The Second Amendment of the United States of America reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
So you just have to ask, what about this amendment creates such furor and angst for progressive socialists? History has taught us that once a citizenry is disarmed, they go from being citizens to being subjects — far easier to be subjugated.
And in many nations where the government enacted mass murders and incarcerations, well, just ask yourself, did they have a Second Amendment for the people?
Here in America, there’s something about the simple words of the Second Amendment that doesn’t sit well with the leftists — could this be the last bastion of individualism? Could this be “the final solution” to the collectivist vision for America, leaving people to live in fear? Ask yourself, why is it that the U.S. Department of Agriculture needs a SWAT team? Why were armed agents used to conduct a raid operation at Gibson guitars over a type of wood being used?
Are we entering that dangerous point where central government intimidation supplants the rule of law?
There are the questions we must ask, especially as we read in the Dallas News via the NY Times, “President Barack Obama’s administration has proposed banning the manufacture and sale of one of the most popular bullets used in AR-15 semi-automatic rifles, a move that has enraged gun rights advocates and caused a run on the ammunition at gun shops across the country.”
“The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month said it planned to restrict the armor-piercing 5.56 mm “M855 green tip” rifle bullet because of new handguns that use the ammunition and pose a greater threat to the police. Previously the millions of inexpensive green-tip bullets sold each year were only for rifles typically used by target shooters and hunters.”
“With few exceptions, manufacturers will be unable to produce such armor piercing ammunition, importers will be unable to import such ammunition, and manufacturers and importers will be prohibited from selling or distributing the ammunition,” the ATF said in its proposed rule.”
This rule will be presented for comment by the American people for 30 days. Will our elected representatives have an opportunity to debate this “rule” and bring it to the floors of the legislative branch for vote? This represents just another backdoor manner to establish a precedent that will lead to more government ammunition restrictions. Has there been a case study or a rise in crimes involving this type of ammunition causing this concern? Have law enforcement agencies presented this issue to local, state, and federal elected officials for review?
“The proposal would allow people to use up the ammunition they have already purchased. Gun shops and firearms organizations on Thursday said there had been a rush to snap up cases of the ammunition since the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups sent out urgent alerts to their members.”
“The White House made no announcement about the proposed ban on the ammunition, and offered no explanation for its muted approach on a highly charged political issue. White House officials offered no response Thursday to the charge from gun-rights activists that Obama was using the rules to enact gun restrictions, and referred questions about the details to the Justice Department. Patrick Rodenbush, a Justice Department spokesman, also declined to offer a detailed explanation for the proposed regulations, saying it would be “premature” since they are still open for public comments.”
So much for that concept of transparency. And who came up with this idea in the Obama White House in the first place? More fundamental transformation I suppose.
“They couldn’t ban modern sporting rifles, so it’s an attempt to ban the most common ammunition that’s used in those rifles,” said Lawrence Keane, the general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry trade association. Chris W. Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, criticized Obama. “This latest action, while alarming, isn’t surprising as it is his latest action in a lifetime devoted to the dismantling of the Second Amendment,” Cox said.
This is simply part of the commitment made by President Obama when two years ago, he sought new gun control legislation in the wake of the horrific 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. But he failed to persuade members of Congress, including some Democrats, to ban assault weapons, pass tougher background checks or limit the capacity of high-capacity magazines for semi-automatic weapons.
So instead of tackling what was the nexus of the Newtown shootings — mental illness and availability to care facilities and access to weapons — it was seen as an opportunity to control guns.
But was this all a very well planned covert effort by the Obama administration?
Consider this, “In the wake of the legislative failure, the president pledged that it had only been “round one” in the gun control effort and repeatedly said he would do whatever he could as president to fight for more gun restrictions. “This effort is not over,” Obama said after the Senate blocked his gun control measures. The current proposal by the ATF to reclassify the rifle ammunition started more than three years ago, before the Newtown shootings, and included meetings with members of the firearms industry, advocacy groups and law enforcement officials. After the 30-day comment period expires March 13, the attorney general will have to make a final decision, officials said. The rule-making — submitted on a Friday before a three-day weekend — appeared to catch many in Washington off guard. Few members of Congress have mentioned it or released public statements about it. Gun violence groups that usually weigh in aggressively on such moves also were silent.”
Of course this is only “round one.” We already reported how this move by the ATF is only one side of the story. The EPA is working on how to ban lead ammunition in total.
The US Attorney General will have final decision. Well, we know that the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to confirm Loretta E. Lynch on Thursday — methinks their full Senate confirmation vote should be held up until we get a full disclosure on this new “rule.” Actually, the confirmation hearing should be reopened to have the Attorney General nominee appear and explain her understanding of this rule.
As Obama stated, “the effort is not over,” and I pray the new GOP House and Senate majority won’t roll over and cave here — a dangerous precedent could be established.