A Mexican reporter asked Obama why he doesn’t just veto the Second Amendment.Â What’s surprising is the answer:
â€œWell, the Second Amendment in this country is part of our Constitution, and the president of the United States is bound by our Constitution. So I believe in the Second Amendment. It does provide for Americans the right to bear arms for their protection, for their safety, for hunting, for a wide range of uses. That does not mean that we cannot constrain gun-runners from shipping guns into Mexico. And so we believe that we can shape an enforcement strategy that slows the flow of guns into Mexico, while at the same time preserving our Constitution.â€
Has anyone trolled Monster.com lately to see if the Brady people have their resume’s out yet? I would if I were them. The writing is on the walls, folks. Not that I believe this issue is going away, but the form it’s going to take heading into the future will not be the Brady model.
37 thoughts on ““Veto” the Second Amendment”
Is it worth mentioning that an agency that he, in theory, controls told firearm dealers to make sales the dealers thought were not legit of rifles that ended up in Mexico?
Was this the impending speech on Gun Control that Chris Mathews assured us was coming?
He already gave it.
“…he, in theory, controls…” Yeah – in theory, theory and practice are the same. The executive agencies are out of control right now, Justice particularly. Obama is too busy trying to run a political campaign to control the bureaucrats.
The exciting thing (to me, anyway) is the first part of that:
That’s a Chicago Machine politician, folks, unscripted, saying that there is a right to carry. It’s all over but the shouting, of which there’s going to be an awful lot.
I need Robb Allen to mock up a “Paul Helmke Suicide Watch” icon.
Peter Hamm has his resume over at LinkedIn.
They have one of their own in the white house. A guy who was with the Joyce foundation. Someone who believes all the same anti-gun tripe they believe in and he is talking like that. It is definately a far cry from what they would like him to say. That has to sting like a bitch.
While I find it hard to believe the President’s heart is really in that accurately expansive enunciation of the Second Amendment’s scope… it is refreshing.
It might actually be clearer and more expansive than any President has expressed in living memory, in fact…
Now, will he appoint Justices to the Supreme Court that believe it? That question has already been answered.
I agree that this incarnation of gun control seems to be flatlining. Nevertheless, what worries me is:
1. There doesn’t seem to be a reevaluation on the left of gun control. Note that I say “left,” not “Democrat Party.” The DP has retrenched for strategic reasons, but the Soroses, etc., who decide its long-term goals have not changed one iota as far as gun control goes. Therefore:
2. If the Left manages to absolutely win the political battle in the US, it could very well implement gun confiscation as a side issue. It’s analogous to the China front in WWII: the Japanese were kicking the crap out of China up until the very end of the war, but China ultimately won because Japan lost everywhere else.
3. Whether or not leftists win the total political battle, they could win enough seats on the Supreme Court to overturn Heller. See # 1.
4. There is the ever-present UN Small Arms Treaty that could be used to implement backdoor gun control.
5. More ominously, if the US loses its dominant place in the world, it could very well be forced by other nations to change its gun laws. The left-wing governments in Europe and China deeply hate America’s gun laws, and are only stopped from changing them by their lack of influence over US domestic policies. If the US continues to lose world influence, and enough other nations form an anti-2A alliance, they might very well deliver some sort of threat to sink the US economy and possibly deliver some military setback as well, provided the US did not enact some registration scheme. Do you really think that the American people, who were ready to follow Clinton into gun confiscation simply because they thought he was cool for getting laid, would balk at supporting registration when their families were starving?
I can’t believe those words came out of his mouth.
Calderon nods when Obama said “the president of the US is bound by our constitution.”
And Calderon is thinking …. “I guess 20 Million Illegals wasn’t enough. Ok, I’ll send 20 Million more. We’re going to veto that stinkin’ dosenmienda, even if it empties my country!”
It’s lip sevice, nothing else. He knows if he says the wrong thing in this regard how peopl will react. He has 3 examples at least in the last two years.
I don’t have any major beef with your points except number five. When Americans are hard pressed they aren’t going to be easier to sway on second amendment issues. In fact I think it would be the other way around. Just look at the record gun sales of the past couple years. All that has gone on during a period with a horrendous economy and extremely high levels of unemployment. Another thing, the situation today is a lot different than the early 90’s. The AWB woke up a lot of politcally inactive people. I know about that, because I was one of them.
At least he mentioned protection and safety first, rather than mumbling it after saying hunting. Self defense should be what people hear and think of when someone says Second Amendment, not hunting.
Oh, and fark that reporter.
He didn’t have to say “bear for self-defense”. He could have gotten away with “keep to defend the home”.
“I need Robb Allen to mock up a â€œPaul Helmke Suicide Watchâ€ icon.” ROFLMAO!!!!
How about we give every illegal alien we arrest a military surplus rifle & a box of ammo before being sent home? I wonder if Mexico could suddenly find the will to help control the border then since their own rules on disarming their population have caused much of their own misery. If Calderon had a real point to make, he should have asked us to end prohibition.
The 2nd Amendment is the one right which every American should hold as immutable. It is in place so that you can protect yourself from a tryannical or ineffectual government. It was put in place so that free people remain free. You have the Right and the legal means to protect yourself, your family and your property, regardless of race, religion, non-religion or gender. Open your eyes and minds. Look at what is going on in other parts of the world. You may have to defend yourself at some point in time. Unrest is widespread. Not trying to spread panic. Just trying to keep it real.
