Too Fast, too Furious

Why is it that with all the talk of preventing gun violence with unconstitutional gun control directives, the president and his odious band of weapons dealers have not been called to account for their illegal arms shipments south of the border, or their giving of arms to al Qaeda resulting in the effective murder of U.S. diplomatic personnel in Libya?

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. But this is an all too familiar pattern for Obama. The fox has taken charge of the henhouse.

President Obama sent weapons, untraced and untracked, to drug cartels in Mexico. American citizens, including U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, have been killed by just these kinds of criminals, with just these kinds of weapons.

And before the pathologically anti-Bush zealots begin to sing in unison that this act was no different than a similar program during the Bush years, it should be noted that President Bush's program, called Operation Wide Receiver was designed to track gun shipments so as to readily identify the biggest enclaves of cartel activity. Obama simply gifted Mexican cartels with weapons, in much the same way that he recently gifted Egypt, led by the virulently anti-American Muslim Brotherhood, with 20 new sophisticated F-16 fighter jets.

There are known, documented Hezbollah outposts in Mexico. It is entirely possible that Islamic terrorists camping south of the border have weapons courtesy of the Obama Administration. Iranian dictator Amadinejad -- who may now possess nuclear warheads -- has boasted that he has armies of Iranian Hezbollah agents stationed in Mexico waiting for the order to flood across the border, a process which, thanks to our president, is now easier than ever.

And now President Obama claims the moral ground to lecture Americans -- clinging to God and guns -- about gun violence? Something is wrong with this picture.

Our president is arming our enemies while he threatens to disarm his own citizens.

Throughout history, tyrants have used manufactured crises to rationalize the confiscation of citizens' lawful firearms, eliminating citizens' ability to defend themselves against the tyranny of their own governments. Obama is just the latest in a long line.

Perhaps it's stating the obvious, but if President Obama takes weapons from law abiding citizens, then only criminals -- and Obama -- will have weapons.

Those who oppose gun control and dare to question the efficacy of making it harder to acquire and own defensive weapons are portrayed as the lunatic fringe.

What is the reality? One of the provisions of Obama's proposed gun control measures is to appropriate federal money to collect data on gun-related violence. What few seem to realize is that the Department of Justice already does this and has been doing it for years. From National Crime Victimization Survey figures, it is known that guns are used 3 to 5 times more in self-defense by licensed gun owners than in the commission of violent crimes.

It is also known that criminals do not walk into gun stores or attend gun expositions and submit to background checks, obtain licenses, and expose themselves to criminal investigations. Criminals are criminals because they have an innate disdain for the law. Why would they voluntarily submit to background checks?

If President Obama really is the Harvard genius we've been led to believe, we can deduce that he knows that tougher background checks and licensing requirements will do nothing to reduce criminal use of guns in the commission of violent crimes.

The question then becomes, why would Obama want to make it harder for citizens to defend themselves? Perhaps Obama is afraid that his actions might prompt a violent response from the citizenry, or he may want to identify people who are likely to oppose his radical policy moves, assuming a correlation with gun ownership. Or Obama may simply want a greater degree of control over individuals -- irrespective of the reason. Whatever his stated rationale, we know his motives are neither noble nor well-intentioned.

And in any case, the reasons for support of gun control are irrelevant. Years ago, when Congressman Sonny Bono was asked about his views on illegal immigration, he famously replied, "It's illegal."

So it is with any form of gun control, and the Supreme Court has said repeatedly, including in two recent decisions, that bans or restrictions on an individual right to acquire and possess guns is unconstitutional and illegal.

But since when does constitutionality matter to President Obama? He has demonstrated a penchant for policy-making via executive fiat. In a recent interview I conducted, Congressman Ted Poe described Obama's philosophy this way:

"The President has gone further than the Constitution allows him to on executive power. He does it because he can get away with it; his executive orders for example. An executive order first came about when a President would look at a piece of legislation... and the executive order would further explain that legislation. Executive orders have gone from that to a position where now an executive order is nothing more than a law. The President is not clarifying law or trying to explain it so it can be administered; he just writes an edict from the White House, sends it out to the fruited plain, 'Thou shalt do this.' To me, those executive orders are a violation of the Constitution, and he continues to do it."

