Update: Apparently a few people have their knickers in a twist over
the comparison of Bush, opps I mean Obama to Hitler. Yes, the same people who did compare Bush to
Hitler endlessly, or just didn’t get too upset about that think this is soooo
unfair. Twitchy
has the details.
As for me, taking guns away from
the people is straight out of the dictator handbook. So is usurping the authority from the
legislative body. Below I raise doubts
as to whether Obama actually intends to step beyond the law, but if Obama does,
it is rightfully considered a step in the direction of dictatorship and big one
at that. As Phineas says over at Sister
Toldjah:
Seriously, if Obama
and... Biden wanted to set off the alarms in the homes of every gun-owner and
genuine liberal in America, they couldn’t have done a better job.
So is it Hitler-like? Well, it’s more like baseline standard
operating procedure for overthrowing any democracy—if what they are actually planning
is to issue new gun control by “royal decree.”
That is why I predict revolution before if they dare to try it. You might argue the image is over the top,
but sometimes you need someone to raise the alarm. It’s harsh, but not unfair. Godwin’s law only applies to unfair
comparisons. If Obama is really planning
what many suspect he is, it is an extremely fair comparison.
The original American Revolution
was sparked when British Troops marched on Lexington and Concord to take away
their guns. Obama would do well to
remember that.
The original post resumes.
---------------------------------------
Vice President Joe
Biden revealed that President Barack Obama might use an executive order to deal
with guns.
"The president
is going to act," said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a
meeting with victims of gun violence. "There are executives orders,
there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is
yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the
rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is
required."
Biden said that this
is a moral issue and that "it's critically important that we act."
And this has a few people getting
very worried. For instance, Drudge is
running this banner (via Insty):
Now let’s have a few words of caution. First, this seems to be coming primarily from
Biden and Biden is kind of an idiot.
Second, there is room for legal, constitutional executive action. For instance, in the context of immigration,
the President could change a great deal just by declaring that from now on we
are throwing out every illegal we can get our hands on, that they are going to
patrol known hangouts like the hardware stores, or Little River Turnpike in
Annandale, Virginia. You know, near
I-495. Everyone who lives in the area
knows what I am talking about. Hit all
the places where the day workers wait around to get picked up. None of that is unconstitutional. A president is allowed to step up enforcement
of the law as it is written.
And we could imagine a similar
approach with federal firearms law. Just
today a man confided that he was a gun dealer and he knew that the ATF knew who
was selling guns under the table (not him presumably) and they were looking the other way. So maybe that is the sort of thing they are thinking
of and there is nothing wrong with that.
Heck, maybe they will start with a raid on Brett Kimberlin’s home. Want to bet that he is obeying the
restrictions ban on convicted felons owning guns. Well, the same rule that prevents him from
buying guns made it illegal to obtain the explosives he used to bomb his home
town, and when they finally busted him for that, they found he had several guns
including an AR-15 in violation of the same law, according to Mark Singer. You think he is obeying this law now? So maybe the President is stepping up
enforcement and if that is all the President is contemplating that is one thing
and indeed, depending on the exact contours of what he is thinking, I might
even support it. It certainly wouldn’t
be anything to freak out over.
But while Biden is dumb, he also
has a tendency to let out truths the President preferred to keep quiet. Consider that spiel he gave about Obama being
tested early in his Presidency. There
was nothing wrong with that statement
logically, it was just really, really inopportune. Biden can be, at times, a victim of his own
honesty. So maybe this is Biden letting
something slip when he shouldn’t.
Or maybe this is a trial
balloon. Or even if it wasn’t intended
to be a trial balloon, it is will be treated as such.
So for my sake let me say this
once, Mr. President. And let me be
clear, I am not advocating what I am
about to say, I am not hoping for it,
I am not planning to participate in
it. I am merely making a prediction.
Mr. President, if you dare take
one single action not explicitly authorized by Congress, to register gun
owners, or to take guns, about half the country will see it as a double
violation of the Constitution. They will
see it as a violation of the Second Amendment, and a violation of the rule that
you are not allowed to make the laws but instead you are only allowed to
enforce the laws. They will see it as
the first step in turning America into a dictatorship. And do you know what will happen? Again, I am not advocating this, but I am
predicting that you will have a violent revolution on your hands.
I wish I could say that the
President respected democracy too much to do such a thing. But given his prior willful violation of the
Constitution, I don’t think so. Here’s what
I wrote
about the President’s willful violation of the Constitution by starting his war
with Libya without consulting Congress:
If you believe that
Obama is breaking the law, then he is not just accidentally doing it. This is not a case where the President
honestly disagrees about what the Constitution and other laws say and just got
it wrong. He is willfully doing it, as that term is understood in that case law. He has said he cannot do this. His Vice President has concurred. And yet here he is today, doing precisely
what they told you he could not legally do.
So I don’t hope that Obama will
obey any restriction of the Constitution just because he should, because it isn’t
going to happen. Instead what I hope
for most is that the Second Amendment will serve its function and provide an
appropriate deterrent effect.
I will leave my readers with the
words of Judge Kozinski of the 9th Circuit. He was writing in dissent that day, but his
opinion now can be cited as controlling precedent in support of the right to
bear arms. And this is part of what he
wrote:
The prospect of
tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely
do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second
Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare
circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses
to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost
the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable
these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free
people get to make only once.
---------------------------------------
My wife and I have lost our jobs
due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an
attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up
to ten years. I know that claim sounds
fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these
claims using documentary and video evidence.
If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin
accountable, please hit the Blogger’s Defense Team button on the right. And thank you.
Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing,
mostly for snark and site updates. And
you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent
History here.
And you can read a little more about my novel, here.
---------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I have accused some people, particularly
Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible
conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even criminal. In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such
as the criminal justice system. I do not
want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such
violence. This kind of conduct is
not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.
In the particular case of Brett
Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed
communication. I say this in part
because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want
that to happen to him.
And for that matter, don’t go on
his property. Don’t sneak around and try
to photograph him. Frankly try not to
even be within his field of vision. Your
behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to
mention trespass and other concerns).
And do not contact his
organizations, either. And most of all, leave his family alone.
The only exception to all that is
that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with
contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might
report. And even then if he tells you to
stop contacting him, obey that request. That
this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that
a person asks you to stop and you refuse.
And let me say something
else. In my heart of hearts, I don’t
believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you
haven’t don’t start.
No comments:
Post a Comment