White House Still Claiming Second Amendment a ‘Given’ Right
Article first appeared at Ammo Land.
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms,” Barack Obama’s White House asserts on its website page explaining the Bill of Rights. If you believe that, then you agree with the totalitarian lobby worldview that “the government giveth, the government taketh away” is the way things ought to be.
It’s the difference between our Bill of Rights and the UN’s so-called “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” which shows its all-controlling hand in Article 29:
- Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
- In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
- These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Basically, they’re saying you’ll take what they give you and like it. And no, of course you can’t have guns, that is, unless you work for them, and use them only to enforce their orders.
The White House website’s Second Amendment lie was called to my attention in a Facebook response to yesterday’s AmmoLand article on the administration intimidating landlords to either accept felons or face the wealth-transferring wrath of Obama’s “social justice” locusts. I’ve talked before (plenty of times) about the antis pulling the “given right” con, but don’t recall pointing out the White House is still doing it.
You’d think someone who brags about teaching Constitutional law would know that unalienable rights are not revocable privileges bestowed by government, but are, per the Founders, endowed by our Creator (or, to keep things in a secular context, inherent to the condition of being human). You’d think someone who represents himself as operating within the framework of Constitutional law would know that the Supreme Court reiterated in Heller:
As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.
You’d think that and you’d be right. This isn’t subject to interpretation and spin, which means the evil b******s are demonstrable liars, defrauding Americans out of their rights and usurping powers they have no claim to. Plainly, because there’s no other way to put this and remain faithful to the truth, that makes them tyrants and domestic enemies, and if you think about it, presumptuous blasphemers.
And that makes it extremely problematic for those in law enforcement who can see this for themselves, and who then can ask themselves if “just following orders” is what they’d rather place their trust in over the oath they all swore before putting on a badge.