This article is from NRA-ILA, published on the NRA-ILA website.
For the Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, U.N. gun-ban extremist Rebecca Peters and her globalist billionaire sugar-daddy George Soros, for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his horde of big-city politiciansâ€”in fact, for all those individuals and organizations who would harm or destroy our Second Amendment rightsâ€”Barack Obamaâ€™s mantra of â€œchangeâ€ means their agenda will be harnessed to the total power of an aggressive, activist and radical federal government.
â€œChangeâ€ means gun owners will be under siege like never before.
Especially for NRA members who fought through the never-ending threats of the Clinton-Gore administration, the understanding of â€œchangeâ€ must be the driving force for us to get other gun owners to the polls. This election is critically important. We cannot afford to have any friend of the Second Amendment sit it out, regardless of the reason.
We all know gun owners who are disillusioned with politics. Those influenced by talk of four years of â€œprogressivesâ€ in power coalescing a united conservative movement must be reminded that this November, we are not just electing a president, we are electing an entire government.
With Obamaâ€™s emphasis on grassroots organizing, his administration will be a government redesigned and realigned to stay in power. It will be a government converted into a political machine. And with a so-called â€œprogressiveâ€ majority in both houses of Congress, there will be little to stop that power shift.
When Obama talks about â€œchange,â€ the gun-banners at the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign know exactly what change they wantâ€”inside power. And theyâ€™ll likely get it.
Michelle Obama, in a politically charged college campaign speech in California, defined her husbandâ€™s meaning of â€œchangeâ€:
â€œBarack Obama … is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your division. That you come out of your isolation. That you move out of your comfort zones … Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives asâ€.
As NRA members, this statement doesnâ€™t bode well for our future. Our â€œlives as usualâ€ means the daily exercise of our freedom.
And what of â€œcynicismâ€? It is the very basis of Americansâ€™ long history of questioning government power and its abuse. It is the basis of challenging dissembling politicians. Cynicism is the key to seeing through politicians like Obama and Hillary Clinton, who falsely wrap themselves in the Second Amendment while espousing dangerous programs for civil disarmament.
And â€œdivisionâ€? As NRA members, our â€œdivisionâ€ from the likes of Obama means we stand together and fight every day against those who would destroy the bedrock principles that have made our country the freest in the world. Divisiveness is the basis of our democratic institutions. Division based on principle is a noble thing.
â€œComfort zoneâ€? What about the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence? That is the real â€œcomfort zoneâ€ of all Americans. We are the only nation on earth built on the principle of â€œpursuit of happiness.â€ That means we do not serve government; it serves us.
The â€œchangeâ€ Obama and his close alliesâ€”like George Sorosâ€™ Moveon.org â€”seek is a complete regime change driven by a radical political agenda. For the nationâ€™s gun owners, â€œchangeâ€ will take the form of many steps back to the bad old days of the Clinton-Gore years or the Jimmy Carter years, when bureaucrats in a dozen agencies were relentless in their schemes to press a hostile presidential agenda against gun ownership.
For gun owners, â€œchangeâ€ could well mean an erosion of hard-fought reforms and hard-fought protections we have secured over the years. Those reforms represent battles won by gun owners led by NRA since the founding of the Institute for Legislative Action in 1975.
â€œChangeâ€ means removing the restrictions we secured against the Consumer Product Safety Commission from exercising a bureaucratic ban on firearms or ammunition based on phony â€œconsumer hazardâ€ criteria. This is something the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center have vainly sought for years.
â€œChangeâ€ means ignoring the strictures imposed on federal gun-control enforcement by Congress, like preventing â€œfirearms trace dataâ€ from being delivered into the hands of big-city lawyers to fuel punitive lawsuits to strangle the lawful firearms industry. This is New York City Mayor Michael Bloombergâ€™s dream, and it is the â€œchangeâ€ demanded by his gun-ban axis of urban politicians.
â€œChangeâ€ means an effort to erase all of the reforms of federal gun laws created when Congress enacted the Firearms Ownersâ€™ Protection Act of 1986. That law ended a reign of terror by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that, for gun owners and civil libertarians, was the shameful hallmark of the Jimmy Carter presidency.
â€œChangeâ€ means that federal lawyers from multiple agencies with unlimited taxpayer funding will find â€œcreativeâ€ ways to bring elements of the law-abiding firearm industry to court, circumventing the restrictions of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act. As a freshman U.S. senator from Illinois, Obama voted against that law, which was designed to end punitive lawsuits claiming firearm industry liability based on totally unrelated acts of armed, violent criminals.
For those who donâ€™t remember, in the waning days of the Bill Clinton presidency, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), along with the U.S. Department of Justice, used the threat of scores of separate lawsuits in many federal venues by city housing authorities to extort a supposedly â€œvoluntaryâ€ gun-control agreement from firearm manufacturers. If Obama becomes president, you can bet the farm that bureaucrats will once again use these threats to obtain strictures that Congress would never enact.
In fact, among key advisors chosen by Obama to vet possible running mates is Eric Holder, who was Attorney General Janet Renoâ€™s top deputy. Holder, as the Justice Department point man on all gun-control schemes, was among the top officials announcing the Clinton-Gore extortion agreement in 2000.
