Politics

The President’s Gun Plan Puts Radical Ideology Over National Security

obama (4)From – thedailysignal.com – By Larry Loudermilk

The administration of President Barack Obama may well go down in history as one of the greatest failures of anyone who ever occupied the Oval Office. However, history will not claim him as a political novice.

In a statement on the official White House website, the president acknowledged that he will do whatever it takes to advance his anti-Second Amendment agenda, and he is playing on the fears of the American people to promote that radical anti-gun agenda.

The statement says:

Some gaps in our country’s gun laws can only be fixed through legislation[.] … [W]hile Congress has repeatedly refused to take action … today, the Administration is announcing a series … of executive actions to keep guns out of the wrong hands through background checks, make our communities safer from gun violence, increase mental health treatment and reporting to the background check system, and shape the future of gun safety technology.

A Dangerous Trend

While the president claims to be using “all the tools at his disposal” to make America safer, clearly he is admitting that he is raiding the congressional toolbox and taking on the role of executive and legislator. This is a very dangerous situation for the rights of Americans. Charles Montesquieu, an eighteenth-century judge and political philosopher, who had great influence on our founders, warned, “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty[.]”

Whether you are on the side of more gun control or, like myself, you believe we need less government regulation in our lives, this action of the president is a major overstepping of constitutional authority.

The president has clearly stated that what he is accomplishing through executive fiat is what should be done by the legislative branch, but since they “have not responded,” he is going to act. The truth is, the legislative branch has responded, but not in the way the president wanted—so, instead of honoring the balance of powers, he has decided to act on his own.

This should concern everyone, whether you lean to the left, the right, or somewhere in the middle.

This should concern everyone, whether you lean to the left, the right, or somewhere in the middle.

Even if you are comfortable handing over all the control of government to the White House, even if you feel what he is doing will make you safer, you need to fully consider what the outcome will be.

His proposals could have an impact on curbing violent crime, if guns were to arbitrarily jump up and start shooting people. However, guns don’t shoot people; people shoot people, and going after guns will not stop violence. There are several issues the president could address that would make Americans less vulnerable to violence, but he has, time after time, chosen to ignore them.

The Fight Against Violent Crime

One of the greatest threats to our nation’s security and to our ongoing fight against violent crime is an open and porous southern border. The border between the U.S. and Mexico is controlled by criminal cartels that regularly smuggle narcotics, weapons, contraband, and people into the United States.

Last February, as part of a congressional delegation, I spent four days on the southern border. From San Diego to the Rio Grande in Texas, we accompanied federal and local agents, who are on the front lines of stopping illegal entry into our nation. I learned that to stop the influx of weapons, drugs, and illegal aliens, we must have more resources on the border.

According to local citizens and border patrol agents, walls and fences alone are not effective deterrents. According to one agent, “If we build a twelve-foot fence, they get thirteen-foot ladders.” The cartels are well-funded organizations that hire engineers to build tunnels and fly aircraft to drop illegal cargo into the U.S. They have even used laser torches to cut through steel barriers in order to drive truckloads of narcotics into Arizona.

The only way to properly secure the southern border is to employ a combination of physical barriers, technology, and more boots on the ground. Early last year, the House Homeland Security Committee passed a border security bill that implemented these solutions, but the president promptly rejected it and threatened a veto should it come to his desk.

Obama’s Executive Order

The president has chosen to ignore a significant security threat, and now, instead of funding more border patrol agents, his executive order calls for the hiring of 200 more ATF agents to investigate the sale of firearms to U.S. citizens.

The president’s order also calls for hiring 230 new FBI personnel to help process background checks on gun sales. Just a few weeks ago, during a Homeland Security Committee hearing, I questioned the secretary of Homeland Security and the director of the FBI on how they were going to process, vet, and monitor the influx of ten thousand Syrian refugees the president was going to allow into our country. Their response was that they didn’t know how, because the FBI didn’t have the resources to monitor the refugees and investigate other potential terrorists currently in the country.

ISIS and al-Qaeda have clearly stated that they would exploit our refugee resettlement program as a way to infiltrate jihadists into our nation. Congress recently passed legislation that would have halted this program, but, once again, Congress did something the president didn’t like, so he ignored Congress and continued at full speed resettling refugees into our states.