Yes. I was surprised hunting wasn’t first. That is the way anti-gunners usually roll when they pretend to give a crap about the second amendment.
I couldn’t say it better myself.
I would suggest that the reason self-defense is mentioned is because that was the primary focus on the recent Supreme Court cases. They can’t pretend that the self-defense argument lacks merit anymore.
I’m afraid I must take umbrage with your plan to hand every illegal immigrant a military surplus rifle and send them back. The CMP has enough problems getting in Garands, Carbines, and Springfields, and you want to send them to Mexico? I want those to stay here, so I can buy them when I have enough money. (College student finances suck.)
@ Garrett Lee,
They need them a lot more south of the border. Don’t worry, you live in a country where you can go buy arms at a gun store.
A true 2nd Amendment supporter would have questioned why Mexico doesn’t have the same right. Would have been a powerful statement if he mentioned that people all across the world have a right to protect themselves!
But as long as Chris Matthews sees this, I am happy!! ROFLMAO
“That does not mean that we cannot constrain gun-runners from shipping guns into Mexico.”
Obama was the gun-runner-in-chief who supervised the shipping.
One note on why this might be less significant than it appears: while I have no doubt that Obama wants to ban guns, he just doesn’t seem to be a committed culture warrior like Clinton was (note they’re from different cultural generations, Baby Boomer vs. Generation Jones). He’s much more into old-style socialist/Marxist economic stuff while showing a serious reluctance pay anything more than lip service to e.g. the GLBT agenda; recent actions there are almost certainly intended to shore up the base after the November shellacing. Other leaders of the Left, present and future, who are more into the culture wars might be more like Clinton.
Yeah I know his agenda still hasn’t changed, I just love how much that must hurt for the Brady Bunch to hear.
I’d be a little shocked if Gunwalker made it even up to Holder’s desk, much less Obama’s. I’d be a little surprised if it made it out of BATFE’s AZ offices, to be honest.
Don’t get me wrong – I think Obama is possibly the most dangerous president I’ve seen in the Oval Office. But it’s not particularly for his goals, but for his inexperience. He hasn’t got the necessary experience, and all the various groups are pushing to get theirs; both internally and externally. That’s rather more dangerous, in the long run, than any single agenda.
Ian sez: “Donâ€™t get me wrong â€“ I think Obama is possibly the most dangerous president Iâ€™ve seen in the Oval Office. But itâ€™s not particularly for his goals, but for his inexperience.”
That’s a point of view increasingly expressed on the left, too. See Ruth Marcus’ recent “Obama’s ‘Where’s Waldo’ Presidency,” for example.
Obama’s specific weaknesses provide all the more reason for the GOP in 2012 to emphasize the difference offered by a seasoned, experienced and demonstrably qualified candidate with a proven track record of leadership and accomplishment. You’d think finding such a candidate wouldn’t be asking too much for the most important job in the world, but then you see whom all the major parties typically pick and you just have to scratch your head.
It’s hard to find someone who appears perfect. And when the press is willing to polish up feet of clay till they gleam on one side, and throw ink in the face of the other side… Well, we get the candidate with the best facade.
Ian Argent: Indeed. Look at Carter and Clinton, who were state governors which is considered to be the best experience for President. The press didn’t rush to tell us what their time in office revealed.
“regulatory” capture as applied to news agencies…
I think he is a true believer as far as gun control is concerned. In fact I doubt you could be with the Joyce foundation without holding those views. I just think he is playing the odds. He knew that there were things he could successfully jam through, and fortunately for us, gun control is a political loser and was not in the cards. If it looked like there was a reasonable chance towards getting the votes, he would be talking a hell of a lot differently.
Prior to being elected, he wrote books, and successfully campaigned for President. That is about it. In the job? Well in my opinion, I’d say that incompetence has a picture of dear leader next to it in my dictionary. As much as I dislike Clinton, I would acknowledge he was and is a pretty shrewd political animal.
I would tend to doubt that he’s a “true believer”, actually – Joyce Foundation pays pretty decently and is a gateway to other political and NGO opportunities; and he doesn’t (AFAIK) have a tragedy in his background to account for it the way Jim and Sarah Brady, Joan Peterson, or Carolyn Mcarthy do.
He’s no Charleton Heston, and having him as president is still quite dangerous both to the country in general and to gun rights in particular because the people he will surround himself with and will appoint to positions of power are statists whose default position is to disarm the people to disempower them.
In some ways, I wish he was “religiously” anti-gun rather than “pragmatically” anti-gun. The President of the United States doesn’t have to actively do anything to harm the cause of freedom; he just has to stand by while others do it. IF he was “religiously” anti-gun, he couldn’t resist the urge to meddle (and to be frank, spend political capital he needs elsewhere for other parts of his program).
In other ways, I’m glad. Since it isn’t on the front burner, he’s willing to let attacks on gun control slide. This could have been an opportunity to forcefully defend the BATFE, and he let it slide.
“That does not mean that we cannot constrain gun-runners from shipping guns into Mexico.” If he was really gung-ho about supporting BATFE, I don’t think we would have seen that particular statement pass his lips…
It figures they’d have resume’s up at Monster.com, it’s owned by Andrew McKelvey – a high-ranking member of Handgun Control and the money-man behind anti-gun astroturf “Americans for Gun Safety” – that got rolled-into a new org called “The Third Way” – and if you know anything about “third-way” politics you know it’s a fascist ideology derived from Mussolini, the left hand of communist organizational strategy…
Comments are closed.