Among the many requirements of that agreement, a crucial one gave key elements of the gun-ban movement total oversight of the firearm industry and an ability to destroy it by running it out of business. None of this would ever have passed Congress as law, yet this stranglehold was achieved through the bureaucratic back door by Bill Clintonâ€™s executive branch.
Backdoor bureaucratic gun-control schemes in the waning days of the Clinton administration also included diversion of millions of taxpayer dollars to HUD â€œgun buybacksâ€ and gun destruction schemes; and development of so-called â€œsmart gunâ€ technologies and â€œballistic fingerprinting.â€
The ultimate aim of â€œsmart gunâ€ technologyâ€”to prevent a firearm being used by anyone but its registered ownerâ€”was spelled out in model legislation first floated in Pennsylvania, which said all handguns that did not possess â€œsmart technologyâ€ would become contraband to be collected by police agencies.
All of this was created and pushed through the efforts of bureaucratic lawyers like Obama advisor Holder. Now the ultimate Washington insider lawyer, Holder is being touted as an Obama Supreme Court appointee. Recent headlines can put Holderâ€™s reappearance on the political scene into sharp context. The Journal of the American Bar Association even asks: â€œWill Eric Holder Become the Next Attorney General?â€
If gun owners donâ€™t vote, thatâ€™s likely to happen.
Among the many press briefings Holder ran was the unveiling of the massive Clinton-Gore legislative assault on gun rights in April 1999. At the time, Clinton was pushing for a federally mandated state gun-owner license. That legislative package included a three-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun; a purchase limit of one handgun a month; and bans on high-capacity magazines.
Thankfully, all of these hostile executive branch threats, including the â€œvoluntaryâ€ gun control by extortion, ended abruptly when George W. Bush took officeâ€”a fact many people have forgotten. But if Obama captures the White House, the onslaught against our rights will be reopened on many old fronts that have been largely forgotten, as well as in new venues.
You can bet an Obama administration will make a major effort to bureaucratically centralize lawful sales records created under the National Instant Check System, which would be the basis of a universal gun-owner registration system sought by every anti-Second Amendment advocate, public and private. Additionally, you can bet that there will be a major push to criminalize all now-legal sales between private individuals.
â€œChangeâ€ means giving the Center for Disease Control power to once again treat private ownership of firearms as a â€œdiseaseâ€ treatable by gun controlâ€”a power denied by Congress thanks to NRA, but which can quickly be changed. That wacky theoryâ€”that guns are a virus to â€œcivil societyâ€â€”is the basis for Rebecca Petersâ€™ international gun-ban activities. During the Clinton administration, the CDC created a massive propaganda arsenal for the gun-ban movement that still feeds the media. Under Obama, the same is likely to occur.
On that score, â€œchangeâ€ also means using a host of federal government think tanks to create â€œstudiesâ€ and white papers intended to spawn new gun-ban laws. In the U.S. Justice Department alone, an Obama regime could use the Office of Justice Programs, which includes the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Victims of Crime, the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, to do its anti-gun bidding. During the Clinton-Gore years, these Justice Department entities produced scores of anti-gun â€œstudies,â€ many still used today to prop up gun-ban groupsâ€™ propaganda.
Further, these agencies and those in other executive departments have millions of dollars in grant-making authority. That is something Obama knows a great deal about. During his tenure as an active member of the Joyce Foundation board, Obama oversaw the distribution of $18 million to gun-ban groups, including major funding for the Violence Policy Center (VPC). Reportedly, Josh Sugarmannâ€™s book, Every Handgun is Aimed at You, which pushed for a national handgun ban, was funded by Obamaâ€™s Joyce Foundation board. Before he ran for public office, Obama was considered the prime candidate to lead that deep-pocketed anti-gun money machine.
â€œChangeâ€ also means using the total lobbying and propaganda power of the White House and multiple federal departments to bring back a version of the Clinton gun ban, or to move an F-Troop Congress on any number of gun-control schemes. The presidency is the nationâ€™s most powerful bully pulpitâ€”especially for someone much of the so-called â€œmainstreamâ€ media worships as â€œthe great orator.â€
Stop a minute and think about the scope of power we hold in our hands as pro-Second Amendment voters. What we do with that power when we vote in November will determine so much for the future.
The 2008 election will determine who controls:
- U.S. participation in the anti-gun United Nations;
- Appointments to the federal courts, including the critical U.S. Supreme Court;
- The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives;
- The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which the Brady Campaign now insists should ban firearms in every place of employment in America;
- The Department of State, which could give credence and funding to the world gun-ban efforts of Rebecca Petersâ€™ International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA). The State Department could negotiate a U.N. global gun-ban treaty that would violate American sovereignty;
- The U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, which could force huge changes on hunters and gun owners;
- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which today is being petitioned to ban lead bullets for hunting, even in the ubiquitous .22 rimfire;
- The Environmental Protection Agency, which could conceivably close down shooting ranges throughout the country.
Think about how regulations could be abused through an Obama-led Federal Communications Commission, Federal Election Commission, even Department of Defense, to change the culture of the Second Amendment in America.
When you talk to those who want to sit out this election and let an Obama administration roll into Washington, just pick any agency that covers any area of those peopleâ€™s lives that they hold dear and point out how Obamaâ€™s idea of â€œchangeâ€ could affect them. Remind them that we are not electing just a president and vice presidentâ€”we are electing officials in the entire executive branch, which can be used either to their good, or used for their harm.