Now, instead of closing a door for terrorists to enter our nation, or giving the FBI additional agents to monitor and investigate potential terrorists, the president is planning to hire more administrative clerks to investigate the personal lives of U.S. citizens.

Furthermore, the president is calling for an investment of $500 million to include mental health information in background checks. While some may feel this a worthy effort, we have returning war veterans suffering from PTSD, among other ills, being ignored by the V.A.

Threats to Our Security

As a member of the House special task force investigating foreign terrorists traveling to the U.S., I’ve spent months investigating our nation’s vulnerabilities. Last fall, we released a report citing thirty-two issues that should be immediately addressed.

One of our greatest vulnerabilities is the lack of effort the administration is putting into curbing the radicalization of America’s youth by extreme Islamic terrorist organizations. The recent attacks in Chattanooga and San Bernardino were executed by U.S. citizens, radicalized and used by ISIS to carry out their atrocious acts of violence.

Currently, the administration has only fourteen people, in the entire federal government, working on combating violent extremism and outreach programs to curb the radicalization of our youth. Again, the president ignored our call to invest more in these effective outreach programs to stop terrorism, but his executive order directs federal employees to develop outreach programs to go after guns.

Finally, the president has directed agencies tasked with protecting our national security to invest taxpayer dollars and resources to research smart-gun technology.

While this may be emerging technology in the future, the administration has failed to implement new state-of-the-art screening and scanning technologies for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Last fall, the TSA grossly failed a security inspection. Several weapons and other banned items easily passed through security checkpoints.

For the past year, I and others have pressed the TSA to implement the next generation of baggage handling technology, already being fielded in Europe by its U.S. developers. Again, instead of using resources to develop technologies to protect our transportation system from terrorists who use guns, the president opts to pull these resources to study how to make guns safer.

If guns killed people on their own, his executive order may have a limited effect. Unfortunately, by his inaction on securing our borders, ignoring terrorists’ threats to infiltrate our nation, and redirecting law enforcement and national security resources to advance a political agenda, he has proven that his plan is not to make America safer.

Mr. President, if you want to protect the American people, then secure our borders, stop the influx of refugees coming to our states from terrorist-controlled nations, and remove the bureaucratic hurdles keeping our TSA from implementing the technology they need. This would be a legacy worth pursuing.


If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!


Subscribe
Notify of
47 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
CJ Decker
6 years ago

Sorry! I could NOT EVEN READ this item! ! ! This POTUS is such a NON-AMERICAN, I can’t even post a respectable comment. I have a term for ‘him” but can not post that, either ! ! !

Robert
6 years ago

Obama, disdain for the American way of life & our Constitution his agenda as well as the majority of Washington Bureaucrats is to have the Fed take over and control the lives of all Americans. Usurp States rights, control medical, welfare, banking, education, occupation, to name a few and remove the ability of the people to possess guns and ammunition. Look at our historical events, see the continuing pattern and the people trying to control by executive power. Weak Congress and Senate.
Many of his executive orders display apathy toward the people causing dissension and distrust of government among a lot of American citizens.
Thank those brilliant creators of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and protect every article and word. They experienced excessive greed, tyranny and apathy.
These are my opinions now do your own research, get active we have a country to save for all whom follow us. Thank You.

Allen
6 years ago

The continued insanity of the Democrat voters in support of the agenda followed, not just by the POTUS, but by the entire Democrat Party, is one of the greatest threats to our freedom that exists today. Since Democrats are clearly insane, perhaps all of them need to be reported to the FBI for inclusion in the NICS as “prohibited persons.” That would be a good begining for the President’s mental health initiative.

Charles
6 years ago

Has anyone ever considered the possibility that he is massing his own personal army so he can take control and remain in power. 100,000 + refugees all willing to commit suicide and what better way to do it then to disarming American citizens so they can’t defend themselves.

Me
6 years ago
Reply to  Charles

That’s why they want control of everything – your healthcare, your food, your guns, the liberal propaganda taught in schools, and on and on. Dumbing down Americans to the point where they are fed nothing but propaganda and don’t think for themselves is part of the plan that the Dictator has in store.

Gail Yahn
6 years ago

If this president and his “friends” against the 2nd Amendment were truly interested in the safety of the American people, would they go without their Secret Service gun wielding security. If they think we don’t have the right to protect our selves and our families with the same defenses that “we the people” pay to protect their sorry butts and families, then they are saying that “we the people” are not just as important as them and their children. That is just wrong. We live here in the real world. We have every right to be able to protect our families and our little space in this world.

