Barack Obama announces he will use Executive Power to end the Second Amendment

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JANUARY 14, 2013

U.S. President, Barack Obama, announced Monday that he will use Executive Power to strengthen his war against the Second Amendment. While talking to a group of White House’s press members, Obama said he would decide which of the recommendations issued by Vice-president Joe Biden he will enact as laws through an imaginary power he intends to use to destroy the rest of the U.S. Constitution.

“My understanding is the vice president’s going to provide a range of steps that we can take to reduce gun violence,” he said. “Some of them will require legislation, some of them I can accomplish through executive action.

Watch Obama’s press conference below:

White House will reveal its anti-Second Amendment proposal on Tuesday

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JANUARY 11, 2013

Without much-or no-common ground to share, U.S. Vice President, Joe Biden, hosted yesterday at the White House representatives from the National Rifle Association (NRA), in a first step to try to neutralize the strength of lobbying efforts by pro Second Amendment groups to avoid the ban on the right of the people to own and bear arms.

Before the meeting, Biden stated his intention to listen to all parties involved, to achieve the objective assigned by the president earlier this year: forming a working group to present specific measures to end the Second Amendment.

Biden’s meetings with various pro gun rights groups is all window dressing because both him and the U.S. President have made it clear that they intend to eliminate the right of the people to defend themselves against criminals who possess powerful firearms and who use them to commit horrendous crimes against a widely disarmed population.

“I have pledged to him [Obama] I will make my recommendations public on Tuesday or earlier,” said the vice president. Thus, Obama will have a working draft even before the time frame he set – end of January, and a week before his inauguration. Joe Biden’s work here was not to come to an agreement on what needs to be done to end violence in the United States as a society, but to conclude that firearms are not be in the hands of the citizens. He has done so already.

The vice president said yesterday that despite not having closed its final document he believed he had achieved consensus on certain suggestions he has heard repeatedly from the mouths of the various groups that met this week.

Some of these recommendations have to do with applying “universal background checks” on gun buyers,  reducing the number of bullets in the magazines of certain firearms and to impose a ban on semi automatic weapons. Certainly, the last two proposals meet strong opposition from advocacy groups, who so far have stood together against any form of new government gun control policy.

Describing himself as a “nuclear-weapon” but “not a great hunter” – “basically I do skeet shooting,” he said, Biden stressed the idea that there must be “common ground, if not to solve all and each of the problems, then at least to decrease the likelihood of mass shootings. “I have no concrete conclusions yet,” he admitted.

Biden referred to the slaughter of Newtown saying that “there is nothing more significant to move the conscience of the American people.” The Obama administration has been aided by the corporate controlled main stream media whose talking heads have not stopped their calls for strong bans on the Second Amendment.

The most visible of all has been CNN news falsifier, Piers Morgan, a British who after being born in a prison society, does not have the slightest idea about what is constitutional and what is not. Morgan’s public outcry for gun control earned him three spanks from the head of Gun Owners of America and radio talk show host, Alex Jones.

Jones appeared on Morgan’s show this week and did what any concerned pro Second Amendment American would do; warn Morgan that his efforts to disarm the people would be futile and dangerous. Jones led a campaign to deport Piers Morgan by collecting at least 25,000 signatures. The petition to deport the CNN host has reached over 100,000 signatures and counting.

The biggest challenge for Obama and his anti-Second Amendment movement is to show that guns kill people, which is the argument made by virtually all gun control advocates. Unfortunately for them, guns DO NOT kill people, but mentally ill men and women who more often than not are under the influence of pharmaceutical products. Legal drugs and gang violence — gangs do not abide by the law — are the two main reasons for the spike in gun violence in the country, although gun murders are not first, second or third place in the list of violent crimes.

More people are murdered every year by pharmaceutical companies — while under the influence of their products — than by any other instrument. No one however, hears the White House decrying the murder of millions of men, women and children due to the use and abuse of pharmaceuticals. Part of the reason those deaths are not spoken about is that drug corporations are some of the greatest donors to politicians in the United States.

Just yesterday we confirmed that the Aurora shooter, James Holmes was under the influence of pharmaceutical products and vaccines, and that such drugs played a significant role in his actions at the theater complex where he shot innocent people who were completely disarmed.

New anti-Second Amendment Proposal

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden’s announcement that he will present his recommendations early next week has pro Second Amendment groups on their toes; not because they do not know what Biden will propose as a supposed way to end gun violence, but because of the ways in which the White House intends to enact the new regulations. Government officials and pro Obama folks have all but demanded that the seating president uses inexistent powers to establish illegal and unconstitutional regulations on gun ownership.

