of a Democratic Party majority, Kennedy’s amendment failed by 64 – 31, so Obama was in the most elitist and authoritarian minority again.
The NRA says this amendment could ban almost all common rifle ammunition; whereas, FactCheck.org says this amendment only banned armor piercing ammunition. First note that armor piercing ammunition, which is made of a harder material to penetrate steel, was banned decades ago. The term “armor piercing” is now used by Democrats to refer to much weaker ammunition that can penetrate the much weaker fabric used in “body armor”.
What the amendment actually said was that it would ban all handgun ammunition capable of penetrating body armor and all rifle ammunition designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability. FactCheck.org knew the language of the amendment, but a critical fact they did not know was that hand guns exist that shoot every common kind of rifle ammunition (some can even use 100 round detachable magazines). Another fact unknown to FactCheck.org was that there are multiple levels of body armor, and many kinds of handgun ammunition (even 9mm) can penetrate Level I body armor.
FactCheck.org later revised their article to admit that they did not know handguns exist that can shoot rifle ammunition, but they still claim that the NRA lied because future politicians would never use the language of the law as an excuse to ban most common ammunition. FactCheck.org’s putative objectivity claim is clearly nothing more than a very subjective and biased opinion – an opinion so naïve that it borders on the ludicrous.
Clearly the NRA claim is accurate, but it requires elaboration, and the NRA knows that in politics, whichever side has to elaborate is the side that loses in the short term. Nevertheless, the NRA should have elaborated because they have no other choice when the media are so biased against them. I think the NRA may have actually underestimated the intelligence of the American people.
July 29, 2005 – In United States Senate vote, S. 397, number 219, Obama voted to enable lawsuits intended to bankrupt the firearms industry. This NRA statement was not contested by FactCheck.org or Newsweek. See the vote here.
September 29, 2005 – In United States Senate vote 245, Obama voted against the confirmation of Supreme Court justice Alito.
January 31, 2006 – In United States Senate vote 2, Obama voted against the confirmation of Supreme Court justice Roberts.
April 22, 2007 – Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines. This NRA statement was not contested by FactCheck.org or Newsweek.
“Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007.
February 2, 2008 – Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities. “Asked today about the DC handgun ban currently being reviewed by the US Supreme Court, Obama declined to take a position for or against its Constitutionality but did express broad support for the rights of local jurisdictions to make such decisions for themselves.”
David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, “Obama: ‘Common Sense Regulation’ On Gun Owners’ Rights,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, 2/15/08. Video Here
February 11, 2008 – In an interview with ABC’s Leon Harris, Obama said that he supported the DC gun ban and that it is Constitutional. Obama then applied his Clintonesque spin and went on to explain that all he wants to do is make common sense guns laws, ban illegal guns, and prevent loopholes; however, the DC gun ban banned ownership of all handguns – not just illegal ones. We know what Obama really meant because he and FactCheck.org used a similar spin to defend his March 25, 2004 vote (see above). Obama is saying that “Illegal” guns are guns that have been banned, so he supports all gun bans because they are banning illegal guns. By “loophole” Obama means any law that weakens a ban. Of course, when the Supreme Court later decided that the DC gun ban and several other DC gun laws were unconstitutional, then on June 26, Obama said that his position had always been consistent with the Supreme Court decision, and yet he never explicitly admitted that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional.
Leon Harris and Sen. Barack Obama, Forum Sponsored By ABC And Politico.Com, Washington, DC, 2/12/08
Video – ABC Interview 2/11/08 – Obama Says DC Gun Ban is Constitutional
Video – Interviews on 6/26/08 and 2/11/08 – Obama Spins and Flip Flops on the DC Gun Ban
February 15, 2008 – Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping of bullets like in California so that each bullet can be traced back to its manufacturer, retailer, and original owner, but of course if criminals know this, then the two main results of such a law would be to implicate many innocent people because criminals would not buy their bullets from a store or with their own ID, and even worse, criminals would begin to steal bullets from stores and private homes. If just one truckload of bullets were stolen, it would supply thousands of criminals for years.
Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008.
ABC News Video, February 15, 2008.
March 18, 2008 – Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case. 55 Senators and 250 members of the House signed it, which is more than any other Congressional amicus brief in US History. Again we see that Obama is in the most elitist and authoritarian minority.
June 16, 2008 – “District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for private use. It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, and determined that handguns are ‘Arms’ that may not be banned by the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.), also striking down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept ‘unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.’”
Quote from Wikipedia
June 16, 2008 – Obama makes the Clintonesque claim that he has always believed that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but I have heard other elitists make this same claim and then proceed to explain why we all therefore have a right to own a musket like the colonists – but not any modern firearms because they did not exist at the time the Constitution was written and they are too powerful anyway for the average citizen to own, so there is no way the founders would have agreed to let us have any modern firearms.
August 16, 2008 – In the Saddleback Forum, Obama stated that he would have opposed the confirmation of Supreme Court justices Thomas and Scalia.
September 5, 2008 – Obama told a crowd of his supporters at SCHOTT North America Inc., a glass factory in Duryea, Pa., that he had a deep respect for the “traditions of gun ownership” but favored measures in big cities to keep guns out of the hands of “gang bangers and drug dealers’’ in big cities “who already have them and are shooting people.”
