Obama And Clinton Flirting With ‘Civil War’ Over Gun Confiscation

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are willing to risk civil war over guns.

On November 2, The Daily Beast pointed to recent statements from President Obama and Hillary Clinton regarding the implementation of Australian-style gun confiscation and suggested “civil war could erupt on American soil” if any administration actually tried to confiscate privately owned firearms.

…

But even more important than the number of guns is the depth of American “devotion” to them. And The Daily Beast observes that it is this devotion–this dedication to the philosophy and tradition underlying the right to keep and bear arms–that turns the mere mention of confiscation into something that could literally rip the country apart.

The Daily Beast put it thus, “The prospect of confiscation—as much as it might, theoretically, reduce drastically or even eliminate gun crime altogether—is simply impossible in the United States.” They pointed to statements by Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson, who stressed that Jews could have curtailed the Holocaust had they retained their guns. The Daily Beast suggests Carson hit on something “Second Amendment enthusiasts are fond of arguing,” namely, “that gun rights are enshrined in the Constitution not only for the sake of hunters or people who want to protect their homes and businesses from criminals, but also to allow the population to resist an overreaching government.”

Source: Breitbart

Guns are a right and a right of passage to many people. To deny an American of their right to own a gun is to deny the rights that make up the American tradition and lifestyle. Furthermore, a disarmed populace is at the mercy of the government. Whether incompetent or tyrannical, no government can be fully entrusted with ensuring the rights of its citizens. That’s why the Bill of Rights was written.

There is no question of whether or not there would be a civil war if Obama and Hillary attempted to confiscate all privately-owned weapons. It would be a certainty that any move to inhibit the right to own weapons would be met with violent, fatal rejection.