The Right Opinion

Revenge of the O-Team

By Oliver North · Jan. 11, 2013

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.

WASHINGTON – Full disclosure right upfront: I'm a proud life member of the National Rifle Association. I am on the NRA's board of directors and serve as chairman of the organization's Military and Veterans' Affairs Committee. I have owned and used firearms most of my life, and I can read. Unlike some in Washington, I don't believe that the 27 words above – the Second Amendment of our Constitution – have anything to do with “gun rights.” Guns don't have rights. I do. So do you.

Fifty-two years ago, like tens of millions before and since, I raised my right hand and took an oath of enlistment in our armed forces, pledging to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” I promised I would “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” Notably, the words promise loyalty not to a political party or a particular individual but to the Constitution, which enshrines our liberties and the limits and responsibilities of those who govern us like no other foundational document on earth.

Unfortunately, in the aftermath of recent carnage in a Colorado movie theater and a rampage at an elementary school in Connecticut, some now insist that “We the People” must accept some alterations in how we interpret the “archaic” language contained in our Constitution. On Jan. 9, after a meeting with “gun safety advocates” and “victims groups,” Vice President Joe Biden – head of the “White House task force on gun violence” – said the Obama administration is “determined to take action” and then added: “The president is going to act. There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet.”

Those words – “executive orders, executive action” – used in conjunction with constitutionally protected rights and liberties, ought to alarm us all. They used to frighten Barack Obama. On Oct. 2, 2007, then-Sen. Obama railed against what he called the abuse of executive powers perpetrated by President George W. Bush in his administration's efforts to protect the American people from acts of terror by radical Islamists. Apparently, the current occupant of the Oval Office has overcome his early concerns about chief executives exceeding their authority.

When the Biden task force was announced three weeks ago, the president claimed that no policy proposals would be “prejudged.” Yet after the Jan. 10 White House meeting with firearms manufacturers, firearms retailers, sportsmen and a representative of the NRA, neither Biden nor Attorney General Eric Holder even mentioned the NRA's call for increased prosecution of violent criminals and those who break existing federal firearms laws.

While the meeting was under way in the Cabinet Room, a teenager carrying a 12-gauge shotgun walked into a high-school classroom in Taft, Calif., and opened fire, wounding a classmate. Remarkably, neither the vice president nor any member of his task force mentioned the NRA's call for placing armed police officers in America's public schools.

Instead, Biden talked about growing public support for new “gun control measures.” As yet, they haven't publicly addressed steps the O-Team may take to cut firearms imports through onerous United Nations treaties and conventions. We are told by administration defenders, pundits, commentators of the left and “gun control advocates” that the American people want new restrictions on firearm design, limits on ammunition capacity and types, and universal background checks to regulate possession.

Hard evidence of public support for new restrictions on firearms ownership by law-abiding citizens is hard to find. A recent poll shows that 62 percent of the American people support the NRA's measure to have police protect schools. The city of Los Angeles isn't waiting for executive action or new legislation. Starting this week, at least one armed police officer visits every public elementary school in the city.

More broadly, talk of new government restrictions has created a record-setting spike in gun sales across the country. Nearly every state has reported “traffic jams” in background check systems as tens of thousands of Americans line up to purchase firearms at gun stores.

The constitutional controversy created by the Obama administration also has backfired for those who sought to demonize the NRA as an extremist, fringe organization. Since the Biden task force was formed, more than 100,000 of our fellow citizens have joined the NRA, bringing membership to more than 4.2 million.

That's a good sign. The NRA is our nation's leader in firearms education, training and safety. It's also an effective, fervent advocate for our civil liberties. When the so-called Biden task force delivers its “recommendations” Jan. 15, you can count on NRA members to defend our Constitution's Second Amendment. If you haven't joined us already, now is the time.



rab in jo,mo said:

The American people are speaking with their wallets - gun and ammo sales have soared to record levels. But, this will not deter the O-team from pursuing their dream of disarming the citizenry. They ignore the lesson of history about what happened when George III tried to disarm Americans in 1775. They ignore this lesson at their own peril.

It is obvious that the O-team does not have "safety of the children" as their motivation. Hoplophobia is more likely the cause.

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 8:09 AM

Alex in NJ replied:

G3 didn't have drones and a national database though.

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 8:42 AM

Alex in NJ replied:

Agreed. They don't care about the children...only their own.

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 8:43 AM

rab in jo,mo replied:

Bet it's possible to jam the signals used to control the drones...

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 5:07 PM

wjm in Colorado said:

After meeting with Biden, the NRA has correctly reported the true agenda behind this latest assaut on the Constitution and violation of thier oaths of office, this is a direct attack on the second amendment. Any executive orders will be illegal, and no true citizen of this country will be bound to obey or enforce the rulings of Chairman Obamao.

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 9:21 AM

Anon in USA said:

Million Gun March on Washington...soon

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 9:55 AM

Doug in Arkansas said:

After the NRA's last little schmoozing soiree with Harry Reid, I cancelled my membership. I don't need any of my money used to suck up to socialist elite who think they are above the law.

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 9:57 AM

OKBecky in Ponca City, OK replied:

How can we get our point across if we refuse to talk to our opponents? That makes us no better than closed-minded leftists, who consider any form of communication with people of different views to be no better than treason, morally corrupting. Sitting down to talk with the government is a way of bringing our grievances to them. Do you honestly think Obama, Biden, or the rest of the administration is reading the Patriot Post, National Review Online, the Wall Street Times opinion page, NRA web posts, or listening to talk radio or watching Fox News? How will they know what we truly think if we refuse to talk to them personally?

