Jump to content
Da Servant

President Obama Quietly Denies Citizenship To Gun Owners

Recommended Posts

By:  Marshall Ramsey II, Worthy News U.S. Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- (WorthyNews)  On January 5, 2016, President Obama announced new gun control measures that are being put into effect that are supposed to help reduce gun violence, especially mass shootings.  What you may not realize is that as part of his effort to "reduce gun violence" he is quietly asserting that American citizens who are gun owners are to be denied their citizenship.

In paragraph 17 of his speech, President Obama makes a distinction between gun owners and American citizens.  While the average person will dismiss this as simply a slip of the tongue, it reflects the attitude of President Obama in this speech, that Americans should not be able to own guns.


       So we’ve created a system in which dangerous people are allowed to play by a different set of rules than a responsible gun owner who buys his or her gun the right way and subjects themselves to a background check.  That doesn’t make sense.  Everybody should have to abide by the same rules.  Most Americans and gun owners agree.  And that’s what we tried to change three years ago, after 26 Americans -– including 20 children -– were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary.  (Bold type and italics mine.)


Notice how he makes a distinction between American citizens and gun owners?  Again, in paragraph 12 of the same speech, he attempts to deny Americans the right to gun ownership by saying that the Constitution of the United States of America only guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms.  Here is a copy of paragraph 12:

       Now, I want to be absolutely clear at the start -- and I’ve said this over and over again, this also becomes routine, there is a ritual about this whole thing that I have to do -- I believe in the Second Amendment.  It’s there written on the paper.  It guarantees a right to bear arms.  No matter how many times people try to twist my words around -- I taught constitutional law, I know a little about this -- (applause) -- I get it.  But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.

As you can see in the highlighted section, (highlighted and italicized by me), President Obama is directly saying that Americans do not have the right to own guns, a.k.a. keep arms.  Here is what the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says:

       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.  (Bold type mine.)


All this, however, is just another step toward the total disarmament of the American people.  In the 1990's, when President Obama was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, he stated to John Lott, Jr., that "I don't think people should be able to own guns."  While this may not be an attempt to ban private ownership of firearms, it certainly testifies to President Obama's thoughts then and actions now.


What about our military?  If President Obama wanted to ban ownership of guns, wouldn't he take away their guns as well?  Perhaps; however, President Obama knows that he needs military protection in case we ever rise up against him and that he cannot count on it from foreign countries.


President Obama is a clear and present danger to the rights of American citizens, including their lives.  His actions are treasonous and it is the duty of Christians everywhere to humble themselves before God, seeking his forgiveness of their sins, and supplicating him for the removal of President Obama from power, and the healing of this land.  Of that there can be no doubt.


Source articles:




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you go back to the first election and hear his comments, he does not believe that individual citizens have the right to have weapons, but only the collective of the militia.   I think this is why his speeches sound so twisted.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By Omegaman 3.0
      Should everyone vote?
      Going out on a limb here, but, I have always been of the (somewhat unpopular) opinion, that not everyone should vote. Some think it is the right of every adult, U.S. citizen. Some think it is an obligation of every adult, U.S. Citizen.

      True rights and true obligations, come from God, not from documents written by governments made of men. However, dispensing with this technical opinion of mine, I am saying that I do not believe that being an adult, U.S. citizen, should be enough of a qualification to vote. The voting should be a privilege, not a legal right. Actually, I think it might be a privilege already. As far as I know, felons are not supposed to be voting, so it seems to me that if that has been taken from them, we already recognize voting as a revocable privilege.

      I think there is a reason, that we have a minimum voting age, and I suspect that the reason for this, is because we deem children to have insufficient knowledge and wisdom to take part in deciding policies for the country. Let's face it, children could conceivably vote to have candy bars and soft drinks everyday as a public school provided lunch.

      If we recognize that children may not be the best mentally equipped people to take part in deciding matters of government, then why does that same concern NOT extend to adults? Does it really make sense, that people with and I.Q. of 40, should vote? Do we really want people, who do not understand or know, history, economics, germ theory etc, deciding matters like what form of government we should have, what manner of economic policies we should employ, or the types of things that the Center for Disease Control should be concerned with?

      Supposedly rational, educated adults (the people in charge now) don't do that well of a job at these things, so maybe it would not hurt that much, but I prefer not to risk it. I believe there was a time, when  only white, male, property owners could vote in this country. While I would not want to go back to that situation, I think in principle, there is wisdom in NOT having a one person, one vote policy.

      For example, if it comes to the place where the impoverished in this country, significantly outnumber those financially better off, should we not expect that someday, the poor will rise up, and demand that their representatives tax the rich, confiscate their bank accounts, retirements, etc, in order to make the lives of the poor more pleasant? 
      Charity is a good thing, and should be encouraged, but the confiscation of property without an owners permission, is called theft. It would not be all bad, for the government to tax the rich to provide for the poor, after all, there could be a benefit to some in doing that. However, if such things are not done sensibly, then eventually, the rich will no longer be able to pay taxes themselves, and will not be building the businesses that keep people employed.

      The founders of the constitution, were pretty smart fellows. They understood that people need to be protected from their government. When the people are not familiar with history, and the contents and purposes of the constitution, then they will undo it's benefits eventually, and repeat the mistakes of the past.

