With all the inroads made by the federal government against liberty, sometimes it is easy to forget the small victories that show the battle is not lost.
One such area is the right to keep and bear arms. Although President Obama has achieved many “accomplishments” during his presidency, including the passage of the Affordable Care Act (and its “approval” by our modern-day ephors) the Second Amendment has proved the hardest for him to erode.
Obama admitted this during an interview with BBC, telling them it was where he felt the “most frustrated and stymied” since being elected. Attempts at passing unconstitutional federal gun control laws have gone down in flames, despite full-out propaganda attacks on gun owners portraying them as anti-social misfits and potential mass shooters or lone-wolf terrorists.
Some gun owners might see this as a reason to sit back and enjoy the short-term victory. However, these setbacks have not deterred Obama, and other gun grabbers, infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. All it has done is force them to change their tactics. Having failed to achieve those means through Congress, as well as repeated attempts through the ATF, they are now attempting to do so in small increments.
According to the LA Times, his administration is looking to pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they “lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, a move that could affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others.”
The story reads:
“The push is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws regulating who gets reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, which is used to prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the country illegally and others.
…. Though such a ban would keep at least some people who pose a danger to themselves or others from owning guns, the strategy undoubtedly would also include numerous people who may just have a bad memory or difficulty balancing a checkbook, the critics argue.
This is just one more blatant attempt to use a federal bureaucracy to carry out gun control measures through indirect means. As we’ve repeatedly stated, the feds have no business deciding who can and cannot keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment makes it clear.
Additionally, even if they had the authority, they lack the competency.
Dylann Roof, who is accused of the June 17 Charleston church shooting, was only able to purchase a firearm due to “lapses” in the FBI database, as a previous drug crime would have made him ineligible. Federal gun control is not just unconstitutional, but it’s based on a fairy tale assumption that those who fail them will not seek other means of committing violence.
Yet, gun control advocates will press onward, and unless we are there to oppose them, they will eventually gain victories that will be hard to overturn.
The best way to prevent this is by having states pass their own Second Amendment Protection Act (SAPA), which would nullify any gun control measures they try to push through in D.C. Without the local law enforcement to enforce these “decrees,” it will be on the feds to carry them out, which they don’t have the resources to do.
Let’s keep Obama “frustrated” for the rest of his presidency by ensuring any gun control measures, whether effected during his tenure or a future president’s, are dead on arrival (DOA).
When tyrants are stymied, patriots rejoice.