Reaction to last week’s historic Supreme Court decision overturning the D.C. ban on guns illustrates how far the American people have come in embracing and understanding the Second Amendment. Democrats have accepted that they have been on the losing side, so much so that their presidential nominee is whitewashing his radical anti-gun record.
In a statement last week on the Heller case verdict Sen. Barack Obama said “the D.C. gun ban went too far.” Obama went on to say in his post-Heller statement, “Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country. As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen.” However, it was only last February that Obama told ABC’s Leon Harris that he supported the gun ban and agreed that it was constitutional.
Democrats only believe in freedom when they can establish the restrictions. Obama also said, “I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals.”
Nothing is more terrifying than an ultraliberal’s idea of “common sense.”
Obama’s record prior to joining the U.S. Senate is scarce. However, when he chose to make a splash in the Illinois State Senate, it was to propose the state’s most radical, far-reaching regulations on gun ownership and sales. In 1999, Obama held a rally at a church in Chicago to announce his anti-gun proposal. The church was chosen because it was in the same neighborhood as a recent home invasion that resulted in the murder of an 84-year old woman by thugs who falsely thought she had won the lottery. Obama said, “This home invasion is another example of how violence came close to home and we must have congressional action to help reduce gun deaths. Congress has been slow to act on these issues.” [emphasis added]
Apparently, blame always falls on the branch of government not currently occupied by Barack Obama.
In reality, a legally-owned firearm rather than Obama’s legislation would have protected the 84-year-old woman. A 2004 study conducted by the University of Chicago found that the elderly now own more guns than any other group. In an interview with CBS, Marilyn Center of New Hampshire said, “We tend to slow down with age, and I think we become more vulnerable, at least in the eyes of the wrongdoers. My husband and I both feel the same way, you know, take personal responsibility for our own protection.”
Without comprehending the reality surrounding the death of the elderly woman, Obama stood just blocks from where she was unable to protect herself and announced his proposal for dangerous legislation that would have made citizens in Illinois less safe. According to The Chicago Defender, the provisions included in Obama’s proposal would have:
— Made it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon not securely stored in that home
— Banned the sale of firearms at gun shows except for “antique” weapons
— Proposed that all federally licensed gun dealers sell firearms in a storefront and not from their homes while banning their business from being within five miles of a school or a park [effectively banning virtually all gun stores]
— Increased the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm ammunition
— Banned police agencies from reselling their used weapons even if those funds are used to buy more state-of-the-art weapons for their agencies
Additionally, then-State Senator Obama arrogantly suggested in his proposal that the federal government increase its fee for obtaining a federal firearms license. Obama’s everything-but-the-kitchen-sink anti-gun proposal was never introduced as legislation.
As a U.S. Senator, Obama voted for legislation that would allow lawsuits designed to bankrupt gun manufacturers. He also voted on a bill that would ban nearly all rifle ammunition that is mostly used for hunting and competitive shooting.
While on the campaign trail in 2007, Obama said that he supports gun ownership… in rural areas like eastern Iowa. In a discussion held at an Iowan middle school, Obama told the audience, “I think lawful gun owners should be able to hunt, be sportsmen, protect their families.” He then explained why this right only extends to some people:
Michelle, my wife, she was traveling up, I think, in eastern Iowa, she was driving through this nice, beautiful area, going through all this farmland and hills and rivers and she said “Boy, it’s really pretty up here,” but she said, “But you know, I can see why if I was living out here, I’d want a gun. Because, you know, 911 is going to take some time before somebody responds. You know what I mean? You know, it’s like five miles between every house.”
So the point is, though, we should be able to do that, and we should be able to enforce laws that keep guns off the streets in inner cities…
People in “inner cities” don’t need to “protect their families” too? The Obamas are also clearly out of touch with those who live in inner cities. Anyone living in Washington D.C. can testify to the abysmal response time of 911. Once an ambulance arrives after a home invasion in D.C., the occupant is now the victim and the gun-toting criminals, apparently unaware of the gun ban, are gone.
Ineffective gun control laws still exist in cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and New York. It now falls upon citizens like Dick Anthony Heller and pro-Second Amendment groups like the National Rifle Association to undue the damage done by the anti-gun movement.
Obama can’t hide from his real record on the Second Amendment. He claims to respect Second Amendment rights, but wants to make it impossible for the American people, especially those in crime-filled inner cities, to protect themselves by exercising those rights. Obama’s legislative record may not be extensive, but his anti-gun views are.