Why does the ‘community organiser’ Obama fear an armed citizenry?

Exclusive: Joseph Farah pits president’s actions against words of our founders


James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers: “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Not only did Obama misrepresent the very reason the Bill of Rights includes a specific protection of the unalienable right to bear arms, he also misrepresented his own personal position, which is clearly for the ban of most firearms currently owned by Americans.

Here’s what he said in Colorado last week: “The opponents of some of these common-sense laws have ginned up fears among responsible gun owners that have nothing to do with what’s being proposed, nothing to do with the facts, but feeds into this suspicion about government. You hear some of these quotes:

  • ‘I need a gun to protect myself from the government.’
  • ‘We can’t do background checks because the government’s going to come take my guns away.’

“The government’s us,” Obama continued. “These officials are elected by you. They are elected by you, I am elected by you. I am constrained as they are constrained by a system that our founders put in place. This is a government of and by and for the people….

So surely we can have a debate that’s not based on the notion somehow that your elected representatives are trying to do something to you other than potentially prevent another group of families from grieving the way the families of Aurora or Newtown or Columbine have grieved. We’ve got to get past some of the rhetoric that gets perpetuated that breaks down trust and is so over the top that it just shuts down all discussion. And it’s important for all of us when we hear that talk to say ‘hold on a second.’ If there are any folks out there right now who are gun owners and you’ve been hearing that someone is taking away your guns, get the facts! We’re not proposing a gun registration system. We’re proposing background checks for criminals. Don’t just listen to what some advocates or folks who have an interest in this are saying. Look at the actual legislation. That’s what happened here in Colorado. And hopefully if we know the facts and we’re listening to each other, then we can actually move forward.”

Obama makes light of the argument that free citizens have a right and duty to be armed and vigilant to protect their liberty – including from government. But, it’s not some crazy idea. It is exactly what the men who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment believed.

  • James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers: “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
  • Thomas Jefferson wrote in a proposal for the Virginia Constitution: “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
  • Again, James Madison wrote in support of the Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear … arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country. …”
  • George Mason said: “… to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
  • Noah Webster wrote: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”
  • Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers: “… but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights. …”
  • Samuel Adams said: “The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
  • Richard Henry Lee, the initiator of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the Senate that passed the Bill of Rights, wrote: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.”
  • Again, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers: “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
  • Again, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter quoted frequently by leftists of the 1960s and 1970s: “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. … The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
  • Patrick Henry said: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

The intent of the founders couldn’t be clearer. In fact, I defy any proponent of further federal firearms restrictions to find even a single quote from a single founder to support their attacks on the Constitution. They can’t do it. Yet the record of support for the protection of firearms ownership by these men would fill volumes.

Obama argues that he is opposed to gun bans. But the record is equally clear he is – and always has been.

In 1996, while still in Chicago, Obama supported a ban on handguns. In 1998, he supported a ban on all semiautomatic guns, which represent the vast majority of firearms currently owned by citizens 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). He served on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation, the largest private funder of research seeking ways to ban gun ownership in the U.S.

When Obama ran for the Illinois state Senate, he was asked by Independent Voters of Illinois if he supported a “ban [on] the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” He responded “Yes.” Later, when he ran for president, he flatly denied making the statement and attributed it to a staffer from his Senate race. The problem for Obama is that the questionnaire includes his own handwritten notes to at least one answer. 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.”

He is also on record in opposition to current laws in 48 states permitting citizens to carry concealed handguns for protection. About concealed carry laws, Obama said, “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.” Of course, the statistics prove just the opposite.

But the Obama record gets worse.

In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law with provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions so that self-defense requirements would 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.

Then Gov. 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 override.

It’s fair to conclude, with Obama in January issuing 23 executive actions with gun-control provisions, that he not only hates private ownership of most, if not all, firearms, but he is obsessed with imposing restrictions.

More to the point, just do a reality check for a moment: Does anyone genuinely have any doubt that Obama would like to impose draconian gun control regulations on Americans? Will anyone seriously try to defend such a claim?

Again, Obama has a historical pattern of taking strong anti-gun positions, only to attempt later to obscure them. His website once said there were only two reasons for private gun ownership: “Hunting and target shooting.” Later the website was scrubbed when it became an embarrassment and a politically inexpedient and indefensible position.

Why does Obama speak out of both sides of his mouth on the gun issue? In 2008, Democrat pollster Mark Penn explained the doublespeak: “The formula for Democrats is to say that they support the Second Amendment, but that they want tough laws that close loopholes. This is something (Democrats) can run on and win on.”


