The Left's Assault on the 1st and 2nd Amendments

Should Mr. Obama win the presidential election next month, American citizens will be perilously close to kissing their First and Second Amendment rights goodbye.

It is no secret that he—along with most Democrats, spearheaded by Nancy Pelosi, and even some misguided Republicans—intends to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, the biggest assault on free speech rights since LBJ moved in 1954 to silence churches by threatening their tax-exempt status should they speak out on political issues.

Regarding the First Amendment, note the wording as it stands: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." By threatening to revoke a church's ability to speak out on the issues of the day—homosexuality, abortion, and the mentioning of candidates' names who support issues opposed by the church, to name just three—former President Johnson effectively ushered in an era of illegally muted free speech. Simply put, churches should enjoy the umbrella of protection as guaranteed by the Constitution, but do not. This fifty-four-year-old move clearly is in violation of the last half of the Amendment as quoted above.

The Fairness Doctrine, first introduced five years before LBJ tightened a federal noose around the neck of the church, is an invitation to the Federal Government to oversee matters of content of speech as broadcast over airwaves. (Currently there is consideration to expand a revitalized version of the defunct act to include the internet, though this remains to be seen.) The effect of bringing back this Draconian tool of the extreme Left would be devastating. Gone would be the freedom to broadcast your opinion over commercial airwaves without undue government interference; gone would be Christian radio programs, other than those devoted strictly to music; gone would be conservative as well as liberal talk radio, since the price for opining would simply be too high, namely by allowing equal time for dissenting opinions. While this sounds like liberty and justice for all, it is economically infeasible and would therefore crush free speech.

So why do the Democrats want to push for such a measure?

When President Reagan vetoed a bill which would have enshrined the Fairness Doctrine into law in 1987, conservative talk radio was born. Rush Limbaugh single-handedly brought the conservatives back to a semblance of power in 1994 against the Clinton political machine. Recall that during that off-year election, Republicans gained the House and Senate and were able to stymie Clinton and minimize his political influence for his remaining six years. (Clinton's appointment of the communist sympathizer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, formerly an attorney for the ACLU, to the Supreme Court was unfortunately something that could not be undone.) Following in Rush's footsteps were Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and many others who gave conservative voters a voice and a powerful tool to wield in their fight against the horribly biased mainstream media outlets, notably ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and most major American newspapers. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would return effective control of all media to the Left, snuffing what is left of our rights to free speech.

Enter Barack Obama.

The NRA has compiled a list of ten points which Barack Obama would seek to implement should he become president. If you are a gun owner, please pay close attention. Obama wants to:

1. Ban the use of firearms for home self-defense.
2. Pass Federal laws eliminating your Right-to-Carry.
3. Ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns.
4. Close down 90% of the gun shops in America.
5. Ban rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.
6. Increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500%!
7. Restore voting rights for five million criminals including those who have been convicted of using a gun to commit a violent crime.
8. Expand the Clinton semi-auto ban to include millions more firearms.
9. Mandate a government-issued license to purchase a firearm.
10. Appoint judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal judiciary who share his views on the Second Amendment.

I would urge you to read this list again. I found it hard to believe the first few times I read it, and two months after having acquainted myself with it, I still find it hard to digest.

The Second Amendment reads as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, in one of his arguments in the recent victory against the so-called DC Gun Ban (District of Columbia v Heller, 2008), pointed out the original intent of the Founding Fathers when they crafted the Constitution. He stated that citizens were entitled to arm themselves for the purpose of self-protection, which also included protection from the armed forces, in the event that the government decided to use military might to tyrannize its citizens. I agree it seems outlandish to allow atomic bombs, spy satellites, tanks, and bazookas for personal use. However, this was the intent at the time the amendment was written and became the law of the land. I see no reason that responsible, law-abiding citizens should be banned from owning any handgun, rifle, or semi-automatic weapon they can afford. And I do stress "law-abiding." The Constitution does not apply to illegal aliens, nor should violent felons or the mentally ill be allowed to own weapons of this type. (I would move for the restoration of rights for non-violent felons after a certain period of time, but that discussion is beyond the scope of this article.)

Outlawing guns and restricting or eliminating the sales of ammunition would invite a black market that would provide the criminal element the means by which they could terrorize unprotected Americans. If you doubt this, consider all the heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine that have been pouring into this country in steadily increasing quantities despite our best efforts to thwart their importation. Those who scoff at laws would not change their behavior simply because guns and bullets had become illegal. For most gang members with long rap sheets, possession of any firearm is already a felony—yet they continue to possess and use them routinely and with impunity. Clearly the criminalization of firearms for the general public would be a huge disaster; those of us who would insist on defending ourselves would do so at great legal peril.

At the risk of sounding as if I've ingested something I shouldn't have, it is not inconceivable that Al-Qaida may have funneled automatic weapons to their sleeper cells here in the United States. Compared to the hordes of humans who pour through the border with Mexico in any given span of time, bringing a few thousand crates of AK-47 rifles through a tunnel or across a barren stretch of deserted Arizona ranchland would be a trivial matter. When their sleeper agents are called upon by their evil governments to arise and attack the American public on our own soil—a shopping mall at Christmastime would make an excellent soft target, as would strategically chosen intersections choked by rush-hour traffic—their task would be an order of magnitude easier if you and I are unarmed. If you think this scenario came from Stephen King, guess again. Recall that in 1997, two gunmen held off dozens of LAPD officers from four divisions for forty-five minutes before finally being put down by a SWAT team; the police ultimately won that battle thanks to a generous contribution from a nearby privately owned gun store. Now multiply what we saw that day by, say, a thousand, and you will see serious carnage. Police bureaus will be stretched beyond their limits and unable to respond effectively. Responsibility could easily fall to gun owners to face down the enemy. Yes, this surely does sound like the stuff novels are made of; but fiction has a funny way of leaping off the pages and into the history books.

I don't know how to be any clearer on this: If you value the freedoms afforded us by the Constitution, specifically both of the first two amendments, you must not allow Barack Obama to be elected in November, period.