Disarming Americans and Shredding the Constitution: The Veil Drops for the Progressive Left


Every now and again, there is a piece written, or an old interview surfaces, that gives lie to the public assurances so generously handed out by the Secular Progressive Socialists to the vast and moderate majority of the American people, and reveals the true agendas and actual belief systems of those who now have their hands on the levers of power in our Great Republic

In the shameful exploitation of the Newtown tragedy, the gun-grabbers once again have come to the fore, led by the same cast of characters that has a decades-long track record of demanding draconian gun control, to include firearms confiscation and eradication of the Second Amendment.   This time, we are told, the anti-gun zealots must protect our children.   As if the law-abiding were a threat to the lives and safety of any American.  In the Presidential debates, President Obama claimed to believe in the Second Amendment, and the right of private gun ownership.   His vow for gun control measures, he asserts, is also for the protection of the children, and not because of any aversion to private firearm ownership.  Yet, the man he appointed as Attorney General expressed this opinion in 1995:


Isn’t that the same Eric Holder whose illegal activity led to hundreds of taxpayer-purchased weapons being obtained by criminals on both sides of our southern border, with the deaths of nearly 300 Mexicans, a US Border Patrol Agent, and likely a number of Americans?  It is indeed.  His remarks in the video seem almost reasonable until you remember that the object of his “demonizing”, the guns themselves, have little to do with a society and a youth desensitized to violence, and a criminal element whose disobedience of ever-restrictive gun laws is a foregone guarantee.

Dianne Feinstein, one of the authors of the 1994 Clinton-era “assault weapons ban”, the one which failed to prevent Columbine, gave a 1995 interview in which she told the interviewer her REAL goals, which she laments not having achieved.


Both Eric Holder and Dianne Feinstein have sworn to uphold the Constitution, as has President Obama.    Yet all three see our Constitution as an obstacle to their political and social ambitions.    Obama, also, put words to his true beliefs in this 2001 Chicago radio interview, when he was a State Senator.  Listen carefully.  He tells us where he thinks the Constitution fails,  and what he intends to do.  Wealth redistribution, and a Federal and State government that MUST do for people:


State Senator Obama displays flagrant and contemptuous disregard for our Constitution, and our rights under that Constitution.   Does this seem to be a radical, thinly held viewpoint?  Not nearly as much as we are led to believe by the abject silence of the mainstream media on such revelations.   Not coincidentally, a Georgetown professor wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times over the weekend.   Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.

Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.

…a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action.

Perhaps Professor Seidman should be jailed for his opinions?   Perhaps his family, too.   He doesn’t need a trial, and doesn’t even need to be present to hear the guilty verdict or the pronouncement of sentence.   After all, the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers, and the right to free expression, or keeping and bearing arms against the tyranny of government, those were the ideas of white propertied slave-owners, not of secular socialist-communists.

Do not think that the above ideas from Obama, Holder, Feinstein, and Seidman are in any way uncommon to the far-left progressives.    Those beliefs are the very core of the far-left.   Each couches their ideas in what seems to be a reasonable argument for increasing government authority and limiting personal freedom.  They are not the first, of course.

The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures

The track record of governmental self-restraint when there is none provided by legal limitations on power, enforced by the prospect of disapproval from an armed populace, is  more than a little dismal.


When you hear the far-left politicians, abetted by a subservient and beholden press, repeatedly assert that there is no desire for gun confiscation, or for forcible wealth redistribution, and that Constitutional liberties of the People and limitations to the authority of Government remain sacrosanct, remember that you have been told otherwise.  Not by me, but by THEM.   In their own words.    Take heed.

H/T Alex Jones

10 thoughts on “Disarming Americans and Shredding the Constitution: The Veil Drops for the Progressive Left”

  1. As some moron (the good kind) pointed out, the Constitution is the only reason why I give a flying rat fart in an EF-5 about what Barry Dunham “thinks”. If we’re going to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution to ignore I nominate the income tax and whatever bits prevent me from percussively maintaining liberals’ cranial vaults.

  2. Jeff, we may find ourselves forced to “percussively maintaining liberals’ cranial vaults.” While I do not welcome the opportunity, I won’t shrink from it. If we reach that point, the situation will be pretty dire.

  3. I don’t think we’ll have to do it. What I see as the most likely endgame to this soup sandwich involves the productive portion of society becoming fed up and starving the redistribution machine. As the river of money dries up the Democrat client groups will turn on each other trying to maintain the lifestyle to which they’ve become accustomed. It’ll get ugly, and that ugliness will drive away the swing voters and some of the less compromised portions of the alliance.

    1. If the populace is disarmed, then the endgame becomes forcible confiscation. The only entity with firearms will be law enforcement, which will cease quickly to “protect and to serve” and will enforce tax collection at the end of a rifle.

      The two always, always, go hand in hand. There is no coincidence whatever that gun control is being bandied about again, before taxes will shoot skyward for seven out of ten Americans.

  4. That’s a pretty big if. I’ve seen reports that you can’t get a militarily significant rifle from the past century for love or money. I know I’m planning on picking one up once I’m done with this TDY. There are hundreds of millions of guns in this country, and most of them aren’t going anywhere.

    There’s also the problem that you cannot confiscate that which hasn’t been created. Some refer to it as going Galt, but I prefer to think of it as making a ration decision based on the government reducing the effective marginal value of additional labor. They need us more than we need them. We have the trump hand.

    1. Jeff, I was at the gun show out in Chantilly right before New Year’s. Inventory was plentiful and prices had not moved up, yet. Ammunition sales appeared brisk and while the newspaper reported that one ammunition vendor did not attend for lack of ammunition to sell, you surely wouldn’t have known by floor space usage (it could have been the Georgia Arms folks, but since I was neither buying ammunition nor writing a story for the paper, I did not pay close attention to who was there and who was not).

      So, when you return from TDY, I expect there will still be plenty of militarily significant rifles available to purchase, hopefully still at reasonable prices.

  5. It is a big if. But not nearly as big as it once was.

    In the end, the Soviet Union needed the Ukrainian farmer, too. But not before starving 6-8 million of them to prove their point.

Comments are closed.