Me
6 years ago
Reply to  Gail Yahn

No proponents of gun control should have a security detail. Force them to live as they want us to live.

Ralph
6 years ago

If Congress used all the tools at their disposal this pResident would have been impeached years ago.

HAM
6 years ago

Even if Obamacare covers mental health, with the way it’s set up where you have to meet the deductible first before the insurance pays anything, the ones who need help can’t afford the many visits @ $100 or more a pop when they are self paying. Depending on their deductible, they might not ever hit that threshold. I don’t know many who can afford weekly or bi-weekly visits at those costs.

Bruce
6 years ago

see my comment got cu off. the rest of it is the 500 million on mental health issue, isn’t there a lot of mental health addressed in Obama care

Bruce
6 years ago

Mr. Obama referred that the American people should address the gun laws through our voting. Well I believe that congress is the American peoples voice and they have spoken three times on this issue , and have said no to more gun control. So the scary part of this is that Mr. Obama goes around congress to do this on his own. The American people have spoken. As far as mental help @ 500 million isn’t there lots of mental help in Obama care or the unaffordable care act.

Cindy
6 years ago

The article is written by Barry (NOT Larry) Loudermilk. He is our Representative in Ga. Picky, I know, but if anyone wants to read more by him, or look him up, one should have his correct name. As to the topic of the article, I have a question: I’m 71. Am I too old to get a gun and re-learn to shoot? I was (and probably still am) a lousy shot!

Ivan Berry
6 years ago
Reply to  Cindy

Cindy, you do not have to be a great shot for most confrontations. The majority of self protection shootings occur at less than 15 feet. However, military combatants are required to qualify at distance. Unlikely you’d need those skills short of war. Just make sure you cover all the safety training as well as where, and when to shoot and when not to.
I have noticed your Congressman’s voting record thus far, and though he is near if not totally spot on with this subject, his record puts him in the high mid range regarding Constitutional representation. Better than most. He’s somewhat new to DC, I think, so may be on a learning curve. So far he looks like a keeper.

DA
6 years ago
Reply to  Cindy

Hey Cindy, your life is still worth protecting, as it was when you were 21. Much has changed for the better in the gun store/shooting club world. Gone, for the most part, is the old elitism. They will work to earn your business and meet you at whatever level you are on. Women are ‘joining the club’ steadily. Ranges offer many different classes. Finally, many trainers say they enjoy having female students because women usually don’t assume they instinctively know how to shoot, as men often do, and thus often take instruction better.

Ivan Berry
6 years ago

Texas now has about 850,000 handgun license holders, and even allows for open carry, while long gun open carry has and still is allowed. With something on the order of one-and-a-half million licensed hunters, we do not suffer a deficit in gun ownership. This does not include those who do not bother to obtain a license (an infringement–see: 2nd Amendment). Were the State to establish a military element to the existing State Militia, currently used mostly for natural and man-made disasters, we would not need federal (read central or general) government protection from border influx of undesirables.
So far as to what is Constitutional, Art. I, Sec. 9 states that such persons as a State shall think proper to admit may be prohibited by Congress. Nothing in the Constitution allows Congress nor the Administration’s Immigration and Naturalization Service the authority to tell us who nor how many we must admit. The unConstitutional deligation of Congress’ responsibility to the Executive was, itself unlawful, especially in light of the fact that the Agency can insist who is to be allowed to be forced upon the States. To force refugees on any State without their approval is, in fact, as unlawful as attempting to take away our guns. By what pretense was an authority that Congress did not possess given away to an unelected and unaccountable agency?
What must be realized is this is all, guns, refugees, as well as global warming issues centered around the UN and its agenda for a global governing body. The future goal, using whatever tools can be attained to destroy Nation States worldwide, is the direction of internationalists and globalists, using the UN as the spring board for eliminating all National soverignity.
The main purpose in establishing a general government was for protection from outside sources that an individual State could not supply itself alone. The real enemy is no longer those others from elsewhere, they are now those others from within.

erick
6 years ago

Anyone who cares to can verify that the majority of mass shootings ( not including those by Islamists ) have been perpetrated by mentally ill people on or withdrawing from psychotropic prescription drugs.
And it is the failure of parents to teach traditional values ie: respect for innocent human life, not law abiding gun owners, that has ushered in this culture of evil and death.
Obama is merely a puppet of the people who want the U.S. to fall under the one world order. Conspiracy ? Yes. Theory ? We’ll see.

erick
6 years ago

Call your Congressman and Senators and ask them how they can stand by and let Obama release Islamic fighters (Camp GITMO) whom everyone knows will join up with their cohorts to kill and maim U.S. soldiers and civilians.
Too bad our military did not take the initiative to remove the traitor when there were still some good Generals in charge.