      I am 64 years old, chances are I will not live long enough to see this country unraveled, but my children may. I hope they do not, but it seems to me as if, the U.S. is peculiarly missing from note in Bible prophecy. My suspicion is, that this is because in the future, the U.S. will be a minor player in terms of military might, economic solvency, and social influence in the world. I do not think that there is anything that is to be done to prevent that. I have no reason to really think that it needs to be, or should be prevented. However, I do think that it is a good thing, if citizens do what they can to do good at home and abroad.

      It is my opinion, that responsible voting is part of that. I also believe that responsible voting, requires responsible voters. Voters should not be only interested in their personal welfare, but in the welfare of their neighbors. By neighbors,  I mean everyone other than themselves.

      When we naturalize a person of foreign birth, to become a U.S. citizen, we expect them to know a few things about what is to be their new country. I just took a test online, of sample questions, the sort of questions asked of those who desire to be U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens, have the right to vote in our elections. Does it make sense, that we allow people of U.S. birth, to vote in elections, who do not possess knowledge that we require of immigrants before we let them vote? Personally, I do not think it does.

      The test I took, was at http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0104/Could-you-pass-a-US-citizenship-test/Who-signs-bills/ .

      When I finished, I saw this:
      I am certainly no genius politically nor historically. I don't think public education was all that good when I was going to school. I suspect though, that it has become much worse, and I have to wonder if our current average citizen, could achieve the 58% percent expected of them on these tests.  I think as Christians, we should be able to, but that is just my opinion!
    • By Da Servant
      By:  Marshall Ramsey II, Worthy News U.S. Correspondent   WASHINGTON, District of Columbia (WorthyNews) -- The United States government, under President Obama, is acquiring chemical weapons from Syria for use in drone strikes.   Under the pretense of destroying Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, the United States will begin processing their own chemical weapons on board the MV Cape Ray.   Marketed as being used in the destruction of these stockpiles, it conflicts with a report from 2013 that the United States government recently destroyed four chemical weapons incinerators located within the United States.  The Pentagon spent $10.2 billion over three decades burning tons of deadly nerve gas and other chemical weapons stored in four states — some of the agents so deadly even a few drops can kill.   The United States Army is currently spending $1.3 billion on a project dismantling the incinerators they spent so much money on building and using.   The MV Cape Ray was built in 1977 by Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd., Japan, and called the MV Seaspeed Asia.  It was acquired by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration April 29, 1991, and named the Cape Ray February 1, 1994.   The MV Cape Ray is currently in the Caribbean Sea heading toward the Mediterranean where it will meet up with ships from Denmark and Norway, which will then transfer a portion of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile for use in U.S. drone strikes.   The current position of the Cape Ray contradicts press releases from www.afp.com and www.defensenews.com/ which state that the vessel is still two weeks from being seaworthy due to the supposed outfitting of the ship with equipment designed to destroy chemical weapons.   The need for the U.S. to acquire chemical weapons from Syria is thrown into question by Frank Kendall, a top Pentagon weapons-buyer, said on Jan. 2.   "This is not new technology.  This is not a high-risk thing that hasn't been done before.  This technology has been used for the past 10 years to destroy our own chemical weapons," he said.   In 1993, the United States ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which prohibits the "development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, and transfer or use of chemical weapons."  If Mr. Kendall is to be believed, it appears that the United States only started destroying its chemical weapons stockpile in 2003, the same time as the passage of the Syria Accountability Act, signed by then-President George W. Bush.   Another piece of information that gives rise to the belief that the U.S. is trying to weaponize and/or use chemical weapons in drone strikes is the cost.  According to an unnamed U.S. official, “The system in question is a neutralization system.  It is both more expensive and less reliable than incineration due to the need to deal with the millions of gallons of waste product.”   If the sea-based hydrolysis system is more costly than incineration, why go through the trouble of building it?  A safer guess would be that there is no intention to neutralize these chemicals, but the "increased cost" is the actual cost of building a sea-based chemical weapons production facility.   Another suspicious piece of information is the fact that the MV Cape Ray, owned by the United States government, is flying the flag of the Marshall Islands.  While it is true that the Marshall Islands were once governed by the United States, they received full autonomy in 1986 under a "Compact of Free Association" with the United States, and have been an independent nation ever since.   Syria's chemical weapons stockpile was picked up at the port town of Latakia.  Latakia is approximately 53.53 miles from the city of Tartus, which, in 2012, was speculated to be the site of a chemical weapons pickup from Syria by Russia .  It was believed at the time that Russia would take possession of the chemical (and biological) weapons and agents from Syria, process them in facilities in Russia, and then deliver them to Syria at a later date.   The drones, which are set to carry chemical weapons into battle, are to be used not only in joint military efforts around the world, but also with "combination forces," that is, U.S. and foreign militaries fighting as a single force.   Another mystery surrounding the situation is the need for rapid transfer of said weapons into international control.  According to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, the "amount and type of chemical weapons must be agreed and "rapidly" placed under international control."   The amount and type agreed portion of the statement suggests that only certain types of chemicals and weapons were held in interest.  That they should be desired for "rapid transfer" to international control, indicates that the United Nations has an interest in acquiring chemical weapons, not for the purpose of destroying them, but for using them, possibly on dissident or rogue nations and/or people.   While this conclusion may seen incredible, even conspiracy theorist in nature, it clearly fits the evidence at hand.  The only question now is, "Who will be on the receiving end of the wrath of the United States, Russia, and the United Nations?"   Source information links can be found at the following website:  http://conspiracyprophecyguy.blogspot.com/2014/01/president-obama-acquiring-chemical.html