Neither Obama nor the Congress can legally impose bans on the Second Amendment or any other existing law. However, the recommendations to supposedly improve control and prevent violence caused by firearms, is exactly what Biden’s conclusions will call for. The U.S. Vice-president has said that he has found ‘consensus’ that will enable the federal government to change the current rules.

After meeting with advocacy groups and anti-violence organizations, Biden said he has found consensus on the need to improve regulations, although they alone can not eliminate the risk of massacres. So, just as it happened after 9/11, the government will enact illegal regulations (The Patriot Act, the NDAA) to ‘prevent’ more violence from occurring, even though such regulations cannot actually prevent anything for the simple reason that bad or mentally ill people will always find a way to get their hands on firearms to attack an unarmed population.

After the meeting with Biden, the National Rifle Association (NRA), said in a statement that the meeting had been “disappointing” because in their opinion, the meeting served “to attack the Second Amendment” of the Constitution.

The NRA defends a literal interpretation of that constitutional provision recognizing the right of Americans to bear arms, a right linked to the revolution of 1776 that gave birth to the nation. On the other hand, anti-Second Amendment folks erroneously say that the Second Amendment is meant for hunting purposes, or that The People, are not part of the well-regulated Militia.

The NRA regretted the attempt to impose restrictions on legal gun owners and said that the organization  will continue to seek solutions that intend to have an “honest” debate about guns. Sadly, it seems the honest part will have to wait, because the White House put all its chips on using shootings such as the one in Newtown, Connecticut to push for an open-ended sweep against the Second Amendment. Joe Biden has insisted that his proposal will at least guarantee the establishment of universal background checks, psychological test on all current and new gun owners, a prohibition on the same of high capacity magazines and a ban on semi automatic weapons.

He said it is clear that the American public “wants us to act”, although some media and opinion leaders believe the White House is trying to deprive the people of their right to bear arms. The vice president acknowledged that there is no “one solution to avoiding” massacres and noted that the treatment of mental illness is one of the most important in any strategy.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Ladies and Gentleman: The Second Amendment

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | DECEMBER 24, 2012

Before any serious discussion about the Second Amendment can begin, it is necessary to make sure those discussing its validity, definition and application really understand why it was written and how it applies to modern society.

Today, most politicians do not understand the Second Amendment or refuse to award it its real meaning. They refuse to recognized what the Founding Fathers intended to achieve and instead attach all kinds of connotations originated from their twisted and purposely wrong understanding of the this sacred right.

Two grave mistakes are commonly made when defining, validating and applying the Second Amendment. First, people attempt to interpret what it means, as opposed to simply reading and abiding by it. Second, it is defined, validated and applied according to ‘modern’ precepts issued by government.

Perhaps the best attempt to understand what the Second Amendment means in its raw form was recently presented by journalist Ben Swann, who limited himself to reading the text and, upon consulting constitutional experts and proper dictionary definitions, made a very good case for the correct understanding of what the Second Amendment really means.

The definition held by those who believe in the right of the people to keep and bear arms and what it intends to guard against — the very same definition now being diluted by government enforcing illegal laws and the media pushing for gun control — is simpler than what many pundits and talking heads want to make it look.

The Second Amendment was not created to be conditioned to the kind of weapons that people may have available to buy or whatever the federal government thinks are ideal social situations for people to own a gun. It is also not limited by the mental health of a society or the vote of a group of people who are so afraid of armed lunatics, that they prefer to be killed rather than protect themselves and their families.

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.”

After being victims of foreign aggressors, the Founding Fathers and the United States as a whole understood very well that an armed population, not only a standing army, was the best instrument to keep the country safe from both domestic and foreign attacks. That is why the responsibility to defend oneself was put in the hands of The People.

A number of countries whose armies were swept by oppressors and whose populations fell into the hands of local and foreign conquerors are historically significant. Meanwhile, quite the opposite happened with those nations whose people maintained the right to keep and bear arms. The statistics clearly show a direct link between free, armed populations and lower crime rates. On the contrary, subdued, unarmed people are most often subjected to violence from criminals in and out of government.

Governments alone are responsible for the murder of at least 250,000,000 people in the twentieth century and most of the people who were murdered were either lightly armed in comparison to their aggressors or completely disarmed. If the security of a free State — and such state is indeed composed by its citizens because that State is an independent Nation, depends upon its people — it is then the responsibility and the right of those people to keep and bear arms against all threats.

