Is Obama Playing a Shell Game With Your Second Amendment Rights?
Often what we hear in the news is fragmented and must be pieced together in order to ascertain what is really going on behind the scenes and may be about to occur.
It’s easy to lose focus and miss what’s being said or not being said, as the case may be, because so many events are happening so quickly, one right after the other.
Last week’s events are a prime example of how important information about what our government may be doing, gets lost in the shuffle, because so many prominent events are grabbing the spotlight.
These events may have even overshadowed important clues provided during an earlier speech in the week by the administration which if fulfilled, will negatively infringe upon our Second Amendment rights.
Let me explain.
It seemed that one minute we were watching Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before the United Nations General Assembly and his deafening 45 seconds of silence in protest of the Iran nuclear deal when almost immediately we were whisked away to a heartrending massacre in Oregon, in which nine innocent people lost their lives at the hands of a coward.
Wasting no time, President Barack Obama took center-stage to angrily politicize the need for more gun control in the United States, following the shooting in Oregon.
“But as I said just a few months ago, and I said a few months before that, and I said each time we see one of these mass shootings, our thoughts and prayers are not enough. It’s not enough,” Obama said.
“Somehow this has become routine. The reporting is routine. My response here at this podium ends up being routine,” Obama said.
“We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it,” Obama concluded.
At first glance, the words Obama chose appear to be similar to other gun control rhetoric he’s used the past.
However, upon a closer look and by tying the disjointed news together from earlier in the week, I believe we are seeing the beginning of a new global scheme by this anti-Second Amendment president to further restrict U.S. gun rights.
The “crafted laws” in Australia, to which Obama refers, banned many types of semi-automatics, shotguns and self-loading rifles in 1996 after a gunman killed 35 people and wounded 23 others. In addition, other restrictions on guns were written in Australia’s National Firearms Agreement and Buyback program.
Although, Obama hails this program as being successful in eliminating mass shootings, the facts show that this is not accurate unless you only accept the Australian Institute of Criminology’s definition of a mass shooting as being four or more people shot by a single gunman.
In addition, on the day after the Oregon shooting, an alleged 15 year-old gunman in Australia, described as “a radicalized youth of Middle Eastern decent,” shot and killed a New South Wales police civilian. Special constables who were fired upon by the suspect following the killing, returned fire and killed the gunman.
This brings me to the piece that may have been missed by many when the administration spoke earlier in the week before the U.N. I believe it is the most telling yet as to this administration’s next step when it comes to gun control.
U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s little-publicized speech before the U.N. General Assembly earlier last week and prior to the Oregon tragedy, made reference to the need of the U.S. and other countries to work together collectively in order to end terrorism or acts of violence within the U.S. and elsewhere.
“National governments have a crucial role to play in ensuring the safety and security of the nations they serve—and here in the United States, it is our highest priority. Neither the Justice Department I lead nor the administration in which I serve will ever back down from our commitment and our responsibility to safeguard our citizens and defend our homeland,” Lynch said.
She then went on to speak about “harnessing local expertise” in order to eradicate “violent extremism” within communities and she indicated that until recently there had not been the “sustained or coordinated cooperation among cities and municipalities” faced with these challenges.
“By connecting municipal leaders, facilitating information-sharing and providing training and other assistance where appropriate, the Strong Cities Network will help to fashion a global response to a global issue, without losing sight of its inherently local roots,” according to Lynch.
Let me connect the dots for you.
I recently wrote two articles in which I questioned whether Baltimore was the new testing grounds for federalizing the police and I also posed the question of whether Baltimore was paying back a favor it owed the administration by agreeing to “resettle” Syrian refugees within its city.
While some called me a conspiracy theorist for my opinions, I believe that the only thing I missed was that Obama’s focus on Baltimore has a more “global” aspect to it than I first realized.
After Obama mentioned Australia’s gun control law and following Lynch’s U.N. speech, I’m convinced that when Obama stepped up to the podium following the Oregon shooting, he intended to set a firmer tone and take a more global approach to gun control laws under the Strong Cities Network initiative that his administration touted earlier in the week.
Baltimore was just the beginning folks!
As this administration moves to connect all communities in its approach to combatting violent incidents within the nation, the next goal will be to try and convince the American public that a global approach will end mass killings, both nationally and around the world. All the while, look for Obama to attempt to introduce tighter restrictions on gun use.
While you may be saying that’s another conspiracy theory and it will never happen here, just remember according to the Committee for Justice, Obama and his administration have already committed 25 violations of law, including U.S. Constitutional law violations.