Ever since Barack Obama’s election, gun and ammo sales have skyrocketed. Many online gun stores report “out of stock” for AK47s and AR15s, along with the ammunition for such assault rifles. Demand for these products, it appears, is insatiable.
The reason for this enormous increase in demand seems to be concern that the Obama administration will enact another assault-weapons ban, perhaps even one that is more severe than the assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004. Gun owners seem to understand, as did our American ancestors, that gun ownership is a core feature of a free society.
If I had to guess, I’m say that most of the people who are pro-Second Amendment are conservatives, which is ironic. It’s ironic because it was conservatives who enthusiastically supported President Bush’s assumption of omnipotent powers to wage his “war on terrorism,” powers that now reside in Barack Obama. Such powers include the enemy-combatant doctrine.
How do the war on terrorism and its enemy-combatant doctrine relate to the Second Amendment?
Here at The Future of Freedom Foundation, one of the principles we have long argued, especially with respect to civil liberties is this: Before you vest a public official with omnipotent powers, imagine first that the powers are being exercised by your worst enemy, and then decide whether it is still wise to do so.
But conservatives didn’t listen. All that mattered was, “We can trust President Bush with omnipotent powers in the war on terrorism. He is our friend. He will protect us from the terrorists.”
Then, much to the surprise and dismay of conservatives, Obama was elected president. Notwithstanding his much-vaunted campaign calling for “change,” Obama now wields all the war on terrorism powers that conservatives vested in Bush, including the power to seize any American and haul him way as a terrorist to a military prison camp, denying him due process and a jury trial, and subjecting him to treatment as a terrorist. That’s what the enemy combatant doctrine is all about.
Thus, on the one hand, conservatives are concerned that President Obama is going to take away their guns. Yet, on the other hand, conservatives have vested Obama with the power to label them and everyone else enemy combatants, thereby empowering him (and his troops) to seize them and cart them away to a prison camp.
Thus, conservatives are essentially saying, “We don’t want Obama to have the power to seize our guns but we do want him to have the power to seize us and to send us away to prison camps.”
This week, Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan, who will be representing the Obama administration before the Supreme Court, emphasized that the Obama administration will continue the Bush’s administration’s enemy-combatant doctrine.
Why should that surprise anyone, even those who were expecting all that much-vaunted “change” that helped Obama get elected? When was the last time you saw any public official voluntarily giving up power?
Given the omnipotent power to seize any American as enemy combatants, why should Obama care whether people still have the right to own guns? Even if Obama fully respects gun rights, what are the chances that he is going to permit enemy combatants to take their guns with them to prison camp? I’d say, not very high.