Therefore, the Second Amendment is not about hunting or the ownership of a specific caliber firearm, but about the ability of the people to be armed as needed to defend themselves from standing armies; both foreign and domestic. It is as simple as that. The people have the right, under applicable laws, to own and use firearms of undetermined calibers, sizes or firepower, to defend themselves, their families and their country.

There can’t be a better time to put that right to work than today, when average criminals, mentally ill people and the government itself pose the greatest danger to the security of the people than ever before in history. For those who understand the meaning of the Second Amendment, it is clear that the full conquest of the United States will not occur unless its people are completely disarmed.

The globalists who control the American government have financially and politically disarmed the country, but they haven’t been able to break the will of the people to defend themselves. Americans are beginning to understand that their government cannot protect them and will not protect them, because government  doesn’t work for them.

Politicians who move to Washington, D.C., work for foreign interests whose goal is to destroy the United States the same way they’ve destroyed countries in Latin America, Africa and Europe. That is why, when studied from a legal standpoint — the only point of view it should be studied from — the Second Amendment explicitly enables Americans to defend their country as well as to defend themselves from their country if necessary.

The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee the right of the individuals to be equally armed as their country’s military, both to aid the military to defend the country from foreign threats, as well as to defend themselves from the Nation’s military forces, should they turn against The People. The Founding Fathers intended to provide the citizens the ability to be armed well enough to keep their country and themselves free from oppressive forces which could arise internally and externally.

The idea that a semi automatic firearm should not be in the hands of average folks could not be more opposed to the right provided by the Second Amendment, since governments’ firepower has increased exponentially. What kind of self-defense action could an individual sustain with a .22 caliber gun if its government has sound canyons, armed drones and laser beam weapons? In fact, a semi-automatic or even an automatic weapon would be useless.

The next step on the road to serfdom after a population is disarmed is anything and everything that those in places of power believe is enough to keep themselves in power. “You can do all kinds of things when the population is disarmed. You can round them up, you can put them in ghettos, you can execute them, you can do all kinds of things,” says attorney Don Moore.

There is nothing controversial about the Second Amendment and what it means. Controversy arises from those whose power slips away when The People reclaim the rights given to them by their creator, which directly challenge the abusive behavior of corrupted individuals who use government to enslave his fellow citizens.

An honest debate about the Second Amendment will only be effective when those who participate in such a debate do so with full understanding of what they are talking about. The Second Amendment is intended to prevent the control, domination and oppression of the people by the government. Any discussion that starts without recognizing this fact will not only be futile, but also dangerous given the ignorance of the people who are charged with defending its very existence.

No matter what Michael Bloomberg, Barack Obama, or Pierce Morgan say, firearms don’t kill people. Crazy individuals using firearms murder people just as mad individuals use the power vested upon them by their fellow citizens to murder thousands of innocent civilians in a supposed attempt to ‘bring peace’ to their countries.

As foreign as it may seem for Americans or any other population whose governments want them to hand in their guns, the consequences of centralizing government power and disarming citizens are the predecessors of Genocide.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Barack Obama at the head of anti-Second Amendment movement in the United States

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | DECEMBER 18, 2012

Barack Obama has pledged to lead a new national crackdown on firearms, with some prohibitions, greater legal controls and a new approach to personal safety that requires a profound transformation of the dominant culture in the United States. For the first time in decades, the tragedy of Newtown, different from previous ones in several circumstances, is being used to launch a massive attack on the second amendment, which clearly states that every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms and that the government cannot legislate against that constitutional right in any way, shape or form.

The issue of gun ownership is one that is little understood by most Americans. After the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, people all over the United States showed up at police departments to hand in their guns and according to recently taken polls, upwards of 50 percent of the population now believes that the idea of limiting gun rights is a positive thing. Perhaps they have been overwhelmed by the fear instigated by the main stream media, which have used the shooting at the Sandy Hook school to call for massive gun restrictions. People cannot see that if there is one thing that should be understood after the shooting is that the government cannot protect them, and that their protection is their responsibility.

Not only have many congressmen shown opposition to firearm ownership, but a large number of them have been quietly working on legislation to limit them, some of the most loyal supporters of the National Rifle Association (NRA), such as Sen. Joe Machin, a member of the powerful lobby for years, yesterday joined the supporters of imposing tighter controls. “It is time to move beyond the rhetoric, we need to sit down and do something,” he said.

Indeed, it is a new time. The country lives under a shock like never before. Millions of parents that Monday morning left their children at school have yet to experience the dreadful outcome of the crime perpetrated at the Sandy Hook school last Friday. The shooting did not make them understand that it is their responsibility to protect their own children. Children, teachers and families are always talking about it, how something so horrible could happen, what needs to be done so that does not happen again, but they seem unable to rationalize and come up with the right answer.

