Viewpoints 2012: Of the Second Amendment and a sign of desperation

First, I want to adress some words for those who suffered from the Aurora incident in Colorado. It's a fact that few failed to realize, that, at the midnight showing of "The Dark Knight Rising," a lone gunman entered into the side door of one theater and started firing. There were many injured and several killed.

Let me be among those that say that I mourn with you. Any words to any families of the victims would feel very meaningless except that your pain will not be forgotten, and I also believe you will never forget those that were taken from us.

It's natural to want to figure out why this happened, why he chose that theater, and it's also natural to want revenge, at least at first. It's good to be angry and sad and depressed and in shock, because those are all the feelings that people who are grieving must go through. Don't let any person tell you that you only have a few weeks or months to grieve, then you have to be over it. These people are wrong. Grief is the way any person has to deal with change and loss and shock. It's not something to be feared, because the end result of your journey is so worth it.

But one of the things that usually happens when a tragedy like this occurs, and it's something that affects the critical eyes always on the Constitution.

These are the ones that say that, in order to keep gunmen who do this kind of thing from getting their hands on the firearms, all guns must be seized, and all private arms destroyed.

In principle, the theoretical idea would seem to have merit. After all, if there aren't any more guns, it would appear there'd be no more shooting sprees. In reality, it would be the worst thing.

If every law-abiding citizen were to surrender their arms, those that get their arms by going through illegal channels, namely criminals and other lowlifes, would be able to rise up and push everybody down.

Even though this tragedy has caused devastation, at the same time there are thousands of gun owners who follow the rules and know the law and refuse to shoot unless it's a matter of life and death.

If you'd like an example, there's the murdered border patrol guard who was killed by a U.S. made weapon in the hands of Mexican terrorists, and the administration handed them to the Mexicans.

Little known fact: Were you aware that one of Hitler's first moves in his rise to power was the confiscating and restricting the flow of guns to the German people?

I'm not saying all those who want to take guns away are fascists. I'm sure there are many with the idealized fantasy that, somehow, removing guns from the scene will keep the violence down. Sure enough, the opposite is true.

Yet many seem desperate to end the Secind Amendment, and one, in particular, also has another form of desperation he's been taking.

Not too long after Barack Obama took office, a link appeared on the White House board, this link basically asked anyone to turn in the e-mails of any person who was using bulk e-mails to say bad stuff about Obamacare.

In an earlier Viewpoint, I mentioned how I'd sent an idea to him, a sort of "litmus test," to see whether or not I would support him. I would've accepted a letter, saying they were working on some other ideas aside from those I presented, but got nothing.

The reason I mention it again was because I stated, in that letter, how I used mass e-mails to spread my opinions around. That's all these are, just a jotting down of opinion.

Yet, not far after, a link appeared, asking everyone to roundup those like me and turn them in.

It didn't last a day, but the message was only starting.

Not too long after, Obama put another statement out about wanting the help of American citizens in finding those who weren't comlacent with the "rightful government."

Again, another message sent and then knocked down.

He tried again, hoping, I guess, that people were not intelligent enough to remember his earlier attempts.

Like always, when he recycles bad ideas, the movement was pushed to a halt.

But, now, Barack Hussein Obama has done the worst one yet. Basically, he signed an executive order not about any of the other unconstitutional things except one.

He basically grabbed the right to have free and open conversation. Do you understand that? Obama now has the right to listen in on any conversation and use that against anyone.

Oh, I'm sure there are two questions. First, why didn't we see any of this on the national news networks? It's easy to answer that. These channels, with the exception of Fox News, simply adore Obama, making him seem to be some kind of fantastic, magical person. So why would an Obama worshipper (previously called Obamians) want to paint something he does in any kind of negative light?

Second, Didn't our previous president try that? Not quite. George W. Bush did institute a wiretapping program, true, but only for suspected and convicted terrorists. It's not a blanket term for everyone, or at least it wasn't.

No, it goes straight back to Obama. But why?

Why would he issue directives to find any who oppose him? Why force people to reveal things about a private conversation that should not have been revealed? Why would two people having an intimate conversation about their sex lives want that to be revealed?

From my point of view, the answer is relatively simple. It's because Obama is paranoid that someone out there would say some bad things about him and he would not able to do anything to stop it. He's become desperate enough to make private conversations his own so that he can know what's being talked about.

And I think it'll have a very short shelf life. I hope so, because the thought of someone recording any conversation I have with my wife is terrifying.

If you like writing about U.S. politics and the 2012 campaign, enter "The American Pundit" competition. Allvoices is awarding four $250 prizes each month between now and November. These monthly winners earn eligibility for the $5,000 grand prize, to be awarded after the November election.