Y. Curtis
6 years ago

Obama is very much a failure, he has not succeeded in changing America, he has only succeed in awakening the people of this country who had been lulled into complacency. Too many people have forgotten that if we want our way of life to continue we have to constantly be on guard, constantly fighting to maintain it, constantly watching the people we elect. We have much to lose if we sleep, if we aren’t on guard. if we allow the wrong people to educate our children, if we freely give away our freedom because of manufactured fears. We have a long haul now to fix the damage he and his people have caused, but it is doable, don’t listen to them when they tell us we can’t go back or we shouldn’t go back. The pendulum is already starting to swing back the other way, we need to make sure the weigh of that pendulum is enough to wipe out everything they have done.

Annemarie Maynard
6 years ago

I take issue with the initial statement–that Obama will go down in history as the greatest failure. It is we the liberty loving people of this country who will go down as the greatest failure during this administration; we and our legislative representatives have failed to see the great danger this man is and has been to our health and welfare and that of our children, here and in the future. Obama is not a failure if you look at the tactics and goals of people like Saul Alinsky, George Soros and others. He is not a failure if you look at the goals of the “globalists.” He is not a failure if you look at the aims of radical Islam. He is not a failure if you look at the destruction of the American culture, identity, and economy. He is only a failure if you hold him up to the Constitutional values that we espouse–and that he set out to “fundamentally transform.” He has done that–how can he be a failure?

Ivan Berry
6 years ago

Good shot, Annemarie. He has accomplished too much of what he set out to do.

Annemarie Maynard
6 years ago
Reply to  Ivan Berry

Thanks. I’m so over people talking as if Obama was just a misguided, inept, and inexperienced politician! In my view he is actively an intentionally dangerous to “We the people…” not passively ineffective–despite that’s how he sometimes appears!

Charles L.
6 years ago

Good thoughts. The operative word in your statement was “Saul Alinsky” who all of these far left progressives follow. A vote for Hillary will be a vote for more of this. She is, as I have often said, an even bigger student of Alinsky then husband Bill or even Obama himself.

Annemarie Maynard
6 years ago
Reply to  Charles L.

Recalling that old saw, “Experience is the best teacher I’m won’t to say that while Hillary wrote her master’s thesis on Alinsky. Obama had first hand training from him in Chicago–in the neighborhood!

Jim Borger
6 years ago

Nothing Obama is asking for would have made a difference in any of these mass shootings. He says nobody wants to confiscate our firearms while working with the UN to do just that. On the surface who could argue with what he is trying to do but in reality it’s just one more little step down the path to taking away our weapons on top of being unconstitutional.

Jim Donahue
6 years ago
Reply to  Jim Borger

I feel confounded. What about these four words: “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” makes them so very difficult for the progressive left to comprehend and understand?

Allen
6 years ago
Reply to  Jim Donahue

They do comprehend very well. They just don’t agree with them and while they are in power they feel free to ignore or reject them. The only way to force them to comply with the Constitution is to vote them out of power and remove all the liberals from the bureaucracy. Then you have to be continually vigilant to keep them from getting back into power. We can never stop fighting them because they will never give up. If you stop them in one place they will sneak back in through another place that you didn’t think to guard.

John V
6 years ago

I have no problem for every one who buys a gun to have a back ground check, in fact I would insist on that, but the way Obama is going about it is against the law ( constitution ), it must go through Congress.

Charles W
6 years ago
Reply to  John V

Then it must stand up to the supreme court.

John V
6 years ago
Reply to  Charles W

That should not be a problem. I have gun’s and had to go through a background check before I could buy and see no problem with that, inconvenient yes.

Ivan Berry
6 years ago
Reply to  John V

What: “A well regulated Militia,;” Why: “being necessary to the security of a free State,;” How: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
How can any of these proposals, including “smart guns” (promoted by dumb or evil persons) be anything other than an infringement?

