The Daily Sheeple – by Joshua Krause
There’s one thing that all gun grabbing politicians have in common. They are all quite adamant that they don’t want to take your guns. They’ll tell you over and over again that all they want is a few reasonable regulations. Every once in a blue moon they’ll let their guard down in front of an reporter, and reveal their true long-term intentions, but by and large they’re always trying to put a reassuring face on their gun grabbing agenda.
Obama for instance, has consistently claimed throughout his presidency that all he wants is a few “reasonable” restrictions, and that all he intends to do is keep guns out of the hands of “bad guys.” Whenever he talks about it however, you can read between the lines and find his ulterior motives.
At a recent Town Hall meeting, Obama was put on the spot by gun store owner, who asked him why he wants to restrict gun use for law-abiding citizens. The video has since gone viral among liberals who think that the president gave a stellar response. In reality, he merely showed us his true colors.
“First of all, the notion that I or Hillary or Democrats or whoever you want to choose are hell-bent on taking away folks’ guns is just not true,” he claims “And I don’t care how many times the NRA says it.” Obama then goes on to make the case for restricting gun ownership for people who find themselves on the no fly list, and cites an example of someone who has been visiting ISIS websites but is still allowed to buy firearms.
“So sir I just have to say respectfully, that there is a way for us to have common sense gun laws. There is a way for us to make sure that lawful responsible gun owners like yourself, are able to use them for sporting, hunting, protecting yourself. But the only way we’re going to do that is if we don’t have a situation in which anything that is proposed is viewed as some tyrannical destruction of the Second Amendment.”
Unfortunately, his idea to restrict gun ownership for people on the no-fly list is exactly the kind of thing that could lead to the tyrannical destruction of the Second Amendment. In a perfect world it would be nice if we could keep guns away from terrorists, but restricting the gun rights of people who are on the no-fly list is anything but reasonable or “common sense.”
That’s because literally anyone can find themselves on the no-fly list. You don’t have to commit a crime and you don’t need to visit any suspicious websites. They can take away your right to travel freely without any due process whatsoever. At best, all the government needs to do is hear that you might have some sympathies for a terrorist organization, and you’ll be barred from being on a plane for life.
As Techdirt.com pointed out last year, more than a third of the people on the no-fly list have no known terrorist affiliations. If Obama’s plan were ever put in place, you could lose your right to bear arms over nothing more than a hunch or a rumor.
Leaks to the Intercept revealed that the “process” by which people are put on either the no fly list or the terrorist watch list basically involves hunches, and revelations from just a few months ago show that DHS still uses flim flam pseudo scienceto put people on the list based on hunches that the government laughably calls “predictive judgment,” but which experts have said has no scientific basis whatsoever.
If you want to understand how incredibly wrong this proposal is, you just need to replace “buy guns” with something else, like “the right to assemble” or “the right to use the internet.” It’s easy to say: “What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to use the internet?” But then you remember that these aren’t actual suspects — they’re just people put on a list by law enforcement with no thorough process, let alone due process to defend themselves or to get off the list. And, of course, being a “suspect” doesn’t mean you’re guilty. Innocent until proven guilty used to actually mean something.
And let’s not forget, that our government has a very broad definition of “terrorist,” and has in the past claimed that conservatives, libertarians, veterans, and Christians should be watched closely for their supposed terrorist potential (i.e., the groups that are most likely to own firearms).
Sorry Obama, but you’re a gun grabber plain and simple. At best perhaps, you’re ignorant of what your proposal could do to our rights, and at worse you’re lying to the American people. You know exactly what a “no-buy list” would lead to. Furthermore, the fact that more guns were sold during your administration than any other in history does not prove that you’re not trying to take our guns, it’s only proof that you’ve failed to take them. You can sugarcoat your anti-Second Amendment vision, and claim that you just want to make us all a little safer, but we know what your ideas would do to our rights.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Contributed by Joshua Krause of The Daily Sheeple.
Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshua’s reports at Facebook or on his personalTwitter. Joshua’s website is Strange Danger .
“In a perfect world it would be nice if we could keep guns away from terrorists,…”
Actually, since the “terrorist” label is applied to anyone who opposes tyranny anywhere, I think they’re the last people we want to keep guns away from.
I really wish writers would stop paying lip-service to the “terrorist” myth, because we all know that we still haven’t seen any terrorists that weren’t created by the Zionists. Pretending that terrorists actually exist elsewhere only gives weight to their side of a fictitious debate.
“Terrorism” used to be a term that had a fairly straightforward meaning: “violence deliberately directed against random civilians, typically for political or religious purposes.” But the governments of countries like the US and Israel (and their puppets) have perverted the term to the point where it means nothing more than “violence we oppose, committed by nonstate actors.”
None of these proposed (or existing) restrictions are “reasonable,” since there are far too many unconstitutional gun laws already on the books. The “assault weapons ban” they keep pushing is especially unacceptable, as it strikes at the very heart of the 2nd Amendment.
A good rule of thumb is that the more a gun restriction “keeps police safe,” the more unconstitutional that restriction is. The federal bans on AP handgun bullets is a good example of how the 2nd has already been compromised in the name of “officer safety.”
I thought we paid the police to keep us safe? Since when do we pay them to keep themselves safe while giving up our rights?
“… all he wants is a few “reasonable” restrictions, and that all he intends to do is keep guns out of the hands of “bad guys.”
Then disarm ALL so-called ‘government’ agencies.
We’ll do it for you eventually anyway.