Oprah Supports the 2nd Amendment?

8 155

Oprah Winfrey

Credit: AP

 

On Thursday, Oprah stood before the graduating class at Harvard in Cambridge, Mass to deliver this year’s commencement address.  During her speech she took on the issue of stricter background checks for firearms purchases.  She said, “We understand that the vast majority of people in this country believe in stronger background checks, because they realize that we can uphold the 2nd Amendment and reduce the violence that is robbing us of our children.  They don’t have to be incompatible.”  This blind obsession for stricter background checks has had me thinking, and conversing, with individual on both sides of this debate ever since it became the part of the talking points after Sandy Hook.  The only reason I can see for its continued pursuit is that it is the last ditch effort for the Progressives to squeeze in some sort of added restriction on the 2nd Amendment (since the assault weapons ban fell apart).  Remember, Progressives count success in inches, not feet.  As long as they are moving forward towards their end goal they are happy with any victory, no matter how small.  But I’m left asking all of you, do background checks on firearm purchases need to be stricter and are they necessary at all?

When the Progressives began infiltrating the Federal government in the early 1900’s they began adding “buts” to the 2nd Amendment and other areas of our Constitution.  Slowly, but steadily, we have had our freedoms as American citizens eroded and we have surrendered them to the daily maintenance of bureaucrats.  Few people realize that before 1934 you could purchase a fully automatic firearm and have it delivered to your doorstep by the US Post Office.  Some years later, background checks became Federal law for all point-of-purchase firearm sales (individual sales did not fall under this law) with the Gun Control Act of 1968.  Understanding this historical information, I was surprised when I asked the question to individuals, who I considered strict supporter of the 2nd Amendment, about their views on background checks.  Most of them do not support stricter background checks, but many did say that our society has changed and they don’t think we should repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968 and eliminate background checks.  I counter by asking them, “So since our society has changed, you are willing to sacrifice your Liberty and freedom for the misdeeds of the criminal minority?”  Spirited debate ensues.

Parable time so the masses can gain wisdom; the internet allows any moron (like Mr. Ags) to post an article/video for the entire world to view.  One day the Federal government decides they need to require Mr. Ags to go through a licensing/education process to make certain that he understands the consequences of the words/media that he might use in his articles.  We wouldn’t want someone to make a poorly produced movie about the life of the Prophet Mohammed that would cause “spontaneous riots” in Libya after all.  Now you would rightfully say, “The 1st Amendment gives us freedom of speech and the press and the government cannot restrict that right.”  To which I would say, “Yes, but ‘society has changed’ and so must the 1st Amendment and the Liberties granted therein.”  Given this line of thought, I have developed what I feel is a logical stance on stricter background checks and current background checks that many will not agree with: abolish “all” background checks for firearm purchases.

Think about it, our country was founded on the principle of individual freedoms and rights.  We are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  Background checks make us guilty until proven innocent to partake in a right granted to us in the Constitution.  If you are a citizen of the United States your rights shall not be infringed, unless you do something to warrant your losing those rights.  Your race, education, religion, marital status, sexual preference, socioeconomic status, past criminal record (if you paid your debt to society), or what political party you align yourself with should not matter when it comes to enjoying these rights and freedoms.

With no background checks, some criminals and mentally disturbed individuals would purchase firearms.  However, they are already doing this, or stealing them, anyway.  Since this is happening some are saying, “We need stricter background checks on every firearm sale, including retail and private transfers.”  When you hear this, just replace it with, “Surrender your freedom for the illegal actions of others.”  Isn’t that what is really being said, when you cut away all the rhetoric?  I encourage you to reconsider your support of firearm background checks and any current/proposed law that would punish the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens for the actions of criminals.

 

Mr. Ags writes for Joe for America and welcomes your feedback: @blackswampradio &  [email protected]

You might also like
8 Comments
  1. Barry Hirsh says

    Mr. Ags, the Constitution does not “grant” rights, it acknowledges and guarantees them. This is no small thing, it is the central tenet of our liberty.

  2. Sandra Romero says

    I read what Oprah said and it is nothing more than the liberal party-line baby-steps toward full reversal of the rights specified by the 2nd amendment: “…, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. First, they propose introduction of expanded intrusive background checks, ostensibly as a mechanism of reducing violence (laughable) [requiring background checks is clearly an infringement]. Then they keep a record of all those background checks and hence everyone who purchases a firearm [keeping a record is a violation of privacy]. Then, once BHO has control he can then return and confiscate from all those who are on record as having purchased a firearm. Full confiscation is the goal here. Her speech to the graduating class is not a new stance on her part – she is still an anti-gun liberal who supports BHO. The 2nd Amendment should not be violated IN ANY WAY. The man wrote this article hit the nail on the head when he said :

    “Think about it, our country was founded on the principle of individual freedoms and rights. We are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Background checks make us guilty until proven innocent to partake in a right granted to us in the Constitution. If you are a citizen of the United States your rights shall not be infringed, unless you do something to warrant your losing those rights. Your race, education, religion, marital status, sexual preference, socioeconomic status, past criminal record (if you paid your debt to society), or what political party you align yourself with should not matter when it comes to enjoying these rights and freedoms.”

    Enough said.

  3. Indian Andy says

    She just supported him in 08 because of his skin color, as did most blacks.

  4. Joe White says

    She stands with him, and the only reason she wasn’t out selling his communist b/s this past election was, she lost her azz on her television station! Because one of her bad choice’s as her stand with odamnUSAmooslunhood! She knew it!

  5. John R.Pyles 111 says

    I applaud Ms. Winfrey

  6. Allen says

    If this is truly Oprah’s thoughts and true beliefs. I’ll have to change my opinion of her. I always thought she was a obama supporter. Seems she’s a smart woman.

    1. Joyce Burkett Watkins says

      She was an Obama supporter in 08 when he ran. Not sure what happened, but apparently she has had a change of heart, or maybe like some, she was standing with him because of his skin color. Like you said, if this is truly her beliefs, my opinion of her would still stand. She helped put this muslim in office because of his skin color, not because he was the right person for the job.

      1. lrsmith says

        Great comment! We need to put our money on people with conviction not those who change every time the wind changes.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.