John V
6 years ago
Reply to  Ivan Berry

What with Obozo’s Executive order, is already on the books it changes nothing, same ” O ” same ” O ” just smoke and mirrors.

Ruel D
6 years ago
Reply to  John V

John,
Why should I, a law abiding citizen, have to check with the government before I purchase a gun for self protection? Did background checks stop the San Bernardino terrorists from committing mass murder? Criminals by definition will break the law. Someone who will break the law against murder, will find a way around legal background checks.

Tonybear
6 years ago

There was a recent home invasion at the senior community where my mother lives in Maplewood MN. A woman in her 20s posing as someone needing to use a phone forced her way in and contacted her 2-3 male accomplices(also in their 20s). They ransacked the home of the 75 year old woman, held her at gun point and strangled her to be left for dead. For some reason the media keeps covering it as they strangled her until she was unconscious. I have yet to see a charge of attempted murder in this case. The idiots were caught using the stolen credit cards a short distance away(for clothing that could have been given to them for free by local organizations, churches, etc.). One is still at large (police had him but not enough evidence to keep when they caught the other thugs). This is not a issue of legal gun sales (they more than likely acquired it illegally), white vs black (which of course it was), youth vs senior citizen (which it was). It is a case of people having no respect for others, the sanctity of life and prosecutors following a felony law prohibiting murder (which by all means that is what the charge should be). Federal, state and local authorities need to get their act together and charge perps with the acts they commit not something that sounds more politically friendly or may cause unrest by highly vocal social groups. Senior lives matter!!!!!!!

Robert Strippy
6 years ago

Obama’s plan will fail miserably, for two reasons. One is that every time there’s a shooting by some lunatic, gun sales go through the roof. Any attempt to stop this will only result in a massive, nationwide exercise of civil disobedience. People who respond to the news by buying guns are never going to let anybody or anything get in their way. The second reason his plan will fail is that the courts everywhere have stopped certifying people as mentally incompetent, because that means the state would have to take care of them, and the states are closing their mental hospitals and turning the nutcases loose, to save money. The judges realize they can’t commit anybody to facilities that aren’t there, so they just refuse to do it rather than look ridiculous. The way to control gun violence is to arm all the right people and shoot the wrong ones before they can cause any trouble. The guys who shot college students, children, movie patrons, and churchgoers should have been dropped the moment they raised their guns. You don’t argue with these screwballs,and you don’t hospitalize them; you eliminate them the minute they show themselves to be a threat. When I see someone packing on his hip, or carrying on his shoulder, I feel a lot safer. Killers are cowards; they only attack locations where they know there won’t be any guns to stop them cold.

Ruel D
6 years ago
Reply to  Robert Strippy

Robert,
I think another reason it will fail is that the present administration will find it hard to make local law enforcement carry out draconian anti-gun executive orders. I not-so-recently (within two years) read a police newsletter poll asking street cops if they thought gun control would help reduce crime. A whopping 97% said “no”. Most of those 97% said it would make things worse. I had never before that seen 97% of any group agree on anything. I think that it would be hard to make those people confiscate citizens’ guns.

Robert Strippy
6 years ago
Reply to  Ruel D

The study you read is confirmed by the research of Professor John Lott, who has shown (in the title of his most famous book) “More Guns Less Crime.” You can find his opinions at: http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

But it isn’t just the reluctance of the police that would make gun confiscation fail. It’s that Americans, unlike the pansies in other nations, believe that being armed is not a state-granted privilege but a God-given right, and they will not let anyone interfere with that. Serious gun owners will not let the police take their guns under any circumstances, and they outnumber the police several thousand to one. The police can make that calculation, and no policeman is going to walk up their front steps knowing he most likely won’t walk back down again. If they want a war, this is how it starts.

DA
6 years ago

Everything, meaning every lie, that comes out of his mouth on this subject is contradicted by his and the beasts wistful reference to the uk and Australia. The treason party has abandoned the old traditional lies about duck hunting and skeet shooting being wonderful pastimes etc. They think this is their time to once and for all time get rid of this stupid constitution thingee. Rand Paul tried to educate some of the banshees on the view, warning against a future that could bring results they would all decry, such as banning of certain forms of dangerous speech. His arguments were swept aside in a yowling gale of affirmation for arbitrary measures that even the authors agree will have no effect.

47
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x