The Catholic bishops (led by Cardinal Dolan) sat down with administration reps earlier in 2012 to try to change the HHS mandate that would force people to finance and support various procedures and medications that they found morally reprehensible and destructive of their own consciences and souls. Nothing came of that, but the bishops did come away with a better knowledge of the Administration's mindset - the belief that religion is what the Admin. defines it as, and that they know any religion's dogma better than the religious leaders themselves do.

Sunday, January 13, 2013 at 11:44 PM

Wayne in Hinesville, GA said:

The liberal media never runs stories about some armed citizen stopping a criminal from harming them or their families. That goes against the grain that gun owners are, redneck, backwards, religilous fanatics who are so stupid we must be disarmed and rely on the government to protect us. I grew up on a farm here in Georgia and I'm proud to be a redneck if it means I love this country and don't want the government involved in my life anymore than necessary. However, I don't speak the same language as Ivy League over-educated idiots who have no idea how the "common" folk live.

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 10:51 AM

JLS06 in Houston, TX said:

Like too many Administrations previous to this one, every time there is an incident with firearms, somebody has to get their panties in a wad, and try to change the world. As you say, Col. North, guns don't have rights - we people do. However, with this Administration, I fear that there are underlying reasons to use "gun control" as an excuse to disarm the law abiding public; and I don't believe those underlying reasons need any explanations. I am still a proud NRA member, and, like the guy said, "they can have my guns when they pry them out of my cold, dead hands!"

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 1:42 PM

L.L. Smith in Savannah, Tn. said:

Some people demand absolute purity of the N.R.A. or they will not be a member. If we had 25% of all gun ownrs as N.R.A. members the feds would never bother us again.I have been married nearly 56 years. My wife has disagreed with me many times but we have never considered divorce. The church I attend is not perfect but I will not leave it. If I joined another congregation it would immediately be imperfect. There is no doubt that if it was not for N.RA. we would have no guns at all by now. Where would we now be minus the N.R.A.? Percection is the enemy of good.

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 2:32 PM

L.L. Smith in Savannah, Tn. replied:

OOPS!!!! It should have been, "Perfection is the enemy of good".
I can't spell but I can shoot.

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 2:35 PM

shoot in Michigan City In. replied:

Yep me to caint spell worht a damn but sho nuff can Shoot!

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 6:50 PM

OKBecky in Ponca City, OK replied:

You're right; people demand perfection of EVERYONE before giving any support or praise. It's harmful for kids, harmful for relationships, harmful for communities, and certainly harmful for our country. How many people have argued that America deserves to be assaulted by terrorists because we have not always lived up to our ideals?

Sunday, January 13, 2013 at 11:46 PM

mugwumps in Pa said:

Bury your guns or stick them up your crack, just like the did in the land of Oz. Get a dictionary. Read the definition of infringement and then tell me again how you will support and defend the Constitution. I'll die laughing.

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Cujo in MI said:

As a Veteran I understand my Oath is life long. The problem is not Gun Safety the problem is the Anti Gun Agenda.

Until they realize that We the People still have the "Authority" of the Declaration of Independence at our finger tips and that we will not adhere to one more Gun Restriction they will push and take.

Book, "Resistance to Tyranny" by Joseph P. Martino

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 5:22 PM

MikeEcho in Orting, WA said:

I don't think Obama can count on the military for support on this even if he is the commander in chief. Can he count on the secret service? He had better not have any doubts about their loyalty to their primary oath.

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 5:26 PM

OKBecky in Ponca City, OK replied:

I don't know... According to Phyllis Schlafly and George Neumayr (in "No Higher Power: Obama's War on Religious Freedom"), Obama's administration is denying chaplains their First Amendment rights to preach and minister to their congregants according to the dictates of their consciences. They tried to ban Bibles and other religious accoutrements (like materials for Extreme Unction) from Walter Reed Medical Center. So now, soldiers are being told that if they openly speak of any religious belief (say, regarding homosexuality), they risk court martial. Or chaplains are told they can only speak on these subjects in a religious setting - but not in private counseling or conversation - and if they do not want to abide by these rules, **and if their term of service is complete**, they may leave the military. So in other words, our soldiers are increasingly losing their First Amendment rights, and risk being dishonorably discharged if they do not sacrifice their consciences. It's hard to know how many people are loyal to you if you deny them their liberties, or their rights to their own consciences.

Sunday, January 13, 2013 at 11:53 PM

Adrien Nash in Crescent City said:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
I believe they employed the wrong adjective in the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't make sense to have used the word "regulated" when what they really meant was "well armed militia". A militia can be optimally regulated but if it is inadequately armed then it is mostly impotent for the security of a free state. The socialists wouldn't mind a well regulated militia as long as the government controlled their arms. But the Amendment is about the People controlling their own arms and not the government, and about the government not having any authority to infringe on the right of the People to have and to bear their arms, which is an unalienable American right, -not bestowed by government nor by the Constitution's 2nd Amendment but by the Creator as a fundamental human right based on the absolute right of self-defense, which is secondary to no right other than the absolute right of survival. No one, no government "grants" men the right to survive nor to defend themselves. Those rights are absolutely fundamental to life in this dangerous world, and the 2nd Amendment supports those rights because we are all born with them and they cannot be legitimately abrogated by any persons acting as government authority. They supersede all government authority.

Saturday, January 12, 2013 at 6:48 AM

Bruce in Arizona replied:

I believe in this historical context and elsewhere the phrase "we'll regulated" means "to keep regular", not "to control with necessary regulations."
To maintain a regular heartbeat would not necessarily mean to stop, or diminish, but to enable the heart to beat at the most healthy rate.

Saturday, January 12, 2013 at 5:10 PM