This is borne out in President Obama's near-weekly "executive actions." If Obama is willing to press his agenda without the constitutional functions of Congress, what else might he do now that he knows Congress will do little or nothing to stand in his way? This is the essence of what normal Americans with firearms are actually debating. Take away the statistical arguments that usually start with "guns kill," and end with, "If you take away guns from law-abiding citizens, only the criminals will have guns" -- all valid lines of argument-and the real issue is more basic.

The core of the gun control debate is that Americans need guns not only to protect themselves from criminals. Americans need guns to protect themselves from an out-of-control government bent on enslaving the citizenry. America exists because a group of men realized that personal freedom and a system that guarded it were only possible where people are armed. Accountability is the foundation of the American experiment, not only the accountability of the ballot box, but the knowledge that, when pushed too far, Americans can defend themselves.

This may sound messy, but human history often is. Fortunately, the knowledge that Americans can respond with force, if pressed, often makes the U.S. one of the most stable and peaceful places to live.

Has anyone ever invaded Switzerland? Contrary to popular belief, the Swiss are the most armed society on the face of the Earth, because the law requires them to be. Every Swiss male must serve in the military for a fixed period of time, and the law requires marksmanship training of all male and female citizens. All Swiss citizens are required to possess guns. Does anyone ever hear of Swiss gang murders or drug cartels? The most the Swiss ever have to worry about are bank accounts, and what gadgets should be added next to the Swiss Army knife.

President Obama is transparent in his desire to do away with the protections of the Second Amendment. And he is transparent in his hypocritical manipulation of events like the Newtown shootings to achieve his goals. But he's not doing this to protect America. If reducing gun violence were truly his aim, he would not be arming America's enemies.

Our president's latest attempt to rob Americans of their constitutional rights should be resisted by every citizen, not just those who own firearms. President Obama is emboldened every time we fail to resist his power grabs. Obama has his executive orders. We have the Constitution. This is a fight from which we can't back down.

Why is it that with all the talk of preventing gun violence with unconstitutional gun control directives, the president and his odious band of weapons dealers have not been called to account for their illegal arms shipments south of the border, or their giving of arms to al Qaeda resulting in the effective murder of U.S. diplomatic personnel in Libya?

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. But this is an all too familiar pattern for Obama. The fox has taken charge of the henhouse.

President Obama sent weapons, untraced and untracked, to drug cartels in Mexico. American citizens, including U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, have been killed by just these kinds of criminals, with just these kinds of weapons.

And before the pathologically anti-Bush zealots begin to sing in unison that this act was no different than a similar program during the Bush years, it should be noted that President Bush's program, called Operation Wide Receiver was designed to track gun shipments so as to readily identify the biggest enclaves of cartel activity. Obama simply gifted Mexican cartels with weapons, in much the same way that he recently gifted Egypt, led by the virulently anti-American Muslim Brotherhood, with 20 new sophisticated F-16 fighter jets.

There are known, documented Hezbollah outposts in Mexico. It is entirely possible that Islamic terrorists camping south of the border have weapons courtesy of the Obama Administration. Iranian dictator Amadinejad -- who may now possess nuclear warheads -- has boasted that he has armies of Iranian Hezbollah agents stationed in Mexico waiting for the order to flood across the border, a process which, thanks to our president, is now easier than ever.

And now President Obama claims the moral ground to lecture Americans -- clinging to God and guns -- about gun violence? Something is wrong with this picture.

Our president is arming our enemies while he threatens to disarm his own citizens.

Throughout history, tyrants have used manufactured crises to rationalize the confiscation of citizens' lawful firearms, eliminating citizens' ability to defend themselves against the tyranny of their own governments. Obama is just the latest in a long line.

Perhaps it's stating the obvious, but if President Obama takes weapons from law abiding citizens, then only criminals -- and Obama -- will have weapons.

Those who oppose gun control and dare to question the efficacy of making it harder to acquire and own defensive weapons are portrayed as the lunatic fringe.

