posted by Charles L. Cotton on Mar 7

Chas PhotoThe gun control crowd has learned to stop using the term “gun control.” They even credit the National Rife Association (NRA) with making it a vile phrase. Well, they are correct. When one takes the time to look past the rhetoric and evaluate the true motives and goals of those who oppose Second Amendment freedoms, it quickly becomes apparent that the long term plan is to systematically and incrementally disarm American citizens. To conceal this goal, those who would deprive citizens of the means of self-defense use terms that are not readily identified with gun control.

So what words and phrases should raise one’s level of concern, especially when spoken by politicians seeking votes? Phrases like “sensible gun laws,” “common sense gun laws,” “it’s for the children” and “gun safety laws” are all phrases of choice of gun control advocates. The motive for using such phrases is clear; what rational person could oppose anything that is “sensible” and who wouldn’t want to take an action if it truly was “for the children?” And of course, everyone favors increasing “safety” in most activities of life. When those phrases are uttered, warning flags should fly and it’s time to look behind the rhetoric and see what they are really saying.

Although this warning applies to any politician and gun control advocate, the 2008 Presidential race makes Barrack Hussein Obama’s record on gun control of utmost importance. Senator Obama makes no bones about supporting “common-sense gun control laws,” so what precisely does he consider “common-sense gun control laws?” (Oops, he slipped and said “gun control,” but that was in 2003 and he undoubtedly has been working on this for the Presidential campaign.) At least some indication of his view of Second Amendment rights can be seen in his flippant and dismissive comment about National Rifle Association (NRA) members in the same article, the June 26, 2003 issue of the Black Commentator, wherein Mr. Obama said:

Thus, while I may favor common-sense gun control laws, that doesn’t keep me from reaching out to NRA members who are worried about their lack of health insurance.

Obviously, Senator Obama had no desire to discuss NRA members’ desire to protect the Second Amendment, but why did he find it necessary to so publically and flippantly insult NRA members? Could it be that he views NRA members unworthy of even having their concerns addressed?

In addition to pushing for additional Draconian gun control laws, anti-rights advocates used the insidious tactic of filing frivolous law suits against gun manufactures. The admitted goal was to so overburden firearm manufacturers with legal defense costs that it would drive them out of business. This tactic likely would have worked had it not been for passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In spite of dishonest comments to the contrary, this Act prevents only groundless and frivolous suits, it does not prevent suits based upon true products liability theories of recovery. In true gun control advocate form, Senator Obama lashed out against this legislation blatantly lying about the threat to the firearm industry in the process. In a Chicago Tribune article proudly displayed on his own website, Senator Obama bemoaned the impending passage of the Act. Excerpts from his anti-gun diatribe include the following:


Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who has taught law at the University of Chicago, said the courts have done a good job of handling, and disposing of, the suits that have been filed. And, he said, gun manufacturers and dealers are not going bankrupt from those cases.

“There is no crisis,” Obama said. “Guns are plentiful. We have multiple guns for every man, woman and child in this country.”

There is ample evidence to prove that Senator Obama is an enemy of law-abiding gun owners and the Second Amendment. He has a record of voting against gun owners on Second Amendment issues and until he decided to run for President, he openly spoke of his gun control ambitions. So don’t be fooled with his recent tactic of paying lip service to gun owners, hunters and the Second Amendment. It is merely a ploy to conceal his true agenda. As the Boston Globe noted in a February 19, 2008 article:


Last week, the day after the rampage that left six people dead at Northern Illinois University, Barack “Hope” Obama did a classic equivocation as if he knew the National Rifle Association was waiting to nail him in all the “red” states he has won. Obama said, “Today we offer them our thoughts and prayers, but we also have to offer them our determination to do whatever it takes to eradicate this violence from our streets, from our schools, from our neighborhoods and our cities. That is our duty as Americans.”

In the same press conference he reassured gun owners by saying, “I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it’s subject to common-sense regulation.”

There it is again; “subject to common-sense regulation.” Senator Obama, you cannot hide from your record opposing Second Amendment rights and Americans are not going to be fooled by buzz phrases. Your motives are clear, your rhetoric is unconvincing and you owe it to the American public to abandon self-serving, politically expedient buzz phrases. Americans know you support laws that would deprive them of the right to own and use firearms for self-defense and sporting purposes, so be intellectually honest enough to admit it.


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Powered By Wordpress - Theme Provided By Wordpress Theme - Payday Loan