In other words, don’t pay attention so much to what Obama says, watch what he does. What he says changes with the political winds. What he does has not changed through his political life.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/why-does-obama-fear-armed-citizenry/#Ttefrbh6SUdFiMj7.99

The Supreme Liar, Obama. Lies roll off his tongue like water over a dam. Saul Alinskey described this kind of lying, “using their own ideals against them”. Taking the language of your enemy and trying to get in their head, using their own reasoning against them. It works magic until they figure out your lying straight into their faces. Only a Sociopath could do it so well.

Out with the trash!

McCain Denounces Using Filibuster to Defend Gun Rights

On Deface the Nation Sunday, nominally Republican Senator John McCain held forth on the topic of using the filibuster to prevent the Senate from ramming through unconstitutional anti-gun legislation:

“I don’t understand it. The purpose of the United States Senate is to debate and to vote and to let the people … quack quack quack … What are we afraid of? … quack quack quack … I do not understand why United States senators want to block debate … quack quack quack ….”

In other words, no support for a filibuster. He wouldn’t even agree not to vote for more gun restrictions.

Next to him, the sinister Chuck Schumer was all smiles, like a lizard that had just crunched down on a tasty moth. Liberal propagandist Bob Schieffer was delighted at the chemistry between the two statists.

Sit McCain next to someone with principles from his own side of the aisle — e.g., Ted Cruz or Rand Paul — and it would not be such a love fest.

No matter how many times Lucy yanks the football away, Charlie Brown will keep trying to kick it. Similarly, no matter how many times McCain stabs us in the back, some will continue to pretend that he isn’t on the liberals’ side.

6 thoughts on “Why does the ‘community organiser’ Obama fear an armed citizenry?”

  1. From poster Don Paashaus :

    Obama Hussein was prattling to low information obots. It bears repeating that he was never lawfully elected. The imposter-&-usurper-in-Chief stole the last election with a fraudulent vote count and was ineligible for the past two elections.
    – Since he was illegally elected, should we except him as our dictator? No way! Submission may be a part of his Islamic/State belief system but, it’s not mainstream – please – No Sharia Law!
    – They can’t just throw millions of gun owners into jail. Not if the citizenry are united in a common vision; united in taking a common stand for our endangered-constitutional liberties and freedoms.

  2. While a state senator of Illinois, only two issue got Obama to vote something other than “present”. Gun Control and Abortion, that’s right, taking guns and killing children are all Obama cared about enough to risk is near perfect voting record of “present”.

  3. #1. obama is a moslem and therefore, according to sharia, non-moslems are forbidden to own any weapons. He knows his moslem buds and buddettes will get the weapons they need and law abiding citizens will obey the laws, so he wants to enforece sharia in another area of our lives – at least as much as he can get away with.

    #2. even for those who think obama is not a moslem – he passes as a Marxist/progressive for those who are ignorant about islam. But Marxists/progressives do not want the citizenry to be armed either because that is dangerous for them if we shoot back when they start shooting, or getting our own sons and daughters to fire upon us, just as commie countries have done in the past.

  4. Obama is a criminal – he’s following the corollory of the criminals’ favorite idolatrous excuse, i.e:

    “Your honor, I didn’t do it – only the gun did it! So: arrest all the guns, not me!”

    He’s pretending “weapons cause violence, not people.” And to use this in a further attempt to slander the whole population as guilty until never proven innocent (“SINCE you have guns, therefore you WILL use them, SO we have to take them all away from you first, you criminals!”) while stealing your tax monies to do so, is yet another example of his deliberately wilfully self-blinded, criminal negligence in action.

    Gun control CANNOT prevent violence – and he knows it, yet continues to commit his criminal lies (fraud) in order to steal tax money while slandering everyone in order to steal away their rights to defend them selves, their families, and innocent others from criminals!

    In general, no force or police or laws are necessary among free citizens who can (or will) govern themselves, while the opposite is: no amount of force or police or laws are enough for a people who CANNOT (or will not) govern themselves.


    Guns exist. They will never again not-exist. More laws do not equal order. In general, no force or police or laws are necessary among free citizens who can govern themselves, while the opposite is: no amount of force or police or laws are enough for a people who CANNOT govern themselves.

    More anti-gun laws will only make for more open-season areas (i.e: “gun-free zones”) for the criminals to play in, by disarming all the law-abiding citizens and letting all the criminals know it.

    Disarming your law-abiding, gun-owning neighbours will NOT stop criminals from targeting you!


    “A tyrannical rule cannot in any reasonable construction be accounted lawful, and therefore the disturbance of such a government cannot be esteemed seditious, much less traitorous.”

    – Thomas Aquinas

    1. “in order to steal away their rights to defend them selves, their families, and innocent others from criminals!”

      The reason why Americans have the second amendment is to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

      Everything else is secondary.

Comments are closed.