What is the reality? One of the provisions of Obama's proposed gun control measures is to appropriate federal money to collect data on gun-related violence. What few seem to realize is that the Department of Justice already does this and has been doing it for years. From National Crime Victimization Survey figures, it is known that guns are used 3 to 5 times more in self-defense by licensed gun owners than in the commission of violent crimes.

It is also known that criminals do not walk into gun stores or attend gun expositions and submit to background checks, obtain licenses, and expose themselves to criminal investigations. Criminals are criminals because they have an innate disdain for the law. Why would they voluntarily submit to background checks?

If President Obama really is the Harvard genius we've been led to believe, we can deduce that he knows that tougher background checks and licensing requirements will do nothing to reduce criminal use of guns in the commission of violent crimes.

The question then becomes, why would Obama want to make it harder for citizens to defend themselves? Perhaps Obama is afraid that his actions might prompt a violent response from the citizenry, or he may want to identify people who are likely to oppose his radical policy moves, assuming a correlation with gun ownership. Or Obama may simply want a greater degree of control over individuals -- irrespective of the reason. Whatever his stated rationale, we know his motives are neither noble nor well-intentioned.

And in any case, the reasons for support of gun control are irrelevant. Years ago, when Congressman Sonny Bono was asked about his views on illegal immigration, he famously replied, "It's illegal."

So it is with any form of gun control, and the Supreme Court has said repeatedly, including in two recent decisions, that bans or restrictions on an individual right to acquire and possess guns is unconstitutional and illegal.

But since when does constitutionality matter to President Obama? He has demonstrated a penchant for policy-making via executive fiat. In a recent interview I conducted, Congressman Ted Poe described Obama's philosophy this way:

"The President has gone further than the Constitution allows him to on executive power. He does it because he can get away with it; his executive orders for example. An executive order first came about when a President would look at a piece of legislation... and the executive order would further explain that legislation. Executive orders have gone from that to a position where now an executive order is nothing more than a law. The President is not clarifying law or trying to explain it so it can be administered; he just writes an edict from the White House, sends it out to the fruited plain, 'Thou shalt do this.' To me, those executive orders are a violation of the Constitution, and he continues to do it."

This is borne out in President Obama's near-weekly "executive actions." If Obama is willing to press his agenda without the constitutional functions of Congress, what else might he do now that he knows Congress will do little or nothing to stand in his way? This is the essence of what normal Americans with firearms are actually debating. Take away the statistical arguments that usually start with "guns kill," and end with, "If you take away guns from law-abiding citizens, only the criminals will have guns" -- all valid lines of argument-and the real issue is more basic.

The core of the gun control debate is that Americans need guns not only to protect themselves from criminals. Americans need guns to protect themselves from an out-of-control government bent on enslaving the citizenry. America exists because a group of men realized that personal freedom and a system that guarded it were only possible where people are armed. Accountability is the foundation of the American experiment, not only the accountability of the ballot box, but the knowledge that, when pushed too far, Americans can defend themselves.

This may sound messy, but human history often is. Fortunately, the knowledge that Americans can respond with force, if pressed, often makes the U.S. one of the most stable and peaceful places to live.

Has anyone ever invaded Switzerland? Contrary to popular belief, the Swiss are the most armed society on the face of the Earth, because the law requires them to be. Every Swiss male must serve in the military for a fixed period of time, and the law requires marksmanship training of all male and female citizens. All Swiss citizens are required to possess guns. Does anyone ever hear of Swiss gang murders or drug cartels? The most the Swiss ever have to worry about are bank accounts, and what gadgets should be added next to the Swiss Army knife.

President Obama is transparent in his desire to do away with the protections of the Second Amendment. And he is transparent in his hypocritical manipulation of events like the Newtown shootings to achieve his goals. But he's not doing this to protect America. If reducing gun violence were truly his aim, he would not be arming America's enemies.

Our president's latest attempt to rob Americans of their constitutional rights should be resisted by every citizen, not just those who own firearms. President Obama is emboldened every time we fail to resist his power grabs. Obama has his executive orders. We have the Constitution. This is a fight from which we can't back down.