“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it. Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress. This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’’
Obama has made these Clintonesque statements dozens of times and so have other more credible politicians on his behalf, such as Democrats from Western states. The reason Obama’s statements are nothing more than Clintonesque spin, is that in the future, Obama could say that he is keeping his promise because he is not banning ownership of guns, and yet he could still ban the manufacture, sale, carry, use, and transport of all guns. He could still ban the ownership of ammunition. He could still increase taxes 500% on all guns and ammunition. He could still require all guns and bullets to be registered and traceable. He could still require gun owners to allow federal inspectors in their house 24/7. He could still require all guns to be locked up, unloaded, and disassembled at all times. He could still ban ownership of guns in certain locations, such as within five miles of a school. He could still ban the ownership all guns that are not necessary for “sportsmen” in his opinion, and like some other Democrats he could claim that muskets (like the colonists used) are really all that “sportsmen” need.
If Obama needed the votes of people who think for themselves and respect the rights of others, then he would have to be a lot more clear, but of course, he does not need the votes of the minority who think for themselves and respect the rights of others. So why am I daring to upset the majority? I am saying this because I know that the majority want to think for themselves and respect the rights of others, but they are busy, and if they compare themselves to their neighbors and the mainstream media, then they will get the false impression that they have already arrived.
September 24, 2008 – Brooks Jackson, who authored the FactCheck.org piece told FOX News: “They are lying. This is what they do. This is how they make their money. Do these people have no shame? They are just making this up. I just wish that they would tell the truth.” He said that their ads were “one of the worst examples of lying” that he had “ever seen.” Does Mr. Jackson sound like an objective reporter to you?
Fact-Checkers Fall Short in Criticizing NRA’s Anti-Obama Ads, September 24, 2008, John R. Lott, Jr.
November 12, 2008 – Obama’s web site says, “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information.“ This amendment is intended to protect the privacy of the people and prevent frivolous lawsuits. Note that even Joe Biden does not agree with Obama.
November 12, 2008 – Obama’s web site says about Obama and Biden, “They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent”. This statement alone makes Obama worse than Bill Clinton, who was the most anti Second Amendment President in US history. It also is a concrete example of just how vague and meaningless Obama’s statement was when he said that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.
October 16, 2012 – In the second debate of 2012, Obama called for a ban on assault weapons and handguns. The media were so quiet about this that I did not hear about it until after the election.
December 18, 2012 – Obama’s press secretary states that Obama would like to go beyond the Clinton assault weapons ban.
In 2008, the 5-4 Heller decision by the Supreme Court confirmed the rather obvious and traditional understanding that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, if just one judge had changed his vote, then the whole decision would have been reversed, and the rather obvious intent of the founders would have been subverted, and the Congress, or just the Supreme Court, would have the green light to ban the sale, manufacture, and ownership of all firearms by all Americans.
Now consider that not only did Obama say he supported the DC gun ban that led to the Heller case (he was for it before he was against it), but more importantly, Obama opposed the confirmation of four of the five judges who understand that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Not only was Obama displaying unprecedented partisanship in relation to judicial appointments, but more importantly, if Obama replaces just one of the five Supreme Court justices who understand the 2nd Amendment, then the Obama court will takes your guns.
In fact, the Obama court might unilaterally decide to issue a Court Order to confiscate all private firearms – just like it unilaterally issued many other unconstitutional court orders, such as bussing white kids to black schools and black kids to white schools.
In a nutshell, I would say that Obama’s position on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is conformist, dishonest, and about 180 degrees off from the Constitution. Obama’s position seems to be a carbon copy of what I already would have described as the position of the elitist conformist authoritarian left in America. Overall, I have seen no serious presidential candidate who has ever concerned me more on the RKBA. The only ray of hope is that Obama has proven to be so incompetent since the election that he has lost much popularity, and thus he can no longer afford to make an issue of the Second Amendment.
I would like to emphasize that Obama’s position prior to the election was not just wrong, but was unusually dishonest because:
- It was about 180 degrees off from the Constitution in spite of his focus on Constitutional Law.
- He changed his positions during the primaries.
- He changed his positions again during the general election.
- His more recent statements were his most pro RKBA, and yet they were vague enough that he could still have been to the left of Stalin on the RKBA. How stupid does he think we are?
- He had never once explained why he came to believe that his previous positions were wrong and why his new positions were correct.
- His more recent statements implied that he thinks the sole purpose of the Second Amendment is hunting and target shooting.
- Multiple times he said that he would not try to enact some new restriction because he couldn’t get the votes anyway! How stupid does he think we are? Not only is this an admission that he does want to enact the new restriction, but he knew he would have a majority in both houses in Congress and he even had a enough votes in the Senate to block a filibuster.
- The entire media was making a rather dishonest defense on his behalf, and he was not calling them on it.
Around the time of the election, I knew two intelligent gun owning self-described “conservatives” who believed that Obama was a moderate who was no threat to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; whereas, the reality was that Obama is the biggest threat to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in US History because he has a semi-extreme elitist position, he had huge support and credibility, and few knew the reality of his record on the RKBA. Of course, like every Obama supporter I have talked with, these two dismissed any verbal claims against Obama as propaganda before they heard the first sentence, but the reality is more difficult to deny when the whole pattern is laid out in text because of the thoroughness and because the reader can’t interrupt or threaten an article, so I hope those who have been deceived by Obama discover the reality of Obama.
If some of those who have been fooled by Obama discover the reality, then maybe they will vote for freedom next time.
Freedom is the Promise of Reality.