The Patriot Post - Alexander's Essay 7-26-2012

________________________________________
The Patriot Post - Alexander's Essay 7-26-2012
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Leftists Reset Their Sights on the Second Amendment
Memo to Republicans: The Topic Is Liberty, Not the 'Rights of Hunters'

By Mark Alexander

July 26, 2012

"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition." --James Madison (Federalist No. 46)

In the wake of the tragic mass murder in Aurora, Colorado, last week, three groups weighed in on the "gun problem1."

Predictably, the first two groups were Obama and his Leftist cadres, including his Leftmedia sycophants2, who never "let a crisis go to waste" to advance their political agenda.

In what amounts to a major policy shift for Obama, he has made a political calculation that proposing new "gun control" measures will be a winning issue this fall. For the last two decades, gun control has been a losing proposition for Democrats, but in a desperate measure to create campaign traction, the King of Hubris has decided he can turn that around. Make no mistake, this may be a policy shift but Obama has a long history of Second Amendment opposition3.

Obama was banking on the Supreme Court overturning his socialized medical care agenda so ObamaCare could be the centerpiece of his campaign, but Chief Justice John Roberts disabled that strategy4.

Obama can't win on "jobs" or the success of his socialist "economic recovery plan5," though, astoundingly, he is still trying to sell it as a success. From the guy who recently claimed "the private sector is doing fine," and, "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen," comes this assertion about Mitt Romney's plan to cut taxes and spending: "[Previous administrations] tried that and it didn't work." Of course it did work, but what Obama said next is the acme of his obfuscation: "Just like we've tried their plan, we tried our plan -- and it worked. That's the difference. That's the choice in this election. That's why I'm running for a second term."

OK, well that BIG LIE will only work with Obama's most devoted lemmings6, and he can only get so far with the other two pillars of his re-election campaign, tax "fairness"7 and class warfare6.

So where is Obama to go for the five percent voter shift he needs to win in November?

Preying on the dead in Aurora, he has decided to target the Second Amendment8, hoping he can muster sufficient emotional support from female voters9, who have been trending toward the conservative side of the ballot since 2008.

After all, the most significant obstacle to Obama's ability to fully implement his socialist agenda10 is that pesky amendment codifying the inalienable right of American Patriots11 to defend Essential Liberty12, since 1776.

So Obama is gambling that Aurora will give him an opening to reverse course, and set a new heading toward disarming American gun owners13. He set the tone for that heading, telling National Urban League convention attendees that, though he appreciates the tradition of hunting, "I believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals, that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities."

"AK-47s"? That was an interesting choice of weapon, since those Russian and Chinese arms are carried "on the battle field of war" by Islamists killing American soldiers -- not that we would expect Obama to know the difference between an AK-47 and a Red Ryder BB gun. As for putting weapons "in the hands of criminals," see Obama's "Fast and Furious14" initiative.

Obama insisted, "We should leave no stone unturned and recognize that we have no greater mission as a country than keeping our young people safe. Even as we debate government's role, we have to understand that when a child opens fire on another child, there's a hole in that child's heart that government alone can't fill."

Actually, the only "children" who are opening fire on other children, are 15-18 year old gang bangers, who, along with their 19-25 year old "brothers" account for most of the violence in the United States. And it is with great irony that Obama suggests "government alone can't fill" the void in their hearts, since generations of Leftist social policies have instituted the cultural degradation that creates those holes. But, as noted earlier, suggesting that gun control measures are all about "protecting the children" tugs at the emotional strings of female voters.

Obama's assault on the Second Amendment15, like the rest of his socialist propaganda16, must be countered with clear and concise rebuttal.

But the most distressing reaction to the tragedy in Aurora was from the third group of respondents -- Republicans -- who attempted to rebut Obama's politicization of the tragedy with data comparing the rate of murders with guns to negligent highway deaths cause by alcohol use or texting while driving, etc. It's not that such data isn't important when rebutting the Leftist's gun control agenda -- I've researched and provided great detail on comparative causes of death and other vectors for challenging the gun controllers. But that data is only tangential.

The real Second Amendment17 debate is not about guns, but is framed in the context of defending Essential Liberty12 as endowed by our Creator and enshrined in our Constitution's Bill of Rights18.

Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by our Constitution's principal author, James Madison, wrote in his "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States" (1833), "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

By extension, that debate needs to come right back around to the question of whether Mitt Romney or Barack Hussein Obama will do a better job of defending Liberty against tyranny.

And the presidential question is not so much one of "gun policy" as it is of Supreme Court appointees. Specifically, the next president will likely make two or even three appointments to the Court. If Obama is re-elected, he'll likely flip the court to a solid 5-4 leftist majority supporting all manner of gun restrictions, in order to circumvent legislative obstacles. Indeed, Obama proudly claimed this week that, regardless of legislative action, "We've been able to take some actions on our own, recognizing that it's not always easy getting things through Congress these days." If given a liberal SCOTUS majority, that will open up a major thruway for Obama's agenda.

Fortunately, if Romney is elected, and if he's able to replace one or both of the High Court's two aging liberal justices (Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 79, and Stephen Breyer is 73), he'll be able to take the court to a 6-3 majority in support of the Second Amendment.