Obama picked up the popular sentiment in a speech on Sunday night in Newtown, which promised to use “all power” in his hands to carry out significant change. It is very likely that this is the great cause of his second term and certainly an ambitious one, since at least 80 million people in the United States are gun owners. We can expect two outcomes, if the Obama White House really attempts to enact a massive gun ban: The first would result in the mass enslavement of the population, should the majority of those 80 million decide to hand in their weapons. This is all the government wants. The second, if those 80 million stand their ground and refuse to hand the firearms, but the government imposes some kind of gun confiscation policy the country may be on the way to experience another civil war.

A civil war would not be new. In fact, a minority of Americans fought a war against British imperialism to keep their right to own firearms, after the English crown called for the citizens to hand in their guns. The outcome was the defeat of the British and the Americans kept their right to keep and bear arms. If the U.S. government decides to impose a ban on the possession of firearms and law enforcement decides to comply with such task, we are in the works for one of the bloodiest battles in the history of the United States.

The Media and the Propaganda

“We can not accept events like this as routine. Are we willing to accept that we are powerless over a slaughter of this nature? What policy does not allow us to act? Are we willing to say that violence attacking our children year after year is just the price we pay for our freedom,” asked Barack Obama. “No law can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent acts of senseless violence in our society. But that can not be an excuse for doing nothing. ”

“We have to change,” Obama said. The problem for Obama is that for him to weaken or completely eliminate the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms, he will have to fight with half of the country and more precisely with a growing minority that understands now more than ever that owning guns has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with protecting themselves from mentally ill people. Many pro second amendment people are asking what would have happened if the principal of the Sandy Hook school had been a gun owner, or if the teachers had been trained to use guns and had one of their own. Other states and cities around the United States have asked that same question and have voted to give teachers the legal right to own firearms.

Besides the need to defend themselves, pro second amendment Americans will offer firm opposition to Obama, Congress and the main stream corporate media by supporting the concept of freedom as inalienable patrimony of the individual in the U.S., which is  subjected to the constant threat of collectivist state authority. This collectivism is reflected in Obama’s last speech when he called for all Americans to support his gun ban project. “If we want to educate and protect our children, we are going to have to do together,” said the president.

Those words are a challenge to the idea that a child’s safety is the responsibility of the family and not the government. Millions of Americans share the principle that the protection of a child is the sole and exclusive obligation of the parents or close relatives. In that same idea of ​​individual responsibility, which has many positive applications, children are educated and raised to become the best in their communities. Children who are homeschooled, and who are taught real family and social values are more successful as members of a community.

Challenging the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as suggested by Obama will obviously hit a very sensitive fiber; one of the most sensitive at the core of American existence. This country was founded on individual freedom, and this explains why the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. Those who seek to challenge the second amendment say that limits must be imposed for the safety of the collective, clearly missing the core principles upon which their country was founded. Most of these people are domesticated Americans who actually believe that the government knows better how to protect them, even though the federal government has failed time after time, after time. Fear has taken its toll.

Translating political rhetoric into concrete action will not be easy. Any legislative process to impose greater controls on firearm ownership will be costly all around. The forces opposed to the regulation of weapons — the citizenry — will not go away overnight. Even after controlled opposition such as the National Rifle Association and the Republican Party failed to come out in defense of the second amendment, other organization like Gun Owners of America and the average folk himself will not let the latest tragedy run away with his right to hold on to their guns to protect himself and his family.

In the U.S. Congress, it is expected that most Republican congressmen will bend over and allow the fake liberal, progressive movement, to which the U.S. president belong, to impose some kind of limitation to the second amendment. Plans have already been drawn by people like Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein to attack the second amendment.

New gun laws will not fix anything. The problem in the United States is not one of a ‘gun culture’ but one of a mentally ill population, that is drugged up to their eyeballs while suffering the worst crisis of identity in the history of the country. The fake multiculturalism, the racial division, the lack of accountability of both government and corporate American and the hatred campaigns secretly being supported by government grants or tax-exempted NGO’s have devastated the core of the of the greatest nations in history.

Prohibiting or greatly limiting gun ownership will not only not solve the problem of violence in the American society. In fact, it will make it worse. If today gun-free zones such as schools, churches, malls and sporting events are sweet targets mentally ill people to pull out a gun and kill anyone they want, imagine what will happen in the United States if the country as a whole becomes a gun-free zone.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.